The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Chairman Mr. Gönnewein: In the name of the “Federation for Threefolding” I hereby open tonight's discussion evening and warmly welcome you to it. I assume that tonight's evening will take us a step further. In various companies, works councils have already been elected, and this evening these works councils will be given the opportunity to express everything they have to say here, and also to ask questions so that they can be dealt with in detail by Dr. Steiner, so that any doubts can be dispelled. Today's events force us more than ever to take a close look at what the coming period will bring us. I therefore assume that everyone present will make full use of the discussion. I give the floor to Dr. Steiner.

Introductory words

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees! I would like to begin with a brief introduction, as is also customary in these meetings, and hope that everything of importance to be discussed today will come up during the discussion.

We have repeatedly gathered here to discuss the question of the election of workers' councils, and we have tried to make clear in these meetings from which point of view the question of workers' councils is to be treated here, from the point of view of the tripartite social organism.

This threefold social organism should structure the whole of social life into three parts, namely the economic, the legal or state, and the spiritual sub-organism. So what has until now been chaotically merged into a unified state should be divided into its three natural parts. One may ask why this should actually happen. It should happen because historical development itself has been pressing towards this threefold order. Thus, this historical development of humanity shows us that, especially in the course of the last three to four centuries, but particularly in the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century, everything that is human relationships has been pushed together into the unitary state, and that it is precisely because economic conditions have been pushed together with state and spiritual conditions that we have ended up in catastrophes. Until one is willing to recognize that it is only possible to make progress in terms of a recovery of the situation and thus also in the development of humanity by dividing this unitary state into the three parts, one will not be able to make any progress at all, neither with socialization nor with democracy. That is why we have approached the question of workers' councils from the point of view of independent economic life. You can most easily understand the necessity of dividing the unitary state, which has so far been a failure, into three parts if you recognize how everything in economic life differs from actual state and intellectual life. In economic life, on the one hand, everything is subject to natural conditions. These change and vary. The size of the population also plays a role. Then, in economic life, everything depends on people organizing themselves into certain professional branches and professional groups. Furthermore, economic life contains an individual and personal factor, which is the sum of human needs. It is easy to see that the sum of human needs would turn people into a kind of machine for social life if the needs of the individual were somehow to be regulated. That is why you also find it clearly stated in the socialist view, and already with Marx, that in the real socialist community there should be no standardization, no regulation of the needs of the individual. One person has these needs, another those, and it cannot be a matter of some central office dictating to people what needs they should have. Instead, it is a matter of fathoming out needs from life and ensuring through production that needs can actually be satisfied.

If you look at the whole of economic life, you will see that everything in economic life must be based on the principle of contract. Everything that makes up economic life is, or should be, based on performance and consideration within a social community. This fact also underlies the demands of the proletarians today, since it has been established that this fact is still not taken into account at all today, namely that a service must be reciprocated. Today the principle still prevails that one takes from the labor of others what one needs or believes one needs, without having to give anything in return. That is why the demands of the proletarian masses today express the view that in the future there should no longer be the possibility of satisfying one's needs from the achievements of the working population without the latter receiving something in return. It must be clear that in economic life it always depends on the specific circumstances, that is, on the natural conditions, the type of occupations, the work, the performance. One can only manage if one establishes connections between the different types of services. Not everything that is done today can always be utilized in the same way. Services that will only be provided in the future must also be foreseen. Yes, there is still much to be said if one wanted to fully characterize economic life in this way.

Because everything in economic life must be based on performance and consideration, and because these two depend on different things, everything in economic life must be based on the principle of contract. In the future, we must have cooperatives and associations in economic life that base their mutual performances and considerations on the principle of contract, on the contracts they conclude with each other. This contractual principle must govern all of life and particularly life within consumer cooperatives, production cooperatives and professional associations. A contract is always limited in some way. If no more services are provided, then it no longer makes sense, then it loses its value. The whole of economic life is based on this.

The legal system is based on something fundamentally different. It is based on the democratic adoption of all those measures by which every human being is equal to every other in terms of human rights. Labor law is also part of human rights. Every person who has come of age can stand up for this. Every person who has come of age can participate – either directly, for example by means of a referendum, or indirectly through elections or a parliament – in determining the rights that are to prevail among equals. Therefore, it is not the contract that prevails on the legal, state or political level, but the law. In the future, laws will also regulate working conditions, for example. Thus, laws will determine the time, extent and type of work, while what is to be achieved within the legally stipulated working hours will be regulated by contracts within the economic body.

Intellectual life, on the other hand, is of a completely different nature. Intellectual life is based on the fact that humanity can develop its abilities for state and economic life. However, this is only possible if the foundations are laid in intellectual life for the appropriate development of the human faculties, which are not simply given to a person at birth but must first be developed. It would be a great mistake to believe that mental and physical abilities — the latter are basically equivalent to the mental ones — can be recognized and cultivated in the same way as state and economic matters. What relates to education and teaching, for example, cannot be based on treaties, laws or ordinances, but must be based on advice given for the development of abilities.

Yes, these three spheres of life, spiritual life, legal life and economic life, are very different, so that their mixing is not only a complete impossibility, but also means great harm for human development. Our present confusion and social ills have arisen precisely from this mixing. If we now embark on a problem such as the establishment of works councils, we must first understand from which of the three areas of life the appropriate measures are to be taken.

You see, you are right to find in Marxism the view that in a social community everyone must be provided for according to their abilities and needs. But here the question arises: what is the way to provide for everyone in human society according to their abilities and needs? The way to let everyone have their rights with regard to their abilities is through a completely free intellectual life, independent of economic and state life, with the education and school system. And the possibility of letting everyone have their rights with regard to their needs is only given in an independent economic life. In between lies what has been forgotten in Marxism: the legal life, which has to do with what is expressed neither in economic life nor in intellectual life, but which simply depends on the fact that one has come of age and develops a relationship with every adult citizen within a self-contained area. What I do in economic life is subject to the laws of commodity production, commodity circulation and commodity consumption. How I work in the economic life is subject to the law. This distinction must be made in a fundamental way from now on. Only in this way can we go beyond what is today called capitalism and what constitutes the present wage system. Because capital and the wage system are components of economic life, everything that could lead the economic life to recovery is actually undermined. But we should not believe that things are really as simple as many people still imagine them to be. But if we start to do some really positive work, first with the workers' councils and then with the economic councils, it will become clear that this work will be a major, comprehensive undertaking. One of the most difficult tasks within the so-called socialization is to find out how, within the social order, performance and consideration can be regulated in the right way. And the works councils will have to make the first start with this regulation, that is, with the true socialization. This means that the works councils have been given a major, fundamental goal, because they will have to take seriously for the first time what others only talk about: socialization. What people today usually imagine by socialization is, for the most part, not only not socialization, but at best a kind of fiscalization. In some cases, there is a complete lack of clear thought and imagination.

As I said, many people today have a much too simplistic view of the matter, which is also due to the fact that economics and, in general, the science of human coexistence - forgive the expression - is still in its infancy, or not even that, because it has not yet been born. It is true that people rightly say: in the future, we shall not produce in order to profit, but we shall produce in order to consume. That is quite right, for in saying this people mean that it is important that everyone should receive what corresponds to his needs. But a healthy community would not yet have been created. This is only given when the performance is matched by a return service, when people are willing to provide something of equal value in return for what others work, produce and deliver for them. And this problem is very difficult to deal with, as you can see from the fact that current science has no concrete ideas or suggestions on the matter. At best, you will find the suggestion today that the state should be replaced by the economic state, a kind of large economic cooperative.

But you see, this overlooks the fact that it is impossible to centrally manage an economic entity if it goes beyond a certain size and encompasses too many different economic sectors. But people would only realize this when they have actually set up the so-called economic state. Then they would see that it does not work that way. The matter must be settled in a completely different way, namely, in such a way that, even if one adheres to the principle that production must take place in order to consume, nevertheless, the performance must be matched by a corresponding consideration. One can now say: So we do not care about the comparative value of one good with the other. — What some economists say today sounds like this: We only care about needs and then we centrally produce what is necessary to satisfy those needs and distribute them. — Yes, but you see, it turns out that you are forced to introduce the work compulsion. But this is a terrible measure, especially when it is not necessary. And it is not necessary! The compulsion to work is only considered necessary because of the superstition that there is no other means of realizing the principle of performance and reward than the compulsion to work. Furthermore, no consideration is given to the sophisticated means that will be found in the future to avoid work if, for example, the compulsion to work is introduced by law. So, it is not just that the compulsion to work is unnecessary, but it is also that it could not be carried out at all. But, as I said, the main thing remains that it is not necessary if one thoroughly implements the principle that every performance must be matched by a corresponding return. This can now be concretized in the following way.

Do people not have to work, that is, perform some service, if they want to live in human society? By doing so, they produce something that has meaning for others. What a person produces must have a certain value. He must be able to exchange what he produces for what he needs in the way of products from the work of others, and he must be able to do so for a certain length of time. He must be able to satisfy his needs with what he exchanges until he has produced another product of the same kind. Let us take a simple example: if I make a pair of boots, this pair of boots must be worth enough so that I can exchange this pair of boots for what I need until I have made a new pair of boots. You only have a real measure of value when you include everything that has to be paid for people who cannot work, for children who need to be educated, for those who are unable to work, for invalids, and so on. It is possible to determine the correct price of a product. But to do so, the following is necessary: the moment too many workers are working on an item, that is, when an item is produced in too large a quantity, it becomes too cheap. I do not get enough to satisfy my needs until I have produced the same product again. At the moment when too few workers are at work, that is, when an article is not produced in sufficient quantity, it becomes too expensive. Only those who have more than a normal income would be able to buy it. It is therefore necessary, in order to make a fair pricing possible, to ensure that the right number of workers – both intellectual and physical workers – are always working on an article. This means that if, for example, now that we are living in a transitional period, it were to emerge that any given article is being produced in too many factories, that is, that it is being produced in excess, then individual factories would have to be closed down and contracts would have to be concluded with the workers of these factories so that they could continue to work in another industry. Only in this way is it possible to ensure that fair prices are set. There is no other way to do it. If too little of a particular article is produced, new factories would have to be set up for the production of that article. That means that it must be constantly ensured in the economic life that production takes place under consideration of certain proportionalities. Then the wage relationship can cease, then the capital relationship can cease; only the contractual relationship between intellectual and physical laborers regarding the just [fixing of the share due to those who jointly create the product] needs to continue to exist. One actually lives towards this ideal, one hopes for this ideal, one must steer towards this ideal, and everything that does not steer towards this ideal, those are unclear ideas.

What is basically intended by the threefold social order is that people should not be deceived, but that they should be told what the living conditions of the social organism are, that is, how one can really live. And it is possible for the present sick social organism to become healthy. But then one must also really look at the concrete living conditions. That is what matters. But if that is to happen, if the economy is to be managed in such a way that the right prices are created, then this forms the true basis for socialization. The old wage relationships, where people fight for higher wages, which usually results in higher prices for food, housing, and so on, must be overcome. The function and significance of money today must be changed. In the future, money will be a kind of portable accounting, a record, so to speak, of what one has produced and what one can exchange for it. All this is not something that can only be pursued in decades, but can be pursued immediately, if only enough people understand it. Everything else is basically wishy-washy. Therefore, the first thing to be aware of is that it is essential for the works councils not to be based on a law, but to emerge directly from economic life. And so, in a primary assembly of the works councils, the experiences of economic life must be at the center. Then the functions and tasks of the works councils will emerge. That is what must be understood, namely that this system of works councils must arise out of economic life and not out of the old state life, and that this system of works councils must be the first thing to really show what socialization is. You can only socialize if you have socializing bodies in economic life. And the works councils should be this first body that really socializes out of economic life.

You cannot socialize through decrees and laws, but only through people who work out of economic life. Instead of merely fantastic demands, the impulse of the threefold order of the organism wants to put the truth. And that is what matters today. And I believe that today people can learn what is needed. So far, people have imagined various ways of improving the ailing life of the social organism. And how did things turn out?

You see, I have mentioned this before and now I want to refrain from talking about what ideas the previous practitioners of life had in January 1914 until August. But I want to talk about what the practitioners imagined when the misfortune occurred that led us into the present catastrophe: Bethmann Hohlkopf, I wanted to say Bethmann Hollweg, said, it will be a violent but short thunderstorm. - So he spoke of the coming war, and others have said something similar, for example: In six to seven weeks, the German armies should be in Paris and so on. The practitioners always said that at the time, and so it has always been in recent years. And now again, in the October-November catastrophe, what was not said then! Everything that was said has ultimately led to yesterday, which has presented us with hardship and misery. It is now time that we no longer listen to what people predict, but that we finally listen to what is being thought out of reality. Today, there is a lot of talk, for example, on the part of economists and political scientists, but it is never mentioned that the principle that performance must be matched by a return service is based on strict principles of reality. This principle amounts to everyone getting what they need to satisfy their needs for their performance until they have provided a new service.

We therefore want to set up works councils to which we can explain the specific task of socializing the economy. Legal norms will not help here, nor will general socialist ideals. The only thing that will help is what is honestly and sincerely taken from reality. And that is what should be brought into the works council. The establishment of the works council should really be the first step towards taking the socialization of economic life seriously. If we start somewhere, further steps will follow. Then people will also be found who will try to create equal rights for all people and the necessary institutions in which people's abilities are fostered. Today, oppression still reigns, as does the phrase. I have often referred to the phrase “free rein for the hardworking”. However, these words usually conceal very selfish interests. Only through a truly free spiritual life can human abilities develop in the future. And only in a legal life in which every human being is equal to another can political conditions develop anew. And in economic life, fair prices must prevail. Then everything will not be geared towards competition between capital and wages or competition between individual companies. But for this to happen, it is necessary to replace the competition that culminates in the interaction of supply and demand with sensible resolutions and contracts, which must emerge from bodies such as the works council that is to be established.

What do we actually want with the works council? With the works council, we want to make a start on a real, honestly intended socialization of economic life. And it can fill one with deep satisfaction that, despite some resistance, which has of course been amply asserted in certain circles of the local workforce, the idea of works councils has been met with understanding, so that we have already been able to report about twelve works councils and negotiations are to take place regarding the election of further ones. But if something truly fruitful is to come of it, then works councils must be elected in all companies in the Württemberg area. Then the works councils from the most diverse industries must gather, because only through negotiations, through the exchange of experiences and the resulting measures, can what is the beginning of real socialization come about. You can have this socialization tomorrow, but you cannot just talk about it and let theorists make laws; instead, people must be put in place with whom true socialization can be carried out. Because socialization is not something that will be achieved through laws, socialization will come when there are a thousand people in Württemberg industry. We have tried to tackle the issue where the reality is, and the reality for socialization is in the flesh and blood of the people and not in the laws that are written on paper and are then supposed to magically be transformed into reality.

What we want to derive from the reality of people of flesh and blood is called utopia. One might ask: Who are the real utopians? We don't want a utopia! Or is it a utopia to elect a thousand people who can achieve something in the economic field? Are a thousand people of flesh and blood a utopia? Yes, just when it was seen that it was not a utopia, but a number of real people who want to carry out socialization, people started talking about us striving for a utopia. We do not want a utopia, we want the purest, truest and most honest reality! That is what matters to us. That is something that one need only recognize. Therefore, regardless of what is being said by those utopians who have always gone wrong with their utopias, that is, by those utopians who are campaigning against the reality represented by the “Federation for Threefolding”, I ask you to make yourself independent, to rely on your own judgment for once. I believe that any rational person can distinguish utopia from reality. And if people accuse me of merely prophesying something, I think that anyone who has heard what I have said today will no longer speak of mere or even false prophecy. I am not prophesying anything, I am only saying: if a thousand people are chosen from all walks of life, then that is not a prophecy, because what they will do, they will do without prophecy, because they will be a living reality. Enough has been prophesied in recent years. Before November 9, what new victories were always prophesied: “We will win because we must win!” — Those who hurl the word “prophecy” like some kind of slander at those who speak from reality should take note of this. The others have done enough prophesying, that is, the leading circles so far. Now one has to speak to the world in a different tone, one that is already present in the hearts and souls of people. And you elect such people to your works council. Then you will be able to put forward the right thing for true socialization in the world.

Discussion

The chairman, Mr. Gönnewein, thanks Dr. Steiner for his important remarks and calls for discussion.

Mr. Lange: He first speaks of the danger of Anglo-American capitalism taking hold in Germany, thereby enslaving everyone.

We must help ourselves. This self-help consists in our saying: We take the economy into our own hands. The German capitalists do not want to exploit us after all. We have to go together with the German capitalists in a certain respect. There are also people among them who honestly want to work on the reconstruction. But the workers and employees must say: We take the factories into our own hands, we are no longer interested in strikes, but in work, and in work that is truly constructive. And for that we need the works councils. We need raw materials and land. But reconstruction is only possible if the working people come together. As workers, we must stand firm: only work can redeem us. The speaker continues to talk about monetary conditions.

Mr. Roser: Over the past few weeks, we have had various discussion evenings and talked about the works councils and economic councils. Many of you will be familiar with this and will have gained some insight into what the threefold social order is striving for. Nevertheless, one must repeatedly observe that the idea is still not sufficiently understood. But this is of course understandable, because the threefold social order represents a completely new idea, and as with everything new, this idea is also met with a certain pessimism. But at least we can state that the reception in those circles that have an interest in it can appear satisfactory. It must undoubtedly be emphasized that it is precisely this combining of the three organs, economic life, politics and spiritual culture, in the old state system that has conjured up so much of this terrible misery for the German people. When we read Dr. Steiner's book, we can clearly see that if we are unable to fundamentally separate these three organs, that is, to cultivate each according to its nature, then we will inevitably end up in a mess. We should therefore strive with all our might for this threefold order. As workers, we naturally have the greatest interest in economic life, because that is the factor, that is the institution in which we are represented. Therefore, we must also show the greatest interest in the economic sphere. Of course, we must also have and gain some influence in the legal or political and intellectual parliament, but as manual and mental workers, we must deal primarily with the economic body, with the economic parliament.

The question has been raised repeatedly: what area, what work is there for us? This work has been mentioned and discussed many times. It is the formation of works councils. Socialization, which has often been discussed by Dr. Steiner and other speakers, is increasingly being demanded from all sides. Why? Because it is the only way out of the chaos that can lead our economic life back to a healthy path. Socialization means the nationalization of all means of production, the transfer into the hands of those classes that can dispose of and determine them. Therefore, it would be of the utmost importance that we show even more interest in the question of works councils than we have done so far. But it is understandable, given the political circumstances, the political storm clouds that have been hanging over us in the last few weeks, until yesterday's conclusion. All of this has not allowed us to gain proper insight into this issue. I believe that things should be different in the future. We simply have to deal with this question, and deal with it very intensively, precisely because of the circumstances that arose yesterday with the signing of the peace treaty. It is self-evident: if we are not able to take socialization into our own hands, then we will never achieve our goal, but will instead drive our people towards general enslavement and impoverishment. Therefore, we must first and foremost take the question of works councils energetically into our own hands, regardless of anything that stands in our way. If we expect the works councils from the law, then we will get none, but only living paragraphs that actually have nothing else to do than to carry out what the previous exploiters have done with us so far. But they should be nothing more than the tool of the working class, of the whole nation.

We must create the works councils as an institution so that they do not have to dance to the tune of capitalism. The catastrophe of war in particular has given us enough to think about. We, who are active in the working committee of the “Federation for Threefolding”, have clearly recognized that, whatever proposal is made, there is no better idea than threefolding. Threefolding, and with it the independence of the individual corporate bodies, will form the basis upon which our national whole can be rebuilt. We want to strive for something other than the subjugation of the proletariat. Nor do we want to be responsible for the state continuing to use the entire economy for political purposes, only to ultimately sacrifice it to militarism. We must make economic life independent, so that something useful for the whole life of the nation may come of it. I therefore appeal to you: work to ensure that the idea of threefolding is carried to the masses, despite all challenges from right and left. The idea of threefolding is only challenged by those elements who do not want to take it into account and do not want to let it arise for their own benefit. That is why they fight it. I believe that we can only improve the life of our people if we realize the basic idea of threefolding: the independence of economic life, of legal life and of spiritual life. Then we will see whether we cannot count on a better well-being of our people.

Mr. Georg Müller: Dr. Steiner has left some points about the works councils still very unclear. Firstly, you will all agree with me that the establishment of works councils is not as easy as some people imagine. The law has already put a stop to that. If we want the works council system as described by Dr. Steiner, then we will have to fight hard in the future, because we must be clear about one thing: whatever is done by the workers, it will always be undermined by capitalism. Our greatest opponent is still capitalism today. As soon as you come up with practical proposals, you will find that everything you do is undermined. Therefore, I ask: what is the easiest way for us to get past this harassment? Some of you will eventually say that the only way is to strike. But now we are not talking about striking. We have to find more practical ways to implement our ideas. If the workers really want to get together, discuss and work together, we will find other ways, even outside the law. We don't just want a consultative vote, we want a decisive vote in the works councils. Not only capitalism, but also a large part of the bourgeoisie opposes this. It will take decades to push through the works councils as they are meant here. The worker cannot do it alone, and the others will not give up their companies to socialize them. The question now is: how far will the struggles go to achieve this? Above all, however, the workers must stick together more.

Mr. Hahl: As a representative of the “General Association of German Bank Employees,” I would like to say a few words. I can do this based on the experience I have had in my varied life.

I was head of a company in Egypt and as such had the best experiences with involving colleagues, not just giving orders but also educating them about business matters and asking for their opinions. This stimulated business interest. Today's law on works councils puts a stop to the real participation of employees. Above all, this law does not eliminate the feeling among employees that they are still in a kind of slave relationship to the dominant capitalism. Through tripartism, employees are introduced to the secrets of the company and educated about all its branches, so that they can have not only the right but also the ability to throw their vote into the balance when it comes to management. I would also like to say this to the previous speaker: if you have the skills, you will not be so easily taken advantage of by the capitalist manager. In the realization of the works councils in the sense of threefolding, one does not work against each other, but together on the basis of complete equality. The entrepreneurs rail against this and hold fast to the old rule of domination, without realizing that they are running the risk of losing everything. For the rebellion that is arising today in the ranks of the workers against the material and spiritual domination of capital will not cease until the human labor force, which is degraded to the level of a commodity by the circumstances, loses its slave character. This can only come about through the threefold social order and through the workers' councils that it demands. No matter how much the government socializes, it cannot escape the unrest until it tries to solve the problem through threefolding. As long as it only looks at the actions of other people and does not study the motives, it cannot get a picture of what the movement of the proletariat means. Today, the government believes that the proletarian movement is a passing fancy that can be dismissed by posters on advertising pillars with the slogan “Work! Work! Work!” The sufferings that are emerging today, however, are the logical consequences of the mixing of economic, intellectual and legal life. During the war you were able to see how the pastor in the pulpit even had to say what the state prescribed as good patriotism. This is the confusion, hence the disaster. This is the cause of the evil, that is where the lever should be applied, so that the individual areas are made independent, so that the schools and the church no longer have to do what the state prescribes.

The day before yesterday, the new Prime Minister spoke those words about the life and death of our nation. These words can be applied here with full justification. A struggle against the enslavement of the working class is taking place here. And if this slave relationship is not abolished - and it will only be abolished through the threefold social order and the workers' councils it demands - then it could be that we are indeed doomed to die as a nation. Then it could be that the passions conjured up take everything from capital, that we become the battlefield between Bolshevism and the Entente. That is why I consider it the urgent duty of everyone to advocate tripartism and workers' councils. That is why I call on you once again to elect workers' councils in the spirit of the tripartite division of the social organism.

Mr. Münzing: I would like to start by mentioning something that is in the book “The Key Points of the Social Question”. It says on page 78: “Whatever increase in capital from the means of production – after deduction of the rightful interest – owes its existence to the effect of the entire social organism.” “After deduction of the legitimate interest” - I would like to ask you to tell me what I should understand by that. In my opinion, the whole question that revolves around capitalism and socialism ultimately boils down to the words: ‘Money bears interest, capital bears interest.’

If we examine the idea more closely, we can repeatedly find that in reality money differs in such a way that it bears interest without working. As workers, we must be disgusted when we hear that money works. Who works? Not money, surely! Money is used to make others work in order to obtain interest. Today there are views that say: the social question can be solved by abolishing commercial profit and the like, and there are many other recipes for solving the social question. I believe that the solution to the social question could only be achieved if the parties were to prescribe: Interest forbidden! That also affects the war loan and the money in the savings bank. I would like to ask you to think this idea through, even if it is not the topic of tonight's discussion. If a government came today and said that money would no longer bear interest, the whole situation would be postponed immediately. All the speculation is ultimately based on the fact that capital in the savings bank bears interest, that money has to work. I miss this simple demand for the abolition of interest in all the programs. And I would like to ask Dr. Steiner for information in this regard. I am a newcomer, but I have come across this question again and again. Rent also belongs in this question. It should then be paid in such a way that certain wear and tear of a house would be paid for, because a house does lose value through use. And to the works councils: if the works councils are to have real practical value, they must have the opportunity to influence not only wage regulations but also price regulations.

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to respond only to the two direct questions. Mr. Müller is concerned, in a sense, that the works councils could not prevail and that, above all, if they approached the employers with what they assumed to be their powers, they might simply be rejected. You see, in such matters we must also take the actual situation into account, and we must bear in mind that something like the works councils envisaged here has basically never faced the business community. Just consider how, in the course of capitalist development in modern times, the protectionist relationship between the state and capitalist entrepreneurship has grown more and more. On the one hand, the capitalist entrepreneurship supported the state, on the other hand, the state supported the entrepreneurship. This is particularly evident in the various causes of war, especially in the West. But a body that has really emerged from economic life itself, from all sectors of economic life, and that is supported by the trust of the entire workforce, such a body has never faced capitalist entrepreneurship. And I ask you not to disregard this fact. I ask you to compare it with what has already happened historically, namely that when such unified rallies took place, something could be achieved through these rallies. As Mr. Müller said, it certainly depends on whether this unity, this unity, really exists. And the election of the works councils can only take place if this unity exists. It should arise from this unity.

If the works councils exist, then they will be a revelation for the unification of the current workforce, and then we will see what happens when the united workforce confronts the business community in the form of the works councils. It is not only the 'works councils of the individual company that face the individual entrepreneurship, but the entire works council, which is made up of members from all sectors and companies, faces the entrepreneurs of an entire economic area. The individual works councils return to their companies as representatives of the entire works council and now face the entrepreneur not as individuals, but as representatives of the works council of the corresponding economic area. This is a power that one must only become aware of. You can safely take a chance on such a trial of strength; it will have significant consequences. That is one thing.

The other thing is that, as Mr. Müller also said, the works council should not just have an advisory vote. No, it should not even have just a deciding vote, but should be the actual administrator of the company. It should simply manage the companies itself on behalf of the entire workforce. Naturally, certain difficulties arise from this, and they arise in quite different areas than you imagine. For example, initiative within a company must not be paralyzed by the fact that many want to give orders and the like. But all this can be overcome. That is one thing. But then there is something else to consider. I ask you: what is the capital of an economic enterprise basically based on? No matter how much money the capitalists have, this money only has value if people work, nothing else! So, the workers are not opposed to those people who are actually still entrepreneurs, but to those who only have money. And in this context, we must be clear about one thing: if we live in reality, then we do not live outside of time, but we live in a certain time. And I have the feeling that many people from the working class still talk as if things were as they were seven or eight years ago, before we sailed into this catastrophe of war. I don't think many people have thought about what it means economically that when the war ended, some companies were manufacturing all sorts of things and then breaking them up again. Such things were done because no one knew how to maintain production in a natural way. Things have changed, but today we still have the habit of talking about the old conditions from the point of view of capitalism.

You see, in many respects the situation is such that old truths are no longer truths at all today. Of course, the truth of surplus value is a sweeping truth, only today it no longer exists for the most part. It has been blown away, and what is so feared today as capitalism is actually based on terribly hollow ground. This is no longer recognized. You can see this from the fact that people are now thinking: for God's sake, if we could only save ourselves to Entente capitalism, so that we can crawl under there; we can't cope on our own anymore. The time will come when the works council will no longer face capitalism in the old way, but will face the collapsing entrepreneurship and take over what has collapsed. And the time will come when you will say: It was good that we had these works councils, because someone has to manage the factories; the others can't do it anymore, because the business community has largely collapsed, it can't do it anymore. That's what these works councils are for. They may not be present everywhere, but that will be the case. For the most part, they will find abandoned battlefields. It will even not infrequently happen that the entrepreneurs will be glad when the works councils come on behalf of a closed economic area. Now they are still doing so because they believe that they can be covered by the protector state and the laws. They would like to have what they themselves can no longer do covered by the protector state. In this case, strange circumstances would arise. Not only would the works councils be decorative pieces, but the channels would also be found again through which the run-down capital could be restored, through which in turn a variety of things would flow back to where they had gone. People have strange views about this. In Tübingen a professor said: We shall become a poor people in the future. People will no longer be able to pay for schools, so the state will have to step in and pay for them. — The professor was afraid that people would no longer be able to pay for schools. He had only forgotten to ask himself: Where will the state get the money? But only out of the pockets of individuals! In this respect, laws very often only mean that things that have some value end up where they are supposed to be. And under certain circumstances, laws can only be a detour to getting the already crumbling capital back on its feet. A workers' council that emerges from economic life and from the working population will not be one of those. It will know how to stand on its own two feet. Then let it come to the showdown. There is no need to tell us that the workers' councils will stand paralyzed before the entrepreneur. The opposite could also occur due to the current situation.

We do not live outside of time, but in a particular time, and in this time, we know that capitalism is on the verge of collapse. We have to take this into account. We must also be aware that economic life must be rebuilt from the other side. And socialism is helped by the collapse into which capitalism has run itself. For the world war catastrophe was at the same time the collapse of capitalism and will consequently influence the collapse more and more. I ask you to bear this in mind. When considering things that relate to the future, one must take such factors into account.

When quoting something like the sentence about interest, I would ask you to bear in mind that every sentence in my book strives to honestly state what really is the case, and that my book strictly rejects everything that is said to be the result of interest. So, real growth of capital, as is the case today, where capital can double in fifteen years, is impossible if the reality I describe in my book comes to pass. But I am talking about a legitimate interest rate. In this context, I ask you to consider how I talk about capital in my book. Because, you see, it is easy to fool people by telling them: If you abolish all interest, then the right thing will come out. — In all these things, it is only a matter of whether you can do it. And I have only described things that can really be done.

Consider the situation. If the things in my book are realized, money will take on a certain character. I have sometimes expressed this rather trivially to friends by saying: money really starts to stink for the first time in the economic order meant in my book. What does that mean? It means the following: When I acquire realities – money itself is not a reality, but only in that the power relations are such that money is a reality – when I acquire realities, these are subject to the law of being consumed. We have capitalism in the real sense not only within the human world, but also in the animal world. When the hamster hoards, when it lays in its winter supplies, then that is its capital for the near future, only it has the property that it can only be used in the near future, otherwise it would perish. And in our capitalist economic system, we have managed to make money lose the character of all other realities, at least for certain short periods of time. What do we do when we calculate the interest? We multiply the money by the percentage rate and by the time period, and then divide by a hundred. That is how we arrive at the interest. As a result, we have been calculating with unreal, illusory constructs! We have been calculating with what we have presented as representations of reality. What was produced by capital may have long since become unusable, may even no longer exist at all, and yet, according to our power relations, we can calculate: capital times interest rate and time divided by one hundred. [...] In the future, it is important to be aware when founding a company or business – and this must happen again and again, otherwise the whole process of human development would come to a standstill – that past labor is always used in future labor.

You see, when you set up a new business, you have to employ new workers, regardless of whether it is a society or an individual that does so. In the past it was the individual, in the future it will depend on the structure of society. So you have to employ workers. When you set up a business that cannot yet give anything back to society, these workers need to feed and clothe themselves. So in order for this business to come into being, work must have been done earlier. Therefore, it must be possible for earlier work to be used for later services. But this is only possible if, when my earlier work is incorporated into a later service, I derive some benefit from it. Because in reality, let's say, I work quite hard today, and it doesn't matter how, but in ten years some new business will be built from what I work on today. That's added to it. When I work today, I also have to get something for my work. It's just that the work is saved for the next one. And that is what I call legitimate interest, and I have called it that because I want to be honest in my book, because I do not want to have cheap success by calling white black. In economic life, past work must be used for future services. Just as work in the present has a return service, so must it also have a return service in the future if it is saved. Economic life makes it necessary for past labor to be used in the future. Consider that capital is gradually being depleted. Whereas capital has now doubled in fifteen years, in the future it will more or less cease to exist after fifteen years. The reverse process is taking place! As the other things become stinking, so does the money. Thus, capital does not bear interest, but it must be made possible for what was worked on earlier to be included in a future performance. Then you must also have the reward for it. I could have called it [in my book] reward, but I wanted to be completely honest and wanted to express: The purpose of economic activity is to incorporate past labor into future performance, and that is what I call the fair remuneration for interest. That is why I also said explicitly: there is no interest on interest. There cannot be, nor can there be any arbitrary labor of capital. Money gets stinky. It gets lost just like other things, like meat and the like. It is no longer there, it no longer works. If you take the things as they are presented in my book, you must bear in mind that I start from what is possible and what should really be, and not from demands that arise from saying: We are abolishing this and that. Yes, my dear audience, someone might eventually come up with the crazy idea of saying: We are abolishing the floor. Then we would no longer be able to walk! You cannot abolish things that are simply necessary in real economic life or in other areas. You have to take things as they are, only then can you be honest. I do not promise people the earth, but I want to speak about the real living conditions of the social organism. And so I wanted to speak here of what can really be implemented, and that will already be what also brings about what unconsciously underlies the demands of the broad working masses. And it is better to strive to fulfill these demands out of a knowledge of reality than to lull people with mere promises.

Mr. Haupt from Eßlingen: He voluntarily created works councils in his company a long time ago. Among other things, he states:

What does the employer imagine a works council to be? He sees the establishment of works councils as a spectre! It is the worker's duty to also show trust and say: We don't want to tear everything down, that is not our goal. We want to work, but without a knout, freely from our own hearts. If you approach the employer like that, he is also willing. I know for a fact that a large number of Esslingen companies would like to do things this way. But they can't because they have made a compromise with the unions. The union leaders have come up with a collective agreement, so to speak as a last resort, to bring together the masses who want nothing to do with them. This is a mistake that will have bitter repercussions. It will become the grave of the unions. Only the works councils can save us from this mess. The unions have the greatest interest in not doing this. The employers' associations are hiding behind them and are glad that the works councils are not progressing as quickly as they had hoped.

There are three ways to introduce works councils: either the employer in question does it voluntarily – that's what I did – which is probably the most sensible thing. I said to myself: everything is broken, we are clear about that. So let's see if we can find something new to get out of this misery after all. – The second thing is: not so much talking! Action and not talk! Talking is useless. They talk and talk, but the Confederation has made a great effort and said: people, take action. You can't tell, the people are asleep. - The third measure is power. But I say explicitly: power without terror, without strikes, that's important. - By power I mean the ability and the awareness of having the masses behind you. They will push things through. If the matter were organized as I envision it, the union or a corporation of workers' representatives would come together first and listen to the views and contradictions. The corporation would then take advantage of this and approach the employer. You can't get more rejected than that. But if the employers reject this, they have created a poisonous wound; it remains a volcano. Well, that would be the last hand the two can shake. Otherwise there is no other option than ruthless terror. We can come together if we really want to. That's what matters.

The tasks of the works council are not that easy. If you have works councils yourself, you know what curious things can come to light. There are people who are wholeheartedly committed, but there are also those who come with political intentions and the like. We have experienced many things. Finally, I would like to say to you: take action today, not tomorrow. Get in touch with the “Association for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism”. I am convinced that the group in Stuttgart will then take matters into their own hands. They are trying to come to an agreement with the employers after all. And then you stand in front of the employers and say: We declare that the works councils have been elected. - Let's trust each other! Woe to anyone who goes on strike! They must not go on strike! It must be possible without terror, without power, without oppression of the soul and the like.

Mr. Schlegel: I am basically of the opinion that the works councils and the body that brings together the works councils, as Dr. Steiner described them in his lecture this evening, are the only practical way to implement the socialization of economic life, which is to create the material basis for the advancement of humanity. And this evening will probably be the only opportunity to take a step towards socialization in order to save our people and our Reich, our country, from economic collapse. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that one should not wildly establish works councils because the “Bund” wants to do so. The prerequisite would be that the employers do not oppose these works councils. If, for example, works councils are introduced in only some of the companies, how do you then imagine the consolidation, that is, the body of works councils? The regulation of production is the main thing. How does Dr. Steiner think that these bodies will gain power if not all political and state power is concentrated in the hands of the works councils? Is it not impossible to introduce the works councils alone for such a small area as Württemberg? For Württemberg's industry is not yet sufficient to produce all the goods. Württemberg needs the exchange. I ask Dr. Steiner to comment on these concerns.

Dr. Steiner said that it would be impossible to bring the workers' councils into being through legal provisions. I am of the opinion that it is necessary that the election of the workers' councils be made mandatory according to the centralist principle. The only question is what form the law will take. It could also take the form that is necessary. If the entire working class, intellectual and manual laborers, is united and has political power, then it will be easy to gain political power in the state and then take the necessary measures for socialization. I appeal above all to the representatives of the socialist parties to work towards achieving unity.

I would remind you that we could win over large numbers of employees and the rural population to the idea of socialism if only we were united. We need precisely the intellectual proletariat and the peasantry if we want to implement socialization. It is understandable that large masses of workers go to the USP and the Communists, because when people are complaining, they turn to them when they cannot get what they want. Dr. Steiner has already pointed out that the old ideas are still alive among a large part of the working population and that the situation today is the same as it was before the war. He also said that if we tackle socialization, we would very quickly achieve a material improvement for the masses of the working population. That is a mistake! Even if we tackle socialization through the works councils and through the threefold social order, all we achieve at the moment is to save our economic life from ruin for the time being. It will take years of work and, above all, the destruction of the capitalism of the Entente before the fruits of socialization can be seen. In this respect, too, the party leaders must point out the actual situation to their followers.

I would also like to point out that there is actually a tripartite structure to the social organism [interjection: oh oh] and that the task at hand is to reshape it and steer it in different directions [laughter]. The three areas are only combined [laughter], they can only be torn apart. I say this because in many circles there is a view that something new should be created. It is only a matter of reshaping it, and doing so according to the principles that the “Federation for Threefolding” represents.

It would be just as necessary as the creation of the works councils to work more with the workers and employees in a spiritual sense than has been done so far. The ethical goals of socialism have been pushed into the background today in favor of material goals. There should be agitation for this. Dr. Steiner believes that the works councils will bring about the unity of the proletariat. I believe that the socialization and the works councils will bring about the unity of the proletariat. Mr. Haller: I would like to correct some of what the speakers have said. One gentleman spoke of power without terror. If the working masses are still so skeptical of these works councils today, it is because the working class knows full well that nowhere in world history is it written that capitalism will ever voluntarily renounce its prerogatives and place the entire system in the hands of the masses. I think the most important thing would not be to quickly elect the works councils, but to spread the idea among the masses, because the works councils are quickly elected once the ideas have been spread among the masses. It has been said that the election of the works councils is preparatory work. I cannot disagree with that, but I would like to emphasize that we have no interest in continuing the future state in a capitalist form. We have to build something new.

If the workers' councils in the industrial state of Württemberg gain power, it might be impossible to maintain control over the entire Reich in the long term, because the capitalists are united and will also reconcile with the Entente capitalists. If the masses of workers were as united internationally as the international capitalists, we would have been spared this terrible ruin. We must try to get the whole economy under control.

Dr. Steiner said that many have not yet understood socialization. The workers do not understand what it means. There is still a lot of education to be done. And the intellectual workers have not yet been aware that they depend on the entrepreneur just as much as the proletarian manual laborer. It has been said that a bridge must be built between the manual laborer and the intellectual laborer. I have not yet seen much of such a bridge being built. If the leaders are not willing to build this bridge, the intellectual and manual laborers must do what is necessary themselves. If it is said that we would then possibly surrender the battlefield between Bolshevism and Entente capitalism, I must say that the conditions in Russia and Germany are quite different. In Russia, the intellectual workers have been engaged in sabotage. I ask the manual workers to prevent this disaster in this difficult hour. The intellectual workers must stand by us so that we can finally reach our goal. If a works council is elected today and the entire economic entity is in our hands, a director will have no more rights than a works councilor. The works councils are to be the nucleus of economic life. The works councils must realize that they are only the nucleus and say: Mr. Director, you may continue to manage the post under our control and leadership. We are not here to chase people away, but we only want equal rights for all.

Mr. Biel: I actually wanted to refrain from saying anything, but since I am also a member of the works council, I would like to say a few words. I would like to come back to how necessary it is that we seek to create a new economic system. In my opinion, this new economic system can only be found through the threefold social order proposed by Dr. Steiner. You are all well aware that the conditions we face are very difficult. We will have to start with a down payment, and this down payment alone requires a reorganization of economic life. It can no longer be the case that we produce under the old conditions, that we stand there as workers with the so-called minimum living wage and next door is a capitalist who earns millions. We are then always forced to pay out of our own pockets the debts that this old society and the still existing capitalists have incurred. For these reasons alone, everyone should be aware that the old method is an impossibility. I do believe, however, that there is still so much reason in humanity that the conditions of the Entente will be rejected as impossible. I believe it will happen very soon. Let us approach the election of works councils with care and not let what our brothers in the East have achieved slip away again, so that they do not have to reproach us later with: You were shown the way, but you did not want to go it. — They showed us the elementary school, now we want to see if we are capable of passing the matriculation examination.

Mr. Spörr: It is clear to us all that the works councils are a necessity. It is also clear to us that in our entire spiritual life, in all that we think and feel, new paths must be taken. I therefore welcome the fact that Dr. Steiner is able to cast his thoughts into the masses in such a gripping way and also find his followers there. However, one big question remains unanswered for me in Dr. Steiner's statements: How will the employers' resistance to this movement be broken? The employers will take the position of only granting what they are legally obliged to grant. However, the laws that are made today are not made by practitioners, but by party bigwigs. We need men who can create laws that can be used. And we must act quickly, otherwise we will be crushed by Entente capitalism. It will take a long time before the Entente's workers have come to understand what necessity has taught us.

I believe that there is only one guideline, namely that we work as quickly as possible to ensure that intellectual workers get involved in areas where organized labor is involved. That was the curse of the revolution, that precisely the educated masses were not politically mature. Here the “Bund” has the task, above all, of educating. When we look at bourgeois circles today and see that the people who owe the working class their freedom of speech are willing to shoot this working class, these are factors that make us think. I do not think it is right for the government to be able to hold on only by arming itself. Above all, education must be carried out here.

Mr. Gönnewein: Most speakers rightly stated very clearly that enough words have been spoken and that they want to see action. This can only be underlined. If we cannot take action today, it is not because the people are not mature, but because they are not united. I believe that the people are actually mature. At least one might assume that they have been brought to maturity during these four years. But attempts are being made from all sides to divide the people, because people do not want anything to come from other sides, except from the so-called party leaders themselves. If we do not yet have workers' councils in various enterprises, especially in large enterprises, it is not because the people are not ready for them, but because efforts are being made from all sides to prevent them. We are willing to do this. But because it was Dr. Steiner who came up with the idea of threefolding, and not those who believe they are called to do so, it is not the right thing. I recall that when Dr. Steiner gave his first lectures to the workers, they cheered him and declared that something had come that could free the workers from their misery. After examining the matter, the party leaders came to the conclusion that if they paid too much homage to the matter, it could go awry for various reasons. So they dragged the matter through the mud, so that many approached the party bigwigs to stir up sentiment for them. It is not the work of the party bigwigs that is dangerous, but that of their satellites, because they allow dogma to be imposed on them. That is an unhealthy relationship. As long as this is not understood, we will not get out of the mess.

It has been rightly pointed out that people are only trying to make inflammatory speeches. They can go anywhere. Every day, there is an opportunity to hear all sorts. Today it would have been appropriate and a particular satisfaction if these gentlemen had come to the discussion evening and told us clearly that they have something better than Dr. Steiner's idea. We try at every opportunity to invite the gentlemen to finally come up with something better. But that has not yet happened.

It has already been pointed out that capitalism will not give up its privileges, of course not. We are aware that this is an invincible opponent for us. We know full well that it can only be brought down through intensive struggle. But we can no longer speak of such capitalism. After such misery, there can no longer be any talk of capitalism on this scale. Today it is imperative that if we do not want to fall into misery, we must start to unite all of humanity in order to emerge from the ruins. There can be no question of not being able to declare one's solidarity with intellectual workers. One speaker said that the bridge between manual and mental laborers has not yet been built. Certainly, there are manual laborers who have the good will to build the bridge. But I would like to remind you that it is precisely those who have not yet seen the bridge who prevent us from doing what is necessary. If you talk to an engineer or a higher-level employee, for example, they will shout after you: “Look, this worker traitor! He's cuddling with capitalism!” How are we supposed to build the bridge to bring about an agreement? There is no doubt that more thought needs to be given to this.

If we say that we must take up the fight against capitalism and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and then introduce the threefold order, we are aware that if we do not have the power, the matter must fail because of the spirit of the entrepreneur. But I have come to the conclusion that it will not remain so, but that the coming time will already give us something. We would have to be out of our minds if we did not see from today's situation that something new must come. But then it is necessary that we do not fall into the same mistake as on November 9, when we were cheated of the whole story, of not approaching the matter consciously enough. Today we must occupy ourselves with the idea of wanting to put something tangible in place, so that when we have the power we also know how to make something out of it. When the Communists say to me: We want everything in the way we think about it -, then I call out to them: I hear the message well, but I lack faith. One must ask: If the people are not ripe for socialism, how then should communism have a place? Unfortunately we have not yet come so far, therefore we occupy ourselves with that which gives us the opportunity to ascend to the light. And here I must say that threefolding is a step by which we can ascend to socialism. It is therefore unjust that we are constantly criticized for declaring our solidarity with the capitalists who have descended to the proletariat in order to do something together with the proletarians so that humanity can survive. Today, we cannot look at everything as we did in 1913. Someone should come along today and explain to us a better way out of our misery! Until that happens, it is unseemly to drag this idea through the mud in the newspapers and elsewhere. Today would be the opportunity for these gentlemen to stand up and show a better way. I call out to you: do not let yourselves be put off by these gentlemen! If you have joined the idea of threefolding, do not let them tell you: it is not the right way – but choose for yourselves! Do not let yourselves be counted among those who allow dogma to be imposed on them, but go the straight way as militant and class-conscious workers in the parties! But here too, in the “Association for Threefolding”, you can find inspiration for absorbing an idea. Here, the proletarian and the class-conscious fighter have nothing to forgive each other. Therefore, whenever you are approached by the party, you must say that it is an injustice to restrict you when you go where your conscience sends you, where you can learn something.

On July 2, there will be a continuation of the discussion here. I would like to ask you to bring with you people who still have no faith in the threefold social order. Those who have pricked up their ears this evening will already have realized what it is about. We do not need to do any more training courses, we do not need to explore what the “covenant” wants, but we do want to strive to carry the idea of threefolding into other circles and tell the leaders that they should sit down on their behinds and read Dr. Steiner's book. Then they will come to a different opinion. Shout it in the faces of the gentlemen, so that they finally understand, for they are slow of comprehension.

Rudolf Steiner: I have only a little more to say to you, but this little will be necessary.

First of all, it has been said that in principle the only practical possibility for solving the socialization question lies in what the threefold social order wants in relation to works councils or similar. But it has been criticized that the “Bund für Dreigliederung” wants to have the works councils elected in a wild way. Yes, I don't really understand what is meant by the fact that this one is a wild election. Under certain circumstances, one might even be of the opinion, if one studies the draft of the law for the works councils quite impartially, which was in the press some time ago, that this one is a wild thing. So it is important to try to see the matter really impartially. Then it will become clear that if what we as works councils envision comes about in economic life, a good deal of what must be conquered in the future as real power will indeed be achieved. When people keep saying that we are not getting anywhere if we don't have this or that, and that economic power is of no use to us if we don't have political power, and the like, then you have to say in response that it's a matter of starting somewhere, and that you can't always be deterred by saying that this is of no use and that is of no use.

You see, I can well understand when someone says: Even if a small area like Württemberg elects works councils, not everyone will do so; the whole of Germany should vote. Yes, of course it would be best if the whole world elected works councils. But I think that since we cannot do it all over the world right away, we should start where we can do it. We have to take into account the circumstances that exist, and first of all we have Württemberg as a closed economic area. If we just start somewhere, then if the project is successful, it will also be possible to continue. I think that we should not be deterred by all the objections. If it is not possible to set up works councils throughout Germany right away, then we must think about what would be fruitful for Württemberg. What is important is to recognize this threefold nature, to see that the matter must be taken in hand in each of the three individual, independent areas of the social organism. I must say that the esteemed speaker who spoke of the wild works councils – because they emerged purely from economic life – has not yet fully understood the threefold social order, otherwise he would not have been able to say that this threefold order is actually already there and that the threefold order is just mixed up. Of course these three members of the social organism are there, but the fact that they were mixed up before is what was wrong. Therefore we want to separate them. It is not important that they are there, but how they are formed or should be formed. And the “Federation for the Threefold Social Organism” would certainly not have been formed if it were not important to present these three elements in a correct way, side by side, in their independence. The fact that the three elements are presented in the right way in life is what is important.

Some other things have been said, in particular by the gentleman who, with a slight smile, touched again on the subject of the “idealist”. But what he said was entirely informed by a certain abstract idealism. For example, he said: practitioners must arise. Yes, we must bring things to the people as they are, then one is a practitioner, not when one calls idealistically: practitioners must arise. We do not want to wait, but we want to take such measures that the practitioners can assert themselves. That is what we can do. The call “practitioners shall arise” is an abstract idealistic call. Nor should we say, “A struggle will arise.” That will not create practitioners; they will arise through the liberation of intellectual life and the other areas. Because whenever it is said that we need development, and a sense of pessimism is introduced into the whole thing, I would like to draw your attention to the fact - although I have also pointed this out in the relevant places in my book - that certain things cannot be done overnight. But after all, works councils can be set up overnight, so to speak, and then things will move forward. It is not a matter of always just pointing to development, but of getting down to what can really be done in the short term. I would always like to call out to those who talk about development that they seem to me like a person sitting in a room where the air has become bad and who, before he faints, could open the window to improve the air, but he would have to do the next step. He should not wait for development to improve the air. That is what we should finally understand, that where human action is concerned, people must actually take action. We cannot wait until the Entente workers can come to our aid. Let us do what the workers are supposed to do here, then there is a chance that we will make progress and address the most pressing issues. That will do us more good than devoting ourselves to abstract ideals.

Now I would like to come back to one point in particular. It is always said that socialization can only arise from the unity of the proletariat. It can just as well be said, and this will be the really practical thing, that the proletariat should try to devote itself to one great task! What causes the disunity? It arises from the fact that one does not set oneself the right tasks, that one talks past things, that one does not talk much about what matters, not about where the shoe pinches, but that one makes party programs that one can vary at will. Then one can say this and that. But in really factual things, the proletarians agree. They need only remember that it depends on the issues. Therefore, try to establish a body that emerges from the trust of the workforce, in which one negotiates on substantive issues and the objectively necessary. You will see that there will be agreement, because you will talk about something that really is, and not about something that is a mere party program and the like. Party programs are mostly there to avoid talking about the real issues. Try to make a start with this works council and use it to talk about the factual things themselves, and perhaps unity will come about as if by magic.

Mr. Gönnewein, you have the last word, and I would like to say to you: Take to heart what has been said! Carry it to your colleagues, so that it may bear fruit for the good of the tripartite social organism. — The meeting is hereby closed.

The chairman, Mr. Roser, opens the meeting.

Introductory words

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees! I will keep this short today as well and hope that you will make active use of the discussion, so that we might be able to discuss one or two details today. As events are increasingly pushing for a reorganization of the social order, it would not be good if the efforts that are intended to bring about such a reorganization, such as the establishment of works councils, were to be completely abandoned. Because, my dear attendees, there are people who would be quite happy if the works council movement were to die out. All the more reason for us to make an effort not to let it fall asleep. At the last meeting, I spoke about the threefold social order and its connection to the works council question. Today, I would like to say a few words about how an understanding of the works council system can be brought about with regard to the threefold social order.

You know that we initially want to create works councils simply from the individual companies. We want works councils to be elected from the individual companies that are simply there and then form a works council for an initially self-contained economic area, say Württemberg. In a general assembly of this council of works councils, everything would then be determined that concerns the tasks, competencies, etc. of the works councils. In this way, economic measures would arise for the first time independently of the other two institutions, i.e., intellectual life and state or legal life, from the personalities involved in economic life. These measures would first be decided upon in the general assembly of the council of works councils. Only then would the tasks arise. Then the individual works councils elected in the companies would return to their companies and take on their tasks there. At the same time, the demands that can only be made for general socialization would then also be on the table. If there were real unanimity - because power lies in that unanimity - any government, whatever it might be, would have to comply. I believe that some people already have a clear sense of what it would mean if these works councils were elected in all companies and formed a general assembly across a unified economic area, and if this general assembly in turn were to adopt resolutions that were then supported by the confidence of the entire workforce in this economic area. That would be real power, because no government, no legislative body, can in the long run contradict a power that is based on its own judgment and on unanimity and trust. In this way, one can think of a very concrete path. But at the same time, this would be the first step towards real socialization, a socialization that can only emerge from the provisions and measures of the people who are managing the economy themselves. Perhaps only when the decisions of such a works council are in place will we know what socialization actually means.

Now, however, it must also be clear that the election of the works councils must be handled very sensibly, because this works council will have to take completely new economic measures in many respects and set completely new impulses. I have often said, when speaking about these things in connection with the threefold social order, that what we need most of all at the present time is a real change of thinking. And I imagine that precisely at the moment when, for the first time within a closed economic area, the primary assembly, supported by the confidence of the entire working class, unanimously takes such an economic measure, a change of thinking, a re-learning, could come about. But we must realize how much of today's economic thinking needs to be revised. Therefore, in order for you to be able to orient yourselves regarding the difficult tasks of the works councils, I would like to describe an example of the old way of thinking.

You see, this old thinking is not just a collection of thoughts, but it is the expression of the economic order that has existed so far and that has come to an end as a result of the world war catastrophe. But what people thought still extends into more recent times, and that is what must be thoroughly removed from people's minds. I would now like to give a characteristic example of this. An essay has just been published by a very famous teacher of political economy of the old regime, that is, by a man whose ideas reflect much of what the old regime, what the so-called private capital regime that must be overcome, has produced. I would like to cite what is said by Professor Dr. Lujo Brentano as an example of what prevails in the old regime. These thoughts of Brentano's refer to the entrepreneur of the old regime, and he is making a sincere effort, as far as he is able, to form a concept of what the private entrepreneur actually is. You can see from Brentano's closing words that he does not at all regard this private entrepreneur as a superfluous element of the future economic order. He says:

"Many today believe that private enterprise is coming to an end. They see the absorption of all private enterprise into a single, large-scale enterprise by the banks, which control so many large-scale enterprises, as the beginning of the absorption of all private enterprise into a single, large-scale enterprise, and in this the transition of all enterprises into state-owned enterprises. We are only at the beginning of a development that opens up private enterprise to hitherto untouched parts of the world, and experience to date has shown that the various nations emerge as winners in the competition for this development, the less they leave to the state and the more they leave to private initiative. The more the national economy of the individual nations becomes a world economy, the greater the scope for private enterprise, and the greater its future. It will not only solve its task all the more successfully, but also all the more consistently and thus all the more advantageously for itself, the more unreservedly it recognizes one of the fundamental principles of today's economic order, personal freedom, also in the shaping of the employment relationship and the more she seeks to earn money by working, not by increasing the value of the means of production at the expense of the needs of the products they are intended to serve, but by satisfying those needs as fully as possible while using the means of production as economically as possible. As long as she is guided by this principle, there is no end in sight to her success.

So you see, a true representative of the old economic order says here that private enterprise is not only not at an end, but that it is only now really beginning to flourish, because without it the economic order that is to develop in the future would not be possible at all. We are therefore dealing with an opinion that still dominates many circles today, namely that the abolition of private enterprise is out of the question because it has a future. Therefore, if one approaches the question of the replacement of the old entrepreneurial system by the works councils seriously and not merely in an agitative way, one must deal a little with the thoughts that are haunting people's minds. You have to be prepared, so to speak, you have to know what people are thinking and what they will say when it comes to arguments between the representatives of the past and the representatives of the future, that is, those who want to stand up for the works councils.

Now you see, the concept of the entrepreneur is what this economics teacher wants to clarify for himself and present to people. He asks himself the question: What is an entrepreneur? Yes, he now gives three characteristics of the right entrepreneur. First, “that he combines in his hand the right of disposal over the production elements necessary for the manufacture of a product.” But first of all, it must be made clear what this gentleman actually means by “production elements”. What he understands by this is made perfectly clear in one of his sentences. He does not even make this sentence up himself, but borrows it from Emil Kirdorff, one of the most successful men in practice to date. He says: “We directors of joint-stock companies are also employees of the company and have duties and responsibilities towards it.” And now Mr. Brentano has discovered that directors like Privy Councillor Emil Kirdorff are also among the “production elements,” that is, the entrepreneur must have the right of disposal over the “production elements,” which also includes directors. The entire workforce, right up to the directors, are all “production elements.” First, then, an entrepreneur is the one who has the right of disposal over the “production elements”; these also include the directors. And a man like Kirdorff sees quite well that he is actually not a human being, but a “production element” in economic life. You have to realize what kind of ideas are in people's heads. That is why I have repeatedly emphasized that it is necessary to rethink and relearn. So that was the first quality of a real entrepreneur.

The second is that “he gives these production elements the purpose of serving a specific production purpose and disposes of them accordingly.” Here one has to bear in mind that all people in production are meant; so he must give them a purpose. That is the second quality.

The third is that “he does this at his own risk and expense.” So now we have all three characteristics of a true entrepreneur in the sense of the old regime, that is, the entrepreneur who, in the sense of the old regime, must continue to exist in order to maintain the future economic order and who should have an even greater significance there than he has had so far.

You see, if you are not wearing professors' or entrepreneurs' or other blinkers, then you have to admit that people with these three qualities will not tolerate the facts that are now to be created in Europe because after all, we have come so far in our consciousness that the future cannot depend on a small number of entrepreneurs who determine the 'productive elements' of the far greater number of people, that is, the masses. But that is exactly what is required. Now, however, let us follow the train of thought of this representative of the old regime a little further. It is actually extremely interesting. You will probably think I am making a joke, but the following is really in this essay; I am not joking. After initially presenting the vast majority of workers as “production elements,” Brentano strangely includes the workers, the proletarians, among the entrepreneurs! He says: “If the worker is not the producer of a consumer-ready product, he is nonetheless the producer of an independent good that he brings to market at his own risk and expense. He too is an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur of labor services.”

So you see, my dear audience, we now have the concept of the entrepreneur before us, as presented by a contemporary economic luminary. This concept of the entrepreneur is so confused, indeed it is just that you are all entrepreneurs as you sit here, namely entrepreneurs of your labor, which you bring to market at your own risk and expense. Yes, and now there is something else. Brentano says that the evil of which people are always talking does not exist at all, since everyone is an entrepreneur. Therefore, he had to find out what it actually is that makes the great masses of people not satisfied with being entrepreneurs at their own risk and expense through their labor. He says: “Once upon a time, the worker was not that, a time when he was absorbed in the business in which he was employed. He was not yet an independent economic unit, but nothing but a cog in the economic enterprise of his master. That was the time of the worker's personal bondage. The master's interest in the progress of his own economy then led him to awaken an interest in his performance in the worker he employed. This brought about the gradual emancipation of the worker, and finally his complete declaration of freedom.” That's nice, except that the damage lies in the following. There is another nice sentence, which reads: “But the capitalist entrepreneur has not yet found his way into this transformation from a gentleman into a mere labor buyer.” So the only harm is that the entrepreneur has not yet found his way into this role, that is, no longer being a gentleman in the old sense, but a buyer of labor. With that, Brentano is actually saying the following: If the worker sells his labor to the entrepreneur for his own account and risk, then everything is in order. It is only necessary for the entrepreneur to learn to understand what it means to be a buyer of labor. It is only because he does not yet understand that there is still damage. So it is only necessary to hammer it into the entrepreneur: you just have to learn to understand how to buy labor on the labor market that the worker sells to you as an entrepreneur of his labor.

Yes, it is of course a strange testimony that the gentleman gives to the entrepreneurs. The proletariat is now at the point of saying that it is above all important that labor should no longer be a commodity. But this gentleman gives the entrepreneurs the testimony that they have not even risen to the realization that they are buyers of labor. So this star of political economy thinks that today's entrepreneurship is very backward.

But what does all this actually mean? You see, you just have to face the full gravity of this fact. Lujo Brentano is one of the most famous economists of the present day, and one of those who have perhaps put the most ideas into the heads of those who speak as intellectuals about economic life. Yes, we have to look at things clearly today. Today, we often indulge in a belief in authority that is much, much worse than the Catholics' belief in authority towards the princes of the church ever was. People just don't want to admit that. That is why we have to be clear about things, and we have to learn from such things what a great task this works council will have. Above all, it will have to show what economic life really is, because what has emerged from the circles of the intelligentsia as a result of reflecting on economic life was, after all, just cabbage. But what is this cabbage? Let us just look at it in terms of its reality. Why is this cabbage there? People haven't even thought it up. If they had thought it up, they would have come up with something even bigger. They did not even think it up, but simply studied the conditions as they are now, and these conditions are confused, they are a chaos. Very gradually, this thoughtlessness of supply and demand in all areas of economic life has led to chaos. The first act of real socialization must be to start to shape it from scratch. We need, I would say, this sense of the seriousness of what the works council is supposed to be. And I would like to speak of this seriousness again and again and again, because in some circles of the proletariat, too, there is so little of this seriousness and awareness of the magnitude of the task.

You see, when one speaks of the threefold social order today, what is one speaking of? We are speaking of what must be done to satisfy the demands of the proletariat, which have been around for decades. But what do we get in return? Yes, there is another article in the Tribüne. It is entitled “Dr. Steiner and the Proletariat”. It says, for example, that the threefold social order is only concerned with ideas and that there are already enough ideas floating around in the air at present. That is what I would call a careless assertion. Then this gentleman should just point out the ideas that are now swarming through the air in such masses. He should just prove the existence of one fruitful idea! It is precisely the lack of ideas that plagues the present day. That is the case, and here it is carelessly asserted that ideas are just swarming around in the air. And then they say: “What helps the worker - I am speaking only of the physically laboring - to improve his life is not sophistry, but an energetic realization of socialism.” But what is the realization of socialism? You see, if you just keep saying socialism, socialism, then you have a phrase, a word! But you have to show the way! When someone says: What helps the worker to improve his life is socialism —– then it seems to me as if someone were to say: I want to go to Tübingen —– and I say to him: Well, you can take the train, there are trains at such and such times. — I tell him exactly how to get to Tübingen, just as the path to the threefold social organism indicates exactly how to achieve socialization. He says: It is sophistry that you give me the minutes of the trains; I say to you, if I want to come to Tübingen, then I only come by moving over to Tübingen. — So roughly one can say: I do not want a certain, concrete, individually characterized way, but I want socialism. — I want to come to Tübingen by moving over.

Now, the article continues: “Every individual who is concerned about public life will very often have to deal with political and economic issues together in one sentence.” Yes, but this happens because everything has been mixed up. But it must be separated. Then it says: “Therefore, no ‘threefold social order’, but the realization of socialism!” So again: I want to come to Tübingen by moving across.

Yes, we must face the fact that there are obstacles to such a real marking out of the way, as we are trying to do in relation to the now often discussed question of works councils, based on the ideas of the threefold social organism. What really hinders us from marking out the way is that people are always willing to be deceived. But you will achieve nothing by being deceived, however beautifully it may be spun, unless you take definite action, as in the case I mentioned at the beginning of my talk. Let us elect members to the factory councils who are there as human beings and not as ideas whizzing through the air! These people can then decide, on the basis of their economic experience, what is necessary for the recovery of our economic life. Today it is necessary for us to go beyond mere talk and gain insights into economic life and to penetrate from these insights to further development. That we cannot rely on the luminaries, on the authorities, I have shown you today. I have presented one of the most famous to you on the basis of his latest statements. I presented him in such a way that you could see the value of what the followers of tradition say: Yes, the famous Mr. So-and-so said that, you can't counter that with anything else. Of course, if you always point out what this or that person has said about current events, you still don't know what the facts are, even if this or that person is famous. But if you look at things where concepts are in confusion, where concepts are falling apart, then it becomes clear that we have to rethink and relearn in the present. And so I would like to say again and again: if not through something else, then surely the necessity will bring about this rethinking and relearning. Even those who still resist today will have to change their minds, because many things will still happen in this poor Central Europe in the coming years and decades, and many things will have to happen if, for example, one third of the population of Central Europe can no longer be fed, if the old conditions persist in the form they still have as a result of this terrible Treaty of Versailles, the so-called peace. A third of the population of Central Europe would have to die out or be killed if the old conditions were to be maintained.

The reason for the reorganization today is, of course, that the old conditions cannot continue at all. But the fact that the imminent prospect is the death or extermination of one-third of the population of Central Europe should convince people today that they can no longer remain in their old, complacent position and say: We are practical people, such ideas are just ideas, you can't get involved in them! — No, people are just too lazy to get involved in something really practical. Today, this practicality must be comprehensive, must not be limited to just one or two areas, but must embrace the whole economic sphere. And if we do not want to abandon this complacency of thought in the face of circumstances, we will not make any progress. Now, with these words I wanted to point out to you how we must move forward, and now we can enter into the discussion.

Discussion

Mr. Roser: From Dr. Steiner's comments on Brentano's article, one can clearly see where the course is headed. It is now up to us to show that the proletariat does not remain at the point of view, as the luminaries of the economy imagine, but that it takes its fate into its own hands. Our first duty is to promote socialization by setting up workers' councils in line with the threefold social order, otherwise we are heading for chaos on a scale that we cannot even imagine. We must make the economic sphere independent by its own efforts. This does not mean that it must be done by force; that is not necessary. Especially Dr. Steiner's proposals, especially the idea of making economic life independent in the sense of threefold social order, must be the way for us to work in practice in the first place. There can be no doubt about it: If the works councils are properly elected by popular vote, with perhaps a thousand members in Württemberg, do you think that the government would have the means or the courage to break up these works councils? — I find that hard to believe, because the workers who elected these works councils to do practical work will also provide the necessary support for the works council to be able to function. We must uphold the idea of setting up works councils at all costs, because that is the only way out of chaos that can lead us to the establishment of the works councils and the works councilors, and then actually to a legislative body riding together to carry out the socialization in the sense of the tripartite division. Only in this way can we be saved from destruction. The idea of threefolding is so great, so powerful, that every single person should grasp it, out of their own interest, because as a proletarian they must say to themselves: my future is at stake, I have a duty to do everything I can to push this idea through. With this in mind, I ask you to join the discussion. Speak up.

Emil Leinhas: Dr. Steiner has presented you with an article by a luminary of political economy today. As it happens, I also have something with me in which a luminary of practice expresses his views on socialization. It is the Privy Councillor Deutsch, the chairman of the board of directors of the General Electricity Company. The fact that this statement by this great practitioner on the socialization is considered desirable for the broader public is evidenced by the fact that the venerable Berlin Chamber of Commerce is publishing this memorandum, with the following introduction. The Chamber of Commerce writes:

“In connection with the investigations we are conducting into the probable effects of socialization under the law of March 23, 1919, we have received from our member, Privy Councillor Deutsch, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the General Electricity Company, and explanations of the ratio of the share of labor and capital in the profits of a larger number of industrial enterprises, which we hereby submit to the public as a contribution to the assessment of these issues."

The Chamber of Commerce is providing additional copies of the memorandum to those who wish to help by distributing it. And what does this luminary of practice say about socialization? I will read you a few passages; they speak for themselves:

"Why is it that the word ‘socialization’ has taken root in millions of brains with an ineradicable tenacity and why do workers in particular see it as a panacea that would put an end to all their ailments and dissatisfaction with their economic situation in one fell swoop? This dissatisfaction and the hostility of the workers towards the capitalist system of production are constantly fueled by the provocative idea that a small number of capitalists take up by far the largest share of the profits from industrial labor, while the working class has to be content with a small share. This idea is as false as it is provocative, and as long as we do not succeed in convincing the workers of this, a beneficial and peaceful collaboration between the two factors of economic production is impossible in the long run.

[E. Leinhas then continues to speak about Deutsch's remarks. Since he himself announced that more details would soon be published in print, his further remarks were no longer written down.] Mr. Stecher reports on the Haushahn company: We have often discussed the question of threefolding among our colleagues at work. I was able to ascertain that on this question the entire workforce, with the exception of those who only do propaganda for party purposes, are sympathetic to the matter. This morning, at the invitation of the “Bund”, I contacted our company regarding the works councils as chairman of the workers' committee with the employees' committee. The chairman of the employees' committee explained to me that he also sympathized with the matter, but then he said: “The good should come from the government after all.” A few days ago, Dr. Steiner gave a lecture in Weil that made a tremendous, deep and unforgettable impression. People flocked there from far and wide. I call upon the workers' and employees' committees present to join together and discuss the matter of threefolding everywhere they have influence. They can request speakers from the Federation for Threefolding to promote the cause. The speakers will find willing ears and willing hearts among the workers. Business circles are also taking an interest. A manager in our company told me that he is also looking into the matter, because it is known that if things continue as they are, we will face bankruptcy. Something new must come. Unfortunately, the employees are not yet interested in the burning issues. But if we do not gather and work together, we will not make any progress.

Mr. Conradt: The Federation for Threefolding is often accused of wanting to break up the parties, similar to the syndicalists. That cannot be the intention of the federation. I have heard the accusation dozens of times. Particularly when one professes the idea of threefolding, one can easily see what is fruitful in the parties and that something is alive in the parties that only intervenes in our national life in a supportive way when the impulses living in the parties are not carried out one-sidedly. There are, of course, currents in the parties that belong to an ascending culture and currents that belong to a descending culture. The good must be brought to life in the right way.

[The stenographer did not transcribe Mr. Conradt's further remarks word for word. A brief summary is given below: “Mr. Conradt then goes on to say that in the threefold social order, social measures can only be taken in the economic sphere, that democracy belongs only in the life of the state or of the law, but that in the sphere of spiritual and cultural life one can speak of anarchism if one divests the word of its evil meaning."

It is also reported that a new works council has been formed in the Faber company and that the following motion has been put forward by the workers' committee of the Julius Faber company:]

"Today's meeting of the employee and worker committees requests the previously elected works councils to form a works council in the near future, and instructs this provisional works council to take all preparatory measures it deems necessary to propagate the idea of a works council everywhere and to give the works councils the influence they deserve. Signed Glatz, Chairman of the Works Council and Chairman of the Workers' Committee at Julius Faber.

Mr. Glatz: The motion put forward by our workers' committee and which has just been presented to you speaks for itself. We have now been together in a number of meetings without actually achieving any practical result. As things stand now, we have every reason to work as quickly and intensively as possible to achieve what we are all striving for in practical terms for the working class and for humanity as a whole. We must not allow interest to wane instead of increasing. First and foremost, it will of course be necessary to encourage the establishment of works councils in companies where they do not yet exist. Furthermore, the agitation must also be taken to the countryside.

The principal of our company has himself drawn our attention to the lectures by Dr. Steiner. The gentleman has very liberal views and plays a role in business circles. After we had concerned ourselves with the matter of the threefold order and were striving for the works council election, he then took the opposite point of view and said: The employers had decided to wait with the works councils until the matter was regulated by law. He could not recognize us as a works council. Nevertheless, we went ahead with the election. The decision was unanimous; the employees also joined. The election was held with great enthusiasm in the factory itself. It is gratifying to note that almost all employees and workers exercised their right to vote, despite the company's resistance. Even if the company does not recognize the works councils, they have still been elected. And since the works councils also belong to the workers' committee for the most part, they must still be heard.

I would therefore ask you to support the motion so that the matter can be properly addressed.

Mr. Roser: I would like to announce that twelve works councils have been elected so far. I would also like to express the wish that the works council be formed during the course of this week or at the beginning of next week. Of course, we don't just need works councils in Stuttgart, but the idea must be spread throughout Württemberg. I would therefore like to make a special appeal to those present to show even more interest in the idea of works councils than they have done so far. Furthermore, I can report that new works councils are in the process of being formed. We will notify the individual works councils next week when they are to meet. Then they can make the necessary decisions among themselves.

Mr. Jansen: I would like to present you with a document that deserves to be made public. I won't mention the company's name; that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I just want to characterize the overall train of thought:

“The undersigned officials have not officially declared, either in writing or orally, that they have been elected by the staff as works council members. As has already been said, our position on this matter is as follows: firstly, the election by the workers has been challenged and this challenge has been upheld by the management through a corresponding announcement. Accordingly, the validity of the election is in doubt. Secondly, according to a paper by Dr. Steiner, only those persons can be considered as works council members who are in a completely independent position, dependent neither on the boss nor on the business. Since this is not the case with us and we civil servants are in a distinctly dependent position, our election is also questionable. Thirdly, according to a gentleman, socialization at the... has already taken place, in that all surpluses after payment of the guaranteed interest of five percent are transferred in full to the municipality and thus to the general public. From this point of view, the supervisory board has rejected a works council. Efforts are being made to ensure that a joint meeting of all committees is held to discuss the works council issue. Fourthly, we take the view that works councils should be elected if the law requires it. We know that Dr. Steiner plans to socialize companies in such a way that the employer, the management and the supervisory boards and all shareholders are to be eliminated and that the so-called works council or all employees are to take their place. Since this amounts to an overthrow of the existing order and the existing laws, we hereby declare that we do not support such efforts and therefore cannot accept election as works council members.

This is truly a document of world-historical significance! Here are people who, thanks to the revolution, have finally escaped from dependency after half a year, and they declare: We are not allowed to participate because we don't want to get rid of capitalism, because we are, after all, in the service of capitalism. They have an interest in keeping the sacred capitalism alive and in being the employees who want to help support this idol so that the golden calf does not fall over. The logic in this document is a sign that there is still a huge amount of work to be done to hammer out the stupidity. To do this, the iron fist of the proletariat will be needed to carry out this work. However, I will seek a connection with these instances and try to find out to what extent the document corresponds to the facts and to what extent the gentlemen are revolting against any economic reconstruction.

Rudolf Steiner: Regarding this document, which is very interesting, I would like to make the comment that there are, after all, employees at present who are able to develop the following idea: the law on works councils is not yet a law, but only a draft. So there is no law on works councils yet. But, according to the four sentences, the gentlemen take the view that it is not just a matter of an overthrow – that could be discussed, but we do not need that – of the existing order and laws if one finds some existing law bad , but the gentlemen take the view that it is already an unlawful subversion if one violates any law that is not yet there, that they do not yet know, or a law that could come out, today. So, the gentlemen undertake to assure all laws that may be imposed on them of their obedience from the outset.

Mr. Nagel, Dresden: Anyone who has followed Dr. Steiner's comments on Brentano's essay no longer finds it incomprehensible that the government can approach us with a bill like the one on works councils. We cannot be concerned with getting works councils like that; instead, we have to get our hands on economic power. Unfortunately, the movement is still very small here in Dresden, but it is well known that Dresden has been fifty years behind the times. However, I hope that after studying the conditions here, I will be able to give enough impetus in my report back home to enable fruitful work to be done there as well. It was very encouraging for me to see that so many workers in Stuttgart already support the threefold social order.

Mr. Dorfner: As much as we have heard that is encouraging, I do miss one thing: I am often asked about this and that regarding the threefold social order and works councils. I always say: come to the discussion evenings, where you can ask questions that Dr. Steiner himself will answer. But hardly any questions are asked here. Those who do not like to do so orally can of course do so in writing. - I have also been asked the question: Won't the works councils make the workers' committees superfluous? - I would like to ask Dr. Steiner to answer this question.

Rudolf Steiner: The workers' committees have their tasks primarily in the individual companies. But the point of setting up works councils is to tackle real socialization. If the works councils are elected now and then come together as a works council, then this original assembly of the works council can take the first steps towards real socialization. Then the workers' committees, if they are to continue to exist, will presumably be able to receive a task for the individual companies, or, which is much more likely, the workers' committees will no longer be needed as such, but the works council will take their place. However, the works council may have to co-opt personalities from the current workers' committees for its further work, since it will not have enough people available to carry out the tasks currently performed by the workers' committees if it only has seven or eight members.

These specific questions will only be fully answered when we have a complete works council. The workers' committees were originally set up differently from the works councils. The works councils are intended to be the real leaders of the companies. A real works council would either have the current entrepreneur, if he agrees, as a works councilor, as well as people from the ranks of the employees, the intellectual workers, and the physical workers, or the entrepreneur would have to withdraw. It must be made perfectly clear that the works council is intended to be the real director of the factory, so that all entrepreneurship in the modern sense disappears alongside this works council. The workers' committee, however, is still intended to reflect the old form of entrepreneurship. I ask you to consider this difference carefully, that is, the difference between something that still exists from the old order, such as the workers' committee, and what should now form the first step towards a real reorganization. You must consider this difference, otherwise you will not be able to think about the tasks of the works councils in a truly comprehensive way.

Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the question of the continued existence or reorganization of the workers' committees can only be answered when we have the founding assembly of the works council.

Then there is the question of how things should be organized with regard to the works council in a state-owned enterprise. In this regard, I must say – and this has already been mentioned – that there should be no difference in the election of works councils between a private or state-owned company. In a state-owned company, too, an attempt should be made to overcome all prejudices and to elect works councils, so that these works councils will then also have their place in the works council when the so-called statute of the works council is being drafted. Then it will follow that the state's usual absorption of such enterprises will naturally not continue. These enterprises will have to be transformed into independent economic organisms. But this demand will first have to be formulated.

You see, the things that underlie the impulse for threefolding are indeed intended as practical demands, but they must first be formulated. They have to be put forward by an individual in his book, and also by a “union” advocating them; but that is not enough. On the economic plane, these demands must be put forward by the economic actors themselves, and they must have the confidence of the entire working population behind them.

Furthermore, the question has been raised as to how the socialization of the state railways and the postal and telegraph systems can be carried out from the point of view of threefolding. Of course, people today still have great prejudices in this regard, and it can be readily admitted that the upheaval would be very great indeed if these economic enterprises were also to be transferred from the present state to the administration of an independent economic body. But this must be done, because postal and telegraph services, like the railways, are an integral part of economic life and can only develop properly in economic life if that economic life is independent of state or legal life. |

The fact that it is difficult to imagine these things today is due to the following. We have become accustomed to thinking of things as they have always been. We say, “These are facts.” But, my dear audience, facts are things that have been created, created by people, and they can just as easily be re-created, changed. That is what we must bear in mind. It is absolutely essential that everything that belongs to economic life is also really placed on its own free economic ground. The reason why these things are so difficult to imagine today is that today money, which in any case is no longer really money in a large number of European states, is actually based on a very false foundation. Naturally the transition will be difficult because through money humanity is dependent on England as the leading commercial state and because we cannot simply dissuade the English and Americans from the gold standard overnight. In foreign trade with these states, we must of course have the gold standard until, under the pressure of circumstances, the gold standard will also cease. But for the threefold social organism, the aim must be that the state no longer lends value to money, but that money acquires its value within the economic organism. But then money is no longer a commodity, as it is today. Even if it is hidden, today money is in fact a commodity, and only because the state attributes its value to it. But in the threefold social organism, money will only be present as a means of circulation in the sense that it is, so to speak, a flying bookkeeping. You know from what I said eight days ago: everything in the coming economic life will be based on real performance and counter-performance. For the performance, one gets, so to speak, the note, which means nothing other than: on the general credit side, what corresponds to my performance is available to me and I can exchange it for what corresponds to my needs. If I give the note, it means the same as if I were to enter in a small business today what is on the left side to balance what is on the right side. So monetary transactions will be the flying bookkeeping for the economic organism. Such things are actually already in existence today in their beginnings. You know that there is already a kind of credit entry, that is, credit balances that can be transferred without having monetary transactions in certain areas. In fact, most of what the threefold social organism demands is already there in germinal form and present here and there. Those people who today speak of the impracticality of the threefold social organism should see how, here and there – albeit on a small scale, so that it is sometimes not useful but harmful – how, here and there, what exists in combination and stylized on a large scale will give the threefold social organism. Today, the state railways are almost conceived as a state piece of furniture, and one thinks of the upheaval as something terrible. But one must only consider that what matters in the future, namely the administration of economic life by works councils, by transport and economic councils – they are added on top of that – that these changes are entirely related to a real socialization and that all the fears are superfluous. It is therefore important, for example, that the railways are managed in a sensible way and not in such a way that the bureaucratic state is behind them.

If you look at things in detail, you will see that practical solutions can be found everywhere. If people keep coming to me and saying that they do not understand what is in my book, then I must say that I understand that today, because I would have to be very surprised if, for example, Professor Brentano, whom I have told you about, and his students, who are very numerous, would understand the “Key Points of the Social Question”. Because I do not think they can understand the book. But it is precisely these people, whose thoughts have not been corrupted by this education, that I believe can understand what is in the “Key Points” if they just overcome their habitual ways of thinking a little.

Mr. Roser: The individual points that came up this evening were mainly related to the economic field. It is understandable that this economic field is of the greatest importance in our discussion evenings. But in all this, we must not forget that economic life is only one part of that great problem, that great idea of the threefold social order. We must not lose sight of the fact that economic life alone is not viable and cannot function if we do not also look at the legal and spiritual life in an appropriate way. The reason for this is that our present circumstances are so chaotic because the three areas have been mixed up. This must always be our guiding star, that above all we strive to finally separate these three areas. These must then work together again in harmony, but not in the way it is now or has been the case, for example, that the constitutional state claims and abuses economic life or that economic life exploits intellectual life. Only when intellectual life also comes to full bloom, only then can a healthy economic life, indeed a healthy national life, come into being. Only through the threefold order can the whole life of the nation be seen in its true light.

Mr. Lange: He says that the doctor today is degraded to the level of a craftsman because he cannot prescribe medicines and the like freely, but must follow the instructions of the health insurance companies. Here, too, there is an all-round restriction through state laws and state authority. Furthermore, the mistake is made today that one always wants to press the new into the old. But in this way one does not move forward.

Mr. Kühn: The fact that the meeting today is not well attended is not due to a certain lack of interest, but to the fact that a large meeting is taking place at the same time in the Dinkelacker Hall. A lot of detailed work has to be done to establish the works councils. It's a long road. At the individual meetings in the factories, it becomes clear how difficult it is to convince individuals. It should not really depend so much on individuals, but more on the understanding of the masses. Then individual companies will simply be carried along. We have various speakers or lecturers who are constantly available to speak at meetings. From my experience in individual companies, it must be said that factual objections to the threefold social order are almost never heard. The workers almost all agree, only the employees are usually a little more hesitant, as can be seen from the interesting letter that was read out earlier. In many cases, people do not have the right feeling for the matter.

It would be desirable if the works councils elected to date could meet more often, including those from outside. Here, during these discussion evenings, would be such an opportunity to meet, but unfortunately not even all the works councils are here, apart from the fact that those from Esslingen and Heilbronn cannot travel here every time. The various sectors should be represented; an agreement should be reached on this, and I will now read out which sectors and industries are represented: a leather factory, several machine factories, trams, a cigarette factory, a cardboard box factory, a shoe factory, a measuring instrument factory, a state agency, a typesetting machine factory, and an optical instruments factory. I should also mention that the works council in the state-owned company is the only one that was set up with the approval of the superior. As you can see, we have a whole range of different industries. A works council is still being formed in a shoe factory in Kornwestheim, and in four or five engineering works; these are the most prevalent. But there are still some sectors missing, such as the textile, paper and printing industries, which is a shame. The food industry is not represented either. The current works councils are not yet sufficient to do real work. I would therefore like to make the suggestion that the works councils attend these meetings as often as possible or even regularly, and that the workers' and employees' committees, which come here anyway, are all converted into works councils. If you all go to the polls and not just listen to what is being said, you will all soon be works councils, so that we can soon fill this hall with works councils, although I do not mean, of course, that the workers' committees should disappear; they will probably often be part of the works council. If these question and discussion evenings are to be organized in such a way that the details are discussed, for example how this or that business can be transformed, then this is already a certain preparatory work for the later work of the works council. And so these evenings would be interesting.

Rudolf Steiner: There is not much more to say in today's closing remarks either. I will first answer a question that has been asked. This question is: The great mass of the proletariat, still thinking in materialistic terms, expects the activities of the works council to improve its material needs. What measures would have to be taken to quickly and fairly balance needs and wages during the transition period? You see, there are things that cannot be easily achieved from cloud-cuckoo-land. If it were not the case that works councils are absolutely necessary and are finally beginning to do real social work, the proposal to set them up would not be made at all. Therefore, such a view of improving the situation before the works councils start working cannot really be considered very significant. Today, there are many people who come up with strange questions when it comes to asserting the really practical points of view that will now lead humanity to more salutary conditions than we have today. In the last few weeks I have repeatedly experienced people asking: Yes, but now it should be socialized. What will happen to a small shopkeeper on the street after socialization? Or another question: How will the university custodian be socialized if threefolding is to be introduced?

Well, if you listen to these questions, they all actually boil down to one, namely, how do we actually bring about the great upheaval in such a way that not everything remains the same? That is what one type of person asks. The other type of people would like to see a great upheaval, but they do not want to do it that way; they do not want to intervene, they want easier measures. And this tendency underlies our question to some extent. One can only answer: With this other, easier form, even for the transition period, nothing can be achieved. Therefore, it is important that those who want improvement are prepared to take the measures that can bring about that improvement. You cannot ask: How do we bring about improvement in the run-up to the establishment of works councils? — But you have to say: In order to bring about improvement, we want to have works councils as soon as possible. I am even afraid that a miracle would not help here either. So don't rely on miracle cures, but take the practical route; the sooner the better.

Look, this “Tribune” has just come out, and it contains the essay about me and the proletariat that I mentioned earlier. In the same issue, there is another essay by a university professor who refutes the entire threefold social order point by point. It cannot even be said that what he presents this time is not true, but it is true for a very strange reason. You see, the man does not understand anything about the threefold social order. He is not at all in a position to really understand any of the ideas in my book about the key points of the social question. Because he does not understand this, but is still a university professor, he must understand everything. Because he does not understand, he makes up his own threefolding. That is a terrible mess. If you put together everything he describes as a threefolding, it makes a terrible mess, an unworkable, ridiculous, dreadful mess. And that is what he is now refuting. It is terribly easy to refute what he has concocted. But that is what the essay consists of. It contains nothing of what it is actually about. So the man cannot imagine why this independent economic entity should actually exist. I told you the other day: the independent economic entity must exist in the threefold social organism because everything in the field of economic life must arise out of expertise, out of being involved in economic life, out of the experiences of economic life, and because one cannot decide on economic life in the field of general law, where every mature person has to decide on what makes him equal to every other person. It can only be a blessing for economic life if it is decided by experts. Professor Heck cannot imagine this. He cannot imagine anything different from what he has already seen and experienced and in which his habits of thought are rooted. When it comes to such things, I always think of something I heard recently. Someone — I think it was a professor — said to me: I know the aspirations of the threefold social organism. — I asked him: Does any of it make sense to you? — Not so far, he said. You see, that “not so far” was all he could think of. What has not been so far does not seem to be open to discussion; he could not say anything more about it. You just experience things like that. You encounter objections that are not really objections. Not so long ago, someone even raised the objection: Yes, the idea of the threefold social order is, so to speak, based on a moral point of view, and taking a moral point of view is a big mistake. Yes, this objection has also been raised. The objections are all very strange. One of the most common is: Yes, it would be all very well with this threefold social order, but other people are needed for it. You cannot introduce the threefold social order with the present generation of people. Well, the person who says this does not understand that much of what is expressed in the present generation of people is precisely a consequence of our social conditions and that it will be different the moment our social conditions improve.

Well, people never look at things from a truly objective point of view. I will give you a drastic example, which I may have already given here. Was there not a terrible bureaucracy, especially within the civil service in Germany, before this world war? Now, the necessity of not only letting civil servants manage the economy, but also increasingly appointing merchants and industrialists to public offices, so that they could apply their practical wisdom to increasing the war economy, was recognized by the war economy. Then the strange fact arose, which is very interesting. The merchants and industrialists became much more bureaucratic than the bureaucracy had ever been before! So, they have adapted wonderfully to bureaucracy. Anyone who has observed this also knows what it would mean if people were no longer surrounded by unhealthy, i.e. bureaucratic, conditions, but by the kind of conditions that the impulse of the threefold social organism speaks of. In this way, just as industrialists and merchants have been transformed into dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats within the existing bureaucracy, people would adapt to healthy conditions, and it would no longer be possible to say that one must first have better people in order to establish a better social order. It must be made clear that it is precisely by improving social conditions that people will be given the opportunity to become better people. But if you demand that people must first be better people, then we do not need to improve social conditions at all. If people had not become what they are at present because of social conditions, then social conditions must be good, then they must be all right. You can see from this the necessity of rethinking and relearning. This is what is fundamentally necessary above all else. And if people could only place themselves a little in reality and think from that basis, then we would already be one step further.

You see, a very well-meaning young man writes — one would like to help him so much — he writes: Yes, he cannot help but say that perhaps the threefold social order would be a solution if people were different from what they are now. And now I ask you: Don't you think that this man carries in the depths of his soul the view that the others are not better people, but he, who realizes this, is, at least in terms of his nature, this better person? — If you go to the next person who says the same thing, then he in turn sees himself as the better person and a third probably as well. So everyone should say to themselves: if everyone thought like him – and actually, you have to take into account what other people are like – so if everyone thought like him, then the better people would already be there! You see, it is not a matter of thinking in an abstract, logical way, but of being rooted in reality with one's thinking, so that one does not say something that, as a thought, is constantly doing somersaults. But this is precisely what has such a terrible effect in the present and strikes us, that people continually stumble over their own thoughts, which are actually non-thoughts. Therefore, it must be emphasized again and again that not only is a change in our economic life necessary, but also a change in the spiritual structure of our social life. We have been driven by what has happened so far into a crisis of intellectual life in particular.

If we look at the world today, what strikes us most? Yes, in the last four to five years, what strikes us most is that basically the truth has not been told about any world affairs, but all world affairs have been distorted, presented in a false light, from reports of battles to the goals of nations. From the motives for war to those for peace, everything has been presented in a distorted way. Everywhere, phrases prevail that do not correspond to the facts in the world. But this lives in everything that has developed from the previous cultural and social conditions. This lives on into the individual activities and institutions of human life. Therefore, we must say that all those who view the social question one-sidedly do not have humanity at heart. One is only honest about humanity when one says to oneself: economic life has led people into crisis, so it must be placed on a different footing. The legal sphere has shown that class privileges and class disadvantages prevail in the individual jurisdictions, so it must be placed on the basis of universal human rights. It has become clear that we call something law that which can only be supported by force, and this has continued to this day. And it has become clear that in the spiritual life, people's thoughts are warped. In the three fundamental spheres of life – economic, legal and spiritual – we see humanity in crisis. Those who are sincere about progress must realize that in each of these three areas, progress must be made independently, because the crises result precisely from the intermingling of these three areas. Therefore, I can only say: If you take decisive measures in any particular area, as you are now doing in connection with the works councils, in the sense of a comprehensive social reorganization, that is, in the sense of the threefold social order, then you are acting in the direction of progress for humanity towards a real social order. Consider this connection between an individual measure and the measures based on an overall view. Only then are you doing your duty today towards humanity and towards yourself. Individual measures have no significance today, only what is conceived in the great social context. The smallest must be thought together with the greatest. Be aware of this: if you succeed in really bringing about the works council, then you will have done something of historical significance for all of humanity that follows, because this is connected with the greatest problems that are posed to humanity today. Therefore, do not ask about small steps, but stand on such ground that really forms the basis for moving forward to action, because action is what matters. And if we add deed to deed to what we understand from the threefold social organism, then we will be able to create what gives us hope of emerging from the terrible situation into which the previous spiritual life, the previous so-called legal life and the previous economic life have led us.

The chairman, Mr. Roser, opens the meeting. He then announces that it is intended to introduce study evenings at which explanations of the idea of the threefold social order are to be given and at which, in particular, the book “The Core Issues of the Social Question” is to be thoroughly discussed. The first study evening is to take place in the coming week. He then reports that the shoe industry has made progress with regard to the works council issue. They have already come so far that the works councils in the leather industry have joined together to form an action committee that intends to become active within the shoe industry in the near future.

Opening words

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees, As on the previous evenings, I will also give only a brief introduction today, so that we can then discuss one or the other specific question in detail. But in view of the waning interest in the works council issue, it may be advisable to make some more general comments at the beginning of this evening.

You see, on the part of the “Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism”, the aim has been to take the first really practical step in the direction that has been outlined by the social movement for more than half a century, by creating a works council. This movement is, after all, like an outcry of the proletariat against its oppression. But this outcry is basically nothing more than a kind of world-historical critique of the capitalist economic order. Due to the world war catastrophe, conditions have now emerged that make it necessary to replace the critique to which the parties of the socialist movement have become accustomed with something else. When people within this movement began to find ways to achieve social renewal, there was hope that, especially among the broad masses of the working class, firstly from their experiences within the capitalist social order, and secondly from the undergrounds that arise because the working class is really much more politically educated than the bourgeoisie as a result of its experiences, an understanding would develop for what should replace the previously merely social criticism of the social order. After the so-called collapse of the German Reich, one could basically only hope for something really decisive from this side, because those who were completely tied to the old state and economic order had nothing to offer that could really lead to a new structure, despite the experiences of the world war catastrophe and its consequences.

One gets quite gloomy thoughts today when, on the one hand, one realizes that the intelligentsia is necessary for a new beginning, and when, on the other hand, one considers the mental and political state of this intelligentsia in today's Central Europe, especially the intelligentsia of those who belong to the leading personalities. From all that has been said here so far, those of you who have been here often will have seen that if we really want to make progress, a new social order must also be found from a new spirit. This applies in particular to the present moment, which clearly shows that Central Europe is in the process of collapse. That nothing can be hoped for from certain circles is illustrated by the following example.

You see, when one speaks of a new spirit with which the future is to be shaped, then one must first ask oneself: where are the manifestations of this new spirit? Now, the political spirit that dominates today, especially the leading classes, I would like to illustrate with an example that could be multiplied a thousandfold. The following words were spoken in Berlin. Please listen carefully, for today it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the spirit of the people. So listen carefully:

"The fact that before the revolution we were generally able to trust in the honest and objective reliability of our government, that in the excellent Prussian civil service we could spare ourselves the need to have a say, is not the least of the reasons for the intellectual superiority that Germany in general, and especially in its scientific and technical development, has demonstrated during the nineteenth century. You cannot serve two masters at the same time. The general politicization is necessarily an enemy of strict concentration and immersion in creative work. May the German mind develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mud back to that glorious state of trust that Prussia gave us in the form of the Hohenzollerns!"

[Interjection: Is that the Oldenburg Januschau?]

Yes, that's what you think, that it's the Oldenburg Januschau! It would be comforting if it were at least him. But you see, these words were spoken by the leading professor of German language and literature at Berlin University. That is the crucial point! These words, spoken by the representative of German language and literature, the leading representative of this subject at the leading German university, are indeed somewhat indicative of the spirit that prevails among those who today have to inspire our youth for what humanity can expect from the future. Is it any wonder that gloomy thoughts arise when one thinks of this future? Basically, this is mentioned as a characteristic because, after all, those people who are leading the way in journalism today, especially in the journalism of the parties, have learned a great deal from these people in terms of their overall thinking, even if they have adopted individual program points. Above all, they have learned to be short-sighted, not to say dull-witted.

In the face of this, it must be emphasized again and again: Unless people can muster the strength to develop a truly new spirit, a comprehensive spirit, things cannot fundamentally improve. That is why it is so regrettable that the idea of founding a works council was drawn from a truly new spirit, that this idea of a works council, which is a truly practical idea, has found so little favor with the masses. Of course, things can move slowly at first, and that wouldn't even be the worst thing, but the way things have happened must be counted among the worst things.

We started our work here with the threefold social order in mind. At first, as I have already mentioned, the people who are always listened to said: Well, that's just a little folly, we'll let it go. But then this folly turned out to have found a following of thousands in Stuttgart and the surrounding area. That made people extremely uncomfortable. Then the practical idea of workers' councils emerged in a truly practical form. Then people became even more uncomfortable, and then this strange fact arose, which must be recorded again and again: that the parties are now raising objections to the threefold social order in general and to the works council issue in particular. On the one hand, we hear: Yes, the threefold order is all right. When our friends Gönnewein and Roser spoke at a public meeting in the Dinkelacker Hall recently, for example, one of the various speakers, most of whom were opposed to us, said: Yes, the threefold social order is all very well; it must ultimately prevail, but we are fighting against it! — Well, it is good and must ultimately be realized, but it is being fought against. - We want something completely different to start with, and then, when we have realized this completely different thing, then the threefold social order will come about by itself.

Now, there can be no question of the threefold order ever arising by itself; rather, it must be worked hard for. It is, I have to say the word, the biggest swindle when people repeat the old word over and over again: We only need to do this or that, it only needs this or that class to gain power, and then a properly ordered social being will arise by itself. No, the properly ordered social organism must first be recognized and then worked out. And it is characteristic that they keep saying: the threefold social organism is all very well, but that is how a social order must be, as the threefold social organism says, but we are fighting it. But if people are to say what they want, then one hears nothing but slogans and

The only thing I found within the Communist Party with regard to its fight against the threefold order is that they agree – as far as one is confronted with it – that the threefold order is quite good, but that it must be fought. In that they agree. And from the other side it has been shown — do not think that I care about anything, but when it comes to fighting for something, then such things must be looked at — that on the occasion of the publication of the first number of our weekly magazine 'Threefolding of the Social Organism', not a single one of the thoughts contained in this magazine was addressed, but it was all just scathing abuse. This is the result of dullness, of the inability to produce even one real thought of one's own. Therefore one can do nothing but rant. Much has also been said from third and fourth parties that aims in a similar direction. Things were always treated in such a way that it soon became clear that all these critics do not raise any real objections. On the one hand, this reveals an inability, an impotence; on the other hand, it reveals stupidity, in that one says again and again that threefolding is good in itself, but must be fought. Now, if these things are not looked at, if the cancerous damage resulting from party activity is not seen, then nothing healing can come out of the struggle in which we find ourselves.

Dear attendees! Today is truly not the time to get lost in such party squabbling, because today we are close to the point where people with the kind of attitude of Professor Gustav Roethe of the University of Berlin, which I have read to you, are gaining the upper hand again in capitalist circles as well. You don't have to be a friend of these ideas, which are only half or quarter ideas and, on top of that, quite impractical, and you don't have to be a friend of Wissell and Moellendorff, but you have to say that from a certain side they had the power to suppress them. If they had been ousted from another side, it would not have been a particular problem, but the fact that they were ousted from that side proves the current seriousness of the situation in Central Europe. It proves that certain circles feel safe again, circles that felt very unsafe relatively recently.

A few weeks ago, just as I was coming from Switzerland, from Dornach, to Stuttgart and we were beginning our work, it was still the case that the business community, indeed the leading circles in general, felt insecure in a certain sense. There was still a very strange mood prevailing in these circles. And so one could certainly have the impression that something can be achieved if a vigorous movement with content and meaning comes along. At that time, those who abhorred the planned economy and the framework laws of Moellendorff did not yet have the courage to come forward as boldly as they do today. But because it was possible to foresee how things would turn out, one idea was put forward again and again here and in other meetings at which I spoke, probably to the point of tedium for many, namely: Action should be taken on the idea of works councils before it is too late.

In connection with the farewell of Moellendorff and Wissell, it should be noted that the Works Council Constitution Act has now been reintroduced to the National Assembly. You can take all these symptoms together, and you will not find it incredible if today someone who has some insight into these things tells you: all this is the systematic work of the other side, the systematic work of former entrepreneurs who had already felt very close to the abyss and who are now gradually paralyzing the social movement in Central Europe. From this side, no means are spared, including going into partnership with the Entente, if it means paralyzing the social movement in Central Europe. If the ideas of those people who are at work today are fulfilled, and that is no exaggeration, then it is the case that all social striving, as you feel it, is an impossibility for many years. Because then it is not a question of how strong capitalism is in Central Europe, but of how strong Entente capitalism is.

That is how things are on the one hand. On the other hand, we have the most savage party infighting, which would have to be swept away in order to arrive at an objective striving. What does this party infighting reveal? Above all, it reveals the necessity for the threefold social organism. In this threefold order, spiritual life should have an independent administration, on the other hand, state or legal life should have its own administration, and on the third hand, economic life. Within economic life, as a purely economic institution, we want to develop the works councils. This works council system would mark the beginning of a real socialization by separating economic administration from spiritual and political life. What would be the safest way to keep economic life at the mercy of capitalism? By continuing to mix economic life with political life! And what is it that squeals out of the foolish party squabbling? It is the wild mixing and merging of economic points of view and political points of view. These modern parties are so harmful because they are based entirely on what has survived as a fusion of political and economic life. That is why we keep hearing from people who understand absolutely nothing about the structure of the social order that you first have to have political power and then economic power. Then they turn it around and so on. All these things show the most chaotic amateurism. The fact that such views are appearing within the parties shows how necessary the threefold social organism is. And in our day, I would say, we should really, as the twelfth hour approaches, consult with ourselves and ask ourselves: Do we really want to be the fools of the rising reaction by blindly following the party slogans more than ever the seemingly well-meaning Catholics follow them? Don't you want to rely on your own judgment? If you had relied on your own sound judgment, then the works council would have been established already. Just think what it would mean if the works council were already a reality and if the economic demands of the proletariat were taken up by the works councils and were to be heard in all that is now happening within the newly strengthened capitalism and entrepreneurship, in what is being driven on the part of the ore mining industry, which is much more damaging than one might think, and in what is connected with the peace treaty. People have repeatedly emphasized that the main thing is to conquer political power.

Oh, my dear audience, nothing strikes me as more ridiculous than such phrases. Of course, you can say such phrases, that you first have to have political power. But when the first step should be taken to gain power at all, as it could have happened through the election of the works councils, then this first step is not taken. It is not taken because people love to speak in grand words and phrases. But they do not love to approach the issue in a truly appropriate way.

The previous draft of the Works Councils Act has turned out to be impractical and unacceptable. Now a new draft is being presented to the National Assembly, after the timid attempt by Moellendorff and Wissell, which also contained rudiments of a planned economy, was thrown into the underworld, along with the two personalities. All this shows the kind of nonsense being perpetrated by a certain faction, which ultimately will lead nowhere. Imagine if our works councils in Württemberg had been in session for the last fourteen days and had sent tangible proposals for real socialization into the world every day! If that were the case, then one could say: the new spirit necessary for a new beginning arises from this proletariat. If there were a thousand works councils here instead of just a few, then we could say: We laugh at what the big industrialist said after the start of the November Revolution and the outbreak of the strike: “We just have to wait!” Because the time will come when the workers will come whining and begging to our establishment and will be satisfied if they are allowed to work a quarter of what they are asking for now. Well, but today we are not yet in a position to look at things with the necessary seriousness. But it is not enough to express this seriousness only in words; it is important that it is also reflected in actions. If we consider that the Central European industrialists will receive support from the Entente in terms of their power, then we must come to the conclusion that this works council system must be created before it is too late. I am not saying that nothing can be done now. Of course, we must continue to work in the direction we have begun, but it would be playing blind man's bluff to close our eyes to the general world situation. We are in it now, and actually we should not have got into it at all without already having works councils.

You see, in times of such upheaval as the ones we are living through, it is of the utmost importance to recognize and seize the right moment. You can't afford to wait four to six weeks for the right thing to happen. Today, many people know that with the great French Revolution at the end of the 18th century and with the following revolutions in the 19th century, only a kind of emancipation of the human being as a citizen was actually achieved. But the fact that individual people have become freer to a certain extent is meaningless for the broad masses of the proletariat. Why? Because those who rose up against the old feudal order may have seized state power, but they failed to remove the economic straitjacket from the workers, even though they were now personally free. Today it is time to realize that merely seizing state power is not enough. As a result of the revolutions, other people came to power, but nothing really new was created. The old framework of the state was retained. And so they continued to work until the catastrophe of the world wars. They squeezed everything into the framework of the old unitary state. Today the time has come to recognize that the proletariat cannot simply imitate the bourgeoisie, which only wanted to conquer state power. The proletariat must develop something new and not cling to the old unitary state. The proletariat must develop the tripartite social organism. Either we understand this tripartite structure or we will end up with an impossible construct like the state of the 19th and early 20th century. It is not enough to keep saying that we want to overthrow the old institutions and replace capitalism with new social forms! One must also know what these new forms should consist of! That is why an attempt has also been made with my book 'The Crux of the Social Question' to present to people something that really gives the longed-for social community an organic structure. It shows how this social community can become possible and how it can develop. What use is it to always say: things must come from themselves!

Well, I could imagine that such fanatics of self-origin still believe that the social order came by itself, even when it actually had to be fought for hard. You see, if the cockerel on the dung heap crows before sunrise, when it is still dark, and then the sun rises, the cockerel can imagine that it was his crowing that made the sun rise. It is quite certain that a new social order will not come about just by crowing about socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It will only come about if a sufficiently large number of people think: we have to work to bring about this new social order. We must choose from among ourselves those in whom we have confidence, so that, on the basis of existing economic experience, something beneficial for economic life may come about, which can then eclipse all the bureaucratic proposals for laws and the like that are being sought from other quarters. I ask you: Are you afraid of such work, or why do you refrain from creating such a works council, which would really be a power factor because it would be supported by the trust of the workers? At the moment, you can be sure of that, when such a works council produces new fruitful ideas, in that moment the works council is the greatest power in certain areas. It is not the crowing of a cockerel on the dung heap, who believes that the sun rises because of his crowing. It is a call to action, but to an action that is known to be the right one.

You see, I believe that the new spirit could flourish out of such a feeling alone. But as long as this new spirit does not live in people's minds, nothing good will come of it. And the current economic situation is such that, above all, we have to think about how we can get our economic life in Central Europe back on its feet to some extent. Thus, new sources of raw materials of the most diverse kinds will have to be tapped, especially in the East. There will be many a necessity that Central European entrepreneurship has not yet tackled. However, sources of raw materials in Siberia can no longer be tapped, because the course of the world does not allow this today; the Americans and the Japanese no longer allow it. Where we can be effective is in the entire European East. But there it will be a matter of finding the right tone to go along with the Russian national soul. That was precisely the worst thing about the industrial circles that have been leading up to now, that they never found the tone to enter into a corresponding connection with other national souls. That is another reason why a new spirit must enter into our economic life. Otherwise the East will slam the door on us, especially if we come with the spirit that our leading circles have developed so far. Above all, we are dependent on developing a brotherhood, an economic brotherhood, with the East, otherwise we will never get out of the situation we have gotten into.

A new spirit is needed in a wide variety of directions! This new spirit may flourish in hearts and minds, for we need it. You will not find the new spirit in what I read to you at the beginning, because it says that “before the revolution, we were generally able to trust in the honest and objective reliability of our government, that we excellent Prussian civil service state, we could spare the need to have a say in it, and it is not least in this that the intellectual superiority that Germany in general, especially in its scientific and technical development, has demonstrated during the nineteenth century, is rooted. ... May the German spirit develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mud back to the glorious state of trust that Prussia's Hohenzollern gave us.

You will understand that one cannot speak in this way today. But, ladies and gentlemen, I will now translate these words into another language and then ask you whether one can speak in this way today: the fact that before the revolution we were able to place our complete trust in the honest and objective reliability of our party leaders, that we the excellent Party bureaucratism we could spare ourselves the need to have a say, and it is not least in this that the intellectual superiority is rooted, which Germany in general, but not in its social-democratic and socialist development, has demonstrated during the nineteenth century. One cannot serve two masters, the Party bureaucrats and the tripartite division. The general politicization is necessarily an enemy of strict concentration and immersion in devotion, in loyalty, in party bonze-hood. May the social spirit develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mud back to that glorious party system of trust, as the party bigwigs have given it to us Social Democrats. You see, you have applied the same thought forms to something else. Whether you are Professor Roethe and speak about the Hohenzollern in this way or whether you are just an honest party man and speak about the party bigwigs in this way, both are based on the same mental perceptions. It does not make a person freer if he simply worships other idols! One becomes free by relying on one's own judgment, on one's own reason and on one's own perception. It is to this inner perception that we have appealed. I hope that it will yet be shown that we have not appealed in vain, for if we had appealed in vain, then the situation of the proletariat would be dire.

Discussion

Mr. Huch: The speaker fully agrees with Dr. Steiner's remarks and expresses his regret that the idea of the threefold social order is not taken up as it should be. He sees the fault largely with the trade unions. As a member of a workers' committee, he also notes that the business community today is again acting quite differently than it did six to eight weeks ago.

Mr. Fischer: He introduces himself as a trade union leader and defends the work of the trade unions against the previous speaker. He explains that it is the fault of the workers themselves if the union does not proceed correctly. — The poor attendance at today's meeting is probably also due to the fact that the workers are suspicious of everything that comes from philosophers, theosophists and commercial counselors. Regarding the works councils, Mr. Fischer criticizes the fact that the works councils in Germany are also fragmented. If there is now competition between works councils in different cities, independently of each other and based on different industries, then that is a big mistake. The speaker professes himself to be a supporter of the works councils. At the moment when the parties and the trade unions have outlived themselves, they must of course be swept away; the only question is what we put in their place. It must be clear that you can't just throw away the organizations that have had the trust of the masses so far. The speaker cannot imagine how unity can prevail in a works council when people with different economic and political views are represented there. If practical socialization is to be pursued, then one must begin by taking the means of production and land out of the hands of the exploiters and transferring them into the ownership of society, because the power of the capitalists is based on the ownership of these means. The speaker asks Dr. Steiner to indicate how the works councils can accomplish this task. Furthermore, Dr. Steiner is asked to provide information on how, in his opinion, the works councils can be put in a position to determine demand. Because as long as the worker has to ask, “Do I have enough to live on?” he will not concern himself with lofty spiritual problems. The starving masses crave bread, not spiritual ideals. Only when food is available again will there also be mental resilience. The masses will certainly not grovel and beg for work, but will throw society overboard. The proletariat's confrontation with the capitalists will not take the form of fine speeches, but of violence.

Another speaker: Dr. Steiner's idea that we must orient ourselves towards the East coincides with what I also said at a meeting. I also said that the new comes from the East; a new form of society has emerged there, perhaps not yet as it should be, but the new comes from there and we must orient ourselves towards it. What do we experience? Our government has known nothing but to look anxiously to the West and to make sure that nothing happens that the Entente does not like. That is the whole evil we are facing today. German capitalism has simply been replaced by Entente capitalism, and we will have to fight very hard battles if we want to eliminate this Entente capitalism from the world. No one has yet succeeded in pointing the way. If Dr. Steiner succeeds, the workers will follow him.

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to make a few remarks before I return to the words of the previous speaker.

First of all, it was said that the working class is strongly opposed to the threefold social order because it is based on philosophers, commercial counsellors and the like. This is not true at all; in fact, the working class was not very prejudiced at the beginning of our work. On the contrary, it turned out that we found thousands and thousands of supporters for what we were spreading, not as a utopian idea, but as something that is directly the germ of action, as I called it at the time. The workers at that time didn't give a damn whether these thoughts came from philosophers or commercial counselors, but they relied on their common sense and listened. And those who were prejudiced whistled from a completely different direction. And they have managed to ensure that this prejudice has only gradually emerged. So the matter is quite different.

Although the previous speaker has correctly characterized the movement of commercial employees, which is showing some better traits and deserves to be studied in more detail by the rest of the working class, his words nevertheless show that he is completely unaware of what threefolding is in general and what it specifically seeks to achieve with the founding of a works council. For this is precisely what must be most vigorously combated by the threefolding of the social organism, namely, that this fragmentation occurs. It has never been our aim merely to create works councils for any industry or to individualize within the works council. How often has it been said: If works councils are created for the individual industries, this is the opposite of what must be aimed for in the context of a real socialization. We have always striven for a works council that extends uniformly over a larger, self-contained economic area. And only from such a works council should everything necessary for individualization then emerge. The fact that the matter has taken on the form that more zeal is shown in individual sectors than in others has nothing to do with the works council as it should have arisen from the idea of threefolding.

Yes, and then the previous speaker brought up the argument that one would have to start by transferring the means of production and land into the ownership of society. Just try to think through what is actually meant by this nebulous sentence to its logical conclusion! Consider what such a demand means in practice! I would like to take this up again. I once spoke about these things in a town, I think it was Göppingen, and after me spoke a man who actually spoke quite well from a certain point of view. He was probably a communist. He said he was a cobbler. At first he spoke very well, but then something strange happened: he said, “Yes, I already know that since I have not learned a trade, I cannot become a registrar, for that you need intelligence.” Well, excuse me, but that doesn't require much understanding. But a great deal of understanding and insight is needed for what this man wanted to know about the conquest of political power and the like. These things must be faced.

Now, the specific question is how to implement the fundamentally correct demand to transfer the means of production and land into the public domain. Of course, there must also be people available who can properly manage the means of production and land. The thing is this: what has been the capitalist form of production up to now has a very specific configuration; a very specific way of handling it was necessary for that. This must be transformed into a different way of handling it, and this must first be created. Today, before you have any concrete ideas about how to manage the means of production and the land, you cannot simply demand that the means of production and so on be transferred into the public domain! That is precisely what the workers' councils are supposed to do in practice. You cannot revolutionize anything with phrases and theories; you can only do it with people, and these people should have been the workers' councils, and I mean the unified workers' councils, not the fragmented ones. That is what it is all about. We shall make no headway if we keep on saying that the proposals of the philosophers and commercial counsellors come from the clouds, and then contrast them with a so-called practice that has arisen from even more nebulous regions, because then it becomes apparent that it is impossible to say how such things can actually be implemented. But it is precisely this “how” that is at issue. This “how” is explained in my book The Essential Points of the Social Question; it is only necessary to understand it, that is what it is about.

Yes, and then it has been said repeatedly that we must first change the economic order. The spiritual will then arise by itself. — It will not. We already need this new spirit to change the economic system. And it is precisely then that one speaks impractically and nebulously when one says again and again: We change the economic system, then the new spirit will come by itself. No, you need the new spirit to change the economic system. That is why I say to you: For my sake, you can chase the whole of society away with the words of the esteemed previous speaker – but then also be clear about what you have to do when you have chased away the old society. Do you know what you want to do then? You can't do the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't need to chase them away. If you centralize the entire economy and put super-bonze above super-bonze, do you think that will improve anything? I would like to see if something would be better for the working masses if you were to put the highest-ranking union bonze in the top positions instead of the capitalists and entrepreneurs. That is what you should think about. That is what emerged from practical considerations, however much I liked the tone of the previous speaker's comments. But it has not yet been understood what it is really about, because everything that is happening in the optical industry, in the automotive industry and the like is the opposite of what is being propagated here. And so it is not enough just to point out ways; there must be a real understanding among the broad masses of workers, and then these ways must be developed in concrete practice. That is why I feel I must say, when I hear it said, “Steiner shows us the ways,” Steiner shows us the way – that it will be of no use if I show these ways, as long as large masses are repeatedly kept from understanding by the fact that people keep coming who have not yet understood this way and then speak of the opposite, as has just happened again, and then say: If we are shown the way, we will follow it; I am happy to be taught. – But when something is shown, the objection is that it is nothing. No, as long as this is the case, we will not make any progress. We will only make progress if we develop an instinct for what is right. And that is what we lack from the “Federation for the Threefold Social Order”. At first we found a certain healthy mass instinct, but then we had to learn that there is still a great deal of obedience to the old leaders. I will not doubt the emergence of a healthy instinct, but it will only emerge when those speakers no longer appear before the masses who, without sufficiently penetrating the matter, simply talk and prevent the masses from from taking further steps, but on the contrary, lead them back to their old obedience and to dubious ideas, by saying again and again: “Go ahead and form works councils; they will only fragment again.

If what we have been striving for had really been achieved, we would not have fragmentation, but a unified organization of economic concerns within the works council into the future, at least for Württemberg. This would then have a motivating effect on others and could have an impact beyond this economic area.

Mr. Fischer: He states that his criticism of the works councils was not directed against Dr. Steiner, but against the remarks made by the chairman at the beginning... I said: I am convinced that the ideas that Dr. Steiner developed and carried to the masses were different. But something different was propagated than was shown in practice. Dr. Steiner said that the socialization of the means of production is a phrase and that afterwards there would be no one left who would know how to manage the means of production. It would be sad if the workers and employees who have done the work since then did not know what to do with the means of production! What I mean is that the shareholders should be eliminated and it should be said: the shares are no longer valid. The property should become the property of the general public and be administered by the general public. Dr. Steiner puts spiritual ideas above everything. But the workers today only want bread because they are physically exhausted and unable to accept spiritual ideas. I ask Dr. Steiner to address this and show how these ideas can be made accessible to the masses with hungry stomachs.

Rudolf Steiner: That is a snake that bites its own tail. Do you think it is said on the one hand: We can transfer the means of production into the general public. Well, a really concrete body that would represent this generality would be the works councils. But such a body must first be created, it is not there! Certainly, the great mass is weakened by hunger. But should we wait for manna to fall from heaven so that bread can be socialized? This is a snake that bites its own tail. We must, of course, strive for both at the same time, and we will achieve nothing if we do not all work together, because the manna will not just fall from the sky. There is work to be done! We will all have to work, but we will only really want to work if we see what comes out of that work. We will work even with weakened muscles, with hungry stomachs, when we know that tomorrow our work will lead to a result. – But if we are always told that it should be socialized, then we will not be able to work even with an empty stomach, because we know that we will not be full tomorrow if we do not work with practical ideas.

So today it is important that we engage with this and also say: Well, the old society was chased away in droves on November 9 [...] The previous speaker, who said very good things in general, then described very well what happened then. I do not want to examine now how much of what happened there can be attributed to incompetence. I attribute more to the incompetence of those in power today than to their ill will. Because of this incompetence, what should actually be overcome keeps coming to the fore. This must be avoided. Whether or not this society, which was discussed today, is chased away with or without violence, is another question. But those who take its place must know what they want. That alone is practical. And that is the aim of the 'Federation for the Threefold Social Organism': to ensure that November 9th is not repeated and that in a few months' time we do not have to say: 'Now you see, now we have a different regime in economic life, but it is doing exactly the same thing as the previous one'. This must be prevented. But it can only be prevented by setting up a works council and then showing that things are done differently under the new regime. Of course, if no people can be found among the working population, among the employees, who really know how to work, then one would indeed have to despair. But that is not the only thing. It is essential that new forms of socialization then become visible. After all, people are all accustomed to working in some way under the old regime. Therefore, now that power has been gained, those who have gained it must really recognize how to deal with that power. So, it's a matter of really taking a practical approach for once. And the sad thing is that there is no understanding of such a practical approach today, and people keep coming up with old phrases. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that the transfer of the means of production and the land into the community is a phrase as such. That is not what I said. But a phrase, what is a phrase? Something is a phrase for one person because he cannot see anything special behind the words, while for another it is a deep golden truth because he sees something concrete behind it. When, for example, Bethmann-Hohlkopf, I mean Bethmann-Hollweg, says, “Free rein to the efficient!” it is a mere phrase, because he may understand it to mean that, for example, his nephew or someone else is the most efficient. But when someone who has real social insight and a real sense of humanity says, “Free rein to the efficient!” it is not a mere phrase, it is real. If someone simply repeats the old party line about the socialization of the means of production, then it can be a mere catchphrase. But when someone characterizes it as it is in my book, then it is not a catchphrase, then it is an expression of a reality. Therefore, you do not have to believe that when I call something a phrase, it is meant to be absolute. I mean, it is a phrase when there is not the necessary reality behind what has been said. That is what I wanted to say.

Mr. Roser: The previous speaker is mistaken if he thinks that I welcomed the works councils in the shoe industry because they formed separately. I just wanted to state that the leather industry has grasped the tripartite structure of the social organism. I must note that the works councils in the footwear industry have been firmly established on the basis of the tripartite division; only for this reason did I welcome the matter. A start has to be made at some point.

Mrs. Bühl: I would like to tell Mr. Fischer that the union secretary said: Without a law, there can be no works councils; the law must first be created. The main reason why we still have no workers' councils is the fault of the parties. It's a disgrace that when you go to a meeting and express your convictions, people immediately say, “Ah, one of Dr. Steiner's people.” Why can't we express our convictions? And then they always come to us with the “Kommerzienräte”! Why do you always speak in the plural? I only know of one Kommerzienrat in our family, and it wouldn't be a mistake if we had a couple of dozen of them. Just think of all the things that one Kommerzienrat has achieved! First of all, the free school. It's a shame when you hear how the matter is judged. It's good when Kommerzienrats do it that way. I couldn't open a school. It's the stupid mistrust among the workers and the parties. [Shout: Where does he get the money from?] One opens his wallet, the other doesn't; that's the difference. If a person thinks socially and has a feeling for his workers, that's the main thing!

Mr. Huth: Mr. Fischer's comments call me to the scene. First of all, I would like to confirm to him, because I know him, that he is not one of those union bigwigs who move in the spirit of a Legien, but one of those who are active in the spirit of a truly revolutionary working class. But when he criticizes the fact that works councils have been formed and united in the shoe industry, and when he wants to use this to assert that a fragmentation would take place because other occupational branches also have works councils, then I have to correct him. In the shoe industry, when we elected our works councils, we waited quite a long time for the metal industry here to start electing its works councils as well, so that we could form a works council in the sense of the tripartite division together with them. But as time passed, and this was due to the fault of the proletarian parties, and in the other occupations the matter has not yet progressed as far as in the shoe industry, we had to say to ourselves: There is no point in not getting together and doing practical work ourselves. We have to form a works council, no matter how small, and then spread the idea of the works council to the circles of those workers who have not yet taken any action in this direction.

We cannot wait for some government to bring us socialization. The liberation of the proletariat must come from the proletariat itself, and if it is on a path that a philosopher has shown, if the path is good. It has been pointed out that the old slogan: We must first conquer political power - is repeatedly haunting people's minds. This is hammered into the proletarians again and again. This word is actually a phrase, a dishonest phrase of the parties that call themselves proletarian today, but do not know what to do in the given hour. Because they do not know, they always put off the proletariat to the great Kladderadatsch, until we get reinforcements from the West that will give us political power. We had the power, but what did we do with it? We let it slip out of our hands again because we didn't know what to do with it. We must start by conquering not political power, but economic power through the works councils. Then the power will no longer be able to slip out of our hands. The factory councils, which are to be only economic instruments, will then be supplemented by political councils, by a legal organization. But if we do not also associate the spiritual organization with these two organizations, then we will not arrive at a healthy state, as Russia shows. The leaders of the USP have already risen to a two-fold structure. But the cultural part must not be forgotten either!

When I read Däumig or Müller, I have to say to myself: Put into practice, this will lead to a threefold structure, because they have actually only forgotten the cultural part. — I am a member of the USP, but I am not afraid to tell the parties that they do not know what to do. As proletarians, we have to say: if you don't understand how to lead us, then you have to leave the field. Every movement has the leaders it deserves; so do we. The proletariat as a whole has not yet mustered the courage to tell its leaders who they are. Even if it is already quite late, we must nevertheless take up the question of the works councils with renewed energy. Mr. Molt: The person speaking to you this evening has repeatedly mentioned, if I may say so, the old council system. Mr. Fischer, whom I have the pleasure of meeting again, asked me the specific question of where the money I have actually comes from. This money comes from exactly the same capitalism from which Mr. Fischer also draws his money, that is, from the capitalist economic cycle. And the question is only whether one keeps the money that one acquires on capitalist ground to oneself or whether one gives it back to the general public. By their deeds you shall know them! – In the past, it was said: By their fruits. If you found a school to implement true socialism, if you used the money you had saved through hard work – really through work, not through capitalism – to educate the rising generation in ways other than what we were taught, I would call that the practical fruit of a good idea. If it only came about because I was able to fill my stomach a little better during the war and therefore had a good idea, then it's good that at least that's there. The idea seems to be there for real. And if there aren't good ideas everywhere, then at least we can be glad that there are still people who have ideas, and the main thing is that they are carried out.

You see, the question of the works councils, which Mr. Fischer has so thoroughly misunderstood, has really reached a much more serious stage than has been expressed here tonight. It is truly a matter of life or death! Either we create the works councils, and then we have socialism, or we perish at the hands of Entente capitalism, not only the manual laborers, but also the intellectual workers. And this fact, together with a true idea of socialism, can already warm our hearts for the cause, so that we make the works councils a reality and even put ourselves at the service of this cause as a commercial councilor, and we do so because we really mean it. And the fact that one means it honestly is proved by the wonderful fact that even proletarian assemblies want this strange commercial councillor to give them lectures on works councils, not to the detriment of this assembly. That is why I conscientiously stand on the side of the works councils as well as on the side of the threefold social order. These works councils are different from those in the automotive and optical industries, because they are nothing more than political means to strengthen the parties; they are not there to thoroughly socialize economic life on a large and true scale. That is why we at the “Bund für Dreigliederung” are so strongly opposed to the fact that the works councils that come from the parties are mixed up with the ones we want.

You have probably already read in a daily newspaper that this works council law has again been submitted to the government. We are clear about the fact that the works councils cannot be standardized because every company is different. Economic life cannot be regulated by political power or by laws, but can only regulate itself. Once the law is there, it is difficult to oppose it; you have to be a revolutionary. But if they do not even take a serious stand against the drafts, how much less will it be possible once the law is there? Only a few weeks separate us from this law. This time must be used. If it is not used, it will simply be too late for the works councils and for socialization. That is why one so fervently hopes that the working class will finally wake up. It is not right to think that the workers are prejudiced against 'philosophers and commercial counsellors'. The matter is different. Anyone who has read the newspaper and has read what the “Social Democrat” said about this Waldorf school - he says: “The school is nice, but it comes from factory owners, so it is nothing at all” - must say to himself: These are the people who are hindering true socialism and true progress. The party bigwigs of all stripes are to blame for the fact that our honest efforts and the works councils have so far achieved nothing. But the proletariat itself will soon see how it is driven into misery and hardship if it does not pull itself together in time.

This appeal should be addressed to you again today. There is no time to lose! We only have three to four weeks left. If we lose these, it will be over for good. To show you how serious the situation is, I would like to read you a few lines from a letter that I received just today. This letter was written by a German diplomat who is the first to go abroad, and you should hear how the German situation is characterized from that side: “The situation at home is getting worse and worse, and I fear that the catastrophe that was to be avoided by accepting the peace has only been postponed in order to break over us all the more powerfully. What is now called the government in Germany is really just a caricature of one, wavering between party doctrine and fear of the revolution from left to right. The people's morale is completely collapsing. The speed with which our reputation abroad is declining cannot be described; it is impossible to salvage anything.

This is a letter that arrived today from a German diplomat, who is familiar with the situation and knows how things stand, how we are viewed abroad. But things can truly only change if people in working-class circles do not fall asleep and fail to realize that we are only now approaching real misery, and if they pull themselves together in the last hour to arrive at a state of affairs in which our economic life, which is on the brink of the abyss, can be lifted again. And that can only happen if we ourselves lend a hand, if we ourselves want to see an upward turn in our economy through the introduction of works councils. I wanted to make this appeal to you again, so that we do not have to say in three to four weeks: 'Now it is too late.' There is still time, but it is the twelfth hour. It is up to you, not us.

Mr. Jansen: When Dr. Steiner began his lectures eight to ten weeks ago, there was really great enthusiasm for the idea of the threefold social order. But the moment Dr. Steiner and the Federation for the Tripartite Social Order moved on to the practical, and passed over from thought to reality, the moment work and effort were demanded of those who had previously only been allowed to applaud and clap, some of the enthusiasm already waned. The cool attitude of the workers was also to blame for the fact that the enthusiasm for Dr. Steiner's ideas did not go so far as to be able to fight against the leaders. All of us who were involved in the agitation know what it is to speak out against this apathy. Dr. Steiner also experiences the apathy of the masses. The idea of workers' councils, in the face of capitalism, which was not all that secure a quarter of a year ago, has evoked the last dormant forces within him. He has tried to kill off these workers' councils by denying their validity and feasibility. And the so-called educated caste of our present-day society and the even more vulgar press of all shades have managed to drag the true idea of the threefold social organism and the works councils as it is in the newspapers. |

Half a century has passed since Karl Marx died of starvation, and today people are arguing about how to implement socialization. And it has been more than half a year since the Jena of the German workers, the November Revolution, broke out, and still no one knows how to implement socialization. We should be grateful to a man who has taken the trouble to seek out a practical way, a way by which socialism can be introduced in a relatively short time. The opposite is true! It can be put down to jealousy on the one hand and stupidity on the other. I have already illustrated this a few weeks ago with an example: People talk about killing the lion, capitalism, but they are afraid of the little mouse, the representative of the factories, the director, and of the union and party officials and the like.

Mr. Fischer spoke of commercial counselors, professors, doctors who support the idea of threefolding. Don't we also have professors and doctors in the parties? Do we also say that their ideas are therefore worthless? And if they weren't in the party, the stupidity of the masses would have long since destroyed the parties. One more peculiar little chapter: Mr. Molt, whom I welcome as a colleague and whom we have asked to speak in an informative way at our meeting tomorrow about works councils, this gentleman has money. We have a great many people in the party who also have money, who had it earlier or who have made money through their work in the party. These men, who call themselves party comrades, party leaders, keep their money to themselves. They do not make it available to the party! They buy themselves villas and settle up there nicely. Therefore, let's not be too quick to reproach them: “The man has money.” We have to see what the people below us do with their money. It has been said: “Hunger must be eliminated first so that people are even open to spiritual food.” A communist recently said: Hunger is the worst revolutionary. Once hunger is raging, there is no stopping it, and what has been suppressed for so long breaks through. What are strikes if not hunger revolts? And because hunger is a good incentive, it would not be good to eliminate hunger today. Let us ensure that we abolish mass hunger by abolishing mass exploitation. Socialism is the way to do this! Hunger is an incentive to finally implement socialization.

Mr. Kühn: As managing director of the “Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism,” I would like to say a few words about what has been asked. We intend to call the works councils together for their first meeting next week. We will also begin the study evenings next week. Mr. Roser has already spoken about this. Perhaps I may say a few words about the discussion that took place with Mr. Fischer this evening. Unfortunately, Mr. Fischer has already left. I wanted to tell him in front of the meeting that I definitely know that he has never, neither here nor anywhere else, attended lectures by Dr. Steiner. The only time I met him was at a meeting to discuss the question of the works council, which was convened by employees and where he heard something about threefolding from some speakers. Dr. Steiner was not present. That is how people who know nothing about the matter judge it; they imagine all sorts of things and want to dismiss the matter out of hand. However, Mr. Fischer told me this evening that his union or association wants to hold meetings in the near future to discuss works councils and to set up trial works councils in the factories. You see, people come along when they have heard something here and there and make something out of it. That is what we want to avoid and what we must fight against. We must not make common cause with those who do not want to know about the threefold social organism and do not work towards it. Works councils that are not created on the basis of the idea of the threefold social organism will never be able to realize socialism. The works councils we wanted to introduce would have been the first step towards socialization in the sense of the threefold order. We must reject everything else. It is a pity that Mr. Fischer has left and can no longer discuss the threefold order with us.

Time and again, objections to the threefold order come from people who know nothing about it, but also from people who have already heard many lectures on the threefold order. I would like to tell you an example. There is a communist leader who has a fairly great gift as a speaker and captivates large crowds. He appears at almost every meeting. This man has heard a lot about the threefold social order, but has not grasped any of it. For example, he says: Yes, the threefold social order leads to a three-class system, because if you create three parts, then there is a class in each part, and so we get even worse conditions than today; today we only have two classes. If one wanted to draw conclusions about classes from the organizations, then one would have to say: Today we have a unified state, so there is only one class. So today there should only be one class! This man does not understand such things and comes to such a prejudice. We want to put the social organism on a healthy footing precisely in order to eliminate class rule. There is no question of a three-way division of the classes. The same man also asserts the same thing that Mr. Fischer asserted, namely that the threefold order protects employers. Anyone who has read Dr. Steiner's book knows that today's type of entrepreneur will disappear altogether. But the most beautiful objection of this communist leader was that he said: You cannot separate the economy from politics. You see it all the time in the Reichstag or in the National Assembly, how people represent their economic interests; just think of the industrialists in heavy industry! They cannot help but represent their economic interests. So people cling to the old, to this idol of a unified state, because they do not see that this is precisely what we want to fight, what we want to abolish. It is economic policy that has driven us into this disastrous catastrophe. People readily admit this in private, but they are unable to muster the strength to take measures that would no longer make such economic policy possible. There are the party leaders, above all, who have ruined the works council system for us. We must get rid of these people. The proletariat cannot see socialism realized before that.

We have also encountered an incredible prejudice among the employees, whom we have also called upon. I would like to give an example of this: a person whom I respect very much, who is a leading employee in a factory, said to me: I don't yet know whether capitalism is so wrong. In any case, I insist that it is better today than it will be. I will stick to my views and go down with them rather than introduce something new. I know that I am alone in this and that I may soon be out on the street, but I would rather it be so. I will remain honest and consistent. I have been told that this man has a heart for the proletariat, and that is why he speaks in this conservative way. When I told him he was conservative, he got terribly angry. He said it was just honest. I told him: It's just the same as when you take a train. At one station, the train driver comes in and says the train will derail at the next station, and you then say: I'll stay on the train anyway; I'd rather be injured than get off. I said: I would get off as quickly as possible and see if the train could be moved to another track where it would not derail. — So we have to pull ourselves together at the last moment and do everything we can to get the works councils together. We must present and defend the approach that we see as practical, and not be afraid of being too strongly attacked by the party bigwigs. Actually, word of mouth should teach people again and open their eyes to the philistinism of their party leaders.

Rudolf Steiner: The question has been raised: How can what is healthy in syndicalism be related to the threefold social organism? - Well, it would of course be taking us very far if we were to talk about the essence of syndicalism today at this late hour. But I would like to say that there is much that is genuinely healthy in syndicalism, as there is in other contemporary endeavors. Above all, the healthy aspect of syndicalism is that many syndicalists are dominated by the idea that, regardless of the eternal insistence on the rule of law in the state, economic gains for the broad masses of the working population must be achieved in direct competition with entrepreneurship. The idea that something for the future can arise out of economic life itself through a kind of federal structure lives as a healthy thought within syndicalism. Syndicalism has emerged particularly in recent times within the French labor movement, and it is somehow significant that it has emerged most strongly there. The French have a very strong sense of state. But just at the moment when people in France who were well-disposed towards the state wanted to found a particular labor movement, they came to the conclusion that this could only be useful if it operated exclusively on an economic basis. The federative structure of economic life, as envisaged by syndicalism, even shows certain similarities to what is sought through the associations based on the idea of threefolding.

You see, in the threefold social organism we have an independent spiritual life, then an independent state or legal life, and further an independent economic life. This independent economic life, as I have often said, will have to be built on corporate cooperative foundations, that is to say, associations will be formed on the one hand from the various occupational groups and on the other hand from certain connections between production and consumption. One of the objections raised, for example, by Professor Heck in the Tribüne is based on the fact that he says: Yes, but how will it be possible, for example, for craftsmen and small traders to be knowledgeable about the concerns of big industry if economic life is to be structured in the future as Dr. Steiner wants? Well, this shows that Professor Heck has not understood what is meant either. Of course, one cannot be knowledgeable in all fields, nor is it necessary, because if a federal structure is really established and the individual associations work together intensively, something fruitful for economic life will come of it. It is simply not possible for everything that must develop on a purely democratic basis, such as labor law, to be represented or administered in the same way as purely economic matters. This view is also encountered, at least to some extent, in syndicalism. In the Anglo-American labor movement, the principle of Anglo-American parliamentarism still prevails very strongly. Since this is based on a certain system of counterweights, namely power against power, the Anglo-American labor organizations are also aligned according to the same principle, namely, labor power against corporate power is played off against each other, just as the liberal and conservative parties face each other in parliament. We encounter a different form within the labor organizations in Germany. There is a certain centralism, I might even say a certain military system, based on command and obedience. I don't know if you will entirely agree with this, but I can assure you that I have attended several trade union meetings and that I was always unpleasantly affected by the fact that whenever different opinions arose, the chairman of the meeting stood up and said: Children, it's no use! — So, this centralized-military system is the second; and the third is what is meant by the federal structure, by the structure of independent bodies, in which there will be no majorization or centralization, but objective negotiation. In syndicalism, this appears as a good impulse, but here too a further step is necessary, as is aimed at with the idea of the threefold social organism, namely that the progressive factors that have yet to enter into the thinking of contemporary humanity are actually taken into account. And here I believe that an understanding of this may perhaps develop from syndicalism itself. But this should not be understood as if I were only singing the praises of syndicalism. However, I do believe that threefolding can be better understood from this side than from any of the other directions.

Now, I have little to add to what the last speakers have said. I would just like to make one comment, namely that I and the friends of threefolding have recently become very aware of what one speaker said about the apathy of the masses. Yes, in the place of the phlegm, one would need fire, because if we really want to make progress in this day and age, we need not only insight – this, of course, in the first place – but also fire. You see, when it is constantly being said that the spirit is not really needed, that it will come with economic transformation, then I ask you: Yes, the possibility of moving forward was there to a certain extent. On November 9, the National Assembly was elected. But is there any sign of a new spirit in this National Assembly? There was now a whole new group of voters who had not previously been entitled to vote: women. But it is strange that the spirit has obviously not yet descended on these women either, because the National Assembly shows absolutely nothing of what we really need for the future. But for that, enthusiasm and fire will be needed.

In this context, I ask you whether it is not rather short-sighted to refuse to see that a certain socialization has already begun – and this before the official socialization? Do we want socialization only on paper? Is that what it takes to satisfy you? Imagine if the commercial counsellor who devoted himself to the threefold order had done so like the other commercial counsellors. Then it would have come about that at the moment when socialization was to take place, there would have been no commercial counsellor at all! It would have come about that at some point this Kommerzienrat would have been expropriated like other Kommerzienräte, and then there would have been no more money for real socialization or better schools and the like. And now I ask you: Is it a great sin for someone to take money from another before humanity is ready, to give his money for socialization? Is it a sin if someone does not always trumpet the message that the means of production must be handed over to the general public, but does it of his own accord? I fear that those who always trumpet the phrase that the means of production must be put at the service of the general public will not apply it as sensibly as those who do something out of their own insight beforehand. This is socialization before the official socialization. This is worked out from the spirit that we are currently longing for as the social spirit of the future. And to raise the accusation that someone has the social spirit before, that is, before he is in any constitution, means not being able at all to penetrate into the spirit that can only save humanity, but only shows the longing for the written word. The law you give, you can confidently carry home. We need the spirit out of which socialization is done. Therefore, one should not fall into the trap of saying: The Waldorf School is nice, but it is done by a commercial counselor; we don't want to know anything about that! It would be wiser to say: Take him as an example, and as socializers in the future become like him, then it will be good. The things that are constantly being said from this corner against titles and the like only testify that, despite everything, one clings to words and phrases more than to action. And until we can bring ourselves to act and to acknowledge the deed, no matter where it comes from, we will not move forward; we must be convinced of this. And when we are convinced of this, then we will look only at whether someone is a reasonable person inspired by social feelings, and we will not ask about anything else. As long as we ask about something else, we will not move forward. If this does not become clear, all talk is in vain. Because the beginning must be made by those people who understand something of what is to happen, regardless of whether they play this or that role in the present order. All of us who live today, whether capitalists or laborers, naturally have what we live on out of capitalism. And we cannot change anything if we do not look to what lives in the spirit and must come about out of the spirit. We must finally overcome the phrase, we must move on to what can really become action.

Mr. Roser: As chairman, he thanks Dr. Steiner for his presentation and draws attention once again to the next event. He asks those present once again to study the book “The Core Points of the Social Question” so that they are able to talk about the book and the threefold social order in the circles in which they move.

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear attendees,

Today, as we have the aforementioned agenda before us, it will be of some importance that we once again fully clarify what is actually meant by a works council in terms of the threefold social order.

First of all, we hold to the view that, in the way we are now approaching the setting up of the workers' council, we are striving above all to initiate the actual beginning of a real socialization with this workers' council. When one hears people speak of socialization today, one always gets the feeling that they do not really know what they want with socialization. Most people understand socialization to mean nothing more than the nationalization of existing businesses, existing branches of production, and so on. You know that the threefold social order is about clearly separating the three areas of human social life, so that in the future we will have the overall administration of spiritual life, preferably of education and teaching, as a member of the threefold social organism. Administration will only be carried out by those organs that are part of this spiritual life, in fact by the spiritual life itself. Thus, on the part of those personalities who will be involved in the spiritual life, the bodies will be organized that have to administer the spiritual life. Secondly, there will be the actual state, the political body, which is to be built on a completely democratic basis, so that everything that is to be regulated democratically belongs to the sphere of this second link in the social organism. The third link would be economic life. In this economic life, only economic activity is to be carried out. That is why I have often had to explain that actual legal issues should not be decided within this economic administration. These actual legal issues should be decided within the democratic life of the state. For example, labor law is to be decided within the democratic life of the state; the length of working hours and other rights that one working person has over another working person are to be decided. Everything that relates to such rights is to be regulated on a democratic basis in a kind of parliament, or whatever you want to call it, that emerges from universal suffrage.

Economic life is separate from this, and is supposed to be managed entirely by itself, in which it is merely to be managed. And on the basis of this economic life, we are now trying, I would like to say, to set up a kind of works council, as a kind of transitional measure.

How do we do that? We have already begun, and some of the members of the works council are already present today. We are proceeding in such a way that first a certain number of members of the works council are elected from the individual enterprises. Who can be elected to the works council? Anyone who is a manual or mental worker can be elected to the works council, and also, since we are in a transitional period, if they join the ranks, the former entrepreneur or the management of an enterprise. It should be noted here, however, that no one has a privilege, so that even an entrepreneur who is elected to the works council joins the other works councils. This works council is therefore a body in which everyone has absolutely equal rights and should count for as much as they understand in economic life in their field. So these works councils emerge from the individual branches of production. But we will only have something fruitful for the reorganization of economic life when we have many more works councils than we have now. Today we only have a small number of works councils, and hopefully after today's meeting they will work in such a way that a works council system will gradually come about. So, as I said, we initially have a small number of works councils. These works councils have emerged from individual companies. What we really need is for works councils to be formed from all companies in a self-contained economic area, that is, initially in a provisionally closed economic area, let's say Württemberg. You see, for the kind of works council that we have to think of, you need works councils from all companies, from all sectors. These works councils then form the works council for a self-contained economic area. And socialization should begin by establishing such a body over a self-contained economic area, with the aim of placing itself on a firm footing in the sense of rebuilding economic life. That is to say, this body should feel that it is the leading economic entity in the area concerned. It should feel that it is the real source of the management of all types of businesses in this economic area. This council should therefore see as its ideal a future in which no individual entrepreneur is responsible for the individual businesses, but rather that everything that is done in the businesses is done, so to speak, on behalf of this body, this original assembly of the council. If we keep this firmly in mind, we will have created for the first time what the demands of the social parties have always, more or less consciously, been striving for. The demands of the parties are usually formulated negatively, for example when one speaks of the abolition of capital and so on. Yes, but little is achieved by abolishing. By abolishing, all we do is gradually disintegrate our economic life! But how the tripartite social organism should work is precisely the opposite: it should build up. But to build up, one needs a constructive body.

Whether the works councils are elected or delegated in this or that way in the future is a question that must be decided within the works council itself. Today, we have the task of establishing the works council in the only possible way for the time being, namely through elections in the individual companies. The point is that one step must be taken before further steps can be taken. When the works councils have been elected – smaller companies can, of course, join together for the purpose of the election – then their first task is to create what could be called a complete overview of the entire economy in the self-contained economic area in question. This then means that the first tasks for the works councils will arise from this. These works councils – perhaps five in one company, three in another, and so on – form, so to speak, the atoms of the works council body. This body should already be prepared by the first task. So let us assume that company A has elected its five works councils. These five works councils would now initially have the task of drawing up a kind of inventory of the entire economic operation for their company. This inventory would then have to be brought to the first assembly of the works council. So you would have to know how much capital is in the respective company, how it has worked so far, and so on. You would also have to know what business connections exist in terms of the utilization of products, the procurement of raw materials, and in general with the outside world. At the same time, one would have to ensure that the best possible cooperation is established in the individual companies. Gradually, one would also know which entrepreneurs support the cause and which do not, because in the companies where the entrepreneur refuses to cooperate, the works councils would be prevented from being able to obtain information about the company, or these works councils can only come to the original meeting with as much information as is possible. On the basis of the information that the individual works councils can present from their respective companies, an overview of the economic life of the economic area concerned would first have to be created in the primary assembly. This is the first thing that is needed. Then one can approach the actual tasks.

Here, one must first take into account the fact that the structure of the tripartite social organism differs significantly from what is thought within, for example, the parties about the continuation of economic, political and intellectual life. The task at hand must therefore be regarded as an eminently economic one, that is to say, on the basis of what has been obtained as provisional material, what must first be determined is that which leads to a real stipulation of normal prices for the various goods produced. That is the first task in the course of future socialization, that we find out how much, according to the economic situation, for example, a pair of boots, a skirt and so on, may cost. I have often mentioned the basis for the price regulation in my lectures. Accordingly, in the future, each person will receive enough for what he produces himself to be able to satisfy his needs until he has produced an equivalent service. In other words, someone produces a pair of boots – the following also applies to services that cannot be clearly defined – and these boots should have a value comparable to that of other goods, so that what I get for the boots can serve to satisfy my needs until a new pair of boots is finished. That is what the individual price ranges stipulate. Of course, everything that has to be raised for the education of children, for the disabled, for widows and for those unable to work must also be included. The correct price emerges from all this. Setting this is the first act. But this is a very large task. The work of the workers' councils, if it is not to end in wrangling over empty phrases, must begin with the determination of price levels for what is produced, otherwise we will never be able to achieve true socialization. It is self-deception to believe that by setting wages from other bases we will achieve true socialization. That is simply nonsense, because you can increase wages at will according to the principles by which they have been paid so far. You can even double the amount you receive in wage increases, and this will be offset by the fact that housing and food will become more expensive again if you do not have a natural standard for pricing that arises from the economy itself.

Once this standard for pricing has been found – the works council will have a few weeks to deal with it – then we will have to move on to finding fair prices. This will then create a basis for what is to be created in the future, and we will know what we can count on. Then the so-called labor contract used up to now can be replaced by a distribution contract between the spiritual and physical workers. Of course, the present employers, with their experience, can also become spiritual workers when they join. Essentially, the contract will be concluded in such a way that it is based on the joint work of the manual and spiritual workers; nothing else comes into consideration. They work together on some product, and this product has a certain price. Taking into account the respective circumstances and possibilities, this price must now be distributed between the spiritual leaders and the workers by contract. So it is no longer a matter of paying the worker somehow, but rather, if one produces goods or manages the production of goods, then one receives the corresponding share according to the distribution contract. This can only be done when everything that is labor law has been established.

Now, of course, with the works council, one can only create economic institutions in the sense of the threefold social order. In the future, however, alongside the economic organization, which is primarily concerned with the fair determination of prices, there will be the parliament of rights, in which every person will find the opportunity to determine his or her relationship to other people. Of course, what happens in the legal parliament is not without effect on economic life. Those who now have to run a business in economic life will have to run it in such a way that they observe what is determined in the legal parliament on the basis of democratic principles regarding the value of work and working hours.

You can read about what intellectual work is, and how the administration of the means of production will essentially be assigned to the intellectual members of the social organism in the future, in my book “The Core of the Social Question”. However, it is still the case today that those who have so far held the intellectual share of the work have been left behind, that is, they do not want to engage with these matters; therefore, we cannot achieve anything in this field yet. But we have to create the system of works councils on the assumption that in the future there will not only be a right-wing parliament, but also a free administration of intellectual life. The spiritual leaders of the companies will also emerge from this intellectual life, and they will also have a say in the appointment of the works councils, so that the judgment of the spiritual leaders is also taken into account in the works council. This is not yet being considered, but we must remember that it will be considered later.

So it is important that this second task is also solved, that is, that a regulation on price relations is found in a general assembly in which all works councils come together. The first task is to be solved by the works councils within the respective company, that is, to inform themselves and take a kind of inventory of what is happening in the company. Many issues will arise that need to be addressed, such as legal questions, questions of operational disposition, and the like. And it will very soon become clear that the works councils and the council of works councils that is then formed will represent the social force from which socialization will then emerge. But the works councils alone will not be able to carry out comprehensive socialization. Above all, there will also have to be transport and economic councils, which will then also be given their tasks. The constituent assembly of the works council will show what steps need to be taken to organize proper administration, proper circulation of goods, the purchase of raw materials, and so on.

So various types of councils will have to be formed, but above all the three councils mentioned. The assembly of the works council can then decide on the details. Now, when the works council has fulfilled its initial tasks, it can begin to work out something that the state, which has developed out of the old state and which we now call the 'socialist republic', is currently unjustifiably trying to achieve: the law on works councils. The tripartite social organism would not want a works council law like the one the state has so far proposed, because economic institutions have nothing to do with legal institutions. The legal institutions belong to the continuation of the former state. Economic life has to stand on its own. In today's Abendblatt, it is shown how the current – let us say – 'socialist republic' appears to be working in the opposite direction. It is proposed that the goal should be an ever-closer interpenetration of state and economic life. That is the opposite of what is aimed at with the threefold social order. This interpenetration of state and economic life is precisely what is to be avoided! Economic life in itself and state life in itself, each should administer itself, that is the goal. And in state life only that should be administered that can be administered on a democratic basis, that on which every responsible person can decide. But not every adult can simply decide what is the best way to transport this or that product from one place to another; this requires expertise. And only the people from the respective economic sectors themselves have this expertise. Therefore, the entire economic life must be based on expertise and at the same time have a certain federal structure.

Professor Heck, who has said many foolish things, is mainly afraid that if such a form of administration is established in the economic parliament – but there will not be one, there will only be an economic central council – the small tradesman will not understand the big industrialist, the agricultural worker will not understand the scientist. Yes, but such a situation will not arise in the first place because the associations that arise in economic life will join together in a chain and will be properly negotiated from association to association. It is precisely such an objection that testifies that economic life cannot be administered in a democratic way, but only in a federal, associative way. Something can only come about through proper negotiations.

So, let's say representatives of the shoe industry, the metal industry or the textile industry are sitting there, and they all have specialized knowledge of their respective fields. And the assembly is there to ensure that everyone gives their expert opinion on setting fair prices. It is quite a different matter when you listen to the various judgments and everyone asserts their demands, than when you simply vote democratically. This would achieve nothing more than certain economic sectors joining forces and outvoting the others. Then the minority would never be able to get their rights. Such a majority is excluded in the case of a constitution that arises from the factual context of economic life itself. Thus what is now to be brought about unjustifiably by the Works Councils Act presented by the state would only come about through the negotiations of the works council. I ask that this be noted as the most important thing, that the tripartite social organism rejects every state law in this context.

You see, how this tripartite social organism comes about in detail is not so essential now. We must make a clear distinction in this area between sophistry or phraseology and reality. If you say, as I have always said, that the former state should not continue, but only its middle link should continue, so that the government that takes over the previous state constitutes itself as a liquidation government and is only responsible for public security, hygiene, legal life and the like, then the economic life and the intellectual life remain separate. But if it should turn out that the existing state has already interfered so much in the economy that the existing representatives cannot imagine giving up economic life, it can also happen differently, namely that the existing state says to itself: All right, I will continue to run my affairs as an economic administration, but I will leave out everything that is democratic; the legal and spiritual state should be established alongside me. Then, of course, it would be necessary to throw out all the apparent democracy from this economic administration. That would also mean that, for example, in Germany the National Assembly could no longer function as it has done so far, because the democratic has nothing to do with economic life. So, things can be done either way. In any case, in the future the three elements must coexist.

Then, in turn, the constituent assembly of the Württemberg works councils must produce all the necessary regulations with regard to the tasks and functions of the works councils. The works councils then take what has been decided at this original assembly into their respective companies. These people, who are now returning to the companies, act on behalf of the entire works council within their companies. They do not act on behalf of any individual entrepreneur, but feel that they are the representatives of the entire works council of a self-contained economic area. They manage the company according to these principles.

Now, it may well prove to be best for a great many businesses during the transition period to keep the old management, but now as a member of the works council, for the time being, in order to avoid sabotage or making the mistakes that were made in Russia. If the present management is not willing to accept that the works council is the real manager of the company, then of course the management in question, that is, the present management, would have to resign. Then the works council would have to take over the entire management of the company. It is, after all, really taking it over, but it will have great difficulties without the involvement of the former management, since it must act expeditiously.

But it could also happen, and this would be a further step towards socialization, that each individual company no longer has its own management, but that the management works on behalf of the economic entity of the entire economic area. But above all, care must be taken here – and this should be considered when drawing up the constitution – to ensure that the initiative is not undermined in any way. But the works council should not be structured in the way it is still being thought of today, because some of the proposals, if they were implemented, would lead to something monstrous. Just think that there are even proposals such as: in the future, there must be technical control, economic control and political control in every company. — There are probably even five or six such controls planned in total. The underlying assumption seems to be that everyone is actually a dishonest, a bad guy and therefore must be controlled. If this system of five- to six-fold control is implemented, you will produce nothing at all in the future, because this control system is built in the most eminent sense of mistrust. But if you want to build on it in the future economic life, then you will not move forward. You will only make progress if you build on trust, and this can be built on if the rational operation coincides with the egoism of the individual, so that everyone knows in the future that his work will be best served by the best manager being there. And through this system, the best manager can be delegated.

Ordinary voting will gradually change into a kind of delegation. It will be in everyone's interest that the person with the greatest expertise is in charge. This system will reveal who the best leader is, and even those who cannot lead themselves will know it. This system opens up possibilities other than mere democratic voting or a council system, as people imagine it today. Because both would only lead to informers, to pushiness, and in both the worker would not fare better than he does today.

The issue at hand is to establish economic life on an appropriate, not on a previous state basis. When the workers' councils return to their factories with mandates and the corresponding tasks, work can begin in the individual factories on a social basis. That would be the first practical step we want to take. The following must be implemented in practice: the election of workers' councils across individual industries. Then information must be provided about the economic situation of all industries. Following on from this, the workers' councils from the entire economic area would have to be convened. Furthermore, a constitution must be drafted on the basis of the factual circumstances. This constitution of the works council would be the beginning of real socialization. Until this happens, there can be no socialization, because the state cannot socialize through laws. Socialization can only come from within economic life itself. Today, people think that they can socialize this or that branch of the economy, such as the pharmacy system. That is, of course, pure nonsense; it is nothing more than state capitalization. A nice thing happened once. Soon after the founding of the socialist republic, a very clever gentleman gave a lecture on socialization in Berlin. First, he pointed out how impossible it would be to achieve socialization from the immediately given circumstances, that is, to achieve socialization as the socialist party had in mind as an ideal. Therefore, he said, we cannot arrive at real socialism today, nor tomorrow or the day after, but we must create a transition. And he characterized the transition he wants to create as follows: We must, he said, create a social capitalism between our present capitalist economic system and the future economic system. Well, that is nothing more than proof that one does not know how to begin socialization. But you cannot start before you first create a certain social structure, a society. How do you want to socialize if there is no such society, no social community? The inauguration of such a social community is precisely where the beginning should be made, by combining the works councils into such a society. They cannot socialize factories or branches of industry, only the whole. So they must base the whole thing on what can be extracted from society in terms of people, and then they must socialize with these people.

So those who have been elected as works council members will be able to say that they have a great and important task, and it is they who have to provide the basis for future socialization. And I believe that you are now at the stage where you will understand that the way it has been presented here is the only way to create a proper basis for socialization. It is true that people have the most diverse and at the same time the strangest views about socialization. Yesterday, when I read someone a particular view on socialism, a special thought occurred to him. It was an article by Dr. Georg Wilhelm Schiele, which was headed with the following words: “On true, purified” - then came another epithet, which I will not read now - “socialism”. The article then said:

"What is social? The state is social: it is the social. What is communism? The community is communism! And what is more, the family. It is the communism that human society always needs. What is more is evil. We had a state that had a great deal of real socialism in it, the Prussian state; and the other German states and the Reich were built according to its model. This state was the most social thing that has existed in a long time and will not exist again anytime soon.

What was social about this state? Look. The most Prussian thing about it was also the most social, namely the military system, universal conscription.

Now imagine what the ideal of this Dr. G.W. Schiele is!

"Many a father who watches his son grow up is already worried: how can I give my son, when he comes of age, the last education for body and mind, the education of a man, that turns every lout into a young warrior of steel and a handsome lad? Where is the true art of commanding and obeying taught now, which gave every young German the spirit of integration and subordination to a whole and at the same time educated him to be a leader and superior, a recipient and commander of orders, depending on the task? How do we replace this national education, which protected the German people from becoming foolish and simplistic?"

Then the Lord continues:

“For the time being, there is no longer any state with honest taxpayers and honest officials. We will soon see that there is neither state nor taxes. But if there is no longer any state, there is no longer any socialism either.”

The tone remains the same. Then he says:

“The hour will come when we will all sigh, weep and cry out for the social state that we had, for the Prussian state, and then we will try to build a new community according to the model that our fathers have given us.”

When I read this to our friend Mr. Molt yesterday, he thought I was reading from a joke magazine. But it is not a joke magazine. It is the latest edition of the “Eisernen Blätter” (“Iron Leaves”), published by the Eisernen Blätter publishing house in Berlin. It is something completely serious; the entire issue is edited by D. Traub.

That is the view of socialization held by a large number of people. But if something emerges that is not mere theory, but that extends as a works council over a large, self-contained economic area like Württemberg, and if there are, say, 800 people, not just a few as there are today, and if they join forces, it will be a revelation for the entire working class of Württemberg and thus for a large part of the population. That is not theory, that will be a force. But it is essential that this power is first really created, and that is why the 'Federation for the Threefold Social Organism' would very much like to see progress in the election of works councils, now that there is already a small base for the future works council. If this small base were to make it its business to ensure that works councils are elected everywhere, so that we – and this is so tremendously important – do not let the matter go sour, then we will make progress.

You see, it is important that such a thing be done with the necessary speed today, otherwise it will turn sour. In public life, as in the case of certain dishes, things turn sour if they are not enjoyed at the right time. Public affairs should not be left to indifference and lack of interest. They must be carried out with a certain speed. Besides, the Americans and the English will not wait for our slow progress. If we do not get around to saying, by a certain point in the future, which cannot be too far away, “This is how we want to organize things, and we will create a management from those working in the economic sector . Then the Anglo-Americans will pour in funds and join forces with the capitalists still in existence, and they will then run the factories of Central Europe according to the principles of Anglo-American capitalism. Then you will be left empty-handed for a long time. Then you can toil for a new capitalism, which will be much more terrible than the old one. Then you will no longer be able to socialize anything, then you will have to wait until you are so strong that something similarly bloody to what has happened in the last five to six years will give you the opportunity to think of such things. The complete capitalization of the West is already well on its way. In Berlin, the people have issued the slogan: socialization is on the march! It is not on the march. It will only be on the march when the works council system has been established. But the full capitalization is definitely on the march, that is, the penetration of all enterprises in Central Europe by American and British capital. Therefore, what we can risk today does not tolerate a long period of disinterest, but it is important that we act quickly. And if we now succeed in keeping alive the interest that has already arisen here in the tripartite division of the social organism and that has been thwarted, and if we manage to get such a works council to act as a basis for socialization throughout Württemberg, then we will have set an example for our colleagues in the rest of Germany. What the works council is doing here will set an example, and when the others see it, they will follow suit.

Make sure that you set up the works councils within two weeks, then hold a constituent assembly that draws up a constitution in a few weeks, which must be ready before the law is passed. But it would be really great for here if we could move forward with this example. That is what I wanted to remind you of today.

The founding of the preparatory Württemberg works council was unanimously decided. Mr. Huth was elected as the first chairman of the action committee, Mr. Roser as the second chairman, and Mr. Dorfner as the secretary. The working committee of the “Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism” is made up entirely of the members of the action committee. The office is that of the “Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism, Stuttgart, Champignystraße 17, Managing Director: Mr. Kühn.

Record of proceedings, Tuesday 11 o'clock

Hans Kühn opens the meeting and asks Rudolf Steiner to take the chair. Rudolf Steiner takes the chair with the unanimous consent of the assembly.

Rudolf Steiner: The call is for something quite different from what is usually intended by calls. It is not directed at institutions, but at people. If a new order is to be possible now, then as many people as possible must be found who start from healthy ideas. The general prerequisites are given in the flyer “Proposals for Socialization”. You can start practical work at every point, wherever you stand. Two areas must be separated from the state structure. This is the practical point of view. The state exists; through its various representations, it will have the task of separating out all spiritual life, and in the same way, economic life and its competence for what remains should be based on a democratic foundation. It is impossible to achieve anything by transferring all competencies to the state. Economic life must be based on associations: firstly, by profession; secondly, and more importantly, representatives of consumption together with representatives of production. A practical example: we wanted to implement something like this within our circles before the war. First of all, we found a collaborator in Mr. von Rainer, who had a mill and the associated bakery. A business like this is only possible if you start from consumption, not from blind production, which leads to crises. A circle of consumers was to be created out of the Anthroposophical Society. The reason it did not work was that Mr. von Rainer had the thinking habits of the old days and was not up to the task; all sorts of quirks came into it.

We also thought in terms of intellectual production in society. Blind production harnesses labor for nothing. 98 percent of writers are uncommissioned writers. Of a print run of 1000 books, 50 are sold, the rest are pulped. The printers and so on have done unproductive work. Now it is important not to do unproductive work. I have begun by creating the consumers first. We will also have a market for the brochure. After my lectures, people are now demanding the brochure.

When this is referred to as advertising, it is not an ordinary form of advertising. First, the needs are considered. Even for the spiritual, one must be able to think purely economically. The needs must not be dogmatized: this or that spiritual is not justified! - This must be left to the spiritual organization. In the book trade, there are only crises. The advertising must only begin when consumption is secured, and then one only draws the people's attention to it.

All legal relationships must be eliminated from the economic sphere: ownership and employment relationships. Today, as every textbook says, you can buy goods in exchange for goods, goods in exchange for labor, goods in exchange for rights. These are the economic terms. The latter two must disappear completely. Rights must not be bought. Labor must not be sold. The worker must no longer be in a wage relationship; the worker must, under all circumstances, be in a free relationship within his working community. Labor law must be created outside of the economic organization. The economy tends to consume; anything that cannot be consumed is unhealthy in the economic organization. In the old order, labor was consumed, while it is a legal relationship. Labor law must be created from the democratic organization.

During rest from work, there must be the opportunity for everyone to participate in social life. The working hours would be very short if everyone did physical labor. Division of labor is necessary. In the future, it must be a principle that the formation of prices in economic life is a consequence of labor law, just as it is a consequence of natural processes. The income of workers must only come from labor law. Then prosperity would depend on labor law. That, however, would be a healthy dependency.

If, for example, prosperity were to decline as a result of a six-hour working day, then the legal organization would have to agree on whether to work longer. It should not be possible to extend working hours or hire women and children for economic reasons. The working hours, the type and the amount of work must be regulated outside of the economy. Before the economic process begins, labor law must be regulated, just as the raw materials are given by nature.

Property law must also be removed from the economy. Things are sold that do not even exist. Ownership means that you have free disposal over some thing. This has only gradually been transferred into private property. In the future, property will no longer be an object of purchase at all. We must get rid of Roman legal concepts. Property and ownership are concepts that must disappear. One last remnant of the old way of thinking is the idea that private property must pass into the community. This is also outdated. Today, an acceptable property right has only been established for intellectual property. In the future, all material property must also be subjected to a similar process: it must circulate. Capital must be taken out. We will need capital, but the old concept of it must cease. The building in Dornach is not a capitalist enterprise. No one will be able to benefit from the Dornach building. What is needed for it has been withdrawn from the capitalist order. The Dornach building would have to be recognized as serving the spiritual organization. With 30 centimes from each Swiss person, we could easily complete the building. It could be socialized overnight. The concept of socialization must also be tenable. Recently someone in Switzerland said: Lenin must become world ruler. First, however, domination itself must be socialized. What is in the call must be realized because it is the only practical thing.

Hummel: He comes from Cologne and is the only person present from the occupied area. There are no signatories from the Rhineland. English censorship has prevented this appeal from being published in the “Mühlheimer Zeitung”. The “Kölnische Zeitung” has rejected the idea because of a “paper shortage”.

Rudolf Steiner: It is not only desired that the appeal be worked for in the occupied area, but it should be ensured that it has an effect wherever possible. Signatures could not be collected in the occupied area. Understandably, the English censorship will prohibit its distribution. There was also resistance in French-speaking Switzerland. This is based on the dislike of everything that comes from the German side. The hatred against the Germans has not been overcome. This is the result of Zimmermann's policy. A fraternization festival was celebrated with the American representative, while Zimmermann's infamous letter was already afloat. If something real like this appeal comes today, people won't believe it. We can only gain trust if we do not think of making common cause with those who pursued politics in the old Germany. There can be no compromise with the old regime. This principle should not be proclaimed to the outside world, but it must be in our actions. Mr. Collison, who is our representative in England, is currently in America. That is why the appeal has not yet been printed in England. Then the censor might think differently. The book should also be printed in England as soon as possible.

Ludwig Polzer and Walter Johannes Stein are asking about the developmental tendencies in order to better assess the tasks in the individual countries. Three questions: Firstly, what is the actual position of English politics on China, Japan and India; how is it influenced by America? Secondly, what would be the consequences of an Italian revolution for the peoples of former Austria? Thirdly, how does the far north relate to these developmental tendencies? Furthermore: How should our work be organized? Should the valuable personalities be concentrated in one place that is suitable for this, or should a rich island formation be considered?

Rudolf Steiner: More detailed information will be available in the next few days. Today, only the following: Firstly, the policy of the English-speaking population has not changed. These politicians knew what they wanted before the war and are sticking to it. Europe should be shaped in such a way that it is simplified as much as possible and becomes a market for England.

I recall the map that I drew up at the time according to English intentions. The Rhine forms a kind of border that continues to the south. Between the Rhine and the Vistula, a strip of German-speaking areas, to the east the Slavic Confederation, around the Danube the Danube Confederation. This policy also counts on winning China and Japan over. There is no difference to America. It all depends on whether we have a positive impulse for the future.

The Western policy will be able to work without decency as long as we don't come up with something that impresses people. They have to see that we are dealing with realities and practical matters. That is why we should not have capitulated to the 14 points. We should have responded with the same thing that is in our appeal. Surrendering to Wilson presents him with the most impossible task, because he is supposed to help and knows nothing of what we want. We can easily be understood by China, Japan, India, the whole of the Orient, if we do anything that is not an American imitation. We have already submitted everywhere, for example in commercial matters. The Orient counts on the spirit, despite the cleverness of the Japanese and the cruelty of the Chinese. If we do something intellectually and politically, we will be understood. German industrialists are not people like, for example, the English, but have simply become machines. Industrialists have had the last word in politics during the war.

Secondly: an Italian revolution will not have any major foreign policy consequences if it is not accompanied by a major industrial crisis, which will have a major impact.

Thirdly, the far north is an area about which I know nothing. I do not know what the north wants or how it feels about England. We go where we can with our appeal, and only give way to impossibility. Perhaps Mr. Vett can provide information about the north.

Carl Vett: In the north, there is an aspiration to unite the four countries, including Finland. They got to know each other during the war in order to supply each other with goods that used to be delivered from outside. This is also being striven for politically.

Rudolf Steiner: Do you think that there could be an atmosphere for such a practical ideal policy as I propose? In the north, there is also a certain conservatism. We could not do anything with that. We have to distinguish between countries like Württemberg, Baden and Prussia. There is a certain compulsion there. If the bourgeoisie resists, the proletariat will give in in this direction. In Russia, the matter would have been understood before Brest-Litovsk. Perhaps the time will come when Lenin and Trotsky would also wish that they had started it that way. It is quite different in such countries where something like this could be realized out of free will. That would be of the utmost importance.

Carl Vett: believes that there could be some understanding for this. In Denmark there is a socialist ministry that has already proved that it cannot get anywhere with its program.

Rudolf Steiner: This answer is very important.

Hermann Heisler recalls the sentence “Property must end, it must be put into flux”. For us, the land question has not become clear here. Can the land be kept in flux?

Rudolf Steiner: You will find that the land question is only dealt with in passing. Land is nothing more than a means of production and can only be treated as such. The question of money is linked to the question of land. The greatest of social lies prevails when it comes to land. You all own a piece of land in fact. What you otherwise own has no real value unless it is covered by a piece of land. You have to calculate: a certain territory, divided by the number of people living on it. The fact that you do not really own this land is a fraud. This is made ineffective by rights. This is how the land situation is related to the individual. Land is a means of production. Through the division of labor, much has become a means of production that was not previously. When a tailor makes a skirt for himself, it is a means of production. Land is to be treated in exactly the same way. Only those who can exploit the means of production should have access to them. The worker will work together when he knows that he works more rationally when one and not another leads. The relationship between employer and employee will be one of trust. The employer stands in his place through his abilities.

The gold standard means bruising the whole world through English politics. The useful means of production must take the place of the gold standard. An unnecessary war will be reflected in the currency because it puts the means of production in a damaging position.

Emil Leinhas: Objections are often raised that it is difficult to understand. How was the appeal received by the bourgeoisie on the one hand and by the proletarians on the other?

Rudolf Steiner: I did not understand much of what came from the headquarters, which ordered people to understand. Emil Molt: Bourgeoisie took up the call the least. The employees at our company slept through it, while the workers came to us with questions about it.

Alfred Meebold confirms Emil Molt's view.

Hans Kühn asks about joining a party.

Rudolf Steiner: There is nothing to be said against it. Our cause demands time, not party support. The greatest understanding will come from the proletariat. Of course, the appeal can also appear without bourgeois representatives. There are two impulses in the appeal. During the war, they should work for foreign policy. Now the social threefolding comes into consideration.

Alfred Meebold warns against entering into a party, because the call could then easily be understood by those who think differently as a party matter.

Schuler: Requests meetings in the smaller towns of Württemberg and the sending of speakers.

N.N: The labor leaders refuse. The individual workers sign because the matter is not a party matter.

Hans Kühn reports from letters in which the government is repeatedly referred to, especially from the bourgeois side.

Rudolf Steiner: Bourgeois politics is a product of fear, we can't do anything with that. But we must not proceed like Trotsky, who wanted to turn the world upside down. It is necessary that the professional training and experience of those who have acquired it is not lost. These are mostly middle-class people. We have to take in the people who support the call. The Social Democratic programs must also be incorporated into a program for humanity. Of course, we must avoid bourgeois sabotage.

Hermann Heisler recalls the mistrust of anthroposophy and speaks of his experiences with student youth.

Rudolf Steiner: Student youth can easily be won over if they are emancipated from their professors. We will have the worst experiences with the professors of economics. We will have to do without them. The quagmire of the universities shows the worst of bourgeois society.

Max Benzinger: What means of coercion will we have if the factory owners want to keep their means of production?

Rudolf Steiner: We'll just let them sit on them. Ultimately, forced expropriation comes into question. It will become clear that it is impossible to work against our cause.

End of program after 1 a.m.

Rudolf Steiner again chairs the meeting and opens the assembly.

Ms. Weisshaar, an architect, asks how the appeal is to be brought to the rural population.

Rudolf Steiner: The social ideas have spread mainly among the industrial workers. Marxism has never been able to gain a foothold in the rural population. Even if they are temporarily interested, the rural population would soon fall back again. But the appeal can certainly work. Here, too, a distinction must be made between the Catholic and Protestant populations. The former is suspicious of anthroposophy; otherwise, their church would have prepared them well for the threefold order by always striving for church freedom. There is less understanding in Protestant circles because the prince was often the 'patron' of the church. On the other hand, there may be some sympathy for the free school. In general, the farmer will be glad if the state cannot interfere in his economic life, especially after the experiences of the war.

Ludwig Polzer also worked among farmers in the sense of the call. He recommends speaking of “the dismantling of state authority”. In this regard, the farmers and the workers are united by a revolutionary mood. If the connection continues to be successful, struggles that are in preparation could be avoided. He also believes he can find understanding for the free school.

Wilhelm von Blume points out that small communities today are close to the threefold division because one already speaks of political communities in contrast to church communities. For the economic work, one often uses the term real or active civil community.

Rudolf Steiner: These are the remnants of an old way of thinking. In Austria we used to say, “No lawyer, no civil servant and no priest is allowed in the economy”.

Alfred Reebstein, Karlsruhe: People say that the food supply would be disrupted if the threefold social order had to be implemented first. Food should be provided first, and then everything would take care of itself.

Rudolf Steiner: This should not interfere with the work of the appeal.

Ludwig Polzer in Vienna has found that people are wary of the Entente.

Emil Leinhas often had similar experiences to Reebstein's, but always replied that food and coal would be provided as soon as the threefold order was realized. People should just not think and come up with such objections.

Schwedes: The Entente will not let us lose out if the threefold order brings calm to the country again.

Karl Stockmeyer, Mannheim, often hears that the state's basis of power will be lost.

Rudolf Steiner: That is what they want. To give in to such objections would be the most dangerous thing. Behind all this stands the rise of the old dictatorship (Ludendorff came to Germany via Kolberg and is now walking quietly in Berlin). The Center Party is working with all means to achieve reaction.

Karl Stockmeyer: In England, the revolutionary mood is also said to be very strong, although there is enough food there.

Rudolf Steiner: Above all, we have to work from factual documents. We must bear in mind that the English and German labor movements cannot be compared. The collapse of Germany brings a completely different basis. The German army was cut off from supplies from the homeland, so Ludendorff had to stop. The sailors in Kiel acted under the secure impression that their comrades over there would immediately join in loyally. Only in this way can the sailors' actions be understood. But the workers in the west did not join in. In England, therefore, the movement must be approached in a very specific way.

Carl Unger: A worker said that if the appeal is to be effective, the border posts must disappear. He thought that fraternization should be easy on the basis of the appeal.

Rudolf Steiner: The appeal should initially be geared towards foreign policy action. I already said to Kühlmann: Since the migration of nations, the disputes between nations have always been about economic issues. The movements of the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths went into the wasteland. But now people want to put the soil on top of each other, for example Germany and France in Alsace-Lorraine. If it had been announced that Alsace-Lorraine would only be administered by the state according to the legal issue, without regard to the economy and schools, so that children in France or Germany could have gone to school, the solution would have been easy. It was similar in Serbia. In Vienna one often heard the war called a 'pig war' because of the introduction of the Serbian pigs. It would have been tremendously effective to maintain economic relations across the borders. This is already justified in the call, but people do not want to introduce it through the peace agreement, but rather let it develop slowly and organically. In Austria, the development in the direction of threefold social order would have been most necessary.

Wilhelm von Blume: The nationality question has only become so pressing since the end of the 18th century. In the past, wars were waged for religious reasons or for reasons of conquest. It is only since the state has intervened in church and school that the state has become inconvenient for the people. If the state can take over culture and the economy, the nationality question will be resolved. Examples are Poland and Silesia, where German schooling had to be maintained. There was no ethnic hatred in the past either. This has only existed since the beginning of the 19th century. Here, too, threefolding will bring the solution.

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to mention an example from my youth. I lived in Hungary and had to go to school in Austria. There, in times of peace, children were sent across the border. Some learned Hungarian in Hungary, others learned German in Austria. This ended with the dualism of Austria-Hungary, when everything became pedantic. In Vienna, under the Stephanskrone, sloppiness prevailed. This meant that everything could develop peacefully in the past. The dualism put an end to peace. Hungary was made sharp.

Harriet von Vacano: Dr. Steiner often said that schools should be founded first. But the teachers in Munich often reply that nothing can be done because the church and the state do not allow it. The teachers have a latent fear. Wouldn't it be better to turn to the proletarians?

Rudolf Steiner: Teachers are the last ones to approach because they depend on the state. If the “Farce of Weimar” had released the school system, the teachers would have tried very hard. Today, one must approach the power that has the authority of the state. If the state wants to socialize, then bourgeois sabotage will follow. This is actually already the case in Germany. One then turns to the free areas.

In Germany, Lenin and Trotsky could not act in the same way. In Russia, they simply killed the citizens in order to suppress bourgeois sabotage. (Rudolf Steiner mentioned the example of Solf, whose officials went on strike so that he would remain in office. This was very dangerous.

Hermann Heisler, Tübingen: He always says that we should found schools based on a worldview, because we want to have anthroposophical schools. Of course, the Catholics would then also want to have Jesuit schools. How does Rudolf Steiner understand the unified school?

Rudolf Steiner: In the unified school, only the classes should disappear. The aristocrats will not be able to found private schools for the simple reason that they will have no more money to do so. Otherwise, the spiritual organizations will take care of schools. Above all, however, I would never found anthroposophical schools. The Anthroposophists would have to reshape the methods and the organizations, but never teach Anthroposophy. First of all, we must understand what spiritual freedom is. We must avoid schools of world view the most. (Under Minister Gautsch, Rudolf Steiner advocated the blackest clerical Thun as Minister of Education because he allowed all denominations to teach. He said schools should be managed objectively.)

Hermann Heisler: Does this not cause insecurity and inner conflict in children?

Rudolf Steiner: This is where a pedagogical factor comes into play. If we educate children up to the age of 14 according to a template and then let them go into today's competitive world, we would turn all children into neurasthenics. But freedom at school will bring truth instead of dishonesty. That will be the compensation. For education, it matters much less which religion the child hears than that one meets him with a true soul life.

Karl Stockmeyer: His parents sent him to Catholic schools for a time. He has always striven for teachers to be appointed as ministers of education and for the Ministry of Education to develop from the bottom up.

Ludwig Polzer believes that the Ministry of Education must disappear altogether. After the school question was postponed at Molt's request, Carl Unger raised the question of organization.

Carl Unger: The seven-member working committee should be supplemented over time by local groups from outside Munich.

Emil Leinhas asks whether the work in northern and southern Germany should be managed differently for tactical reasons.

Rudolf Steiner: This must develop out of the factual circumstances. It is not possible to set up regulatory principles. Perhaps the matter needs to be presented in one way in one district today and in another way tomorrow. This is a question of personal tactics.

Schuler, Tübingen, asks about the general debate: In the countryside, the land reform has won over many supporters for the Social Democratic Party. Couldn't we win over the farmers even more if they heard that we use land as a means of production and do not want to expropriate it?

Rudolf Steiner: I have not placed particular emphasis on the means of production of the land in the writing.

Clormann, Mannheim: Should the appeal not be particularly promoted among students?

Rudolf Steiner: These things are to be treated quite differently in the future. Of course, students and professors should be in full harmony later on. It should be possible to win over students as a unified group. I was asked to speak to students in Zurich and was very well received. Students should work for themselves and for the whole world. I was supposed to give a lecture to proletarians in Basel. The Social Democratic Party executive was approached, but they declined. Then they asked about a lecture to railway workers, the railway officials' association, which also refused because the leaders were afraid. After the public lecture in Basel, however, I received the invitation from them all by myself. You can deal with students who refuse today in a similar way.

Hermann Heisler: Thinks students are receptive.

Schwedes, as representative of the U.S.P., speaks out against arming the students. He also believes that the workers will easily go along. But it would be necessary to speak with one voice. The speakers should meet more often to discuss plans, like a kind of traveling conference. He is in favor of all speakers speaking on their own behalf and representing the ideas of the call as their own views. He speaks confidentially of the coming general strike. You should eliminate the leaders and win the masses.

Rudolf Steiner does not want to intervene in the latter. Because of the silence about various activities, Rudolf Steiner believes that it cannot be carried out, if only because it could be used against them in discussions. He gives the example of Winterthur, where the students were attacked, in front of whom he gave a lecture. He tried to convince the people that the young students hardly had a judgment, and that one must not ignore them. This answer was enough for the workers. You should always answer in such a way that you never advocate a program. The workers may say, for example, that they need economic strikes as long as state life is not detached from the economy. It is difficult to object to that.

The conflicts in Rudolf Steiner's life were rarely objective, but mostly personal. Of course, silence has no value against such attacks.

Party knowledge should be used and hiking speeches should be given. In particular, such friends should also educate the anthroposophists about the parties.

Hermann Heisler: The province would have to be better oriented. Debate requires in-depth knowledge of the subject. It suggests a speakers' and debate school from which those familiar with the topic can be sent out. If the foreign representatives cannot come together for such courses, Stuttgart should send out the speakers.

Karl Stockmeyer believes that one must acquire knowledge oneself. He calls for brisk work and non-centralization. He wants the same federation everywhere, but otherwise local freedom.

Max Benzinger is a member of the U.S.P. and would like to be trained as a speaker to support the appeal. He means training in the art of expression, because many find it difficult to express their thoughts correctly. One must work one's way into the old foundations (for example, of the party) in order to create something new.

Emil Molt: The league was founded on Easter Tuesday with a fixed name. Local groups can be formed outside, possibly independently of the anthroposophical working groups. It is good when foreign elements get involved. Different people are needed to work in different fields. Our working material is Dr. Steiner's book and also the Dornach November lectures. These should be duplicated as soon as possible. One must learn how to speak, but also practice it. You can only learn to swim by actually doing it. Conferences with local groups from other areas would be important from time to time.

Hans Kühn asks Rudolf Steiner for permission to reproduce the lectures to be given in Stuttgart, which is approved by Dr. Steiner.

Roman Boos, Zurich, wants only the book to be distributed. It is too late for speakers' schools. It is better to let Mr. Rudolf Steiner speak through the book than to provide surrogates yourself.

Ludwig Polzer: How should the organization in Vienna be done?

Rudolf Steiner: It cannot hurt if local groups outside of Germany stay in contact with Stuttgart (N.B.: It was later decided that Vienna should found its own federation like Zurich and that the German-Austrian local groups should communicate with the Vienna office).

Karl Stockmeyer suggests that all press releases about the federation or Rudolf Steiner's book be sent to Stuttgart by the local groups so that a picture of the movement throughout Germany can be obtained.

After various other requests - at the request - are dealt with by the committee, a request to adjourn the debate and continue it later is rejected because the most important work of the committee is neglected due to such long meetings. Wilhelm von Blume proposes, in accordance with the rules of procedure, to end the debate.

The chairman closes the meeting at 1:30 pm.

Protocol Record Stuttgart

After various speakers have expressed themselves in the general debate, Rudolf Steiner takes the floor:

Rudolf Steiner: It seems necessary to me that we now move on to the special debate. Mr. Leinhas has already made some comments not to derive things from gray generalities and to bring them into the realm of the necessary. And Mr. Molt has also made certain suggestions. But it seems necessary to me that the following be said in order to give a truly practical side to our endeavors.

First of all, it is necessary for this cultural council to address the task of propagating the whole idea of the threefold social order so that it penetrates into broader sections of the public and is understood there. Without propagandizing for the idea of the threefold social order, one naturally does not get ahead in a single specific area.

But then it would be necessary for this Cultural Council to do a second thing, through which it could actually carry out practical work as quickly as possible. So far, we have tried - just recapitulate what has happened - to create understanding for the idea of the threefold social order. Of course we were told: That is utopian, that is ideology, that has nothing to do with reality! But we did not let ourselves be deterred from continuing to work for this understanding and at the same time to bring it to a certain result: to the propagation of the works council idea.

And now that the idea of works councils has actually been presented to the world as a real thing to be worked out, people are beginning to see the idea of the threefold social order not so much as a utopia. Now they are beginning to take it seriously. The industrialists are up in arms about the works councils, the trade unions are up in arms about the works councils, in short, there is a lot of agitation against them from all sides. I don't know whether they would agitate so strongly against something they found to be completely harmless. This shows the transition from the original germinal idea, which already contains the fact, to real life practice. But the practice of life must then also be maintained with the appropriate strength. The question of works councils also originated in Russia, only it ended in failure there because all sorts of other things poured over it and fought against it. With regard to economic life, it is therefore a matter of the works councils providing the basis for economic life and its members to emerge from the current conditions themselves. I just want to show you that we are moving on to real practical work. First, there must be an understanding of the basic idea, then you can move on to the practical work.

The cultural council should first of all be aware that its first task is, of course, in the field of education in the broadest sense and of those suggestions that must come from the rest of the intellectual life for the education system. Today, it cannot be a matter of taking socialization in the abstract again. Entertainments which have gradually become distinctly capitalist entertainments in modern times – such as the theater and, to the highest degree, the cinema, which is, after all, only a concomitant of the very extreme capitalist-bureaucratic age – will only be able to achieve their socialized form when the foundations of intellectual life are first socialized. I really fear that we will soon also be hearing about the “socialization of purebred dog breeding, the distribution of Christmas trees to families” and the like. If socialization were to be understood in this way, we would not get anywhere.

What we have to deal with first of all, if the Cultural Council is to develop its activities, is, firstly, the elementary school question. Look at the elementary school question from a practical point of view. The Anthroposophical Society itself is a spiritual movement that has emerged from contemporary spiritual life and placed itself on an independent footing – at least in terms of its intentions. It could achieve a great deal if people had the courage to do so and did not rely too much on the forces that stand in the way of such courage. But the important thing is to grasp the right approach from the point of view of threefolding. The School of Spiritual Science has been founded in Dornach. It is certainly not located on any state property; it works independently in one branch of spiritual life. A number of our members have now expressed the wish to educate their children from the bottom up, in accordance with the principles and impulses of true spiritual life. I do not need to emphasize the fact that anthroposophists also have children; so we already had the children. In Dornach we might even have had the teachers. And the parents were highly motivated. We had everything, really. So what did we lack? Why did we not found such a school? Because the state, free Switzerland, does not give us the right to do so, because it does not recognize a school that is not established by the state itself.

My dear friends, the main thing is to fight for recognition of what is achieved in such a school on the basis of purely spiritual and educational principles. It is a matter of abolishing any kind of state school supervision and any kind of law that only allows teaching to be given by this or that teacher appointed by the state, and the like. That is the first thing. And here we have to struggle with the objections that are always raised today, especially by the Socialists, under the banner of the unified school, when it comes to a healthy basis for the elementary school system.

Let us take the example of Dornach again. Dornach is in the Canton of Solothurn. When I first spoke there about the threefold social order, the chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Arlesheim soon came to me and said: It will be very easy to see in the canton of Solothurn how difficult it is to accommodate such an endeavor, because it took a great effort to wrest the school from the school “brothers” and school “sisters” of the canton of Solothurn, and it took a great effort to secularize the school. If the right to found schools were granted to any kind of endeavor, then clerical schools would probably arise, perhaps even schools for the nobility. In short, people were terribly afraid that these things might take hold.

These are things that must be dealt with first. The discussion must be entered into with the public: How does the Cultural Council, with its idea of the threefold social order, relate to the so-called state-run comprehensive school with compulsory education? This is the issue that must be clarified in public. So the first task is: How does the Federation for Threefolding relate to what a member of the majority socialist party and member of the state parliament in Reutlingen recently said: What do you want then? We have now created a school law that is absolutely in line with the most ideal views! – Then the Federation for Threefolding has to show through its cultural council: Even if you were angel-like beings, we would never accept a school law from the hands of the state! – because the point is to wrest the school from the state. It must be shown that people will not become illiterate again if schools are freed from state control, that new classes of students will not emerge, and so on. That is the first positive question, the elementary school question. And until it is shown [in the cultural council] that there is an understanding of such a question in the face of today's political currents, the cultural council will only be a wild beating around the bush.

The second thing is to show that we can only get rid of the higher schools if we get rid of the awful system of qualifications. Everything that stands between elementary school and university can only be determined by the fact that it is preparation for university. The universities have to say: We want to get these or those people into our ranks, for this we make the demand that the secondary modern schools and the secondary schools – which must also become something completely different according to these or those principles – are managed. Consider that the secondary modern school has long since existed only to prepare students for the one-year voluntary military service by granting them the right to do so, to become future civil servants. So here, too, it is important: Get the schools out of the state!

Then we must fight for the autonomy of the university. It already had that in the old days. We have only just destroyed the last remnants of the university's autonomy in recent times. The university must be an autonomous corporation. It must regain what has particularly ventured in recent times. What the universities used to consider as self-evident was what they awarded when they granted a doctorate in any faculty. That was the expression for it: the university here and there, which is regarded as an autonomous body, gives XY the right to call himself a doctor in a certain field; it therefore awards him the diploma. This meant that the autonomous body had established the right for people, which it could guarantee as an autonomous body. And the state has conquered this whole thing, because today the awards of the faculties are only decorative pieces, titles without any rights, and the states have introduced their state examinations for this, that is, they have extended their tentacles to the universities. They are no longer autonomous. You can't find anything like in the past, where someone could be said to be a doctor who studied at the University of Montpellier; that's a good school! Today everything is abstracted. So the demand is: autonomous universities, abolition of all state exams. If the state needs people, it should test them. If it needs someone for a position, it can test them according to its own criteria. Such a test is only meaningful for the state, not for what must be free from the state in the areas of teaching and education.

The following positive questions arise:

Firstly, a free comprehensive school without state supervision, justified by the demands of the time;

secondly, the abolition of the so-called system of qualification for secondary schools,

thirdly, the reduction of state examinations and the autonomy of universities.

These things must be presented to the world as a clear program. If we start with this, we begin at a similar point as in business life with the question of works councils. If we start with this, the others, who of course need this or that, will follow. The point is to start by tackling things where they are universally human: in lower and higher education, which is generally also universally human.

That is what I wanted to say first about the transition to the special debate, so that this comes out. Certainly a committee should be elected. But it should deal with the most current issues and I wanted to point out to you that the most current issues and positive ones are important. Initially, no value should be placed on the content of the individual worldviews. What matters is not whether Catholics, Protestants and so on want to found their schools, but [that] we achieve the very next practical thing in a positive way – initially in the field of intellectual life, which concerns all people: the position of the school on its own feet.

These are the issues that must be vigorously discussed in the coming days and must crystallize into very specific individual points. And with these individual points, those who are truly able and have the will to do so must then go before humanity to implement these things. For this upheaval in spiritual life is more important than anything else. Because without this upheaval in spiritual life, none of the rest will come about.

Protocol Record Stuttgart

[Carl Unger welcomes the participants. Emil Leinhas then reads the revised text of the appeal. Wilhelm von Blume talks about the difficulties involved in propaganda and the practical implementation of the independence of intellectual life. He is against the distribution of a third version of the appeal, as it would be ineffective. The new text should be used as an explanatory pamphlet.]

Rudolf Steiner: It seems to me, ladies and gentlemen, that if the questions raised at this conference are to be fruitfully discussed, it is necessary to consider the starting point very carefully. When discussing the future realization of independence in intellectual life, I noticed that certain misunderstandings can easily arise in this regard. The day before yesterday, I explained my views on this subject to younger teachers here in this place and saw that the misunderstanding arises when it is claimed that the relationship between the state and school, as it has been practiced until now, should be thoroughly criticized and dismissed, and as if it should be asserted that this relationship between school and state has only produced something fundamentally evil, and that something new must take its place. This is actually how what is meant by the threefold social order in this particular case cannot be grasped. Today, it is not so much a matter of focusing on how the school has got along with the state so far, but rather, it is above all a matter of us really showing ourselves capable of adapting to the great moment of world-historical development today. The idea of the threefold social order can only be grasped by realizing that we are in a time in which, firstly, many things are changing of their own accord and, secondly, new formations must necessarily arise. The question cannot be: Do we or do we not like this or that about the school or the state today? but certain things are happening, want to happen, want to be realized, and we have to seize the world-historical moment. And it is precisely by propagating this threefold social organism that those who profess the idea of threefold social order believe they can grasp this world-historical moment.

Now I do not want to go into economic life in any further detail – I have already done so on numerous occasions – but I would like to focus specifically on what is happening in relation to intellectual life in general and to the school system in particular. It is not news that economic life is being placed on a new footing, that economic life is heading towards a certain socialization. This is not something that can be decided or not decided today; it is already happening of its own accord. We only have to ask ourselves the question: how do we shape what wants to be shaped in the most reasonable way? In such a way that in the future, state life democratizes itself, must democratize itself down to the last detail; that too happens by itself; one only has to consider how to do it most reasonably.

Now comes intellectual life. I do not consider this to be something that runs alongside the current task, but rather, I consider it to be the most important thing of all. For the school system may have been good or bad – we are not concerned with criticism today – but if we have a community that is economically socialized and legally democratized, then we need a different education for the people who want to live within democracy and within the social economic order. So, it is not a matter of asking: How do we get the school away from the present state? but rather: How do we educate people through school who can grow into a new social order that more or less arises by itself? It is of little importance to us whether school thrived under the old state or not, because this old state will simply transition into the new one, and we have to consider how to shape school for the new state.

It will not leave us much time for reflection. There are things that demand that we act quickly, that we rise to the challenges posed by human development itself. And one can often tell from the socialist program what needs to be done. You see, there are socialist economic programs, and there are socialist political programs; both have a number of things to be criticized. But from the same side from which socialist economic and political programs come, also come socialist school and pedagogical programs. People demand that this or that be realized in the pedagogical-didactic field. And anyone who is truly serious about the development of humanity, who has a heart and mind for what should and must happen, will find the pedagogical didactics that emerge from this socialist program to be something terribly horrific. One cannot imagine anything worse than what is depicted in this socialist pedagogical and didactic program coming upon humanity. It demands, for example, that socialization and democracy be forced as deeply as possible into the school. The children are to be socialized and democratized from an early age. The directorates are to be abolished. The teacher is to be forced into a school community with the children in a comradely way, based on democratic and socialist principles. Yes, my dear friends, if you educate in this way for what wants to emerge as the most radical democracy and socialism, then you will not get people into this democracy and socialism, but you will get beings with the most terrible, most elementary instincts, who will truly develop little socialism and little democracy.

That is why we must first make it clear to ourselves: when, on the one hand, socialization and democratization take place, that we then have all the more need to get people used to it at school – as I explained the day before yesterday – firstly, to a dignified imitation of what the child always wants to imitate after the parents in the first years of development , and that we have to accustom the child, above all from the age of seven to fourteen, which is precisely the school years, above all to a sense of authority – to an absolute sense of authority that is cultivated much, much more and much more energetically than it has been cultivated so far. We must not banish the belief in authority from school if we want to socialize and democratize. From the age of six or seven until the age of fourteen or fifteen, we have to get the child to look up to the teacher as if he were a “demigod” or, I would say, so that through the feelings that they develop within themselves during this time, what must be a state in democracy and socialism becomes strong in the soul, if all is not to fall apart into bestiality.

Therefore, we must develop these things all the more through a very thorough immersion in the very, very earliest impulses of human nature, if we want to somehow lead people into the so-called state of the future - and we do want that. So, my dear friends, what must be considered for spiritual life when we speak of the threefold social organism is based on the development of the times. Of course, those who today only want to turn their attention to economic life could not truly consider this; it is precisely those who have already stood on the ground of didactics, of pedagogy, who already have experience in it, who should consider this. It is only right that we talk about things based on the foundations of experience. It hurts so much today: when you come to proletarian assemblies, the proletarians speak their language, and when you talk to the bourgeoisie about the proletarians, you realize that they have no idea what has been going on in proletarian circles in recent decades. The people from different classes do not understand each other at all. And so it is now really a matter of our finally learning to talk in a way that is appropriate, not just in terms of our station and class – then people will understand each other. That is what I ask you to consider; then we will also come to a proper assessment of these three demands.

You see, I have now disregarded the first years of childhood, which are part of the education in the home, because I wanted to address the first stage of primary school. Yes, I think that in the future it is necessary that between the sixth or seventh year and the fourteenth or fifteenth year, education is built entirely on a truly more intimate and better psychological anthropology than we have done so far in our pedagogy. This must become something that really takes place between the teacher, who has his authority, and the child, who allows himself to be guided by this authority, and receives everything he receives in such a way that the source of truth passes through another human soul, so that he learns to have trust by looking up to the other person. And the teacher, in turn, must take into account from year to year the way in which the young person develops between the sixth, seventh and fourteenth, fifteenth years. We have to teach the school subjects in such a way that we take into account how the child's development is internally determined. We have to, so to speak, see the possibility – yes, don't misunderstand me, I mean, we sometimes have expressions that don't quite cover the matter, but we can communicate – we have to be aware of the possibility of seeing a religious act in teaching. We actually have to come to terms with the fact that we are gradually educating the child to free the mysterious spirit and soul from the physical body. This sense of devotion, freeing the spirit and soul from the physical, is what really needs to take hold. And here I think it is really a matter of not thinking that it should only be built piece by piece. I have full enthusiasm for the school that is to be founded here as a Waldorf school, so that we can once give an example of how we imagine anthropological education, through which the human being is truly made human.

But all this remains a mere surrogate. And the point is that everything that is conceived as the threefold social organism is really not so, that one can say: This must be realized slowly and gradually, these are far-reaching developmental ideals, but that one can actually do it right away, if one really wants to. All the explanations that I have given in the book 'The Core of the Social Question' are actually based on the fact that they can be immediately implemented in reality. My main concern is that once we have fully realized what independence of intellectual life means in relation to the tripartite social organism, we can replace everything that is state-run in schools today with objective pedagogy in schools. Why should this not be possible? It is something that only requires a decision and the courage to implement it. External conditions will not improve, but the foundations will be laid for such improvement. We should start at the top.

It would start with placing the administration of the school system on its own feet, on its own ground, that is, wanting the university or college as an autonomous body, and that within the autonomous university, those teachers who sit in the ministry and who are not bureaucrats, but who are themselves part of the living spiritual life, are not concerned with laws that are made in parliaments, but with human advice that goes from person to person, that they are concerned with what has to happen in the school system, they are to be placed on their own two feet, on their own legs, on their own ground, that they are to have their own university or college as an autonomous body, and that within the autonomous university, those teachers who are not bureaucrats but who Thus, a real, human detachment of the school system from the state system. If the question of how schools are paid for cannot be resolved today, transitional arrangements can be created in this regard. If the people who have to teach have no confidence that the nourishing goddess or cow, I don't know what, will come from the economic life, then let the state pay for the school for the time being. What matters is not that much, but that what is spiritual in the spiritual life really becomes independent, that the whole spirit of the pedagogical-didactic also passes through the administration and the structure of the spiritual organism. If one only attacks this, I would say, initially on one point and then works in this direction, then I would say, I have nothing against the “gradually”. But just don't think that it somehow depends on the fact that it is difficult. It is not difficult at all; once you have thoroughly grasped the idea, you will come to it. I once expressed it in the following way.

There is a contemporary philosopher. I value his acumen very highly – I distinguish between acumen and genius, as well as between depth of mind and expertise. So there is an astute man who wrote a book in the 1980s called “The Whole of Philosophy and its End”. In this book, he seeks to prove that, as a result of our scientific way of thinking, which has taken hold of everything, we have come to the point where all philosophical worldviews must cease, and the things that philosophy has done so far must be handed over to politics, science, jurisprudence and also state pedagogy. This is something very significant. This man has thought through to its logical conclusion what actually lies in the habits of thought. He has therefore come to the right conclusion: if we continue to muddle through – and he is in favor of our continuing to muddle through – he is enthusiastic about the dissolution of all philosophical thinking. He proves this very astutely and has therefore also become a professor of philosophy at a university. He talks about state pedagogy. For those who understand how to see the issue as a symptom, this also means a great deal. It means that there is no longer any kind of autonomous pedagogy, that there is nothing that takes the human being as such into account. Rather, the state has become something over the centuries; it demands this and that preparation of the human being for what it has become; the human being who is within the state must look a certain way. Now, if you are a teacher, you have to study: well, so the human being must look like this, we have to turn people into this, so that they look like this. - This is something that must be overcome. And if we want to face up to the historical moment, then we must overcome this. It is not the spiritual life that should receive its directive from the state, but the state that should receive its directive from the spiritual life. The trainee lawyer and the assessor - I am already of the opinion - take it as grotesque, but this opinion will not be long in coming: it is for the university to determine what a trainee lawyer and an assessor should look like in the world, and not the state. It is not the state's place to make laws about how this or that should be, but intellectual life should be the guiding force. It should tell the state: if you are a proper state, your assessor and your trainee lawyer should look a certain way. So, I think to myself: a truly inner autonomy of the whole intellectual life, that is what is most important.

I also think of the authorization system in this way. Isn't it true that anyone who has studied this authorization system in recent times – I don't even want to go into aptitude tests so much – will have seen that time and again, authorizations that arise from the matter itself have been transformed into state examination systems. The state has set its state examinations in place of the earlier diploma examinations at universities and

colleges. This was a move of the times; in many respects it was a justified move of the times, but it must be reversed again, not in the bad sense; we do not want to fall back into the Middle Ages, but we must come to a point where intellectual life is completely autonomous and , because if we are to enter into the material world as much as socialism wants, then we can only do so if we have a strong counterweight, if we have a very strong spiritual life.

Look, let's take things as they are. There's no denying that social democracy, as it has developed over the course of half a century, thinks in a more or less Marxist way. And anyone who does not adhere to Marxism today – that is, to the Marx whom today's party popes consider the real Pope – is considered worthless within the social-democratic party. This is how social democracy has developed over the last half-century. Through so-called revisionism, attempts have been made to blunt all sorts of things, but now they are being emphasized more and more sharply again. But there are also those who draw the ultimate consequences of Marxism. There is no denying it: who drew the ultimate, real conclusion of Marxism, first in theory and then tried to implement it in practice? That is Lenin – Lenin, who actually considers the Scheidemanns or Bindemänner, the Kautskys and whatever their names are – it is said of him – the German socialists, all of them to be scoundrels, Lenin, who with great logical acumen draws the final consequences of Marxism in all areas.

The realization of this is today's Bolshevik Russia. There is an inner necessity in this: Marxism leads to this and, when it is put on its own feet, can lead to nothing else. Now Lenin had written a book, “Revolution and State”. In it, Lenin says: the old state is bad, bad in every respect; there is nothing to be done, absolutely nothing to be done with the state. The state must be overcome, only we cannot overcome it immediately. - So he says: so we will just make a state in which the proletarian dictatorship will rule. We will set that up; there should be equal rights and equal pay for all. That is already the case in Russia today, where sometimes one person is paid six times as much as another. There are people who earn 200,000 rubles as intellectual workers, but still: equal pay and equal rights for all! In reality, things sometimes turn out quite differently, but then people like Lenin – who is very astute, who has really drawn the final consequences of Marxism – says: Let's continue with the old state a little longer, let's continue with the structures that we see in the old state. But if we do it this way, this state, this new state, has a certain task. Lenin actually defined this very strictly and logically in 'The State and Revolution'. He says: This state, which he has now established, has the task of gradually leading itself to its own death. The state has no other task than to lead itself to its own death. That is actually Lenin's definition of the state he established. Because first, he says, and by the way, he starts with things that can be found in Marx himself, because he says: So the present state, in which it is not particularly comfortable - it has not turned out as we wanted it to - the state will revolutionize itself to death, and only then will the new come, where everyone will be treated according to their ability and need.

But now Lenin adds, and I ask you to consider this as decisive: what then emerges from the state that has now killed itself cannot be done with today's people, but for that we need a new kind of people. In other words, we need to look to the future state, for which we first need a new kind of human being. Yes, my esteemed audience, the threefold social organism wants to prevent this world-historical madness, which is extraordinarily logical and methodical, from realizing what can be realized, what can be based on real ground. But above all, one must not be a supporter of the madness, of the idea that, even after everything has committed suicide, in some way or other – yes, I don't know how – the new human race will come into being. But if one does not subscribe to this idea, then one needs a heart and mind for the growing human being. Then one must understand that one needs a reorganization of the spiritual life, then one must above all have a heart and mind for the training of the spiritual life, for the development of an appropriate spiritual life. Then these insane thoughts that a new human race must first be created will disappear from people's minds, and one will take the courage to make people suitable for what they are to develop in democracy and socialism. This is a real thought, that is at issue here. But things are not so – truly not! – that one can prepare to discuss things leisurely and calmly over the next three years. The issues are too urgent and pressing; things must happen. What matters is that we have the good will to grasp things quickly and to do what can really be done. To do this, however, one must have heart and mind for these things, and realize that today's human race does not need to be wiped out for something to happen in the Lenin sense, but that the whole of today's human race is good.

But people need to be educated. Let us look at the present and say to ourselves: the people who are now to grow into what wants to be realized in history must be educated differently. It is now time to tackle the questions on a large scale. That is why I have often said: Above all, the real idea of threefolding must be understood. In relation to intellectual life, this consists of truly placing it on its own ground. For this, nothing is needed but the abolition of the usual school supervision, which is exercised by officials in such a semi-official capacity, as it is called in the new Württemberg constitution, where a contradiction that exists in life is immediately expressed by such a stylization: “officials who work on a semi-official basis”. One can fish where in reality that occurs which should not occur, but the point is to really grasp that only people of intellectual life come into the school, since the minds of people should not be filled with the spirit that speaks out of decrees. What more is needed than for the state to declare: You spiritual life, you shall govern yourselves; we are abolishing the Ministry of Culture and Education and giving spiritual life itself the opportunity to govern itself. I cannot see why it should be better for state officials to govern things than for people who are part of the spiritual life. This is something that can really happen overnight if only there is the strong will to do so. That is what I mean, and what I meant is that today it really depends on winning the masses over to the idea of the times in another area, that today it also depends on having as many people as possible who can understand that spiritual life must be placed on its own ground and who work together in their own way to make this happen.

You can see how we started our work here, initially in the economic sphere. Within three weeks, thousands upon thousands of proletarians from all walks of life had understood what was meant by the threefold social order. They understood it in their own way, of course, but there is nothing wrong with an emotional, intuitive understanding among the masses. On the contrary, it is something natural. Then the selfish leaders came along who thought: “Ah, Mr. Kohl, he speaks for Kohl, he won't make any impression on the people, he has no authority.” Then they saw that Kohl won over thousands of people. Then they became afraid that the reins would be wrested from their hands, and now we are faced with the possibility that the broad proletarian masses, who were already on the path to reason, will swing back because they cannot be disloyal to their leaders, because they are wedded to them. And now the party templates and party slogans want to triumph over reason once again. If you ask: Does it have to be that way? the answer is: the masses are, after all, just voting cattle. But the masses could also be something other than voting cattle, something that really comes from a rational organization of reality. You see, what was striven for there should be striven for to a greater extent in our own time, which can be said to bring terror every week. It should be striven for in the life of the spirit, it should be striven for by the spirit life, which has become independent, that education should be organized in such a way that the human being comes into his own, so that he can also stand in democracy and socialism. But people are so afraid when they see how little feeling there is for what is pulsating through human development today, they are so afraid that what I have so often said at the end of my lectures: What has to happen should actually be understood before it becomes too late. One fears so much that it could become too late; I really fear that if one says: We cannot simply destroy our state – then I fear it.

Ladies and gentlemen, we do not want to destroy it either, because after all, if we were to decide by tomorrow to leave the school system to its own devices until tomorrow, I believe that things would hardly look much different. You would only be making a start on what would gradually make intellectual life more intense. It would not be a matter of destruction at all; it would not look any different in the schools in the next few weeks; but rather so that not people rule over the school who rule from the bureaucracy, but rather those from education. If you didn't look too closely, you wouldn't notice any particular difference when the most important thing happened. And a revolutionary who was expecting that when the revolution came, no stone would be left unturned, would perhaps say: Nice revolution! It doesn't look any different than it did a fortnight ago!

So it can't be about destruction. But it is a different matter if you are too afraid of destruction, because then it could be that we avoid destruction, but that other, elemental forces, which are spreading through Europe with enormous power today, could take care of this destruction quite thoroughly. Therefore, I believe that we do not have the choice to rely too much on slowness, but we must take action. We must actually see what is at stake, and it is important that this threefold structure emerges from the reorganization.

After a lecture, a man once said to me: So the state is to be divided into three parts; whether the Entente quarters us or Dr. Steiner thirds us is completely irrelevant. But that is not the point at all. It is something quite different. For example, there is a man who always follows the lectures I give like a loyal Eckart (I don't know if he is here again today) and who usually says something very apt after the lectures. After some have objected to this and others to that, he says: “But children, just take what has been said quite simply; you just have to take it quite simply as it really is.” He is truly a faithful follower of Eckart, who always follows from lecture to lecture and at the end uses the apt words: “Just take things as they are!” What one sees in this threefold structure is simpler than one might think, and what one considers difficult is often only a difficulty that has been introduced. What I am about to say now, I say so that I am not misunderstood, so that people do not think that I want to belittle the state, the existing state, or that I believe that if the existing state remains, schools will change much. No, I don't think so, but we should recognize that we are in a great moment in world history, that we are grasping what can be grasped with regard to the liberation of intellectual life and especially to the reorganization of the school and teaching system in this moment in world history. We can talk about the rest later.

[The discussion is about the text of the appeal. At the request of Emil Molt, a commission will be appointed to prepare the final version. However, the debate will continue. One participant, Karl Bittel, criticizes Rudolf Steiner's account of the situation in Russia.

Rudolf Steiner, interjection: I did not speak about Russia, I spoke about Lenin's book 'The State and Revolution' and [about] what is directly related to it. This is not a derogatory criticism, it is meant quite objectively.

[Karl Bittel mentions the Württemberg 'Council of Intellectual Workers' towards the end of his remarks.]

Concluding words of Rudolf Steiner: Dr. Bittel has indeed misunderstood many things thoroughly. I myself, however, do not wish to be misunderstood, but would like to make it clear from the outset that I am firmly of the opinion that such objections as those made by Dr. Bittel must be accepted with all gratitude, even if they miss the point in such a way that we actually lose sight of the matter at hand. For example, what was most emphasized in my remarks was completely overlooked, namely that teaching should be based on a healthy psychological anthropology, and that we cannot have any hope that anything will come of an education system precisely because we do not have such a healthy anthropology. I did not make a demand – anyone who has heard me speak often should know that I am not a programmatic person and do not make demands out of the blue – but I simply characterized what must be the case according to the natural laws of human development. I said: If we want to prepare people to really grow into democracy and socialism, then it is simply necessary from the point of view of human nature that between the change of teeth, that is, between the ages of 6, 7 and 14 , 15 years of age, feelings of authority develop in the human being, so that he then has the inner strength that enables him to stand within a democratic state later on, in order to allow democracy and socialism to be expressed in the fullest sense. This view of the matter is conceived from the point of view of a truly real psychology. I ask you to understand this as the difference between what is happening here on the basis of the threefold social order and other programs that are based on demands. Everything that arises in this idea of threefold social order should simply be based on reality.

Another misunderstanding is the following. We would not continually run into dead ends and impossibilities in the whole discussion if we did not counter what is wanted here with all kinds of other program points. Please look at it this way: One may have many concerns about such programs as those of the youth organization, for and against – I do not want to get involved in that. I myself find this program, which has been read here, to be too senile; I do not feel old enough to take this path. But what really has inner youthful power is what I miss in today's youth movements: that they are already so old and cannot relate to the ground of a real youth. I once said to a younger representative who appeared with great emphasis in Bern, I think, “You are 35 years old, I will soon be 60, but from what you have said, I feel much younger than you are.” It depends on whether you can take things as they are meant. The pros and cons should not be considered at all.

The matter itself should simply be discussed – and I would be very happy if I could attend discussions on these questions for days rather than just hours. They are just not on the agenda today because we can only hold fruitful discussions when a real basis for them has been created. Only when the spiritual life is liberated do we have any prospect of penetrating these things and preparing the ground for them. Whether one is more for or against: the idea of threefolding creates a healthy foundation for all these movements, on which they can develop. I can honestly confess to you that I would be overjoyed if not only those movements that I tend to sympathize with would come to life on the basis of the new spiritual life, but also the opposing ones would live freely, because it is not important to me to implement any particular worldview, but to create a basis of freedom in which the individual spiritual impulses can compete. Then, on the basis of this free intellectual life, whatever is able to assert itself will come to pass.

So I ask not to misunderstand the matter of authority. It is meant to be perceived by the student as something selfless above all else. The fact that authority does not exist today is evidenced, on the one hand, by the beer newspaper and, on the other, by the pursuit of the school community. If authority really existed as I imagine it, we would have had school communities long ago. The fact that we have to strive for it today and don't even know where we have to get the teachers from to achieve a reorganization of the school is all the more proof that we long for the liberation of education. It is not enough to say: Those who want something must profess a spiritual revolution, must profess this call and so on. My dear audience, we will get nowhere by constantly emphasizing “radical revolution, revolution, revolution!” I am aware that if what is meant here is realized, namely a free spiritual life, then this is a much more radical revolution than what the gentlemen mean who only ever use the word “revolution” in the sense that the previous speaker used it. Just wait and see how radically different this will be from the liberation of intellectual life as envisaged by the Federation for Threefolding, and what will come out of a free intellectual life. I also agree entirely with what the previous speaker said about the press. But it is only possible to intervene there if we have a free spiritual life. I can see no hope in intervention on a legitimate basis or through some kind of press court. It seems obvious to me that history teaching will not look the same as it has always done.

Then there is the question of adult education. Yes, of course I am very much in favor of it, but we have no science and no art for this adult education. Above all, we need what grows out of a free spiritual life. The popularization of class science and class art that today's universities are tapping into does not produce adult education. For a folk high school, we first need a free intellectual life. I have emphasized this before: I know the difference between what is true, real intellectual property and what is taught by professors today as the thoughts of the folk high schools. Because, you see, I felt this dichotomy when I was a teacher at the Workers' Education School founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht. Few could speak to my students, who were all socialists, in the same way – I could speak in such a way that what I said to them was drawn from the universal human: everyone understood and everyone was included. But when I had to follow the customs and beliefs that prevail, so that I had to look at what was hung in the museums of class art – people often made requests to do so – then I had my anxieties, because there was class art, not what I tried to give to the people from the heart, but what the proletarian could not understand because he was not on the same level – so when you explained things to the people, you had to speak a different language. And I was always glad when I could say: This is what must be replaced by something else if something is to emerge that can actually be the art of the future or the like. Because then you can go right to the heart of the artistic feeling and see how impossible it is to get to the real folk art. Just consider how today's artist has grown out of the bourgeois class; he will paint very beautiful landscapes, but anyone who has not grown out of that same class will never be able to understand them at all, because he cannot make the transition between the much more beautiful nature that the professor can see for himself every Sunday afternoon and what has been daubed on the ham, even if it has been done with great artistic skill.

It is much more radical when it comes to adult education and folk art, when we talk about what is meant by the aspiration of the tripartite social organism. It is about something that those who always talk about it, the “radical revolution”, have not yet even dreamt of. It is about something that goes to the very root of what has been creating the gulf between people for centuries, something that goes to the very core of spiritual life. And here it is really necessary to seek out what is meant by the idea of the threefold social organism before opposing other programs to these ideas, because truly – you can at least take it from me – I have become very familiar with these programs. And the idea of threefolding is not there because I have not become acquainted with these programs, but because I have become acquainted with them. The objections that are raised from these points of view have long since been raised by me; and because I have raised them myself, that is why the idea of threefolding exists. I am quite indifferent to the “programme” of threefolding; for me, the important thing is that today the spirit really comes into humanity, which from the spiritual side can see the great historical moment in the eye. Then, for my part, I leave it to others to understand this or that differently. What matters to me is that there are as many people as possible who carry this new spirit within them. Then those who can do something to help this great historical spirit get on its feet will also be able to promote this new spirit. That is why I am absolutely indifferent to the wording of one point or another – what matters to me is the spirit; the wording may be better or worse. And if we can achieve that as many people as possible are able to place themselves at the service of the spirit, then we will have achieved what I want.

Carl Unger: There are no further requests to speak; I therefore close the meeting.

Lecture at a meeting of members of the Anthroposophical Society

My dear friends! It should be clear that we are living in a time of change, a time that we have to see as a time of transformation, and that it is our primary responsibility to find our task in this time. We will, since we are not today on the ground on which we stood in the consideration that we devoted to the general cultural council, but precisely on our ground, as members of the Anthroposophical Society, we will do well to occupy ourselves a little with our thoughts from this point of view of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual movement.

You see, when we talk today about a spiritual-scientific understanding of the world, about the real content of spiritual science – you were also able to learn about this in Stuttgart, where spiritual-scientific lectures have been given for many years, which, it can be said, have found an ever-larger audience. When one speaks to people today from these spiritual-scientific points of view in the concrete, one first encounters an audience that corresponds to the conditions of the present. But you have also seen that, even leaving aside the public, we have continued to develop anthroposophy. Many of you have seen how we have applied anthroposophy fruitfully in a wide variety of fields, fruitfully applied from a very specific spirit. Let us imagine how this has been attempted from a particular spirit.

We can start with anything – let's start with the public lectures. These public lectures had to introduce a new insight, a completely new characteristic of spiritual life into the world. There was never any hesitation about this, not even in public lectures, and certainly not in the lectures that were then given to advanced students within the Anthroposophical Society itself. There was never any hesitation about pointing out in a concise and forceful way what should replace this cultural life of the present day, which is in decline. For decades now, it has been made clear that this cultural life is in decline; that the life in which we are immersed is in decline. And it has been pointed out everywhere that an upward development must be fostered from a renewal of the spiritual understanding of the world. It was pointed out very clearly that we must distinguish with the utmost seriousness between what is in a downward movement and what must fulfill humanity so that it can ascend again. Was that not, my dear friends, the spirit of all the lectures given to the public or to a smaller circle? And was not, in essence, what is now being illustrated in an outward way through world-historical events and world-historical misery always contained in these lectures?

Let us look at something else in our specifically anthroposophical field: we have erected a building in Dornach. In erecting this building, we have not followed any of the traditional forms of architecture, painting or sculpture. We have tried to create something out of the consciousness that a complete renewal and regeneration of our spiritual life is necessary, something that is a beginning, but that is also something new. We have not shunned the challenge of striking at the face of all that which we have created and which, out of old conceptions, wanted to judge architecturally, pictorially, sculpturally and so on. Yes, the philistines sometimes stood head to toe in front of the Dornach building; we let them stand head to toe. And we knew: it was precisely that which we had to have, that the philistine bearers of the previous worldview should stand head to toe in front of things. We also did not let ourselves be deterred when all the unsuccessful newer attempts to arrive at some unphilistine art, with all the backgrounds from which artistic creation so often arises, with the backgrounds of hysteria or of inability but of much wanting, when they simply pronounced it 'unartistic' about that of which they, precisely because they wanted to be artistic in a new way in their sense, understood nothing. We did not let ourselves be deterred from being looked at askance and askew by the philistines and, forgive the word, over-philistines.

When we set about cultivating eurythmy, with all that this involves, a recreation of the art of recitation, I said: the sensitive souls who will be involved in performing these things must prepare themselves that once they are brought to the public, they will be thoroughly criticized; but that will be the proof that they mean something; because if they were praised, they would agree with what is happening below, and then they would certainly be of no use. This awareness, which is now being challenged, I might say with blood, by humanity, was brought forth in the anthroposophical movement out of the demands of a new spiritual life.

We have performed our mysteries in Munich, the actual content of which has so far been understood by few people. We have performed these mysteries for four years, many people have seen them; they are buried from the world; since then they have not been spoken of at all. They have been forgotten because they have passed before those to whom they were performed, like a dream that one forgets; one may enjoy it, but one forgets it. These things must be said one day, my dear friends, otherwise we will not get around to what I actually meant last Sunday.

Yes, my dear friends, it would have been nice if we had tackled all the things that have been mentioned here today in 1907. But we are living in 1919, and today we can no longer merely tackle the things that we should perhaps have tackled on the basis of our awakened anthroposophical consciousness in 1907. So what is it about? Please excuse me if, in order to keep this matter from taking too long and to make it as painless as possible, I express myself somewhat sharply: I would like to say, with reference to our anthroposophical movement, that there were two types of people from whom two things could be assumed: those people who were at public events or who could see how the Dornach building is now open to the world, who could see what we wanted simply as - well, let's say, as contemporaries. That was one kind of people. We also experienced them here, when the general anthroposophical truths were specialized for the threefold social order. We experienced them here in the Siegle House. We have experienced people for whom these things are already understandable, as far as they need to be understandable for a general audience. But I have often characterized here how the understanding of people of the present day who actually deal with these things actually is. These people of the present, they do accept some things, they also see some things, but they cannot rise to make that which they see the content of their whole being; to make it not only the content of their thinking and dreaming, or dreaming thinking, but also the content of their will. And so one can experience that perhaps a whole assembly, or the majority of people who are listening publicly, show their clear approval to a certain degree for the things that must now be spoken for the benefit of humanity. But the next day everything is as it was before; it has no other significance for them than that they have heard the things for an hour and a half or two hours; that the things are there for man to take them up into his inner being, for that present humanity has absolutely no disposition. That, my dear friends, is the one kind of people.

The other type was the anthroposophists, a completely different type of person. With the first type of person that I have just characterized, one could hope for nothing other than what I have said, because that is the bourgeoisie of the present, that is the part of humanity that one could believe would have salted meat in its head instead of a brain criss-crossed with furrows. That is what people of the present age are like. But then the Anthroposophists were there, about whom, for decades, people had been talking in terms quite different from those that could be spoken in public. It could not suffice for the Anthroposophists to take these things in; it could not suffice for them to devote themselves to the general inner habits of the present-day human being. One must indeed ask: Is the modern human being seeking a spiritual life? Yes, he seeks it, he seeks a spiritual life, because what the church gives him, what the modern school gives him, is no longer enough for him. He seeks a spiritual life, but what kind of spiritual life is he actually seeking? He basically accepts the highest truths, but accepts them in such a way that, firstly, they bother him little, that, secondly, he needs to claim his inner self as little as possible for co-activity, and that, thirdly, he moves quite well in this outer decaying world, alongside what he takes from it, just as the outer decaying world demands. That is, he finds it perfectly natural, without feeling any inner contradiction in it, that he goes about the business of his life in the sense of the decadent world, in the sense of the destruction that he had to be confronted with head-on by the world war catastrophe and what followed, and then he sometimes feels the need to be uplifted by an anthroposophical lecture or instruction, which he accepts like a Sunday afternoon sermon that offers him a change from what he otherwise absorbs quite well as life within the decaying culture. It sometimes shakes up the people of the present that the things around him, the things he has to go through, are so nonsensical; then he also turns to something like anthroposophy, but not as to something he seeks in it is an impulse for how things should be done in detail for others, but rather seeks in anthroposophy a nice sleeping pill with which he can numb himself to what he can live with after all to externally calm his inner being.

You see, that was the ongoing call to those involved in the anthroposophical movement: to understand that this must not continue in modern humanity, that anthroposophy should not be understood as a sleeping pill and as a Sunday afternoon sermon, but that modern man must absorb his anthroposophy in order to truly embody it in all the details of life, to develop it, to develop the consciousness of self-reflection within himself, that we are in a decaying cultural world.

The adaptability of modern man is enormous. But what does one adapt to? You see, we live in a threefold unnatural environment in the present. We live in the phrase. We live in a mere positive statement of all sorts of commandments and prohibitions, instead of in the original human right. We live in economic egoism instead of in the brotherhood of economic life. All this is accepted by modern man in such a way that he needs to notice it as little as possible.

Yes, you see, anthroposophy, taken seriously, does not let you simply ignore these things, but it is something that I have often said: absorbing anthroposophical truths means a certain danger for life, means that you have to live courageously, means that you have to have the inner resolve to break with many things. In almost everything that has been said, reference has been made to what Anthroposophy seeks to be. The motto given was: 'Wisdom lives only in truth'. But modern humanity lives in lies. For what has gone through the world during the catastrophe of the world wars was only lies. People everywhere said different things about things than they actually were, because in the declining culture, people have unlearned the inner connection between what they say and their inner experience. Humanity needs a strong spiritual substance in its soul to regain this connection. We should be strict with ourselves on this point. One should also understand things in detail. For example, one should understand what led to this misfortune of world war catastrophe; it is necessary to know what the inability of the leading personalities has brought about, and that this inability has been nurtured from the ground up because antipathy towards spiritual life in all areas has been nurtured. But where was it nurtured the most? It was most cultivated in the church, because what is most materialized today is the popular Christianity of all denominations. This popular Christianity of all denominations is supposed to lift man up to the spiritual world, while it only ever attempts to present the spiritual world to man in such a way that it is tangibly material. All these things have often been pointed out in detail, again and again. It is of no use today not to see these things in their true form. Above all, however, it must be realized that what is now coming into the world as the threefold social order is a result of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. But one will only understand this in the right sense if, as I have just said, one looks into these things.

My dear friends, it is necessary for the human being to become a self-reliant personality through spiritual science, so that he learns to judge the outside world, including the human outside world, in the right way, precisely because he stands firmly on his own ground as a free personality. The free personality is no longer recognized in the world at all today. We have become accustomed to no longer recognizing the free personality at all. If someone says their own thoughts somewhere, their own thoughts that they have fought hard for, the foolish, stupid world today calls it a presentation. In such things, down to the last detail, it is important to see where things are rotten. This adaptation to the stupidity of the present shows how we are no longer able to stand on the ground of a free, self-creating personality. It is not pedantry to point out such things, for it is in the habitual tendrils of ordinary life that we see where things are rotten on a large scale. And if we want to recover, then this recovery must start from the large and be so strong in the large that the large can intervene in the ordinary smallest tendrils of life. At the moment when the whole world could already see externally that things were going wrong in Central Europe because of the arms race, we named our building in Dornach, which, I might add, stands directly on the border with the Entente, the Goetheanum, so that we could make it clear to the whole world what we believe to be right, never yielding in any way to what one might say: How will it affect people, what should be taken into consideration? and the like.

And in this context, I would like to point out that it would be good if the people of Central Europe in particular would remember that people like Goethe, Schiller, Lessing, Herder and similar people once lived in Central Europe, that Fichte spoke there. Because these things, my dear friends, have been forgotten. It is not true that these things are still alive today. It is an enormous lie to say that Fichte is still alive. He no longer lives in people. For he does not live through the fact that his successors in the old, so-called German Reichstag in Weimar have even begun to quote him. These people, who constituted the greatness of Central Europe, became parasites on the life of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They must first be unearthed. And we will have to understand that time is a reality.

My dear friends, I want to tell you the following in a radical way: Suppose Herder or Goethe had written something; you put that down in front of you; and today, whether by karma or by chance, someone writes something without knowing that Goethe or Herder had written it; they write the same thing, using the same words. Most people of the present day would say: Well, that is exactly the same. And yet, the truth could be that what Goethe or Herder wrote would be imbued with the real spiritual, and what a person today writes with the same words would be empty phrases. But from this you may see that when someone brings a piece of paper from this or that community that comes up today with some nice program that one should do this or that socially, and compares it to what appears here as threefolding , some of it may agree word for word; but anyone who sets store by such agreement shows only that he does not really stand within the anthroposophical movement with his soul. For the great difference between us and all these things — and I have repeatedly made this absolutely clear over the decades in the most diverse contexts — the great difference lies in the fact that behind what we proclaim socially stands the world characterized by anthroposophy . That is the substance, and that makes the difference; it elevates what our sentences say beyond the character of mere phrases to real content, while most people today only speak phrases that may sound like the content of reality. What matters is reality, not the phrase. That is what one would like to be understood. If the matter is understood, my dear friends, then it is a matter of being able to grasp our time in reality from this point of view.

I would have liked someone else to have said it, but since no one else is saying it, I have to say it myself: We do have anthroposophy, we do have spiritual science; from it arises the awareness that a transformation is necessary in our cultural world. But humanity does not yet know this, it does not know it enough, it has to be told, it has to be made apparent, and it has to be made as clear as I have just shown. If someone wants to found a school, good, let them do it; if someone wants to tell fairy tales, good, let them do it; one could have done that in 1907 as well. What is at stake today is to convey to humanity the awareness that anthroposophy is here and that anthroposophy must grow. And if it does not grow, nothing will grow, because the other will perish, as is clearly evident in intellectual life. And this must be seriously presented to humanity. Of course, we cannot immediately found any schools on a large scale, but we have to say to humanity: your world is perishing, here is the truth from which you can renew it. You have to found the liberation of the School of Spiritual Science in the sense of the new spirit! It is the awakening of this consciousness that is at stake. I am therefore pleased that my appeal “To the German People and to the Cultural World” in the last issue of the “Reich” was followed by an essay containing the words:

But the forces of self-reflection should ultimately be able to lead to such a common understanding if this self-reflection were directed in the right direction, which must lead to an understanding of the foundations on which alone reconstruction is possible.

The forces of development in the new era must be included in the plan of construction. If one wanted to build without such a plan, then every well-intentioned effort would have to disintegrate due to the lack of a realistic foundation.

Anyone who takes the step towards such self-reflection will realize the significance of the view expressed in the appeal that a real mission of the German people must be inextricably linked with all that the developmental forces of modern times demand. Valid foundations for a structure cannot be created if the inexorably surging developmental forces that have been released over the last hundred years are channelled into the riverbed of old habits of thought. These developmental forces want to carve out a new riverbed. Large-scale spiritual pioneering work is to be done if the future of the German people is to be secured. But the weapons of old habits of thinking are proving too blunt to accomplish this work.

Everyone who has participated in anthroposophical work should think this way, and everyone should make this their work. For what matters today is not what we do tomorrow in detail, but that as many people as possible know what needs to be done, then there will be as many people as possible who can do it. And we must never shrink from the decision to see things as radically as possible today. To see them in such a way that we truly do not remain in the old stupid formulations of the cultural program, but that we see: here is the old culture - here is the one that is to be replaced by spiritual science. The details will follow.

It was just demanded that the children in the lowest classes should play a certain music, that everyone should learn an instrument. Such a thing can be demanded in detail. Was it not our demand from the very beginning to give every child a musical instrument? These things will come about when the work that follows from anthroposophy, the spiritual work, is undertaken on a large scale, initially for the purpose of helping people to find themselves. That is why, when I came here, my main aim was to get as many people as possible to see the things that are most important in social life today. At first people thought, because they were foolish and did not feel the reality of things: these are dreamers, things have grown on anthroposophical soil. At first they were no longer anxious. Then we had thousands and thousands of followers who sealed their allegiance by name, and we had a large, large number of votes in many resolutions. Then those to whom the masses submit have become fearful due to the present-day conditions, and since it has become apparent to them that this is not anthroposophy but realities in the minds and souls, they have denounced it as utopian because the leaders of today's proletarian masses do not think proletarian themselves, but are precisely the most dreadful bourgeois philistines. They are the ones in whom the bourgeoisie is expressed in its most characteristic form. Therefore, it is important that we now grasp our task above all. We can only grasp this task if we know how to rebuild the education system from the ground up. And we have to make it clear to the world that this education system has to be rebuilt, that it has to be built from the spirit of spiritual science. We have to make it clear today that the universities that exist now serve the downfall of humanity; that our grammar schools, our secondary modern schools, our middle schools serve the downfall of humanity; that in our primary schools, people are not educated, but state cripples. But if we allow anthroposophy to be a Sunday afternoon sermon that we let go on alongside our lives as far as possible, and then we grovel and dare not tell anyone outside that the things that other people set such great store by contain nothing but impossible stuff, then we need not be anthroposophists. We must imbue ourselves with the spirit of the truly new age, not with the catchphrases of the new age. Therefore, if we are to work as anthroposophists, our first task is to ensure that people first know what needs to be done; that they learn to know what needs to be done. I would like to test the anthroposophists who are here, they are all individual personalities. I would like to ask you: Imagine, instead of you, instead of the fact that you are sitting there and I am speaking to you, there were a bunch of Jesuits, and one of the Jesuits was encouraging the others to action. I would like to know what these Jesuits, if they were here in such numbers, would do for Jesuitism – that is what I would like to know. They would work for what they are supposed to do. They do not need to do this or that in detail, they would just limit themselves to working on a large scale to create the consciousness they want to instill in people. Basically, the only important thing is the personality that we develop, because there is nothing else, my dear friends, that will achieve anything in the present situation except by permeating as many people as possible with the truth and daring to speak that truth. We are constantly experiencing how little courage there is for the truth and how little will there is to see things through. How is a cultural pest like Johannes Müller treated in the present day? Just today I received an essay that I believe a great many people consider extraordinarily clever. The Frankfurter Zeitung, that depository for all the current nonsense and fawning of those people who also want to participate in the redesign, the Frankfurter Zeitung even prints it as a feature, an essay by Johannes Müller, in which he talks about the fact that the German people had confidence in their generals, but the generals did not have confidence in the German people, and that this is the source of the misfortune. It is pure nonsense, it is pure brass, but people today follow this brass. And one must dare to confront this brass with all one's might, because anthroposophy should not be something that is received like a Sunday afternoon sermon, but something that pours fire into our blood. What matters first of all is that we say to the world, in the most comprehensive sense, what I pointed out at the end of last Sunday's reflection: we are here as anthroposophists! If we were to found a university today, what would be the result? Well, let us assume that we get students – I will leave aside whether we would have the teachers for them – we get students; I do not think that we would get students under today's conditions, because no matter how well these students were trained, even if the socialist state system, which is praised by many, continues to exist or comes into being in a different form, it would not be recognized by the state. They would have studied for the outside world, so to speak, for their own pleasure. That is not the point, but the point is that we make the world understand: the whole spirit that prevails in our public science today must become a different one. And we have a right to demand that everyone do it – that is what matters.

Do you see why I am saying these things? Yes, I am saying them for the following reason: We have been working on this for decades; much of what I have discussed from this platform only came before my mind's eye in these last decades; I know what some of them were a harrowing experience; I know how I have to look at them; but I also know how little willpower has been developed to see things as they really are in terms of their spiritual content.

The new issue of Reich contains a very interesting essay by Hermann Haase, a contribution to a phenomenology of consciousness. This interesting essay shows something very curious. The author points to an investigation by a psychiatrist, a pathologist, who examined schizothymia and its connection with dementia praecox, a certain form of mental deficiency. Through the examination of an imbecile, the psychiatrist in question came to the conclusion that there are four types of layers of consciousness in man: the superconscious (called sup.), the experiencing subconscious (called exp. sub.), the ordering subconscious (ord. sub.) and the deepest subconscious (d. sub.). There we find the modern researcher, who has emerged from the modern university. He establishes four levels of consciousness in individuals with mental deficiencies, in which this is reflected in a negative mirror image, and it is not realized that this matter has been proclaimed to the world in a healthy way by telling it: the ordinary object consciousness, the imaginative consciousness, the inspired consciousness, the intuitive consciousness. If something is said today in the light of sound spiritual work, it is not accepted. If a psychiatrist comes along and takes something out of the morbid states of morbid individuals, the world falls in line to receive the thing in a caricature. That is what we have come to. Such an abyss exists between what can and must be proclaimed today out of the spirit and what the world is willing to accept. We must make an effort to recognize this mission of ours in the present day and not give in to the thought: “Yes, but it can't be that bad after all, people want the best.” No, we have to recognize that the world is in decline and that it needs to be rebuilt. That is what we have to make it aware of first. If we do not make it clear, then nothing we put into the world will be of any use, and the world would not understand it at all if it were not first pointed out that it is necessary to replace contemporary state science with something else. This is how the world must experience it. And if we do not rise to this challenge, then we as anthroposophists are not working to transform modern culture. Anything else is wishy-washy. We must therefore seek the forms in which we can communicate this to the world, in which we are really always talking about spiritual science. We do not need to concern ourselves today at this important historical moment with whether or not we have fairy tales to tell; that may be a nice task, but today it is about how we present the spiritual wealth of spiritual science to the world. We must not always protect and patronize what is different, but really stand on the ground of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. We have to represent spiritual science. That is what I meant last Sunday. And we should courageously represent this spiritual science wherever we can, in whatever profession we are active. This spiritual science can send its reforming and revolutionary power into every profession. We must not be deterred when something is possible, such as a first-class university of the old declining times producing an individual like Max Dessoir, who lies, lies scientifically. We must have the courage to present these things in their truth. But now we must be alert to the fact that slimy figures are creeping out everywhere, attacking what should have come from here. The things these slimy figures come up with! In addition to everything else that has been slime, a new slime has emerged that has added a slur on Dessoir and that produces the slimey lie that Dessoir has justified himself in the new edition of his book. We must be alert to the slime in today's culture, as it emerges particularly in the public press. If we do not aspire to clarity, all our confused thoughts will not help us. For that we need both courage and the humility to limit ourselves in our abilities and in our powers to do what we can do. You see, I just wanted to tell you these things to make you understand what I actually meant last Sunday. I did not mean that one should think one should now do what one should have done in 1907; then it would have developed in some way by 1919; but I meant that one should now seize the great historical moment and make it clear to the world that there is an anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. It does not know that. It does not know that at all, because people are not listening to these things, because they are not being transformed into deeds. I could give you countless examples of how things are not being transformed into deeds, how things mean nothing more than a passing sensation. That is not what anthroposophy is meant to be. Anthroposophy is meant in such a way that action can arise from each of its words, even if this action can initially only consist of words. But these words must not be empty phrases, they must not be formulated in an unctuous way, like the unctuous speech of ancient or contemporary Christianity; these speeches must be grainy. We must make it clear today that those who come out of our universities are stupid, and we must not tire of showing that this is a cultural-historical phenomenon, that all four faculties (or however many are newly established) are institutions of stultification in the sense of real human development. If we do not take a stand and speak out, then anthroposophy will have to work for a long time before it can fulfill its true calling. Then you see, do you believe that what I told you the other day, that for example what is described in our anatomy and physiology as “human” is actually not a human being but Lucifer, described by Ahriman, which is expressed by the fact that today's physiology distinguishes between two types of nerves, sensitive and motor nerves; do you think that it is easy to find? If it is found, it is a truth today that should not be taken as a sensation, as idle gossip, but that it could unhinge an entire system of science, as well as many other systems of science that are taught today at our universities by the boards of trustees, and how this spiritual science could unhinge many other things. But as long as we are not aware that anthroposophy is everything, that the other things cannot exist alongside it, that it is wrong of us to let ourselves be beaten down as soon as we are out of this door, then of course we cannot achieve what I spoke of last Sunday. We as anthroposophists should make it clear to the world that we are here. That is what matters. Above all, we must grasp that. The world must know that anthroposophy can advocate for its cause. Think about it: if there were only Jesuits sitting here and they were admonished to work, how they would work, then you would get a yardstick for what people who want to advocate for their cause do for their cause. But one must be able to look at things this way, not as a Sunday afternoon sermon. I believe that this is the most practical thing at the present time, and we would like to agree on this: how we can really bring the anthroposophical spiritual heritage into the world today, when the time is right for it, when it is high time for it. We have begun by saying that we were always embarrassed at the beginning, when this movement began here in Europe; we were always embarrassed; we wrung ourselves out, how we say this or that, but just not where it comes from, just not on what soil it grew; we have considered that as our task. We should think back to this time, and when we think back, we should learn the right lessons from it. Then we could, above all, be a community of people who practice the right, but now productive criticism of the unculture of the present. And this productive criticism, this emphasis on the fact that what is there must be replaced by something else, that the whole of the present school system is not worth a shot of powder, this productive criticism, that is what we have to do first. Then everyone can add what they can add from their own particular knowledge, and in doing so they can make fruitful use of what they are as individuals. But wanting to make all kinds of things fruitful without putting them at the service of the greater good will achieve nothing today, because today humanity is not facing small, but great reckonings, and this must always be said again.

Address to an Assembly of the Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism Protocol Record

[Emil Molt first gives an introduction about the state of the work of establishing works councils, which is not making much progress. Ernst Uehli presents the new weekly newspaper “Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus” (Threefolding of the Social Organism).]

Rudolf Steiner: If the threefolding of the social organism is to become what it must become, then it must work as a whole. It will not be possible, for example, to take any part, any link out of the whole structure of the threefold social order. It would not be possible, for example, to realize the economic part of this impulse at some time or other - in about the way it is contained in the so-called “program” - and to introduce it into the world in itself. That would not be possible. It is imperative to strive simultaneously for the three parts of the social organism to develop side by side. Just as in a natural organism one could never speak of creating the head or the chest first and then waiting for the other part to arise from the other limbs, so too can no part of the three-part social organism be tackled on its own. Therefore, just as the seed - which you have heard today has not yet borne very hopeful fruit - had emerged, but as the seed of the economic program through the idea of the works councils had emerged, it had to be borne in mind that the work should not be done only in the economic field in our sense, but that the universality should be taken into account. Therefore, while working for the works councils, the leadership of the Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism decided, on the one hand, to gather around them personalities who were believed to be interested in creating and preparing for another link in the social organism: the spiritual link, the cultural link. And we tried to start by setting up a kind of cultural council – or whatever you want to call it. You will find a detailed account of what is actually being sought with this establishment of a cultural council in the call to establish a cultural council, as it has now been provisionally published and as it will probably be in your hands. So I will have little more to say to you about the matter today.

It was really possible to organize a kind of collaboration, a collaboration between a larger number of people. Those interested in the most diverse areas of intellectual life were repeatedly here together, and the ideas of such a cultural council were discussed. But then they also went into the individual work. Everyone tried to contribute, to gather the thoughts that had occurred to them in these smaller meetings – the thoughts that had occurred to the individual about reforms, about the transformation of intellectual life. And from this collaboration, like a final editorial board, the first version of this appeal for the establishment of a cultural council emerged.

The next step was to win over a larger group of people who, out of a sense of the needs of contemporary culture, would have joined in the call: Something must be done in the field of intellectual life in our very difficult times. - We then tried to approach this or that representative of intellectual life. It would be a very sad, indeed a very depressing chapter if one were to describe the details of the negotiations that took place in connection with the first figure of this call. Now, in these difficult times, it should be recognized that, above all, a renewal, a reorganization of intellectual life is necessary in the deepest sense, that is, insofar as it belongs to the social organism. This must be recognized, on the one hand, by the fundamental character that the intellectual life of cultured humanity has gradually taken on. It must be recognized, secondly, by how this intellectual life is administered today. That this intellectual life is the basis of what is actually happening today, which is presenting itself as confusion in the chaos of our culture and our entire civilization – this should actually be recognized.

We should recognize what fruits it has borne that for three to four centuries our intellectual life, especially in the form of schooling and education, has been repeatedly and repeatedly absorbed by the state organization. We should recognize that today we have hardly any sense of the innermost needs of intellectual life, which can only exist in the urge for a free shaping of this life. No feeling has been aroused by the fact that the absorption of spiritual life by the state was a decisive factor not only for the filling of posts and for external administration, but also for the content of this spiritual life itself. This could not be shown as clearly in the past as it is today, at the great turning points in the development of humanity that we are currently facing. Over the past three to four centuries, as important branches of our intellectual life have gradually been absorbed into state life, a form of our intellectual life has developed that is no longer capable of producing ideas that would have been a match for the facts, which are asserting themselves more and more powerfully, more and more extensively.

Thus it has come about that, wherever they were locked out of these or those foundations of intellectual life, thoughts were too short to control the facts, that these facts went their own way, came into their own momentum, and in the end it was the thoughtless facts into which man was no longer able to send thoughts, have brought about our terrible world catastrophe, in which we are still very much involved, and with regard to which we are only now entering decisive points, decisive stages.

Nothing shows the decline of our intellectual life more than the state of the proletariat, which is so significant for the movement of today's people. The leading circles, who have been leading up to now, feel with horror what revelations, what programs, what party maxims are emerging from the proletariat. In my book 'The Key Points of the Social Question', I wanted to point out the crucial point. I wanted to point out that the state of mind of the leading members of the proletariat today is nothing other than the legacy of the intellectual life of the bourgeoisie, of the leading, guiding circles.

Recently, two members of the Federation for the Threefolding of the Social Organism who belong to workers' circles gave a lecture at a public meeting. This was followed by a discussion in which prominent figures of the proletariat, who were far to the left, intervened. I then spoke a few words, which amounted to saying that, in my opinion, these personalities, who were far to the left and belonged to communist circles, had nothing but the worst offshoots of the intellectual heritage of the leading and governing circles – which they were until now – in their speeches. I would like to say that one has never heard such bourgeois talk as was the case with these independent and communist personalities. They have learned this from their bourgeois ancestors. They had to learn it. And anyone who can look more deeply into the official development of our intellectual life, into the administration of our intellectual life, knows that this intellectual life has finally led to the complete withering away of intellectual production and that, where intellectual matters are concerned, nothing is left but empty phrases. We live in a world of empty phrases. There are still people who do not want to see these things. There are still people in Central Europe – it is hard to believe – who do not want to see these things, who still want to indulge in the illusions that have allowed them to numb themselves for so long, about rushing into self-inflicted destruction. Self-inflicted because they do not want to face what is without prejudice, because they only want to hold on to old habits of thinking and feeling.

The aim of a cultural council as it is conceived today must be a complete reorganization of the entire education and teaching system. I would like to say that something like this can be tackled on a small scale. It is to be tackled by setting up the so-called 'Waldorf School' here. This Waldorf School is to be brought into being by our friend Mr. Molt, initially for the children of the workers at Waldorf-Astoria. This school should be set up in such a way that the children between the ages of six and fifteen are taught not in the way that teaching has been conducted at this school level so far - out of the mere needs of the template state - but in a way that is appropriate to human nature between the ages of seven and fifteen, according to a thorough understanding of that human nature. What people have in mind as a so-called unified school that is not born out of anything other than human nature, which is a unity for all people, especially in these years, should underlie the entire structure of the Waldorf school. The whole structure of the Waldorf school should be based on this knowledge of what should grow with the human being in the world, and on this knowledge of how teaching should be structured. Teachers should work seriously to receive a pedagogy that is based on real anthropology, on a comprehensive anthropology. The task of these teachers is to educate the human being to develop the powers that lie within the human being, which must be cultivated during childhood, so that something can be avoided in the future that every observer of human nature, who has a knowledge of psychology, can see so clearly today.

Indeed, what is the most important and essential characteristic in the life of our time? What is it that weighs so heavily on our minds today as a major cultural concern? If we look at what prevails among people today, we find that most people today are what I would call “bent natures”: those people whose will and feeling and thinking are “bent” by the vicissitudes of life. Why are they “bent”? The reason is that our school education for children is such that the most important powers of the soul are not strengthened to such an extent that they can no longer be “bent” later on, that the human being is able to cope with life. This should be the concern when setting up a Waldorf school: to prepare the human being for life in such a way that the soul and emotional forces that can only be developed in childhood are developed so that the human being can cope with life. Everything that is to be taught in so-called subjects is only secondary. Everything that figures as a so-called subject will always be asked: How does it contribute to the development of the powers of the human soul? When is this and this, at what age should this or that be introduced to the child? Lessons should be taught from a comprehensive understanding of the human being. Then the people who come out of such a school will be able to stand strong in life. Not less, but more effort will be needed by the human being in the age that hopes for social organization - in contrast to the divisions into class differences and the like that existed before. Of course, what is today the middle school, grammar school, secondary school and so on would also have to be reorganized, and what should be completely different for the future if one wants to have people who are good for life; it would have to be raised to a higher level than the lower level of elementary school, and the reorganization would have to extend up to the highest levels of teaching, at least to the college level. You can find more details on how this is to be achieved in the appeal to found a cultural council.

As I said, you can do something on a small scale, like the Waldorf School, with someone who really has such a deep understanding, like our friend Mr. Molt, for what needs to be done in terms of threefolding. The individual can have a beneficial effect by doing such a foundation. But with such an individual foundation today, the necessary is not yet done. Today it is a matter of awakening the consciousness in people in the widest possible circle: that which can be intended for such a particular thing should become the common property of humanity if we do not want to sail into the downfall of European culture. Today it always looks as if one is merely putting some kind of fantasy before the world when one says: we are faced with the “either/or”. Either we must decide on great things, or we must familiarize ourselves with the thought that European civilization is sailing towards its destruction. Anyone who still does not believe in this “either/or” today simply does not understand the times. Today's call is not for our timidity, but for our courageous will. And here I must say: in view of everything that has been said about the transformation of spiritual life in the sense of threefolding, it is truly one of the most serious disappointments that now, after weeks of efforts, nothing more is available than the attempt at such an appeal, which has indeed found a number of signatures, but of course not nearly enough. Because what is to be done today must be well-founded in the broadest sense of the mass judgment. Only in this way can we move forward.

The negotiations have shown time and again that the old problem is also occurring in this matter: one person wants this, the other that; one person did not like a sentence, another did not like the stylization; one person finds it necessary to spend weeks discussing a matter. Yes, it must be said: the concerns that have been expressed, especially by this or that personality on whom we had counted in this cultural appeal, were of such a nature that they really proved how necessary the transformation of our intellectual life is. – There is nothing that shows the poor state of our intellectual life more than the intellectual life that has produced such objections as those that have been raised against us. That is why this cultural appeal must be discussed today.

You see, when we talk about what concerns humanity as a whole, what is so clearly shown by the whole configuration of our time that it concerns all of humanity, what do we learn? These days, I read in various Stuttgart newspapers a description of what the Waldorf School wants. This description was also contained in the local Social Democratic paper of the USPD, the “Sozialdemokrat”. The “Sozialdemokrat” could not help but make the following comment on this description, which was [objective]: The matter would be all very well, but it comes from factory owners, and we will not put up with that.

This is the state of mind of contemporary humanity. But this state of mind of contemporary humanity is particularly evident in what has been encountered in so-called “bourgeois” economics, namely the most enlightened economists at our university, the leading economists at our university.

I ask you to buy this issue, which is entitled “Das gelbe Blatt” (The Yellow Sheet) – the current issue. You will find an article by Professor Lujo Brentano about the entrepreneur. Of course, today the newspapers are everywhere reporting on Professor Brentano's article about the entrepreneur, as they are accustomed to doing based on their belief in authority. For our time, which according to its illusion is not one of blind faith in authority – it is more blindly faith in authority than Catholics ever were in relation to their church leaders in earlier times. But try to read this article by Professor Brentano on entrepreneurship with your common sense, emancipated from all this blind faith in authority. It is to be hoped that as many people as possible today will apply common sense to such things.

First of all, there is a definition of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is characterized in three points. And a concept of the entrepreneur is created, a concept that the luminary of economic science, Professor Brentano, ultimately uses to such an extent that the concept of the entrepreneur also includes the ordinary proletarian worker; because, according to Professor Brentano, the ordinary proletarian worker is the entrepreneur of his own labor, which he brings to market at his own risk and expense. Today our intellectual life is such that pure nonsense enjoys the greatest fame. Until we can fully grasp the full weight of this fact, we will not develop a sense of what is necessary. And until we develop this sense, we will not understand how much inner courage is required for this transformation of our intellectual life; how much is demanded by a truly fundamental renewal of our intellectual life, especially of our education and teaching.

Oh, I would give anything to have the gift of very different words and word coinages to make today's humanity aware of what one really had to achieve through a bloody struggle for life. Do you think it is easy to say such things as I had to say against a so-called luminary of today's science? If you say such a thing, everyone sees you as an angry rabble-rouser, as a person who must be silenced. And only the most sacred sense of duty can lead one to tell the truth about these things today. And this truth is serious, very serious. For what have we already achieved in the details?

I would like to recall the lecture I gave in Heilbronn on the threefold social organism, which Mr. Molt has already mentioned today. In the review of the “Heilbronner Zeitung” that Mr. Molt reported on, there are many things that do not interest me, because I am highly indifferent to what a line-pushing writer writes about what is spoken out of today's seriousness of life. But if this wordiness becomes a symptom of what lives in today's hearts and minds, then it needs to be considered a little. There it has yet such a wordy windbag managed to say that I have resorted to “the three old hits Freedom, Equality, Fraternity”. Well, this is how far this generation has come, that today one can freely say that these three great goods of humanity – freedom, equality, fraternity – are “hits”, that one can mock what is most sacred to people. One is reminded of the words of Hamlet: “Writing tablets, writing tablets, that one may write down, that one may smile and always smile and yet be a villain.” And one would like to say: writing tablets, so that one can be considered an educated person in the face of contemporary humanity and even be allowed to write in newspapers and still be allowed to mock the highest ideals of humanity in the most stupid way!

These things are rooted in our present-day culture; that they be seen, that what everyone who takes today's world seriously longs for, and that out of this longing develops that which in turn can result in a recovery of our social organism!

We are really on the verge of the catastrophe that is looming in the most diverse areas of life. What we need is to find the strength to draw upon our inner resources. We need to do everything we can, especially in view of the impending danger to Central Europe, to draw upon our innermost human powers. We need to let the danger to Central Europe become the impetus to do everything we can from our innermost being. Much will be taken from this Central Europe, it will be made very, very poor. And truly, one is repeatedly reminded of what one has already had to let sink in again and again from life, very, very bitterly: It was always a painful sight for me to see a young child here and there in more intimate circles during these war years, because then one had to feel: The old have at least something behind them, have a memory of something; but those who are now children are growing up in terrible times. And today, this feeling does not only come to mind through the general world situation; today it also comes to mind when one has to notice how sleepy humanity is in the face of what can be observed today. It must be observed how we are absolutely sailing into destruction if we do not start from such points of view, which I have been able to characterize here today, albeit very imperfectly, in just a few words.

Let me say it once again: Much will be taken from this Central Europe; it will be made very poor. It can only be saved if it draws on something that cannot be taken away: the innermost powers of the soul. And it is precisely the folk forces of this Central Europe that are capable of cultivating this innermost power of the soul. We have not cultivated it in Central Europe in recent decades – that is our great fault. Let us learn from necessity to cultivate it.

This is what comes to mind today when one wants to speak about something like the founding of a cultural council. It is from such serious foundations that this appeal for the founding of a cultural council is written. May its individual sentences be found good or bad; I do not care what these individual sentences are called - it is the spirit behind them that matters! And one would like to see this spirit recognized; to see how it cannot be grasped merely in the mind, but how it must be grasped as a stimulus to real action for a renewal, a transformation, a new creation of our spiritual life.