The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Study evening on “The key points of the social question in the necessities of life today and in the future”

Stuttgart, July 30, 1919

This evening I do not want to anticipate what these study evenings, based on the book 'The Key Points of the Social Question', are actually supposed to be; instead, I will try to give you a kind of introduction to this evening. I would like to use this introduction to give you a sense of the perspective from which this book was written. Above all, it was written from the immediate present, from the conviction that the social question has also taken on a new form through the events of the present, and that it is necessary to talk about the social question today in a completely different way than it was talked about from any side before the world war catastrophe. With this book, an attempt has been made at a time in the development of humanity when the social question is becoming particularly urgent and when every person who is consciously living today, who is not sleepily and sleepily living the life of humanity, should know something about what has to happen in the sense of what is usually called the social question. Perhaps it would be a good idea to look back a little today. I may mention things that you are partly aware of, but we will then put them in a slightly different light. You probably know that what is being said today about the social question has been said for a relatively long time. And today the names Proudhon, Fourier, and Louis Blanc are mentioned as the first to have dealt with the social question in the mid-nineteenth century. You know, of course, that the way in which this social question was treated until the middle of the nineteenth century is called by today's representatives, at least by many of today's representatives of the social question, “the age of social utopias.” It is good to be clear about what is actually meant when one says: In its first stage, the social question arose in such a way that it lived in this age of utopias. But one cannot talk about this matter in the absolute sense, but one can actually only talk about the feelings of the representatives of the social question in the present. They feel the way I am about to describe it. They feel that all social questions that arose in the age of which I want to speak first were in the stage of utopia. And what do people mean when they say that the social question was in the stage of utopia at that time? By this they understand the following: Saint-Simon and Fourier observed that even after the French Revolution there were people in a certain social minority who were in possession of the means of production and other human goods, and that there were a large number, even the majority, of other people who do not have such property and can only work with the means of production by entering the service of those who own the means of production and the land, people who basically have nothing but themselves and their labor. It has been observed that the life of this great mass of humanity is one of oppression, and that it lives in poverty to a large extent in relation to those who are in the minority. And attention has been drawn to the situation of the minority and to the situation of the majority.

Those who, like Saint-Simon and Fourier, and even Proudhon, have written about the social situation of humanity, have started from a certain premise. They started from the premise that it is necessary to point out to people: Look, the great mass lives in misery, in bondage, in economic dependency, this is not a decent existence for the great mass. This must be changed. And then all kinds of means were devised by which this inequality among people could be changed. But there was always one specific prerequisite, and that prerequisite was that one said to oneself: If one knows the reasons for this inequality, if one has enough words of warning, if one has enough moral awareness oneself to strongly pointing out that the vast majority of people live in economic and legal dependence and are poor, this speech will touch the hearts and souls of the minority, the wealthy, the more favored minority. And it will be through this that this minority realizes: it cannot remain so, changes must be made, a different social order must come, a different social order must be brought about. The prerequisite was that people would be willing to act on their innermost spiritual impulses to liberate the masses of humanity. And then they suggested what should be done. And it was believed that if the minority, if the people who are the guiding, leading people, realize that what one wants to do is good, then there will be a general improvement in the situation of humanity.

A great deal of extraordinarily clever things have been said from this side, but all that has been undertaken in this direction is felt today by most representatives of the social question to be utopian. That is to say, today one no longer counts on the fact that one only needs to say: This is how one could set up the world – then the economic and political and legal inequality of people would end. Today, it is of no use appealing to the understanding and insight of those who are favored, who have the privilege, who are in possession of the means of production and the like. If I am to express what has been lost in the course of the second half of the nineteenth century, I have to say that faith in the insight and goodwill of people has been lost. Therefore, the representatives of the social question, as I now understand it, say: it is all very well to come up with grandiose plans for how to organize the human world, but nothing comes of it; because no matter how beautiful the plans are, no matter how touching the words of appeal to the hearts and souls of the ruling minorities, nothing will happen. All these are worthless ideas, and worthless ideas, which paint the future, are in reality, to put it popularly, utopias. It is therefore useless, so they say, to imagine anything that should happen in the future, because there will be no one who lets go of his interests, who can be moved in terms of his conscience, in terms of his moral insight and so on. Faith in conscience and moral insight has been lost in the broadest circles, especially among the representatives of the social question. People say to themselves, people do not act according to their insight when they make social arrangements or when they live their social lives, they act according to their interests. And the haves naturally have an interest in keeping their possessions. The socially privileged have an interest in maintaining social privileges. It is therefore an illusion to count on the fact that you just need to say that people should do this or that. They just don't do it because they don't act out of their insight, but out of their interest.

In the broadest sense, it can be said that Karl Marx gradually, but really only gradually, came to accept this view. One can describe a whole series of epochs in the life of Karl Marx. In his youth, Marx was also an idealistic thinker and still thought in terms of the realizability of utopias, in the sense that I have just characterized it. But it was precisely he, and after him his friend Engels, who in the most radical way possible abandoned this calculation of people's insight. And when I characterize something in general that is actually a great story, I can say the following: Karl Marx finally came to the conclusion that the world could not get better in any other way than by calling on those people who have no interest in keeping their goods and privileges. These people cannot be seen at all, they must be left out of the calculation altogether, because they will never deign to respond in any way, no matter how beautifully they are preached to. — On the other hand, there is the great mass of proletarian laborers, and Karl Marx himself came to believe this during the period when what is now called the proletariat was basically only emerging in Central Europe. He saw the proletariat emerging from the different economic conditions in Central Europe. When he then lived in England, it was of course different. But at the time when Karl Marx developed from an idealist into an economic materialist, the modern proletariat was only just emerging in Central Europe.

And now he said to himself: this modern proletariat has completely different interests than the ruling minority, because it consists of people who own nothing but their labor, of people who cannot live in any other way than by putting their labor at the service of the propertied, namely at the service of those who own the means of production. If these workers leave their jobs, they are, and this was particularly true in those days in the most radical sense, thrown out onto the street. They have no other prospect before them than the possibility of serfdom for those who own the means of production. These people have a completely different interest from the others. It is in their interest that the entire previous social order should come to an end, that this social order should be transformed. You don't need to preach to them in order to be seized by their insight, but only by their selfishness, by their interests. You can rely on that. To preach to those on whose insight one should count, nothing comes of it, because people do not act on insight, they act only out of interest. So one cannot appeal to those to whom one should appeal to insight, but to those to whose interest one must appeal. They cannot help but advocate for the newer times out of inner compulsion. That is the egoism that Karl Marx has developed into. Therefore, he no longer believed that the progress of humanity to newer social conditions could come from any other human work than from the work of the proletariat itself. The proletariat can only, according to Karl Marx, strive for a renewal of human social conditions out of interest, out of its own selfish interests. And in so doing, the proletariat will liberate all of humanity, not out of philanthropy, but out of self-interest, because there can be nothing left but what people can achieve, people who are not attached to old goods and have nothing to lose by transforming the old goods.

So one says to oneself: On the one hand, there are the leading, guiding circles, who have certain rights that were granted to them in earlier times or that were enforced by them in earlier times, which they have inherited in their families, and they hold on to them. These leading, guiding circles are in possession of this or that, which they in turn inherit within their circles, their family, and so on. These circles, as the leading, guiding circles, always have something to lose in a transformation. Because, of course, if they lost nothing, no transformation would happen. The point is that those who have nothing should get something, those who have something could only lose. So one could only appeal to reason if this reason would give the possessing, leading class the impulse to want to lose something. They won't go for that. That was Karl Marx's view. So you have to appeal to those who have nothing to lose. That's why the Communist Manifesto ends with the words: Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains, but they have everything to gain. Proletarians of all countries, unite!

Now you see, since the publication of the Communist Manifesto, this has become a conviction, so to speak, and today, when certain sentiments that are already influenced by this view are alive precisely in the majority of the proletariat, today one can no longer properly imagine what a tremendous turnaround in socialist thought took place around the mid-nineteenth century. But it would be good if you would take something like The Gospel of a Poor Sinner by Weitling, a journeyman tailor who wrote it not so long before the Communist Manifesto, and compare it with everything that was written after the Manifesto appeared! In this “Gospel of a Poor Sinner,” truly inspired by genuine proletarian sentiment, there is a language that is, one might say, in a certain sense even poetic, glowing language, but it is certainly a language that seeks to appeal to people's good will, to their insight. Weitling is convinced that something can be done with people's good will. And this conviction only disappeared around the middle of the nineteenth century. And the event that caused it to disappear is precisely the publication of the Communist Manifesto. And since that time, since 1848, we can actually trace what we call the social question today. For if we wanted to talk today like Saint-Simon, like Fourier, like Weitling – yes, we would really be preaching to the deaf. Because to a certain extent it is absolutely true that you can't achieve anything on the social issue if you appeal to the insight of the leading and guiding circles who have something. That is quite right. The leading and ruling circles have never admitted this, and they are hardly likely to do so today. They are not even aware that they do it, because unconscious forces in the human soul play an extraordinarily important role here.

You see, in the course of the nineteenth century, our intellectual culture has almost entirely become a cliché. It is a much more important social fact that we live in cliché with regard to intellectual culture, it is a much more important social fact than is usually thought. And so, of course, the members of the leading and ruling circles also talk about all kinds of nice things when it comes to the social question, and they themselves are often convinced that they already have the good will. But in reality they only believe that, it is only their illusion. The moment anything real is attacked in this regard, it immediately comes out that it is an illusion. We will talk about that later. But as I said, we can no longer talk as we did in the age of utopias. That is the real achievement that came through Karl Marx: he showed how humanity today is so enmeshed in illusionism that it is nonsense to count on anything but egoism. It must be counted with one day. Therefore, nothing can be achieved if we want to somehow count on selflessness, on goodwill, on the moral principles of people - I always say: with regard to the social question. And this change, which has led to our having to speak quite differently today than was possible in the first half of the nineteenth century, for example, with regard to the social question, this change has come with the Communist Manifesto. But it did not all come at once. Even after the Communist Manifesto, it was still possible, as you all know – some younger socialists have already forgotten the time – for a very different kind of social thinking, the kind of Ferdinand Lassalle, to capture hearts and souls well into the 1860s. And even after the death of Lassalle, which occurred in 1864, what was Lassallean socialism continued. Lassalle is one of those people who, despite the fact that the other way of thinking had already emerged, still counted on the power of ideas. Lassalle still wanted to reach people as such in their insight, in their social will above all. But this Lassallean tendency gradually diminished, while the Marxist tendency gained the upper hand, which only wanted to take into account the interests of that part of the human population that only had itself and its labor power. But it did not happen so quickly. Such a way of thinking only develops gradually in humanity.

In the 1960s, 1970s and even the 1980s, it was certainly the case that people who belonged to the proletariat, or who were politically or socially dependent even if they were not proletarians, viewed their dependency in moral terms and morally condemned the non-dependent sections of the human population. In their minds, it was the maliciousness of the leading and guiding circles of the human population that they left the great mass of the proletariat in a state of dependency, that they paid them poorly and so on. If I may put it trivially, I can say that in the 1960s and 1970s, and well into the 1980s, a great deal of social indignation was manufactured and, from the point of view of social indignation, spoken. Then, in the mid-1980s, the strange turnaround actually only really occurred. The more leading personalities of the social movement then stopped talking about the social question out of moral indignation in the 1980s. That was the time when the great leaders, who were more or less still glowing with youthful zeal, were those whom you, who are younger, only saw die: Adler, Pernerstorfer, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Auer, Bebel, Singer and so on. It was precisely in the 1880s that these older leaders increasingly stopped preaching this indignant socialism. And now I would like to express it to you as if these leaders of socialism were expressing their innermost convictions when they transitioned from the old indignant socialism to their newer socialist worldview. You will find that what I am about to tell you is not in any of the books on the history of socialism. But anyone who lived through those times knows that if you left people to their own devices, that is how they would have spoken. So let us assume that in the 1880s, leading proponents of socialism were in discussion with others who were still bourgeois in their attitudes, and let us assume that there was a third group: bourgeois who were idealists, who wished everyone well and who would have agreed that everyone should be made happy. Then it could happen that the bourgeois declared that there would always have to be people who are poor and people who are rich and so on, because only that could maintain human society. Then perhaps the voice of one of those who were idealists would be heard, who were indignant that so many people had to live in poverty and dependence. Such a person might say: Yes, it must be achieved that it is made clear to these propertied people, the entrepreneurs, the capitalists, that they must let go of their possessions, that they must make arrangements by which the great masses come into a different position, and the like. Very fine speeches were made on these lines. But then someone who was just becoming interested in socialism and its development at the time raised his voice and said: What are you talking about, you're a child! It's all childishness, all nonsense. The people who are capitalists, who are entrepreneurs, they are all poor wretches who know nothing but what has been drummed into them by generations. If they were to hear that they should do it differently, they wouldn't even be able to do it, because they wouldn't come up with how they should do it. It doesn't even occur to them that something can be done differently. You must not accuse people, you must not morally condemn people, they cannot be morally condemned; the guys have grown into this, these poor darlings, into this whole environment, and that inspires them with the ideas they have. To morally accuse them is to misunderstand the laws of human development, to have illusions. These people can never want the world to take a different form. To speak of them with indignation is pure childishness. It has all become necessary in this way, and it can only become necessary again in another way. You see, you can't do anything with such childish fellows who believe that they can preach to the propertied, to the capitalists, that a new world order should be established, you can't do anything with such childish fellows. A new world order cannot be brought about with them. They only indulge in the belief that one can accuse these poor capitalists of making a different world.

I have to make the matter somewhat clear, so some things are said in sharp contours, but in such a way that you could hear the speeches I am talking about absolutely everywhere. When they were written, they were retouched a bit, written a bit differently, but that was the basis.

Then they continued: “With those guys – they are idealists who imagine the world in terms of an ideology – we can't do anything. We have to rely on those who have nothing, who therefore want something different from those who are connected with capitalist interests. And they will not strive for a change in their circumstances out of some moral principle either, but only out of covetousness, to have more than they have, to have an independent existence. In the 1980s, this way of thinking increasingly came to be seen as the development of humanity, no longer in the sense that the individual is particularly responsible for what he does, but that he does what he has to do out of his economic situation. The capitalist, the entrepreneur, exploits the others in the utmost innocence. The proletarian, on the other hand, will not revolutionize out of a moral principle, but in all innocence out of a human necessity, and will take the means of production, the capital, out of the hands of those who have it. This must take place as an historical necessity.

Now, you see, it was actually only in 1891 at the Erfurt Party Congress that all Lassallianism, which was still based on the insight of the people, was replaced by belief in the so-called “Erfurt Program”, which was intended to make Marxism the official view of the proletariat. Read the programs of the Gotha and Eisenach party conferences, and you will find two demands that are genuinely proletarian demands of the time, still connected to Lassallianism. The first demand was the abolition of the wage relationship, the second demand was the political equality of all people, the abolition of all political privileges. All proletarian demands up to the 1890s, up to the Erfurt Party Congress, which brought about the great turnaround, were based on these two demands. Take a close look at these two demands and compare them with the main demands of the Erfurt Party Congress.

What, then, were the main demands of the Erfurt Party Congress? They were: the transfer of private ownership of the means of production into common ownership, the administration of all production by a kind of large cooperative, into which the existing state must be transformed. If you compare the former program, which was the proletarian program of the 1880s, with what emerged from the Erfurt Party Program and has existed since the 1890s, you will say that the old Gotha and Eisenach programs still contain purely human demands, the demands of socialism: political equality of all people, abolition of the degrading wage relationship. In the early 1890s, the attitude that had emerged during the 1880s was already having an effect. What is more a demand of humanity has been transformed into a purely economic demand. You no longer read about the ideal of abolishing the wage relationship, you only read about economic demands.

Now you see, these things are connected with the gradual development of the idea that one had of externally bringing about a better social condition for humanity. It has often been said by people who still had ideals: what harm does it do to smash everything to smithereens, a different order must be brought about, so a revolution must come. Everything must be smashed to smithereens, the great Kladderadatsch must come, because only a better social order can arise from it, many people still said that in the 1880s, who were good, idealistic socialists. To which the others replied, who were in touch with the times, who had become the leaders, those who, as I said, are now buried, they said: It's all pointless, such sudden revolutions are senseless. The only thing that makes sense is to leave capitalism to its own devices. We see that in the beginning there were only small capitalists, then there were big ones, they joined forces with others, became capitalist groups. Capital has become more and more concentrated. We are in the process of capital becoming more and more concentrated. Then the time will come when there will actually only be a few large capitalist trusts and consortia. Then it will only be necessary for the proletariat, as the non-possessing class, to peacefully transfer the capitalists' property, the means of production, into community property one fine day, through parliamentary channels. This can be done quite well, but we must wait and see. Until then, things must develop. Capitalism, which is an innocent child anyway, it is not its fault that it is exploitative, that is brought about by historical necessity. But it also works in advance, it concentrates capital. They are then nicely together, then they only need to be taken over into the public domain. Nothing of rapid revolution, but slow development!

You see, the secret of the view, the public secret of the view, which underlies this, was discussed beautifully by Engels in the 1890s. He said: Why fast revolutions? What happens slowly under the development of modern capitalism, this massing of capitals, this concentration of capitals, it all works for us. We don't need to establish a common ground first, the capitalists are already doing that. We just need to transfer it into proletarian ownership. Therefore, Engels says, the roles have actually been reversed. We, who represent the proletariat, have no complaints about the way things have developed; it is the others who have complaints. Because the guys who are in the circles of the propertied people today have to say to themselves: We accumulate capital, but we accumulate it for others. You see, the guys actually have to worry about losing their capital. They get hollow cheeks, they get scrawny from these worries about what will become of it. We socialists are doing very well in this development. We will, says Engels, get bulging muscles and full cheeks and look like eternal life. Engels says this in an introduction he wrote in the 1890s, characterizing what is developing, and how one need only wait for the development, which is actually being taken care of by capitalism itself, ism itself, which then leads to what I have presented to you: the transfer of what capitalism has concentrated into the common ownership of those who have had nothing so far. That was also actually the mood with which the twentieth century was entered by the leading circles of the proletariat. And so it was thought, especially since the time when Marxism was no longer taken as it was in the 1890s, but when, as it was said, it had been subjected to revision, when the revisionists appeared, when those who are still alive but are old people, such as Bernstein, for example. Then the revisionists came. They said that the whole development could be advanced somewhat, because if the workers only work until the capitalists have gathered everything together, they will suffer hardship before then, they will have nothing in their old age. So assurances were made and so on. That's all well and good, but above all, they saw to it that the institutions that the leading classes had in political life were also appropriated. As you know, this is how trade union life in particular came about. And within the Socialist Party, there were two strongly divergent directions: the declared trade union party and the actual, as they said at the time, political party. The political party was more down-to-earth, a sudden revolution would be of no use, the development had to take place as I have just described. Therefore, it is important to prepare everything for the one point in time when capitalism is sufficiently concentrated and the proletariat has a majority in parliament. Everything must be pursued through parliamentarism, the acquisition of the majority, so that at the point in time when the means of production are taken over into public ownership, the majority is also there for this transfer. In this group of people, who thought very highly of the political party, at the end of the nineteenth century, not much was thought of the trade union movement. At that time, the latter was committed to establishing a kind of competition between itself and the entrepreneurs in order to obtain wage increases and similar things from the companies from time to time. In short, they set out to imitate the system of mutual negotiations that exists among the leading and managing circles themselves, and to extend it to the relationship between the leading circles and the proletariat. You know, of course, that those who were most accused by the representatives of the actual political socialist system were those who became most bourgeois under the trade union movement. And at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, you could see everywhere among those who were more attuned to the political system a great contempt for those people who had become completely absorbed in trade union life, such as the printers, for example, who had developed a completely different system after union life, again to the extreme.

These were two very strictly separate directions in social life: the trade unionists and those who were more inclined towards the political party, as they said. And within the trade unions, the printers in the printers' association were almost the model boys; the model boys who had earned the full recognition of the bourgeoisie. And I believe that just as there was a certain fear, a certain concern about the political socialist party, so little by little we saw the emergence of such good people as the people in the printers' association, and we were very pleased about that. One said to oneself: They are becoming bourgeois, you can always negotiate with them, it works quite well. When they strike with their wages, then we strike with our prices, which we demand. It works. And, right, it worked for the next few years, and people don't think beyond that. So one was very satisfied with this exemplary development of the trade union movement. Well, if I omit some of the more subtle nuances, one can say that these two directions more or less emerged until the times that were then surprised by the world war catastrophe. But unfortunately people did not learn everything from this world war catastrophe that should have been learned with regard to the social question.

As soon as one considers the conditions in Eastern Europe, in Central Europe, if one disregards the Anglo-American world and also partly the Romance world, if one limits oneself to Central and Eastern Europe, then we can say that history has not really turned out as one would have liked. History has always been defined as follows: capital is concentrated, then the majority is in parliaments, then capital is transferred into the ownership of the community, and so on. The catastrophe of the world wars has ensured that this cannot be expected to happen so smoothly today. Those who expected some kind of revolution have often been portrayed as childish. But basically, what has happened in the last four to five years? Let us keep clearly and distinctly in mind what has happened. You have often heard what happened in the last four or five years: in July 1914, the governments went a little bit mad or went mad in the head and rushed the people into a world war. The people believed that it was a world war, battles took place, although with the modern means of warfare, with the machine means, something completely different was there than in previous wars. There was no possibility of anyone becoming a particularly famous general, because ultimately it only came down to whether one side had a larger quantity of ammunition and other means of warfare, whether one side was better at producing the mechanical means of war than the other, or discovered a gas and the like that the others did not have. First one side won, then the other side discovered something, then the first side again; the whole thing was a terribly mechanical warfare. And all the talk about what happened here and there on the part of people was influenced by the phrase, it was nothing but a phrase. And little by little modern humanity will also realize in Central Europe what was put into it as a phrase when one or the other, who was actually nothing more than a somewhat twisted average soldier, was made a great commander in Central Europe. These things have only become possible under the influence of the phrase.

But what really happened? People did not realize this before the external events: in reality, while people believed that a world war was being waged – which was actually only a mask – a revolution was actually taking place. In reality, the revolution happened in these four to five years. People still do not know this today, they still do not pay attention to the fact that in reality the revolution has taken place. War is the external aspect, the mask; the truth is that the revolution has taken place. And because the revolution has taken place, the society of Central and Eastern Europe is in a completely different condition today, and one cannot start with what people had in mind for earlier situations. Today it is necessary that all the thoughts that were formed earlier be completely reorganized, that one think about things in a completely new way. And that is what has been attempted in the book 'The Essential Points of the Social Question', to calculate quite correctly with the situation in which we have ended up as a result of the very latest events. It is therefore no wonder that people, who cannot keep up fast enough in the socialist parties, encounter misunderstanding after misunderstanding in this book. If people would just take the trouble to examine their own thoughts a little, to examine what they say they want, they would see how they live under the influence of the ideas they formed up to 1914. That is the old habit.

These ideas that were held until 1914 have become so engrained in people's minds that they cannot be shaken off now. And what is the consequence? The consequence is that, although a new approach is needed today, although the revolution has taken place in Eastern and Central Europe, although we now need to build up not according to old ideas but according to new ideas, people nevertheless preach the old ideas. And what are the parties today, including the socialist parties? The socialist parties are also those who continue to preach this or that socialist gospel in the old way, as they preached until July 1914; for there is no difference in these party programs from the earlier ones, except at most the difference that comes from outside. For those who know the issues, there is terribly little that is new, indeed nothing at all that is new, said in the individual party groupings. The old party ideas are being trotted out again. Of course, there is a slight difference: if you have a copper kettle and tap it, it makes one sound; if you tap a wooden barrel in exactly the same way, it makes a different sound. But the tapping can be exactly the same. It is the fact that it sounds different that depends on what you tap. That is how it is when people come up with their party programs today; what is contained in these old party programs is actually the old party storekeeper. It just sounds a little different today because the social conditions are different, just as it would with a copper kettle and a wooden barrel. When the Independent Socialist Party or the Majority Socialists or the Communists speak, they speak the old party phrases, and it sounds different because there is a copper kettle and a wooden barrel. In reality, many have learned absolutely nothing. But what matters is that one learns something, that one is aware of this terrible world war, as it is called, but which is actually a world revolution.

And here one can truly say: in the broad masses, people are prepared to hear something new. But with the broad masses it is like this: they listen to what the leaders say. There is a good understanding, a good, healthy human understanding in the broad, uneducated masses, and one could actually always count on understanding when one presents something timely, something correct, in the best sense of the word timely. This is partly due to the fact that the masses are uneducated. But as soon as people enter the kind of education that has been available for the last three to four centuries, this godly quality of being unspoiled ceases to exist. If you look at what today's bourgeois school education is, from elementary school up to university – and it will be at its worst if the socialist unified school is founded now, because then everything that has been done wrong by the bourgeois elementary school will be present to the greatest extent – what is taught in schools distorts minds and alienates them from life. And you have to get out of all that stuff, you really have to stand on your own two feet in the spiritual life if you want to get out of this education. But you see, it is through this education that the great and small proletarian leaders have become. They had to acquire it through this education; this education is in our schools and in popular writings, it is everywhere. And then you start to get a dried-up brain, no longer accessible to facts. Instead, you stop at party programs and opinions that you have grafted and hammered into yourself. Then even the world revolution can come, you always whistle the old programs at it.

You see, this is essentially what the book “The Essentials of the Social Question” and the lectures intended in many respects. For once, real account was taken of what the proletariat absolutely needs today, what is necessary in the present situation. This was understood at the beginning, but then it was not understood by those who are the leaders of the proletariat in the various party groupings. That is, I do not want to be too unjust, and I do not want to press the truth; I do not want to claim, for example, that these leaders do not understand this book; because I cannot assume that they have read it, that they know it. I would not claim something correct if I said: they cannot understand the book. But they cannot bring themselves to understand that something else should be necessary than what they have been thinking for decades. Their brains have become too dry and too rigid for that. And so they stop at what they have thought for a long time and find that what is the opposite of all utopia is that utopia. For you see, the book fully anticipates that today one can no longer operate in utopia in the sense of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon and so on; but also that one can never again take the standpoint: development will happen by itself. For what Marx and Engels saw, what developed, and from which they drew their conclusions, cannot be drawn from today, because the world war has swept it away in its true form, it is no longer there. Anyone who says the same thing today as Marx and Engels says something that Marx would never have said, because he has become afraid of his followers: As far as I am concerned, I am not a Marxist. — And today he would say: At that time the facts were still different; I drew my conclusions from facts that had not yet been modified and changed as much as the world war has changed everything.

But you see, those people who cannot learn from events, who today are of an attitude as the old Catholics were towards their bishops and popes, they cannot even imagine that something like that must also be further developed in the sense of the facts, as Marxism is. Therefore, the facts are taking place, and people are still whistling and hissing the same things that they whistled and hissed before the world war. The bourgeois do it, but so do the socialists. The broadest circles do it. The bourgeoisie do it, of course, quite sleepily, with completely sleepy souls; the others do it in such a way that they are indeed in the thick of it and see the collapse, but they do not want to reckon with the facts that it reveals. We simply have to have something new among people today. And that is why it is necessary to understand something that is not utopian, but that actually takes the facts into account. If those who are so concerned with the facts call it a cross-current, then one could actually be quite satisfied. Because if people go straight ahead with what they are doing, if they call it a straight line, then, in order to do something sensible, you have to shoot in a cross-current to take the sensible thing in a different direction.

But you see, those who do see the rational should delve into what is presented here. And these evenings can be used for that.

What has been derived from the facts has long been tried in practice, and so we have been meeting for weeks – I do not need to repeat all these things, you can still ask questions or discuss the pros and cons after this lecture – to get what we call the works council up and running. We have tried to create this council out of the facts that are currently necessary, to create it in such a way that it comes from the economic sphere, and not from the political sphere, which cannot provide the basis for economic life. For if we look the facts in the eye today, we have to stand firmly on the ground that is represented here as that of the threefold social organism. And anyone who does not want this threefold structure today is acting against the historical necessity of human development. Today, as I have often explained, the spiritual life must be placed on its own, the economic life on its own, and the legal or political life must be administered democratically. And in the economic life, the first step towards a truly social organization is to be taken with works councils. But how can this be done? Only by first asking the question: Well, there is the impulse of the threefold social organism, which is new compared to all previous party mummies; is there anything else? Today, fools claim that ideas are just buzzing through the air. If you listen to the discussions, they bring up all sorts of negative things, but they don't bring up anything that could be compared to the threefold order of the social organism. What comes from the socialist side is all wishy-washy. As was said in a newly founded magazine in a review of the threefold order, ideas are just hanging in the air. The point is, first of all, to raise this question and be clear about it: is there nothing else? Then one adheres to the threefold social order until one can refute it in an objective way, so that one can put something objectively equivalent alongside.

The old party programs can no longer be discussed; the world war has discussed them. Those who really understand know that these old party mummies have been refuted by the world war catastrophe. But then, if one cannot answer this question by putting something else alongside it, then one can honestly say to oneself, if one wants to go further: So let us work in the sense of the threefold order of the social organism. Let us be honest: the old party contexts have lost their meaning. We must work in terms of threefolding. When I spoke in Mannheim the day before yesterday, a gentleman came forward at the end and said: What Steiner said is nice, but it is not what we want. We do not want a new party in addition to all the old parties. The people who want that should join the old parties and work within them. I could only say in response: I have been following political life very closely for a long time, when the gentleman who spoke was far from being born. And although I have become acquainted with everything that has somehow functioned as a social force throughout my life, I have never been able to work within any party or be a member of one, and it does not occur to me, now at the end of my sixth decade, to somehow become a party person. I do not want to have anything to do with any party, not even one I founded myself. No one need fear that a new party will be founded by me, because I have learned that every party becomes foolish after some time through the necessities of nature, precisely because I have never got involved with any party. And I have learned to regret the people who do not see through this. Therefore, no one need fear that a new party will be added to the old ones. That is why a new party has not been founded either, but the Federation for the Threefold Social Organism has come together to represent the ideas of the threefold organism – the non-utopian but realistic nature of which is, after all, understood by a number of people. But those people who understand this should also honestly and sincerely profess it.

For this must not happen either: there is a play in which a cock crows in the morning, and every time the cock crows, the sun rises. Now, the cock cannot see the connection at once, so it believes that when it crows, the sun follows its call, coming because it has crowed, it has caused the sun to rise. If someone in a non-social life, like this cockerel crowing on the dung heap and wanting to make the sun rise, finally succumbs to such a delusion, it does not matter. But if, under certain circumstances, the idea of the works councils, which are truly economic on the basis of the threefold social order, were to flourish here and those people who cultivate it because the impulse of the threefold organism has brought this idea into fl but then wanted to deny the origin and believe because it was said that the works councils would come, that would be the same error, and a very disastrous one. But that must not happen. What is happening in this direction, what has been tackled here, must not be detached; it must remain in the context of the correctly understood impulse of the threefold social order.

Those who want to realize the works council in the sense of this impulse can never allow themselves to be drawn into the one-sided idea that only the works council would be founded and that there would always be crowing about “works councils, works councils”. That is not enough. It only makes sense if, at the same time, one strives for everything that is to be achieved through the impulse of the tripartite social organism. That is what matters. Because if you really want to understand what is in this book, then you have to take the point of view that can be learned from the facts that the last four to five years have offered. If you see through these facts, they will have the same effect on you as if you had lived through centuries, and the party programs will have the same effect on you as if their supporters had slept for centuries. Today this must be clearly and unreservedly faced.

What I have told you now, I could just as easily have written as a preface to this book. But in the last few months we have seen how rigid and unfruitful the party programs currently are. But it would be useful if that were the preface to this book. Much of what is not in it, I have told you today, because you have, it seems to me, decided to come together here to study the serious social issues of the present day in a proper way, taking up where this book leaves off. But before doing so, it must be clearly understood that we cannot continue in the old style of party programs and party patterns, but that we must decide to approach the facts realistically today and put an end to everything that does not take into account these new facts. Only in this way will you grasp in the right way what is to be achieved with this impulse of the threefold social organism. And you will grasp it in the right way when you find that every sentence is designed to be put into action, to be transformed into immediate reality. And most of those who say they do not understand it or that it is utopian and the like, they simply lack the courage to think so strongly today that their thoughts can intervene in reality. Those who always crow: “dictatorship of the proletariat, conquest of power, socialism,” they usually think little of it. Therefore, reality cannot be intervened with these word templates. But then they come and say that something is being offered that is utopian. A utopia only comes into being in the minds of people who understand nothing about it. Therefore, one should make clear to these people, in a somewhat modified form, what Goethe once said with reference to something else, laughing at the physiologist Haller, who was an ossified naturalist.

Haller had coined the phrase:

No creative spirit
No creative spirit can penetrate.
Happy the man to whom she
The outer shell!

Goethe resisted this, saying:

Into the heart of nature.
Oh, you philistines!
No created spirit can penetrate
---
Happy the man to whom she The outer shell!
I have heard this repeated for sixty years;
I curse it, but furtively,
---
Nature has neither core
nor shell,
All at once it is everything.
Just test yourself most of all
Whether you are the kernel or the shell.

To those who speak of the threefold social organism as a utopia, one would also like to say: Examine yourself most of all to see whether what haunts your brain is utopia or reality. You will find that all the crowers mostly have utopias in them and that is why the reality in their own heads also becomes a utopia or an ideology, or whatever they call it. That is why it is so difficult to get through with reality today, because people have blocked their access to reality so much.

But we have to realize that we have to work seriously, otherwise we will not be able to translate our will into action. And it is essential that we translate our will into action. And if we had to say goodbye to everything because we recognize it as an error, then, in order to be able to move from will to action, we would have to turn to the truth, which we want to see through as such. Because nothing else can lead from volition to action but the ruthless, courageous pursuit of truth. This should actually be written as a motto, as a motto, in front of the studies of this evening.

I wanted to give you a preface to these study evenings tonight. I hope that this preface will not deter you from attending these study evenings so that, before it is too late, thoughts that contain the seeds of action can be fruitfully introduced into the world. The book “The Essentials of the Social Question” is written in a special way in two directions. Firstly, it is written in such a way that it is actually based entirely on reality. This is something that some people do not consider when reading the book. I can also understand that it is not fully considered today. I have already spoken here in this circle, but not everyone who was there today was present, about how people really think today. I referred in particular to the example of the professor of economics, Lujo Brentano, who delivered it so nicely in the previous issue of the “Yellow Sheet”. — I will briefly repeat it because I want to tie something to it. This luminary of today's economics at the university – he is, so to speak, the first – has developed the concept of the entrepreneur and has tried to characterize the features of the entrepreneur based on his enlightened thinking. Well, I don't need to list the first and second features; as a third feature, he states that the entrepreneur is the one who puts his means of production at his own risk and expense in the service of the social order. Now he has this concept of the entrepreneur, and he applies it. He comes to the strange conclusion that the proletarian worker of today is actually also an entrepreneur, because he corresponds to this concept of the entrepreneur in terms of the first, second and third characteristics. This is because the worker has his own labor power as a means of production, and he has control over it. In relation to this, he turns to the social process at his own risk and expense. Thus this luminary of political economy very aptly incorporates the concept of the proletarian laborer into his concept of the entrepreneur. You see, that is precisely how people who form concepts think, who have no sense at all when it comes to demanding that concepts should be truly applicable to reality. But however little you may be inclined to accept this today, it is safe to say that well over ninety percent of everything that is taught or printed today operates with such concepts. If you want to apply them to reality, it is just as impossible as with Lujo Brentano's concept of the entrepreneur. This is the case in science, in social science, everywhere. That is why people have forgotten how to understand anything that works with realistic concepts.

Take the basis of the threefold social order. No, you can't lay these foundations in the most diverse ways, because life needs many foundations. But one thing is clear: in modern times, what might be called the impulse of democracy has emerged. Democracy must consist of every person who has come of age being able to establish their legal relationship, directly or indirectly, with every other person who has come of age in democratic parliaments. But if we honestly and sincerely want to bring this democracy into the world, then we cannot manage spiritual matters in the sense of this democracy, because then every person who has come of age would have to decide on matters they do not understand. Spiritual matters must be regulated on the basis of understanding. This means that they must be left to their own devices. They cannot be administered at all in a democratic parliament, but must have their own administration, which cannot be democratic, but must be based on the matter itself. The same applies to economic life. Here, too, economic experience and inner life must be the basis for administration. Therefore, economic life, on the one hand, and spiritual life, on the other, must be excluded from the democratic parliament. Thus arises the threefolded social organism.

In Tübingen, as I have already mentioned, there is Professor Heck, who said that there is absolutely no need to admit that there is something degrading for the proletarian in the normal wage relationship, where one is paid for one's work, because Caruso is also in a wage relationship and there is no difference in principle. Caruso sings and gets paid, and the ordinary proletarian works and also gets paid; and he, as a professor, also gets paid when he lectures. The only difference between Caruso and the proletarian is that Caruso gets thirty to forty thousand marks for one evening and the proletarian gets a little less. But that is not a fundamental difference, only a difference in the amount of the wage. And so, this witty professor says, there is absolutely no reason to feel that the wage is degrading. He does not feel that way either. — That is just by the way. But now this clever professor has also written a long article against the threefold social order. He starts from the premise that if we organize in three, then we will end up with three parliaments. And now he shows that this does not work with three parliaments. Because he says: In the economic parliament, the small craftsman will not understand the points of view of the big industrialist and so on. — There the good professor has formed his ideas about the threefold order, and he attacks these ideas, which I find much more stupid than Professor Heck finds them — I would also criticize them to the ground —, but he has made them himself. The point is not to have three parliaments running alongside each other, but to take out what does not belong in any parliament. He makes three parliaments and says: That does not work. — So one lives in unrealistic terms and judges the rest accordingly.

Now, almost the only thing that has been introduced into political economy, into economics, are unreal concepts. But you see, I couldn't write a whole library listing all the economic terms at a time when time is of the essence. Therefore, of course, this book contains a multitude of terms that need to be discussed appropriately. For example, I need only draw attention to the following:

In a time that we have outgrown, social conditions arose basically only through conquest. Some territory was occupied by one people or race; another people burst in and conquered the area. Those races or peoples who were there earlier were pushed down to do the work. The conquering people took possession of the land, and that is how a certain relationship between conquerors and conquered arose. The conquerors had possession of the land because they were conquerors. Thus they were the economically strong, the conquered were the economically weak. This is how what became a legal relationship developed. Therefore, in almost all older epochs in historical development, legal relationships based on conquest were established, that is to say, privileges and rights of disadvantage. Now the times came when conquests could not be made freely. You can study the difference in free and bound conquest. If you look, for example, at the early Middle Ages, how certain peoples, the Goths, had pushed over to the south, but into fully occupied areas, they were led to do different things in terms of the social order than when the Franks moved to the west and did not find fully occupied areas there. This resulted in different conqueror rights. In more recent times, not only the rights arising from conquests and dependent on land and soil have been in force; the rights of people who had property have been added to these, and who, through economic power, were now able to appropriate the means of production. To what is meant by land law in the modern sense was added the ownership of the means of production, that is, the private ownership of capital. This then gave rise to legal relationships based on economic relationships. You see, the legal relationships arose entirely from the economic relationships.

Now people come along and want to have the concepts of economic power, of the economic significance of land, they want to have the concepts of operating resources, of means of production, of capitals, and so on. Yes, but they have no real insight into the way things work. They take the superficial facts and do not realize what is actually behind the land rights, behind the power relations in relation to the means of production. All these things are, of course, taken into account in my book. That is the right way of thinking. When the word “rights” is used, it is used out of an awareness of how rights have developed over the centuries; when the word “capital” is used, it is used out of an awareness of how capital has come about. Care is taken to avoid using a term that is not fully understood in terms of its origin. That is why these terms are used differently than in the usual textbooks today. But something else is also taken into account.

Let us take a specific fact. It is true that Protestantism arose at some point. In history books, it is often told that Tetzel went around Central Europe and that people were outraged by the sale of indulgences and the like. But that was not the only reason; that is only the surface view. The main thing behind it was the fact that there was a banking house in Genoa, on behalf of which, not on behalf of the Pope, this seller of indulgences went around in Germany, because this banking house had granted the Pope a loan for his other needs. The whole story was a capitalist enterprise. In this example of a capitalist undertaking of the sale of indulgences, where even spiritual things were traded, you can study, or rather, when you start to study, you gradually come to the conclusion that ultimately all capital power goes back to the superiority of the spiritual. And so it is. Study how capital actually came to its power, and you will find the superiority of the spiritual everywhere. It is true that the clever and resourceful have more power than those who are not clever or resourceful. And in this way, much of the accumulation of capital comes about justifiably, but also unjustifiably. This must be taken into account when considering the concept of capital. From such real studies one comes to understand that capital is based on the development of spiritual power, and that to the land rights, to the rights of the conquerors, from another side has been added the power of the old theocratic spirit. Much of what was then transferred to modern capitalism originated from the old church. There is a secret connection between modern capitalist power and the power of the old church. And all this has become mixed up in the modern power state. In it you find the remnants of the old theocracy, the remnants of the old conquests. And finally the modern conquests were added, and the most modern conquest is now supposed to be the conquest of the state by socialism. But in reality it must not be done that way. Something new must be created that completely does away with these old concepts and impulses. Therefore, it will be important that in these studies we also deal with the concepts that underlie them. Today, anyone who wants to talk about social issues must give us a precise explanation of what is right, what is power, and what is actually a good, a good in the form of goods and the like. It is in this area that the greatest mistakes are made. I will point out one mistake, for example. If you do not pay attention to it, you will misunderstand much of my book.

Today, there is a widespread belief that goods are stored labor, that capital is also stored labor. — You may say that it is harmless to have such concepts. It is not harmless, because such concepts poison all social thinking. — What exactly is the situation with labor, labor as the expenditure of labor power? Yes, it is the case that there is a big difference between, for example, wearing out my physical muscle strength by doing sports and chopping wood. When I do sports, I wear out my physical muscle strength, and I can get just as tired and need to replace my muscle strength as someone who chops wood. I can apply the same amount of work to sports as to chopping wood. The difference is not that it has to be replaced; labor power must naturally be replaced, but the difference is that the one labor power is used only for me, in the selfish sense, the other in the social sense for society. It is the social function that distinguishes these things. If I say that something is stored-up labor, I do not take into account that labor actually ceases to be in something the moment work is no longer done. I cannot say that capital is stored-up labor, but rather that labor is only there as long as it is being performed.

But in our present social order, capital retains the power to summon labor again at any time. The disastrous thing is not in what Marx means, that capital is accumulated labor, but in the institution that capital gives the power to summon new labor, not accumulated labor, but new labor always again into its service. Much depends on this. Much depends on this, that clear concepts based on reality are developed. And this book of mine is based on such concepts, which are now fully embedded in reality. It does not rely on such concepts, which were quite useful for the education of the proletariat. Today, when we are supposed to build something, these concepts no longer make sense.

You see, when I say: capital is accumulated labor - that is good for the education of the proletariat. It got the feelings it was supposed to get. It didn't matter that the concept was fundamentally wrong. You can educate with fundamentally wrong concepts. But you can only build something with the right concepts. Therefore, we need correct concepts in all areas of the economy today and cannot continue to work with false concepts. I am not saying this out of frivolity, that you can also educate with false concepts, but rather out of general educational principles. When you tell fairy tales to children, you do not want to build something with the ideas that you develop. In education, something else comes into consideration than in the construction of physical reality. There one must work with real concepts. Something like: “Capital is stored labor,” that is not a concept. Capital is power and gives power to put newly emerging labor into its service. That is a real concept with factual logic. One must work with true concepts in these areas. That is attempted with these things. Therefore, I believe that much of what is not in there in terms of definitions of the terms, in terms of characterization of the terms, must be worked out. And anyone who can then contribute to the work of understanding what is needed to understand the way of thinking, the basis of this book, will make a very good contribution to these study evenings.

So it is particularly important that what — well, it wouldn't be true to say that you would have to write an encyclopedia if you wanted to clarify all the terms — but what is now “capital” can be done on such a study evening. Because without a clear understanding today of what capital actually is, what a commodity is, what labor is, what law is—without these concepts we will make no headway. And these concepts are completely confused in the broadest circles; above all, they must be set straight.

In this lecture, Rudolf Steiner indicates the magnitude of the questions at stake and suggests that a mechanisation of the spirit, vegetation of the soul, and animalisation of the body will take place unless humanity is able to find a new relationship to the spirit. It is lecture 13 of 14 from the lecture series: Reorganization of the Social Organism.

Every individual has the feeling that part of his being is super-sensible, whatever function it has within his soul. And anthroposophical spiritual science—the name applying to what I have been presenting for many years—has something it wants to say about this feeling becoming an inner scientific certainty in the consciousness of present-day mankind. However, there are still all manner of prejudices against the anthroposophical approach to knowledge of man's super-sensible being and to knowledge of the super-sensible world altogether. But anthroposophy cannot speak about the super-sensible being of man in the kind of way people would still like to hear it spoken of in many circles today. For we should imagine, in fact, we should be certain that speaking about it in that way would not satisfy people's present-day aspirations for knowledge, which are none the less intense although they may still be unconscious. Nowadays when people pass judgment on one or another aspect of anthroposophy you constantly hear the remark that anthroposophy is difficult to understand. They say that anthroposophy obtains its knowledge from regions one does not need to go to in order to reach the super-sensible. They emphasise the difference between anthroposophy's search for knowledge and ‘simple faith’ based on the creed and the Bible, and they keep on stressing that anyone who has found the inner strength of this ‘simple faith’ does not need anthroposophical spiritual science.

If anthroposophy were to speak along the lines that people nowadays call ‘simple faith,’ it would certainly consider it was failing to do justice to the deepest aspirations of the times. It would have to admit, in that case, that although it was presenting a point of view still popular with many people who find it less difficult to understand than anthroposophy, this point of view is nevertheless no longer appropriate for the real soul needs of present-day mankind. I wanted this to be said because it is just from this direction that objections are continually being raised against the views which arise from a valid consideration of man's present-day needs, views which are held by the kind of spiritual science that will be spoken of here. This kind of spiritual science is convinced that certain inter-relationships exist about which many people nowadays have the most detrimental illusions. Today, however, we are living in an age that has a long way to go before confusion and chaos are over. We are entering a difficult period of human evolution. Anyone able to look more deeply into the evolution of mankind and seeing the amount of elemental unrest felt today throughout the whole of the civilised world, of which everything of the nature of inner tensions is only the ripples on the surface, knows that this has a mysterious connection with that obstinate attitude of ‘simple faith’ that wants to rely solely on the creed and the Bible. The parts of man's being that are attracted by this so-called ‘faith’ shut him off from those very forces that could bring order into chaos and confusion at the present stage of human evolution. If those people who speak in the way I have indicated would now deepen their knowledge somewhat, they would have to see all that is bringing mankind into such terrible conflict and chaos. Then they would have to admit that they now lack certain forces that they failed to develop because of their determination not to go beyond their so-called ‘simple faith,’ which they and others find so convenient. They would also have to admit that there is an inner relationship between the unrest of today and this harping on ‘simple faith.’ A causal connection there certainly is, today's elemental restlessness being the result of this obdurate harping.

I am not speaking out of subjective feelings but out of the very kind of knowledge I would like to tell you more about today, namely an inner scientific perception. It is this that has moved anthroposophy to bring knowledge of the super-sensible down from spirit heights. Insofar as the so-called believers in a simple faith point to the super-sensible, their knowledge has also come to them from spirit heights. But they have no wish at all to ascend to these heights.

This had to be said first of all, because today, in particular, what I will have to say concerning the super-sensible being of man will need to be brought into connection with a number of those spiritual scientific facts that people on the one hand find really incomprehensible—though if they were to go into them more thoroughly they would find they absolutely accorded with common sense; and that people on the other hand consider unnecessary, because they do not find they accord with the ‘simple faith’ they think they ought to advocate. I attempted the day before yesterday to characterise the paths by which the kind of spiritual science we mean attains to knowledge. On that occasion I began by saying that on the whole men of present times have very little desire to know about what is taking place unconsciously in the depths of their being. On the one hand people think the body is something external to themselves, and that they can gain knowledge of it either by observing it with sense perception or by considering it according to the outlook laid down by natural science. On the other hand they think that their thinking, sense perception, feeling and willing comprise the whole of their inner being. However, the path of knowledge I indicated the day before yesterday shows that the life of the external body, on the one hand, and the soul experiences of thinking, feeling and willing we have in ordinary consciousness, on the other, do not comprise the whole of man's being. The essential point is that man as spiritual investigator does not stop at the level of ordinary consciousness but takes the development of his soul into his own hands, as it were. In the realm of thought, in particular, he raises thinking consciously onto a higher level than in ordinary life, and in the other direction makes his will nature consciously into an object of self-education. Thus the development of soul forces beyond the level of ordinary life is the only thing that can lead in an anthroposophical sense to knowledge of the super-sensible world.

Now what is this development of thinking? It consists of making human thinking or human visualising stronger than it is in ordinary life, and doing so in a completely systematic way based on the experiences of man's inner soul nature. In ordinary life our thinking or visualising is merely a spectator. And man is conscious of the fact that he actually thinks best in ordinary life when he allows his experiences of life or of external nature to work on him in such a way that he forms his mental pictures as a passive spectator. With the methods described in my book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds you can bring activity into the world of thought. You will bring such activity into the world of thought that you will be conscious that you are not passive whilst you think, but are as active as you are when you use your limbs, even though this is an inner activity. Will must be brought into thinking, the kind of will, however, that does not make the thinking arbitrary, but adapts it to the phenomena of the world. So it is a particularly good preparation for the spiritual investigator if he precedes his spiritual scientific endeavours with a thoroughly disciplined study in the natural scientific method, thus training himself not to think arbitrarily but according to the phenomena of nature itself. But he also has to free himself from this mere looking at nature. His newly acquired capacity of systematic thinking and of observing natural phenomena must now be developed as a thought activity independent of physical phenomena. A spiritual scientific training of thinking is an activating of thinking. This is a fact that many people still disbelieve today—we are only at the beginning of spiritual scientific knowledge—namely the fact that man's thinking and whole activity of mental picturing really takes on quite a different character than it has in everyday life.

If we think back to the dreamlike mental images of early childhood and compare these with the clear thinking of adulthood, we find that man's inner life of soul has undergone a change. A similar change takes place in anyone who develops his thinking in the way we have described and progresses from ordinary thinking to active thinking. He feels as though he has awakened from the normal condition of existence, and, provided we do not use the word in a dubious mystical sense, we can certainly say that this activated thinking ‘awakens’ man.

By learning to use this active thinking man acquires an entirely new way of ‘seeing’ things, a new way of seeing the qualities of the human body, to begin with. Active thinking ascends to the kind of seeing in which the human body appears in quite a new way. Above all, a tremendous difference is to be seen between the form of man's head organisation and the organisation that comes to expression in man's mobile limbs and everything that is connected with these. By means of the kind of seeing that active thinking opens up we come to realise that the human head is of an entirely different character, even in its bodily nature, from the rest of the body, particularly the limb organisation. Inner perception shows us how thinking, especially this activated thinking, is related to the whole nature of the human head. We learn to know in a new way what the human body really is. For as our soul development progresses by means of this active thinking there enters consciously into this active thinking the kind of life experience that is not solely of the type that enters ordinary thinking or visualising.

Life experiences that enter ordinary thinking or visualising have a certain peculiarity. We experience the world within this ordinary visualising. We experience it through our sense perceptions and the thoughts that come to meet them. But we keep a bit of this experience back for ourselves, too. We would not have our whole human nature within ourselves if each external impression did not leave behind it the possibility of our remembering it. It is just this memory that keeps our whole human personality intact, and we only have to think of the devastation wrought in the human personality by any kind of loss of memory to realise what the power of memory means for the cohesion of the human personality in ordinary life. But the force that enables us to keep memories alive, those memories acquired by opening ourselves to the outer world and forming mental images of it via our sense perception, this force remains unconscious. This is something that man carries out unconsciously. But when it comes to the experiences of active, super-sensible thinking, it is different. It would be quite impossible to bring what is acquired in a really super-sensible way, through active thinking, into any sort of connection with the human personality if we were dependent on the activity that works unconsciously within us. Something we have to learn about the acquisition of super-sensible knowledge is that we are not taking something unconsciously into the body by means of which we can later on awake a memory, on the contrary the imprinting of something in the physical body, the taking in of it, that normally takes place as an unconscious activity and works on as memory, has to be carried out consciously by the spiritual investigator. The higher, super-sensible experience gained by activated thinking would never come in place of an absolutely dreamy experience if we could not acquire the capacity to introduce this super-sensible experience to the body consciously.

We can only introduce it, however, to the head organisation. But then this head organisation teaches us something that eludes ordinary science, but which sheds great light on the mystery of man's being. We discover that when we make a conscious imprint of what we experience in active thinking we are constantly bringing about a process in the human head that is not an intensification of life but a breaking down of life, a partial dying. This is a significant and moving experience acquired through spiritual science: In order to remember super-sensible knowledge, we have to imprint it into our head organisation, and it is immediately evident that this imprinting does not bring about an enlivening process but a process of partial dying, a breaking down of the head organisation's life processes. This teaches us how the bodily head organisation actually functions in man. We discover something that is normally not known because it remains unconscious, namely that our whole thinking activity or mental imagery is not something that comes from forces of life, as materialists believe, but something that comes from the damping down of the life of the head. It arises because whilst our soul is active our head is constantly in a state of partial dying. We also discover a fact that strikes a man of today as being absurd: if the thinking activity of the head were to spread into the rest of man's body, he would immediately die.

Thus spiritual science teaches us that the death-bringing principle is constantly at work in part of man's bodily nature. We learn that because our head is organised that way, death is at work in us throughout our life. You see, this approach, that people in many circles today imagine has nothing useful to offer, leads to the kind of conceptions that completely contradict the usual views. We find that this imprinting that I have just described as a conscious process which must be carried out by active thinking, cannot actually directly imprint into man's physical organisation the super-sensible world where the experiences have been undergone. We find out the real fact that eludes external sense observation. We discover that incorporated into the ordinary life of the senses is what I took the liberty, in my books on spiritual science, to call the etheric body or body of formative forces. We discover a delicate body of light between the activity of active thinking and man's physical body, particularly in the head organisation. This finer body is the formative force—a thing that modern natural science makes fun of—underlying the physical body, and it is discovered in this way by super-sensible sight, which at this stage we can call an Imagination. We discover a higher, super-sensible member of man's being. At this point we experience an extraordinarily shattering phenomenon. When we imprint our super-sensible experiences into our etheric body and on into our physical body, we feel as though we were no longer master of our ego. We thought our ego filled our soul being through and through, but now it feels as though it were being sucked into the body.

The way to overcome this phenomenon is to have other soul exercises going parallel with the activating of thinking. These outer exercises are to do with disciplining the will. Although I characterised them the day before yesterday, I want to refer to them again briefly. I described how man changes from one week to the next, from one hour to the next, from one year to the next. We know we are becoming a different person. Our experiences are not the kind of thing we have, but the kind of thing that is perpetually making us into a different person. But nowadays an unconscious activity is also at work here. Present-day man gives himself up to external experiences. If he goes so far as to observe his inner being to any extent, he may notice that on the whole he is becoming a different person from week to week, year to year, and decade to decade; that his soul constitution is changing. But he does not take this development of his soul constitution in hand. This, however, the spiritual investigator has to do. He has to work on himself in such a way that his own will controls the progress he makes from one year to the next and from one decade to the next, and this also has to be systematic. He has to practise self-discipline and self-education systematically and fully consciously, not merely arbitrarily or according to the pattern of ordinary more or less unconscious existence. He has to bring under the control of his own will what otherwise takes place in us involuntarily.

This calls forth another experience of a kind that is very far removed from present-day consciousness; we realise that we have to put aside a scientific prejudice that prevails nowadays in a particular realm of science and has taken general hold of people's minds. This scientific view—which I want to mention because it could be the very thing that might make my present argument intelligible—is that man has two kinds of nerves: the so-called sensory nerves and the motor nerves. The sensory nerves run from our sense organs (so people believe) or from the surface of the skin to the nerve centre and convey perceptions in the same way as telegraph wires. The so-called motor nerves, the will nerves, go out from the nerve centre. A kind of demonic being is imagined as residing in the central nervous system, although of course present-day science will not admit this, and he is supposed to change what comes in through the telegraph wire nerves from the senses to the telegraph exchange into will through the motor nerves, the will nerves. People have thought out such beautiful theories that are really extremely clever, especially those derived from the terrible illness tabes, to explain this theory of the two kinds of nerves. Nevertheless this theory is nothing else than the result of a lack of knowledge of super-sensible man. It would lead too far for me to go into it now—although tabes proves it if we observe it correctly—but there is no difference between the sensory and the motor nerves. The same as with the so-called sensory nerves, the function of which is to convey external perceptions, the only function of the so-called motor nerves is to convey internal perceptions when we walk or move our arms. The motor nerves are sensory nerves too, only their function is to perceive our movements.

The reason why people believe the motor nerves to be the bearer of the will is only because they have no idea what is the real bearer of the will. We only discover what this is when we really practise the kind of self-discipline of the will I was speaking about: become actively engaged in self-education and become at the same time independent of what the body does with us, so to speak. Then we discover that it is not the motor nerves that create will, for they only perceive its movements, but that it is created by a third member of man's being, a super-sensible member that we could actually call the soul. I have called it the astral body in my books, though people do not like the term yet. Again it is by means of direct vision, acquired through this self-disciplining of the will, that we get to know this super-sensible member of man's being; and we discover that it is this ‘soul body,’ if I may call it that, that is the soul and spirit entity underlying all the bodily movements arising out of will. Nerves are there only to convey the perception of movement. If we take this disciplining of the will to further stages, however, we must then ascend from the level of imaginative knowledge, to which I have just referred, to those of Inspiration and Intuition, as I call them in the book just mentioned. We then discover this soul body to be a higher member of man's being than the etheric body or body of formative forces. We find, however, that we cannot experience this soul body in ourselves but only when we are outwardly active and when we become conscious of our will impulses.

When we have reached the point where we discover this actual soul body in ourselves, this second super-sensible part of man's being, the will, grows stronger and stronger, and we recognise it as our sentient body, as the force that works into our limbs and sets our body in motion, as an organisation totally different from our head organisation. In contrast to this head organisation, which I characterised as being constantly in the state of partial dying, we discover that this organisation is constantly in the process of spiritual birth, in which life is increasing and developing all the time. Thus through the head organisation on the one hand, we experience a perpetual dying, and in the will organisation, the second super-sensible member of man's being, we experience a perpetual continuation of the birth process. Out of this continuation of the birth process, out of this increase of life which has to come out of our whole being, there then rays back to us the true, super-sensible nature of our ego, and enters into what we have imprinted into our body. Our ego arises again and again out of the grave of our partially dying head. This perpetual interplay of dying and being born is what we experience within ourselves when we develop our soul life in this way. So we discover that birth and death take place not only at the beginning and end of our lives but that dying and becoming are the expression of forces working in our organisation throughout our lives.

Only when we have thus encountered man's super-sensible forces through Intuition and Inspiration are we in a position to recognise the evolutionary path of mankind; for in developing this kind of vision, the forces we acquire from our head organisation and the organisation of the rest of our body combine to illuminate for us the inner forces at work in the historical development of mankind. How does historical development appear, as a rule, to the ordinary consciousness of present times? If we ignore what men believed in early stages of human evolution out of a primitive conception of mankind and which is now considered childish, namely that there is spirit working in history; if we ignore this, we can say that people nowadays regard history, or rather the evolution of mankind, as a collection of facts gleaned from documents, archives and tradition which, at the most, they link together with the intellect. Not until we perceive the super-sensible being of man, as I have just described it, does the ability to see the progression of higher super-sensible beings through the course of history associate itself with the historical facts which even a spiritual investigator has to take from external history. He gets to know human evolution from the inside, whereas it is usually only looked at from the outside.

So as not just to talk round the subject in the abstract, I will speak of one fact in particular, to show you the evolution of human history from the point of view of symptoms. As man's outlook is restricted solely to the material world, what is presented as history today is just an external picture, and is largely a fable convenue. Anyone who is able to look with inner vision at the connecting link between the facts, discovers that the first thing he sees on looking backwards into our historical evolution is, strange to say, a nodal point in the evolution of modern humanity around the middle of the fifteenth century. We see in a number of spheres something like a forward leap taking place in human development. We know of course that leaps like this take place in nature, too. If we look at the evolving plant, and see first the green leaves developing, then the calyx, and then the transformation into petals, we see a leap from the green leaf to the coloured petal, even though there is a steady development. There is a similar leap in the evolution of humanity in the middle of the fifteenth century, only it passes unnoticed when historical facts are looked at solely from the outside. Something then begins to make itself felt in human evolution that lifts men's souls onto quite a different level of development from the one preceding it. Earlier epochs of human evolution, it is true, also attained considerable heights from time to time, but human souls were quite differently constituted before and after the middle of the fifteenth century. Looking at history from the inside, the middle of the fifteenth century was the end of an epoch of human evolution that actually began in the eighth century B.C., roughly with the founding of the Roman Empire.

Anyone observing history from a spiritual scientific point of view sees a continuous line of development running through the centuries from 800 B.C. until the middle of the fifteenth century A.D. And anyone looking from inside at the Greek or the Roman era will find what is said here thoroughly substantiated. The kind of soul constitution that was developing in man during that epoch was of a kind that nurtured feeling (Gemüt) and intelligence. The surprising thing is that when observing history from the inside, we find that prior to the eighth century B.C. the power of feeling and intelligence was not yet actively at work in the human soul. In those days man was still to a great extent united with nature; he did not step back and reflect on the things he had seen, for his life of feeling was still a part of nature. Not until the eighth century did he free himself from nature and develop forces of intelligence and feeling independently within himself. By and large the whole of historical development from the eighth century B.C. to the fourteenth century A.D. is a gradual unfolding of those particular forces of soul in mankind that produce a flowering of the qualities of feeling and intelligence from out of man's inner being.

This development of the forces of feeling and intelligence, however, still had an instinctive quality about it during this epoch, intelligence and feeling still working in an instinctive way. In the middle of the fifteenth century, however, these forces previously working instinctively in the intelligence and feeling took on a fully conscious quality. Men felt more strongly isolated from outer nature than they had felt before, because in order to think about things consciously and experience their instinctive feelings of sympathy and antipathy consciously, they had to draw back from external nature, so to speak. Everything became conscious. Therefore we can say, from a spiritual scientific point of view, that whilst in earlier epochs the instinctive life of thought and feeling was being developed, from the middle of the fifteenth century onwards what we can call the consciousness soul has been developing, and this stage of development is something that will continue for a very long period of human evolution. Relatively speaking, we human beings are still at the beginning of this evolution of the consciousness soul, which is already responsible for the great progress made in natural scientific thinking. However great Plato and Aristotle were, they did not possess natural scientific thinking, which requires the kind of withdrawal of man's inner being from nature that did not take place until the consciousness soul appeared in human evolution. Thus our development of natural science is part and parcel of one epoch of human evolution. Lessing described this very beautifully, whichever way you interpret his words, by saying that the whole of human evolution is “a kind of Education of Mankind.” Since the middle of the fifteenth century the education of mankind consists of the education of the consciousness soul, and this it is that has actually brought with it the natural scientific outlook. Looked at from inside this is a section of human evolution.

We only understand fully what belongs to the era from the eighth century B.C. till the middle of the fifteenth century A.D. when we look at it from the inside, from the point of view of man's soul development. For the founding of Christianity falls in the first third of this era, and the spiritual scientist sees this as the greatest event that has ever occurred in earthly evolution. With his ability to look down the centuries from inside at man's soul development, the spiritual scientist recognises better than anyone else that in the first third of the epoch I described as the era of the evolution of intelligence and feeling, something was still present that had existed in the highest degree in the days of early humanity, namely something that made man feel a part of the natural world around him; but in those times this feeling arose out of the subconscious depths of the soul. Then there broke upon human evolution the Event of Golgotha, the nature of which can never be understood if people try to understand it merely out of a material conglomeration of historical facts. There broke in upon human evolution a fructification of man's evolution, in that a super-sensible element united with this evolution from out of cosmic heights, preparing the way for man's being to become conscious and inwardly strong to an ever greater and greater degree.

Initially the Event of Golgotha, the Incarnation of Christ as Man, met with a way of thinking and feeling that was still of an instinctive nature. It took the next two-thirds of this epoch for these forces emanating from the Event of Golgotha to flow into man's more or less unconscious instinctive forces of intelligence and feeling. Then from the middle of the fifteenth century onwards came the conscious soul evolution of man and, with it, the epoch of natural science, when men turned their attention to external processes of natural phenomena. The beginning of this epoch was the time in which the earlier connection with the spirit, with the super-sensible element in the world, tended to withdraw in favour of conscious existence. This spiritual element, which in earlier times man perceived as though by instinct in the very phenomena of the world, now sprang to life in his inner being by virtue of the fact that the Being of Christ had united Himself with human evolution. But this new life within man came at the point in his evolution when, as I said, man was becoming increasingly conscious and therefore increasingly external. Thus it happened that just at the beginning of the age of the consciousness soul, the age of the conscious development of intelligence and feeling, although the Christ Impulse was at work in human souls, men's consciousness was of a kind that made them lose sight of their spiritual and super-sensible being. Therefore it also happened that people had less and less understanding for the Event that had united itself with human evolution in a super-sensible way—the Event of Golgotha. In the nineteenth century there was a climax in this respect. Now the point had been reached when the Event of Golgotha was divested of its super-sensible character even in the eyes of most of the faithful. Even for these the Event of Golgotha was, in the nineteenth century, relegated to the world of external facts, so to speak. Jesus the Christ Bearer became the ‘simple man of Nazareth,’ a person no greater than a somewhat more highly developed human being. And this happened solely because, while they were developing the consciousness soul, men also lost the understanding for the super-sensible element in history. The conception of Jesus as the simple man of Nazareth brought materialism into Christianity. And nowadays there is not only a materialistic science, there is also a widespread materialistic faith.

Now, however, we have come to the time—in this epoch of human evolution that began in the middle of the fifteenth century—when we face the necessity of ascending once more to the spirit. And the path I described to you today and the day before yesterday is the path that coming humanity will have to tread to ascend to the spirit again and to find its way once more to super-sensible knowledge and to the super-sensible phenomena lying behind the sense world and behind external historical facts. It is this which will also lead it to the super-sensible nature of the Event of Golgotha. Then this unique Event will appear as the kind of turning point in the whole evolution of mankind that everybody can understand and accept. With the coming of this new super-sensible knowledge the Event of Golgotha will be divested of all its sectarianism, and, rising above separate denominations, even above the religious differences existing in different parts of the world, an understanding of it will become the general possession of mankind. Then the Mystery of Golgotha will be seen to be the most important super-sensible fact of all human evolution. The narrow view of Christ that prevents people from seeing the true mystery—and which still inhibits a number of denominations, because materialism has even found its way into faith—this narrow point of view will be superseded; people will find a new understanding of this Impulse, which is the greatest and most powerful Impulse in the whole of mankind's evolution.

This should show you that spiritual science does not deprive people of what they believe to be the results of ‘simple faith.’ On the contrary, spiritual science reaches up to the highest level of knowledge in order to show mankind the greatest Event of human evolution. This is something modern man longs for if he is honest enough with himself and admits that he is more and more disenchanted with ‘simple faith.’ It had to be stated here as belonging to spiritual science. And as we are in the age of consciousness, in which mankind is dividing and becoming disharmonious to an ever greater degree—because the individual is thrown back on his own personality and his personal loneliness—it is essential to point to what men, the whole world over, need to re-unite them once again.

What is needed today is a new understanding of the central Event of human evolution. Spiritual science does not take anything away from man. On the contrary it gives him just what his present-day consciousness needs. And if people, out of their healthy human understanding, want to complain of the views and teachings of anthroposophical spiritual science, we shall have to tell them that their thinking is not healthy enough and that they must throw off the illusions with which the purely external, material theories of natural science have befogged them; they should think about their own thinking, and then they will make a remarkable discovery about the particular nature of man's present-day life of soul. They will hear what natural science tells them from reliable, strictly methodical sources about the evolution of the physical body. But, when their minds are healthy, they will not be able to agree that there is no more to life as they know it than natural science tells them. They will find that when they listen to spiritual science in a really healthy way, and draw comparisons with life, the contradictions arising out of the illusions produced by materialism are enough to make them ill, and that they will only rediscover life if they refer, with the help of spiritual science, to the super-sensible nature of man and the super-sensible world in which the evolution of man and mankind are embedded.

If you have acquired the possibility in this way of seeing historical life supersensibly, the present world epoch, or epoch of human evolution, will appear before you—it is not the right occasion today to include a description of the whole of earthly evolution; you can read that up in my Occult Science and you will be far enough advanced to aspire to the kind of perception Lessing spoke of in his Education of the Human Race, which he had attained out of his much admired healthy human understanding within the German spiritual stream of development. Then you will be capable of perceiving that in the course of spiritual evolution human life runs its course in repeated earth lives. For the whole span of man's life consists of an altenation between the kind of lives he spends in a physical body and another form of existence between death and a new birth, spent in the super-sensible worlds which are connected with our world through the spirit that is also at work in historical evolution. We discover then, as Lessing also did, that in coming back for repeated lives on earth, man himself carries evolution forward from one epoch to the next. This knowledge of repeated earth lives cannot become a theory in the accepted sense, for when you are capable of penetrating into the spirit of human evolution in the way I have described, you can find this knowledge for yourself, but you have then acquired it as a fact of man's higher super-sensible nature.

A new perception of spiritual life, a perception which will help us find the spirit again in our materialistic world, is about to enter present civilisation. The materialistic outlook prevailing today is largely responsible for estranging man's inner life from a real perception of the spirit, and depriving him of the courage to plunge into this spiritual perception, making him believe that the only way to the spirit is the way of ‘simple creed’ based on a literal acceptance of the Bible. This ‘simple creed’ and the materialism of our time are closely related, for before such a thing as materialism existed, there was not this perpetual harping on a simple creed. After all, at the time when Christianity arose, the teachings about Christ Jesus came out of highly developed spiritual vision, though of course it was atavistic. This old spiritual vision cannot be the way of modern man. Modern man must work for spiritual vision in the way I have tried to describe. If you become aware of what is living deep down in people's souls nowadays and colouring their whole outlook, although they are not fully conscious of it—this mood that unconsciously flashes into consciousness, sometimes in a pathological way, so that people feel it as inner unrest, as a psychopathic tendency, even though they cannot explain it—this mood is the striving for a new spirituality. I certainly do not wish to be so immodest as to suggest or maintain that the spiritual science or anthroposophy I give lectures on is the only thing that has to happen on the path to the spirit. What I have given here is just a humble attempt. And anyone who makes a humble attempt like this, yet is aware that it comes out of the deepest longings of the present time, is also aware that there will be more and more people coming along and attempting to tread the paths to spiritual vision and to proclaim the possibility of ascending to life on a super-sensible level.

But you can see too, that when I lecture on anthroposophy I cannot spare anybody's feelings, at the first encounter, that these things are rather difficult to understand. You will also see that what leads to these spiritual worlds is neither a damping down of clear thinking nor a damping down of the will that works in practical life, but is an intensification of both thought and will. Many people of the present day cannot muster sufficient inner courage for this as yet. So they look at anthroposophy and say: They mean well, these people, but with their anthroposophy they tell us all kinds of things about mankind's evolution, even about cosmic facts of a spiritual nature. Looking at anthroposophy from a safe distance, people like this call it ‘crazy stuff’, etc., terms used here recently in Stuttgart, to apply to the world of physical facts. Yet, ladies and gentlemen, people will never get beyond a nonsensical, merely hazy presentiment of the spiritual world if clear, mathematical thinking and a light-irradiated, self-disciplined will are not applied to bring down real facts from the super-sensible world to replace mere phrases. Modern man needs these facts.

I have spoken to you about what mankind is longing for. And it was this very longing that caused such a caricature of super-sensible striving to arise in the nineteenth century. People only know how to strive in a materialistic way. But alongside this materialistic striving they acquired a yearning for the spirit. So they investigated the spirit on the pattern of their research in the material world and carried out a caricature of spiritual research, namely spiritualism, which is nothing else but a material search for something that can never be matter, namely spirit. What comes out in a pathological way in spiritualism as a caricature of spiritual striving, is the same thing that is being sought for by anthroposophical spiritual science, but in the latter case it is healthy and is based on a further development in clear consciousness of forces already inherent in man.

Anthroposophical spiritual science therefore appears, in the best sense of the word, as an attempt (we mean this modestly) to bring perceptions of the spiritual world, super-sensible man and his evolution into the age of great and outstanding perceptions of an external, scientific nature. Not until these scientific perceptions have been supplemented by the perceptions of spiritual vision will modern man understand his being in the way he longs to. Therefore spiritual science as we pursue it must shake off all the reproaches it encounters, even those from well-meaning people.

To conclude I should like to draw your attention to the fact that even the kind of people who have no intention of rejecting spiritual science are offended when we speak to large audiences about ‘spiritual secrets’, as they call them, instead of keeping these in intimate sectarian circles. Oh, they know very well that it is a sacred duty of the times to stand up and speak to large audiences. Therefore I must not pay attention to the kind of reproach that was made recently:—That it is just not done to speak about cosmic things to a large city audience, like Dr. Steiner does. What is needed is a master of the art of divine gesture who can inexorably drive everyone from his presence who does not know when to be silent. What we need is an approach that can distinguish in more than mere words between what is profane and what is holy.—In answer to this reproach we have to say that we have also entered the age of democracy in the spiritual sphere, and that it is a sin against mankind to wish to distinguish between what is profane and what is holy. Anyone whose destiny allows him to penetrate into the spiritual worlds has the obligation to speak as widely as possible to people's healthy human understanding, so that this healthy human understanding can find the way to the spiritual worlds again.

Although this is an absolutely general task of the times—an obligation to the whole of mankind—we have a special obligation to the middle European region in which we live. If anyone has been deeply interested for decades, as I have, in the beginning made in German spiritual life in the direction of a new spiritual perception by Lessing (who I have mentioned today), Herder, Goethe, Schiller and the German philosophers, then he knows—through the interest he takes in this spiritual life, if he does so in such a way that he makes those forces his own which motivated Goethe, Schiller and the rest—that this spiritual life leads straight into what I have been speaking about today and the day before yesterday. In order to overcome the terrible materialistic development of recent times, we in middle Europe can begin by bringing to mind again that which had its beginnings in the Great Age of Germany. Then what is called anthroposophical spiritual science will follow on naturally. That is why, just at this time when the German spirit is so little appreciated anywhere, we chose to call the building conceived as a High School for Spiritual Science the ‘Goetheanum.’ ‘Goetheanum’ as a sign that from the spiritual point of view, the Goetheanistic German spirit has the courage to face the world.

I know, too, that we are not sinning against Goethe if, in order to link on to something historical, we use the term Goetheanism for the new way of thought and vision we have spoken of today and the day before yesterday. However much is taken away from us in external ways, and however much power the world has today to make things as difficult as possible for us in external matters, it can never take away from us our connection with the best of German qualities, if we ourselves intend having this connection. If we have this intention, however, then even in these dark and sad times we shall not lose hope—the hope of a re-awakening, in a new form, of the spiritual life of mankind, that we are perhaps destined to have just in this time of greatest need.

If we continue with the kind of thing the materialistic age has brought into human evolution in recent times, we shall get further and further removed from the spirit and more and more attached to matter. But if we turn our minds to our super-sensible nature and develop this in ourselves, we shall add the results of spirit vision to the dazzling achievements of the materialistic natural scientific outlook. This spirit vision will then be like the soul of the world conception of outer nature. These two ways are open to human evolution today: either to keep to a perception of the material world and drag mankind further into chaos and distress, or to give birth to our higher inner being from out of our super-sensible nature and the super-sensible world. One of these directions, the materialistic way, can already be seen in the ripples it sends to the surface.

With its external logic of the intellect and its inability to find its way to the inner logic of facts, external science actually sees things very inexactly. I will give you one example of what I mean: There is a philosophical view prevalent at the present time that is a genuine product of materialistic thought. It was advocated by Avenarius and Mach, and it is to the effect that man's field of experience is limited to what he takes in through ordinary sense perception and ordinary consciousness. These two particular men expressed the materialistic outlook by means of some very clever philosophy, and if we inquire into what they expressed with such dedication we shall acquire great respect for their intellectual achievements. If we remain within the ordinary outlook, we shall accept philosophers like Avenarius and Mach as individual philosophical phenomena. But if we go beyond the ordinary outlook, and recognise the inner impulses behind world conceptions such as these, our eyes will be opened, and we shall see the mysterious way these world conceptions work in life. We shall then hit upon the remarkable connection existing between these world conceptions and the decline that threatens European civilisation today, and comes from the East, from Russia, from bolshevism. We shall realise that the practice of bolshevism is the end result of world conceptions like these. This is further confirmed by the fact that the philosophy of Avenarius and Mach is the state philosophy of bolshevism. This connection is known today only to those who penetrate into the spirit of things and who can rise above the noise of party opinion. Party opinion rides roughshod over everything that has to be said right now for the salvation of mankind. This kind of factual logic I have shown you is more important for the man of today than all the logic of sophistry, which would certainly never lead over from Avenarius and Mach to bolshevism. But the facts do. If you want to understand the origins of the things happening today to destroy civilisation within the civilised world, look at the philosophies of the past few decades, the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, and you will find further confirmation of the fact that two ways are open to us today: One way continues with the materialistic approach, despite the fact that its logic is as subtle as that of Avenarius and Mach; and the other, that has been characterised here, wants to participate in the spirit. If we carry on in the first direction, the effect on European spiritual life will be that man's spirit will become mechanised, man's soul vegetative and man's body animalised. This is the fate that actually threatens us today. If men become addicted to this western mechanisation of the spirit, this state of being will combine with eastern animalisation, which means that social demands will be on a level of animal instinct and blind impulse. Western mechanisation and eastern animalisation are connected one with another. In between these is the vegetative or drowsy nature of soul that does not want to be woken up by a treading of the path to the spirit. This is the one perspective. Mankind will have to choose between becoming mechanised in spirit, vegetative in soul and animalised in body or going the other way. Hardship and distress will no doubt eventually drive us into going the other way. And although it will be the other people who have the power, they will not be able to bar us from going this other way, the way leading to the spirit. We shall have to want to go this way. We shall have to want to keep our spirit free, even if our bodies are in bondage. Out of the feelings and experience which can come to us out of a consciousness of super-sensible man and the super-sensible world, we shall have to resolve to have inner self-reliance. Then the others will not be able to harm us. And I should like to describe in the following words what might then come about after all:

In the course of the nineteenth century we middle Europeans were foolish enough to copy the western nations, even though there were no grounds for this in western civilisation. Through hardship and distress, through the very power these have over us, we shall perhaps find the way to stop imitating all that we were foolish enough to imitate when we chose them for a model.

Now, when they want to use their power to give us the lead in the mechanisation of the spirit, may we find the strength, in this old middle Europe of ours that has such a great heritage, to tread the path to the spirit from out of ourselves. We shall then avoid the materialistic mechanisation of the spirit and attain the freedom I attempted to characterise as early as the beginning of the 1890s in my Philosophy of Freedom. The liberated spirit will bring us to a real vision of the spiritual world. The spirit will also help us find the way to the equality of man. For human equality can never exist in the external economic order only. As soon as man understands the super-sensible nature of his own ensouled spirit being, however, he will be able to find the law that makes him an equal among equals. He will also deepen science; for with spiritual vision, as I have indicated here today, medicine, law, and the art of education will find their real source. Science will then lead neither to the mechanisation of the spirit as it has hitherto, nor to the inequality of man, for complete freedom of the spirit will come to man when the spirit seeks it on spirit paths; human equality will come to human souls when the spirit seeks it on paths of the soul; and finally, when the human being who knows himself to be a super-sensible spirit being approaches another person lovingly, then—because human beings will be associating with one another as conscious spirit beings in a loving way—in addition to having a liberated spirit and a soul that is equal with its neighbours, man will have, both in his human nature and in social life, a true, spiritualised, ensouled, thoroughly human brotherliness!

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear attendees! In light of what the chairman has told you, I imagine that our evening could preferably unfold in such a way that the esteemed attendees ask specific questions. In this way we shall best achieve our purpose, which has just been explained to you. So it will perhaps be best if I say just a few words in advance to give you a little background for the discussion that follows, which, I believe, should be the main thing today.

You will, as the chairman assumed, have taken note of what I, based on a lifetime of experience, had to do for a truly practical way to socialization, which only came to a conclusion under the loudly speaking facts of the present. Just briefly, I would like to characterize some things.

The point is that in the future we must strive radically for what I have called the threefold social order in an Appeal and in my book. This can be achieved much more quickly than many people think. This threefold social order would lead to the existence in the future of an independent spiritual organism that would govern itself and would have the task of caring for the natural foundations of the human being, that is, his or her individual abilities, in the same way that the natural foundations must otherwise be cared for in economic life. The second would be the organization that has to take the place of the present state, the actual legal organization. In the first place, it would have to regulate all the present conditions of ownership and property, which are the main thing in the actual socialization of property. On the one hand, there would be the question of what should take the place of the State. The present conditions of violence, property and ownership would have to be transferred into conditions based on the law in which all men are equal. And on the other hand, everything that comprises the entire field of labor law would be regulated in this intermediate link of the social organism that replaces the state.

I see labor law as being endangered whenever it is to be regulated within the cycle of economic life itself. The damage that occurs in today's economy, in particular, is usually misjudged. I have made a great effort to form a corresponding picture not from what has been written about the things – because in truth very little can be learned from that – but directly from life. I would like to briefly discuss these matters today so that we can move on to specific questions. I have explained it in detail in my book: as long as there is a belief that the question of what constitutes working hours, and the extent and type of work, should be regulated within the economic body itself, the worker cannot obtain his rights. The worker must already have his labor law fully regulated when he comes face to face with the labor manager. Only then will he be in a position to draw up a real contract in place of today's sham contracts, the wage contract, or whatever you want to call it, which is not a free contract because the worker does not have the labor law behind him, which is what enables him to conclude a truly free contract. In this economic system, the worker cannot obtain justice, but only through the separation of the entire legal system from economic life and its transfer to what should take the place of the state.

The third possibility is the independent economic organism. In this case, we shall no longer have to deal with any dependence of labor law on any kind of economic situation, price formation, and so on, but all economic consequences, especially all economic price formations, will arise not as a cause but as an effect of what is already established in labor law, or rather, in labor law itself. Labor law will be to economic life what natural conditions are to the natural world. Through this alone you will create a sound basis for the socialization of the economic cycle.

You see, this view is truly not an ideological one, not a utopian one, but one that has emerged from my involvement – and that is almost as old or quite as old as my life – in the proletarian movement. Of course, one then looks back at how the social movement has developed. The social movement is truly not of today. It is something, even in the form in which it lives today, quite old. One might think that if one wants to understand the social movement today, one only has to go back to the Communist Manifesto. But anyone who wants to get a proper grip on things today, when we are at such a tremendous turning point, when we are not facing a small reckoning but a great reckoning, and not just wants to understand them, must actually trace back economic life and the ideas that people have formed about it to earlier times.

Because, you see, it is truly not a matter of indifference that, for example, in 1826, at a time when most people in Europe had not yet thought of anything like a social question, a person like Thünen already predicted in a certain way what then occurred as a consequence of our world catastrophe. Thünen was a person who worked the land himself, but not in the usual way. He did so with full understanding and with a relationship to economic life that was based on reality. As early as 1826, this Thünen said: If people do not decide to do what is necessary in social terms, then Europe is heading for terrible devastation and barbarism. — So people already knew this, but there were only a few who spoke like this. This was said in 1826.

Now, in the course of the 19th century, honest and sincere people repeatedly struggled with what is called the social question, and I would like to emphasize once again – this was not decisive for me but nevertheless something that throws back a light – that the one who objectively deals with what has emerged on the part of some as the demand of socialism – yesterday was indeed spoken about in more detail – could only say to himself: socialism must come one day. Socialism is a necessity. It must come, it will come. And then he also had to realize that the arguments put forward by people who are sincere about socialism are important. And, if you have gone through all the nonsense of the economists who thought they had to refute Marx, you can say: the most important claims of Karl Marx cannot be refuted, are quite impossible to refute. But if you turn to the other side, not to the mercenaries and servants of the capitalists, of course, but to those who had social understanding, you will also find among them those who, out of the reality of practical life, raised objections to socialism that could make one stop and think. It is not uninteresting that in the same year that the Communist Manifesto went out into the world, a book was published by Bruno Hildebrand, an honest person who has put forward weighty arguments against socialism. And especially if you are an honest socialist, you may have some strange thoughts when you read such things. I do not want to attach any importance to what this or that other person from bourgeois circles has said, that is mostly nonsense, but when you have something like Bruno Hildebrand's account in front of you, you do end up saying to yourself: On the one hand, you can't object to socialism, it's bound to come. However, the concerns that people like Hildebrand have are extremely difficult to refute. For Hildebrand does not raise his objections out of any dislike of socialism, but rather, in view of socialism as he knew it in 1848 – and the same would apply to Hildebrand today, at least until 1914 – he has merely expressed his concerns. He imagined that if socialism were introduced in the old style, it would not be the middle classes who would somehow suffer, but those who wanted socialism would ultimately achieve nothing. In a sense, people like Hildebrand already foresaw what could happen when precisely such people from the circles of the Socialist Party come to the top, because the desires of the broad masses of the proletariat cannot arise from that background.

You see, there are of course many different views on this. And if we are completely honest about it, we have to say: Yes, it is a general defect of our current human thinking that we are not able to find something that is not just made up, because, despite what is said, socialist programs are often just made up. Today we need something that is not made up.

What I have just told you now sheds some light on what has emerged for me from practical life. If I look at the development of socialist thought in the 19th century and also take into account Hildebrand and revisionist thought in the 19th century, then I come to the following conclusion: If socialism is to be implemented in such a way that economic activity continues under the hypnosis of the unified state, that is, if the unified state is merely extended to cover economic matters, then the broad masses will suffer all the harms that Hildebrand foresaw. That means that we need a socialism that is realized in such a way that these things do not occur. Therefore, the social organism, the economic organism, must not contain anything that could lead to such concerns. And then I said to myself: this is precisely where this threefold division applies, because I take out spiritual life on the one hand and legal life on the other, thereby creating an economic organism that can no longer give rise to concerns because generous socialization can be carried out in the threefold organism. You will see this in all the specific questions, especially when we then go into the most concrete questions.

Let us take the question of works councils as an example of a question that is becoming topical today, which I hope we will discuss in more detail later. You see, my proposals are based on reality and are therefore not a finished program, but something that is to be tackled and that is to be developed bit by bit, not slowly, but perhaps also quickly bit by bit, as the circumstances of the time will require. The possibility of really making progress arises from what I have tried to present as a three-pronged impulse for real socialization.

The question of works councils – I hope that it will be discussed in detail later – is a real one today, and practically speaking, we can start from any point in reality today to realize what is set out in my book. Those who think in the old socialist way, for example, imagine these works councils primarily – I have been told this – as being more or less introduced by law, that is, they think of the works councils as a state institution. Now, once again, I am of the opinion that if they are introduced in this way, they will most certainly be a fifth wheel on the wagon. It is only possible to create the works councils out of economic life itself.

I recently said: Let the works councils arise, and do not interfere in their creation by passing laws about them! They should come into being first, they should arise first in the individual companies, but they must create a position for themselves, especially during the transition period, that makes them completely independent of the previous bosses and plant managers. They must, of course, have an independent position.

Then the next step will be to ensure that the companies that are set up today form their own corporate body across the economic territories in question. For anyone today who still understands socialization as merely wanting to socialize individual companies would very soon see the strange position we would be in in five years if we only socialized individual companies. If we were to socialize only individual enterprises, we would end up with the wildest individualism of the individual enterprises, and the most dissatisfied would be the workers. There would be such inequality among workers in terms of income that it would be unbearable. You can only socialize if you socialize the entire economic entity, of a certain size, as such.

So, first of all, it is a matter of establishing works councils for certain similar businesses in a certain area. A very important act of overall socialization emanates from the works councils, so that not only is a bond created between the works councils of similar businesses, but across all businesses. Then a real socialization of economic life can gradually occur. Only then will things be a blessing. If, therefore, we begin to develop an understanding of the extraordinarily important appointment of works councils, we will see that we are on the right track with the idea of tripartism. We shall only achieve something if we do not tolerate the intervention of that which replaces the state in the functions of the works councils in any way other than merely with reference to the fact that the state has to ensure that the works councils can function, just as it naturally has to ensure that I can walk down a street without being attacked. But otherwise than the state otherwise relates to the personal rights of the individual, it should also not relate to the works councils with some kind of limitations of functions and so on. The functions must arise from the self-constitution of the works council within the economic body. That alone leads to success. With this example I wanted to show you how threefolding is actually meant. It is meant to be practical, that is, everything we have to do tomorrow and the day after tomorrow can only lead somewhere if it is handled from the point of view of threefold division. Then things will interact in the right way.

You see, my suggestion assumes that socialism, now that it is here, cannot be taken off the agenda. Anyone who is familiar with the conditions in both economic and political life, and thus in legal and intellectual life, can no longer imagine, because that is an unrealistic notion, that socialism can be introduced today and then it will be here tomorrow. No, once socialism is in place, it will have to be continuously worked on. Socialism will always have to be handled in a new way. It is something very much alive. We must have precisely those organizations that work again and again in the spirit of socialism. People do not yet come up with their thoughts in line with what is actually happening in this area.

A long time ago, a strange sentence emerged from a school of economics. It is considered overcome today, but it still haunts people's minds. It was the Physiocrats who said that there was no need to prescribe laws for economic life, because either it develops by itself in line with these laws, in which case they are not needed, or you prescribe different laws that do not correspond to the development. But then you would harm the economy. It seems that, when stated in this way, it is absolutely right and yet is totally wrong, namely for the reason that economic life is not something that remains stationary, that is, remains as it once was. It is an organism, and just as a natural organism grows older and older and changes, and one must recognize its change as a condition of life, so it must be with economic life. That means that laws must be there, but they must arise from economic life itself. Thus, the impulses must always be there to counteract the damage to economic life that it must inflict on itself. Anyone who believes that he can introduce socialism once and for all is like a person who says: I ate yesterday, and that was enough to fill me up. Now I don't need to eat anymore. You have to eat continuously because the organism is constantly undergoing certain changes and because it is a living thing. And so it is with what socialist measures are. You have to continually socialize because the social organism is a living thing. And that is also what leads to the necessity for us to create something like works councils and much more right from the start.

You see, the greatest mistake that has been made so far is that people have believed that social life is something like a reproduction of an organism made of papier-mâché. So they imagined it was a mechanism; it is not alive. But it is alive, only people have given the social organism such laws that should apply to something that is dead. But the organism went further, and now people are surprised when revolutions come. That which must be continually improved upon accumulates when it is not improved upon and breaks out in revolutions. Revolutions have been made by those who were short-sighted enough not to recognize the liveliness of social life. I do not mean those who are pushed to do one thing or another, but those who are the leaders and do not understand how to exercise leadership. That is why it is so important today that, if sooner or later the call is really made again to take matters into our own hands, we do not approach the matter with empty heads again, but come up with constructive proposals. It is not enough to say that power must be acquired. That is certainly true, but then, what can we do with that power once we have it? I wanted to say that first. Now I hope that the discussion can become a very lively one through your questions.

Discussion

Debater Beierat explains, among other things: When it comes to socialization, the entrepreneurs must also be asked, because the workers cannot solve all the questions on their own. In order to have a handle so that the previous owners help to create the works councils, it is necessary that a legal basis is created that is the same for the whole Reich.¹

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to say a few words about this, because perhaps we can best move forward by addressing the individual questions.

You see, what the previous speaker just said is not fundamentally inconsistent with what I have put forward. I just tried to approach the matter not theoretically, but in such a practical way that it really leads somewhere. If you want to achieve something practical, you should not let yourself be discouraged by not wanting to make a definite start somewhere. The beginning of something practical must always be made somewhere, and after all, before we came here, there was a meeting down in a small room where all the works councils that already exist were gathered. So at least a start has been made. The only thing that matters is that something practical comes out of such a beginning. Of course, you can think of this beginning as you like, you can make another one. In this connection I would remind you that I spoke about this yesterday: that for the practical implementation of the threefold order, it is of course necessary first of all to set up a kind of liquidation government. I certainly do not think that we can decide today to implement the threefold order by tomorrow!

Since we are living in a time when people can only think in terms of a unitary state, we must, under all circumstances, not because we love any particular government, but because people have lived together in the state until now, have a government for a wide range of different things. Contrary to what the previous speaker said, I must say: Whether it is one government or the other is not important to me. So it is very important to me that it is a government that makes proposals in the sense of real socialization. So I do not feel that is a correct statement: “It does not matter to me whether it is one government or the other.” Because precisely when there is a government, it will have to be clear that in the future it will have to stand only on the legal ground and liquidate, on the one hand, intellectual life and, on the other, economic life. Then, in the form of such a liquidation government, the right authority will be there to create that transitional period, and to do so with reasonable measures. These would then form the basis on which the works councils can be built up, which, instead of some of the other things that various governments are doing today, could in fact use their power to somehow persuade the recalcitrant employers - forgive the expression - to take up reasonable socialization ideas. That would be the task of a reasonable government during the transition period.

These foundations, which still have to be laid today by the liquidation government, could already be in place. But in doing so, this liquidation government in particular would have to be thoroughly imbued with the realization that government laws must never interfere with the development of a healthy economic life, so that this economic life can truly build itself up from the ground up. Therefore, it is necessary that the liquidation government ensures that works councils can emerge. However, it must not interfere in their entire formation. This must happen from within the works council itself.

The government has no other task than to ensure that the works councils can constitute themselves beyond their economic territories, that is, out of economic necessity. This will be the best foundation if the government ensures that the works councils can work properly. The works councils can constitute themselves if the government creates a basis and does not want to rule over them.

Today, the actual difference between ruling and governing is not known, and one can actually be very surprised that, as a result of the November events, people have learned so little about this distinction. There is – this distinction is not mine, but Karl Marx's – a very considerable difference between governing and ruling. And when a government learns to govern and no longer believes that it is only a government when it can rule, then even what the broad masses can imagine under socialization will be possible. For in the future it is not a government that must rule, but the whole broad mass of the people. The government must govern and learn how to govern when the whole broad mass of the people actually rules. The people have not yet got out of the habit of associating the term 'ruler' with a single personality or body. This is something that must be thoroughly eradicated from the people's way of thinking. When a body is set up with socialization in mind – and it must be set up in the same way as works councils – the difference between governing and ruling must be understood above all. Everything that belongs to the powers of the works councils must be formed from the broad masses of the workers. Governance will only consist of creating a real basis, not a legal basis, so that the works council can form freely, purely out of economic necessity, out of knowledge and insight.

You see, the peculiar thing about my proposals for threefolding is that I do not draw up programs, but rather that I try to give such suggestions based on reality so that something reasonable can arise. I say openly: in this way my impulses for threefolding differ from all the rest. Yesterday it was said here that they contain nothing new. They contain something fundamentally new. People who spoke of socialization and other reforms in the past were clever and knew exactly what should be done. I do not claim to be cleverer than the others, but I firmly believe that conditions can be brought about in which those who know something about the matter can come into their own. I do not want to show the way to what the works councils should do, but how they can educate themselves. Then they will recognize for themselves what they have to do. I want to put the right people in the right place. I do not claim to know anything new, but I want the new to come into being.

Various participants in the discussion take the floor.

Rudolf Steiner: With reference to the two esteemed previous speakers, it gives me a certain satisfaction to note that I myself have little left to say, because the discussion between these two speakers has progressed in such a gratifying way that one has completely complemented the other and what actually needs to be said has already been said. I would just like to add the following.

When it is said that there is a difference between focusing all thoughts on the path: How do we gain the power of domination? – and the other way of thinking: What do we do when we have gained power? I must say that I am always reminded of what played such a strong role in the discussions of the 1880s. In those years I had occasion to discuss many questions that were already being dealt with on socialist ground at the time, for example with Adler in Vienna, who recently passed away, and also with Pernerstorfer, who also died last year. And of course, these socialist thinkers of the past were even closer to the great socialist impulses that came from Marx and Engels. It was not yet the time of so-called revisionism, which I believe has done a lot of harm to the development of socialism. I don't want to be misunderstood, but I have always thought that this gentle transition of real socialism into a somewhat unclear, bourgeois way of thinking, which was called revisionism, has actually done a great deal of harm, for the simple reason that some people are so terribly satisfied when they can say: We want what is practical and achievable for tomorrow. These people do not consider that what is achieved for tomorrow can, under certain circumstances, undermine all ground for the day after tomorrow. I often had to object to Adler and Pernerstorfer that I recognize everything that they mention as criticism of the present social order, but one must also have something that one would do when what these socialist leaders themselves assumed finally occurred. These socialist leaders always predicted: This present social order will dismantle itself, it will destroy itself. That was an absolutely correct view. And that is why these socialist leaders always waved away any suggestion that something should be done to forcibly replace the current order with another. They were, in the most eminent sense, developmental socialists, and they said: the dismantling will be taken care of, then it will be the proletariat's turn. — I have always been of the opinion that if you assume what will happen, then you should know.

Are we not actually in a different situation today? We have the November events behind us, and you can be quite sure that those people who were leaders at the time had already imagined something like the November events, but now there was nothing that could be done positively. This shows that it is of some importance not just to keep asking the question, 'How do we gain power?' like a hypnotized chicken, but to ask ourselves, 'What do we do with power?' I keep asking this: How do we act?

The previous speaker said that economic collapse is coming. I don't actually share this view. I believe that it has long since arrived, and that what is being done by the ruling circles is just a continuous covering up and concealment of the economic collapse that has long since occurred. The economic collapse has been there since the time when it was officially declared that it was best for the German Reich to no longer produce for the needs of the people, but for what is blown up into the air. Thus, the economic collapse has actually taken place. And it was always inexplicable to me how little the

people have actually realized that with a measure such as the Auxiliary Service Act, which corresponds well to the subjective needs of the old rulers, a terrible blow has been dealt to economic life that cannot really be cured by anything. They have only ever thought of other things, but had no sense of the economic consequences of such a measure.

So, I believe that economic collapse is here, and we are facing events that will only be delayed as long as it is still possible to disguise or conceal certain things through this or that. But then we will have to know how to set up the new structure. I therefore have nothing against what the previous speaker, Mr. Schreiber, said, but I say to you: It will come about of itself that the leadership must turn from the circles that have been leading up to now to the circles that the previous speaker had in mind. But all the more must these circles feel the sense of responsibility, so that when they come to power they are able to do the right thing. So that is what I want to emphasize again and again and what is of very special importance to me.

It has been said, not as a reproach, but in agreement with me, that I first want the institution of the works councils and then it will become clear what their functions will be. But then we must not have any illusions, because what the new structure will demand will not be very easy, and it will not be possible without real factual knowledge of the economic body. The previous speaker has just given us a number of useful examples. We must not fall back on amateurism; we must be properly prepared when we make the observation, for example, that the work of the works council is not completed when individual businesses are socialized. What the previous speaker said about the right of co-determination, about profit, which must take on a completely different form, and what he said about the right of co-determination in relation to price, shows us that as soon as these concrete things come up, we have a great deal of work to do in the factual field. For it is precisely with these things, which are peculiar to capitalist, private capitalist ownership, that it has not dealt with, but has simply left humanity to a wild competition of interests, of income and so on.

We must not continue in this direction, otherwise we will soon revert to the old conditions. Whether those who then manage the means of production are called capitalists or something else is irrelevant. There is also the possibility that people will come to the top from the ranks – I don't want to say necessarily from the proletariat, but from those who lead the proletariat – who then, under certain circumstances, are in no way inferior to the practices of old capitalists; well, that is something that can only be avoided if we are firmly in the saddle.

You will not hold it against me if I mention something that seems theoretical, but is in fact practical. When it comes to the right of co-determination in pricing, two things come into particular consideration. In a random economic system that is not socialized, the price is regulated from two sides, because it is a kind of law of nature that the price is not based on one force, but on two forces. For example, suppose a certain amount of butter is produced in an economic context. Let us assume that more butter is produced than is necessary for human needs. Then, under certain circumstances, it may well happen that the rest of the butter that people do not need, say, for example, is used to make cart grease. This causes the butter to become much cheaper than it is, for example, when less butter is produced than the total number of people needs. Such things are included in the formation of prices in the most eminent sense. That is one direction from which pricing is determined. The other direction, namely that pricing is based on production costs, is quite separate from the above-mentioned direction in economic life; what is taken into account is what production costs. A completely different price system is formed there, and this price system intersects with the random economic system, that is, with the other. And as a result, we get mutual competition not only of prices but also of price systems, and that is where we are today.

Now just think about this: if the regulation of a worker's income is based on only one price system, then you may find that the worker gets higher and higher wages, but never a better standard of living, because the prices of housing and all the other things rise to the same extent. You can close one hole, but another one opens up by itself. We can only create order here if we are properly equipped.

In the future, one thing must be taken into account, namely how the causes converge from the most diverse sides. This will be necessary if socialization is to really live, not as a mere heartfelt demand, but in a practical way as an impulse. And if the works councils are to have a say in pricing, they will have to be prepared for these things. They will have to work at it, and not say, “Oh, the speeches, the idealistically conceived speeches, they achieve nothing.” No, these are not idealistically conceived speeches, but practical instructions for what has to be done. People cannot simply take on a task without first agreeing on how to do it. Things, including in economic life, must really be learned. And today there is not much knowledge available. We must make a great effort in this regard, must have the good will to come to institutions, and then try to relearn in the most diverse circles. I consider it terribly necessary that the works councils set up cooperatives as quickly as possible, in which people work together with good will, so that we can achieve a real, economically appropriate reconstruction.

We will have to do a great deal of intellectual work if we want to make progress. I ask you to bear this in mind. It was therefore very satisfying that the previous speakers drew attention to this matter. It will be a matter of really putting ourselves in their shoes, of not wanting to be clever and know something alone, so that attention is drawn to the fact that we must bring people to the point where they can share with each other the life experiences that individuals have gained while working. Then, precisely through this collaboration of people in the right positions, socialization will take place.

Further contributions to the discussion follow, and a motion is put forward that Dr. Steiner would like to give further lectures to discuss the important questions further. Dr. Steiner agrees.

Final words from Rudolf Steiner: Yes, my dear attendees, the motion has been accepted that this discussion may continue. So there will be an opportunity to talk about some of the questions that have arisen in the course of the discussion, perhaps later in a more favorable way than today, when time is already too far advanced for me to say anything significant or to expect you to understand. I will therefore only very briefly address a few points that arose during the last part of the discussion.

First there was the question of how I envision further development when workers' councils exist but mean nothing, that is, when the workers' councils are merely a kind of decoration until the political upheaval. - Well, I do believe that in such matters one does harm with all too much pessimism. I believe that in practical life, in such a serious situation as the one we find ourselves in, it is eminently important that we help each other. This does not at all preclude the works councils, when they bring to the surface of the social movement what they have learned and experienced in the factories – and there will be a wealth of social insight in this – essentially also contributing to bringing about the time when the necessary upheavals can bring us. We should not be content with saying: We have to wait until the revolution has occurred. Instead, we have to recognize that if the works councils remain in their posts, we will have a very important means of moving forward.

I believe you should not think too little of what the works councils can be. They will not be a decoration if they stand their ground. Much will arise precisely as a task for the works councils, in which even the most malicious employers will not be able to interfere. They will not be able to somehow eliminate the matter. I believe, therefore, that we should start in practice at some point — and this is an important point. We should not hold back, being overly cautious or even fearing that the works councils might be merely decorative, but we should take action. This is also what the “call” and the impulse of threefolding contain. We should not just carry on talking, but the words should be the seeds of deeds, and that is the essence of the whole series of lectures that I have given, and that will be the essence if I really have the honor of speaking to you in more detail about these things. And another thing: there has been a lot of talk about intellectual workers, especially in the last part of the discussion. Well, I can claim some experience in this field. It is based on what I have lived through over many years. The intellectual workers have ended up in an actually dreadful situation due to the circumstances that I am describing in my lectures. It is almost impossible, even after these terrible experiences of world war catastrophe, to talk to the great mass of those who call themselves intellectual workers about political issues. I am not flattering you when I say – as I have already said in my lecture – that, in terms of political training and education, the manual laboring proletariat is far ahead of the intellectual workers, and that the intellectual workers' political education is almost non-existent. This must be taken into account. In this context, something else must be considered.

I am of the opinion that it will not have a fundamentally favorable effect if a council of intellectual workers develops separately alongside the actual workers' councils. Perhaps this will have to be an important point in the discussion when it comes to the lectures that were requested of me. I believe that nothing can come of the segregation of intellectual workers as special “intellectual workers” from the other workers. The workers who work in a particular area of a company belong, even if they are intellectual workers, to the workers of that branch of the company. There must be a sense of belonging between all the workers in the individual branches of the company. We will not make progress if the intellectual workers of the various branches of the company isolate themselves and act as if they are something special, because the category, the term “intellectual workers” has no justification. One should awaken understanding for the fact that the intellectual workers of the individual branches of industry should join the other workers. Only then will something sensible come of it.

I do not agree with what has been said, namely that intellectual workers and manual workers are on the same ground when they jointly recognize the program of threefolding. This is, after all, a general social policy program, and they are not yet on solid ground! One can jointly recognize many programs, but one only stands on solid ground when this ground is a living ground, when one does not, in turn, form an aristocratic class out of what belongs together. I see an aristocratic class formation in this separation of the spiritual workers, and this should be understood. And if what I actually mean were implemented, then the intellectual worker would gain an enormous amount, above all in political education, which I would generally emphasize in the near future, so that each person learns from the other.

I would therefore not wish to be as pessimistic as the previous speaker, who said: Yes, it is above all important that a certain specialized education and training is the absolute basis for the works councils. – It is indeed the case today that anyone familiar with the situation knows that not much can be gained from the usual specialized training, which today is, after all, a thoroughly bourgeois product. I expect more from practical collaboration, from what arises when everyone contributes what they can from their life experiences. We will train each other, and something completely new will arise. I could imagine that the best results will be achieved when the workers' councils work together in the right way and without maintaining the philistine prejudice that one should first go to school, and when there is a sincere will to learn from each other and to learn from both mistakes. Above all, we will need to socialize in this way, from person to person. Socialization means working together, helping each other, developing brotherhood, and that is precisely what we need in the spiritual realm. In recent years, I have often said to my audiences that the world believes that those who are to learn can only learn from those who have so many diplomas. Those who really want to learn – they may have already learned a great deal – can learn an awful lot from a child of two or three years old, or even younger. This is learning from life, and we will have to cultivate it especially. We must get beyond the Philistinism of the old technical school system, then the works councils will be able to achieve something tremendously important for the new structure. The matter should not be viewed pessimistically, but with trust. From trust will grow efficiency. Then the works councils will not be a decoration, if they do not want to be a decoration themselves.

However, I fully agree that the works councils will be a buffer on two sides. I do not believe that the time we are heading for, if we want to work seriously, will be one in which we let ourselves be carried by the waves of life, possibly even lying down on a soft bed of rest from time to time. We shall have to work very hard and we must not shrink from being storm-troops in all directions. It will not be easy to create something new out of the collapse. We need only remember that the old economic system, especially in Germany, led us into sheer nonsense. We are not only in a state of collapse, but also in a state of nonsense. Just consider what it means if, in the next few years, only the interest is to be paid on everything that has accumulated as a result of the devastation of the war! It is much more than Dernburg calculated. It will be at least 30 billion marks a year; where will it come from? 30 billion marks, which of course will not be available! If we think of continuing anything from the past, then we are not only heading for impossible conditions, but also for sheer nonsense. It will be difficult, very difficult, but I think that anyone who has a slight understanding of the spirit of the times must say to himself: we just have to work, we have to work seriously. Only in this way can we get out of this situation.

Now I would just like to point out that I do not want to go into Mr. Remmele's reply, and that is because it is not yet clear to me what the main point of his objections is. What has been said makes the whole matter seem strange to me, because, you see, you can call anything a false doctrine. I was immediately suspicious when it was said that it was a heresy like the teaching of Dühring, who taught the same thing decades ago. I know Dühring and suspect that the speaker knows him little, because I can safely recommend to you: read him, then you will see that he did not want the same thing, but something completely different from what I consider necessary. I consider Dühring's teachings to be the outburst of a man who was somewhat angry with human society and who did not know much about reality. It is sometimes witty, but it is not something that can be applied in reality. Such objections are then fleeting. I believe it is perhaps not advisable to go into these things at length, because in time it will become apparent from the way in which the words, which can initially be spoken out of reality, can also be transformed into deeds and become part of reality. I am reassured when reality tests what I say. I believe it will know how to take in what I have to say.

Mr. Molt has already spoken to you about what was said against the signatures of the appeal, and I believe that in this respect, through your consent to Mr. Molt, you have truly shown your fundamental understanding of something that is absolutely necessary. You can be quite sure that not many entrepreneurs will act out of the kind of attitude shown by those who signed this “appeal”. But those who do act in this way are fully aware that, on the one hand, this “appeal” and these impulses were certainly not created for the sake of the factory owners, but if the factory owners are to have anything to do with them, then they must commit to them for the freest of human reasons. At the most, the factory owners can profess their support for the “appeal”, but the “appeal” has no consideration for them and will not do so. That is one thing. On the other hand, it must be seen that it will be necessary to work precisely with those people who, out of the most earnest will, profess the cause of socialization, of social progress in the objective sense at all, because otherwise you only have the choice – since, after all, those who have some expertise will still be needed – either to occupy the top positions and leave everything else as it was, as we have seen in some examples, or you run the risk of everything being sabotaged by those on the inside.

It is therefore not only a matter of our being able to appreciate the right attitude in a feeling-based way, but we must also be able to see what is necessary, to see that we are not working towards the sabotage of those who, out of the old way of thinking, do not want to develop the new. We must realize that we are compelled to work together with those who have joined the “call” not out of selfish interest but for the sake of the cause. This has happened with the signatories, otherwise they would not be on it. For I have not yet found that anyone has placed themselves behind me in order to satisfy their selfish interests. That is an experience I have had all my life. They will not make any too bad experiences. Forgive this personal remark, but we will be able to discuss many a factual question in detail, just as the seriousness of the times demands. In this brief closing address, I could only hint at a few things, but I hope that the discussions will be able to continue.

• 1. The wording of the votes of individual participants in the discussion was not always recorded by the stenographer – and then sometimes only in fragments. Sometimes the texts that have been handed down are also summaries of the meaning of the comments.

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear attendees,
You have just heard how this evening is to proceed. We will make the best progress in the whole movement, which is to serve the social reconstruction, if we try to communicate on this path of questioning and free discussion about what should happen. Since I will have to inform myself through your later contributions to the discussion about what is to be discussed this evening, I will only take a few words to draw attention to a few things, since it may be good to put them forward in advance of our disputations. Above all, I would like to emphasize once more that this 'Federation for the Threefold Social Organism' differs in some respects from other, party-like movements, without these party-like movements being in any way disturbed or impaired by this 'Federation for Threefold Social Organism'. If the “Federation for the Threefold Order of the Social Organism” believes it must take action today, it is for a very specific reason.

You are all well aware of how long the call for socialization has been going around in a more emotional way. You all also know that this call for socialization has taken on a particularly urgent form today. They know that we cannot escape confusion and chaos if we do not take into account what is contained in the demand for socialization, if we do not seriously strive through action for what can really be called socialization.

On the other hand, we see that precisely since the beginning of the German Revolution, it has become clear in so many ways that although the call for socialization is there, at the same time there is a lack of ideas about what should actually be done, how what is demanded as socialization should actually be implemented. Right now, every day brings new evidence of how little people are clear about what needs to be done to bring about socialization. And so we see that the call for socialization is becoming clearer and clearer, more and more justified, but that the government is not doing anything significant, or even insignificant, to achieve true socialization. Yes, we can even say – perhaps you will want to elaborate on this question or provide more precise information later in the course of the disputation – that it can be clearly seen from what is happening that there is no concept of real socialization.

You may have read the draft law that is supposed to initiate – so they say in bureaucratic language – the institution of the so-called works councils. Of course, the first thing one thinks of is the places where they want to initiate such things today, making laws about what works councils should do, what their rights will be, and so on. But if you take the whole thing, what has now been launched as a draft, you will have to say to yourself: Yes, this does not bear the stamp of true socialization in the slightest. It is even called “socialization of the companies,” as if one could actually socialize the individual companies! What this draft contains for the constitution of the works councils is nothing more than, I would say, the introduction of a certain democratic principle of the parliamentarism with which we are all too familiar into the individual companies. In fact, the matter is already often referred to as the “democratization of the companies”. The parliamentary principle should extend certain offshoots, such gulfs, into the companies, where further parliamentarization should then take place. Yes, just as the previous parliamentarism, in that it was practiced in isolation in all kinds of “houses”, was unable to contribute anything to socialization, so this extension of the parliamentary gulfs will be unable to bring anything of socialization to the factories. You see it best from the fact that in this draft, everywhere the old language of “employer” and “employee” is used. Even if it is not openly stated, it is still the case that the old capitalism continues to lurk behind all of this. Everything is conceived in the old capitalist form. Basically, everything should remain the same, and the employees should be reassured by the fact that works councils can now somehow be elected that have all sorts of theoretical negotiations with the employers. But when it comes to the actual social structure, ultimately everything should remain the same. This can be clearly seen from such a draft by anyone who has a sense of reading something like this at all. Not even the slightest attempt has been made to really dismantle capitalism. And so we see that the very first demand for socialization, the dismantling of capitalism, is not tackled by what is now so often called socialization.

What is left for us to think about in the face of such a government? Truly, today we can no longer arrive at any other conclusion than that the only salvation lies in the fact that the great mass of workers are now truly informed about the damage that the social order has caused so far, and that they are informed about what can really bring about improvement. It is, above all, enlightenment that is needed. In this context, it is important that we should no longer listen to those who keep saying, “But enlightenment takes a long time.” It need not take long if we are willing to make a little effort to see things without masks and illusions, if we try to see things as they are and as they must happen. We no longer have the time to wait years for socialization. Something must happen immediately. But something can only happen if a united mass of people carry what is to be done. People keep asking: Yes, where is the practical instruction for what is written in my book, for example, 'The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life in the Present and Future'? The most practical thing is to have as many people as possible demanding what is in my book, so that it becomes quite impossible to continue to govern against these demands. The future power will consist in the fact that it will enforce what it is all about. Otherwise a power will never know how to use that power, what it should do. It really depends on knowing what to do. Therefore, proper education must take place in the broadest circles, and one must be able to form an idea of how something like the dismantling of private capital and the abolition of the wage system can take place.

Above all, one must be able to form a thorough idea of the following. You see, the actual economic question, where does it arise? You have to be able to see it in the right place. You must not let gray theories obscure the facts. You have to see the economic question where it is, and start from there. Where is it? Where is it as a fact? Well, it is there where I have to take my wallet out of my pocket and have the money in it for which I am to get something in a store to satisfy my needs. And there must be enough in my wallet for me to be able to get the things I need to live. That is the basic fact of all economic life. Today, everything else is basically only there to obscure this fact.

Why does the tripartite social organism demand a separation of economic life from legal and spiritual life? It demands this separation for the reason that economic life can be truly socialized in itself, so that it is finally presented in its true form, the true form that takes place between the goods in the shop and the contents of the wallet. Only when we extract from the whole remaining social process that which must take place between the purse and the shop, do we put ourselves in a position to think in a truly socialist way. But what does that mean? It means a great deal. But if one does not start from the right fact, then one cannot arrive at correct views with regard to all the other things.

I will educate myself from your disputation about what is to be said about the details. But before that, I would like to give some necessary guidelines, starting from the basic economic fact I have just described. You see, when I go into a shop and there is something in it that I need to satisfy my vital needs, and I come with my purse and spend the money for the goods from this purse, then you have to be clear about the fact that there is a process involved in this that somewhat obscures the true facts. I get goods, I spend money. Is money a commodity? Can money ever be a commodity? You really don't need to do any in-depth studies, but the in-depth studies prove exactly what I am going to say now.

You just need to have a real sense of what a piece of paper is, and you will say to yourself: a piece of paper can never be a commodity in the same way as, for example, a loaf of bread that you buy in a shop. I think that is something that the simplest mind can understand, and no science can claim anything else. What you take out of your wallet as money cannot be a commodity, but only an instruction to receive a commodity, nothing else. But that is why it must come from the commodity. A commodity must have been produced at some point, so something must have been provided. In this sense, services are also goods. This piece of paper must have been created by such a process that produces goods, and so the piece of paper only forms the bridge between the goods that you buy in the store and those goods that must be produced once so that you can receive the paper instruction for those goods. That, to put it simply, is the economic process. Any other element in the economic process is unhealthy. If it is to be healthy, nothing can be exchanged in the economic process except commodity for commodity.

Now, however, we ask: Is only commodity exchanged for commodity in the economic process today? No, and as soon as you think about it properly, you come to the point. Today, in the economic process, not only goods are exchanged for goods, but today, in the economic process, goods, even if perhaps represented by money, are exchanged for labor. In the economic process, labor power is paid just like goods. But this is how labor power is introduced into the economic process.

You see, there is a very simple consideration that can show you that labor does not belong in the economic process at all, because it can never be compared to any commodity in its nature. You just have to correct people's very convoluted ideas about such things today. You have to understand how people have learned to think about these things incorrectly.

You see, it is still associated with a certain amount of effort on the part of the human organism. Now, even if a person has no need to chop wood, for example, he may still feel the need to work. Then he does sports, for example. And the amount of labor that one devotes to sports could, under certain circumstances, wear out the body just as much as the work of someone chopping wood wears out the body – if he exerts himself particularly during sports. Labor has nothing to do with the economic process, but labor has something to do with the economic process only in that it is applied to something economically valuable. Sport is economically worthless, it exists only for human egoism. Chopping wood is valuable. Because labor is economically valuable, it becomes part of the economic process. But the essential thing about work is that I must be a free person with regard to the use of my labor, that I cannot be compelled by economic coercion to put my labor at the service of capitalism in any old way. When it comes to the use of labor, freedom and bondage and coercion intervene. Just as labor as such must be a matter of law and not of economics, so too, what must be made clear in the simplest possible way, is that in economics only what is produced, created by labor, has any significance.

In economic life, only that which is produced and created by labor has any significance; it must be paid for. But there must be an entrepreneur who pays a worker for his labor. How the labor manager and the worker relate to each other must be determined on a completely different basis, namely that of law. In the economic sphere, when true right exists, the laborer and the labor manager can only be partners who distribute the proceeds of the labor among themselves in a just manner. In the future, there must be no more payment for labor, that is to say, the wage relationship must be eliminated, and furthermore, the wage relationship must not exist.

A state must be brought about, and that is then a social state in which the labor manager and the worker jointly produce the goods and share with each other in a just way according to the contract of goods, not according to the contract of employment, what they produce together as free associates. Only when such a transformation of the production relations has been brought about can one speak of socialization. But then one also stops using all the old terms that are still based on capitalism in a socialization program. You have to rethink things very thoroughly. You really have to throw out the old ideas, not just because they are ideas, but because they are embedded in life.

But now something else must be considered. If the labor force is to be placed in a relationship of compulsion within the economic process, then something must be there. What is that? You see, I have to go back to the original fact of the economic process, to the purse and the shop. If the note that I have in my purse is really nothing more than an order for a commodity, then basically no compulsion to work can prevail, because then this note must always lead back in some way to something that has been put into the world as a service. And it is only a matter of this service then circulating in the appropriate way, circulating in such a way that consumption regulates production at all times. But that is not the case today. What I carry in my wallet has become something quite different from an instruction for the goods as a result of the economic process of recent times. It has become a commodity in its own right, something that has an independent value in the social order. But it has only become so because a type of commodity – which, basically, could be eliminated altogether if only the leading trading state, England, would also eliminate it, then it could be eliminated entirely from the economic process; it can always be eliminated from an internal economic process, it can always be eliminated; one would then only need to take another consideration into account with respect to foreign countries –– that this token, which I carry in my wallet, has a different meaning than being a mere order for goods. This is due to the fact that a commodity has been created by the state, which is not really a commodity, namely gold or silver. In reality, neither is a commodity, but they are represented by the note. This separates the monetary process from the economic process, withdraws it from the economic process, thereby turning money itself into a commodity, and thereby allowing money, which in reality should not be a commodity, to become completely independent in economic life. But this is the basis of capitalism.

[If you can trade money independently, what happens? Since money can never be created other than by producing goods, but goods can never be produced other than through labor in an economy based on the division of labor, power over labor arises through capital. Capital is nothing more than power over human labor. You get the opportunity to obtain human labor by detaching money as an independent commodity from the economic process, while money should actually be just a worthless bill in the sense of an order for what you exchange as a commodity through money. But through this detachment of money, labor has become the servant of the power of “capital.” As a result, something in the economic process, such as the formation of prices, is constantly distorted. For while I should only pay for the goods, I also have to pay for the labor. But because power dominates labor, labor is paid as cheaply as possible, because, of course, a power that dominates tends to buy as cheaply as possible. If labor power is included in the economic process itself, then capitalism cheapens it.

What is important now is that labor must be removed from the economic process. Only goods may be in the economic process. However, because the economic process is so distorted, other things can also be in it. You see, for many decades the socialists have repeatedly called for the socialization of the means of production. But today it is necessary to know how this socialization of the means of production must be effected. It is not enough to merely call for socialization in the abstract; instead, one must know how it can be carried out. Today we have reached the point where we can already realize such things if we really want to, if we really have the courage to.

Before we inform ourselves in detail about the peculiar position of the means of production in today's economic life – essentially, they are capital – it is good if we first look at something else.

Today, not only goods can be bought, that is, what is produced by human labor in the social organism through the division of labor, but one can also buy something quite different, which no human being produces, but which is there by nature, that is, land. But this buying of land or taking out a mortgage on land is only a process of falsifying the economic order. It is something quite different from what people actually imagine. You cannot really buy land, because land only has value when it is worked on. What you buy, that is, what you acquire through the so-called purchase, is the exclusive right to use the land. That is what it comes down to, this exclusive right to use the land.

So you are not buying a commodity when you buy land, but a right. And that is the cancer of today's social order, that within the economic process you can not only buy goods, but you can also buy labor and rights. By buying labor, you acquire the ability to draw that labor into the economic process, that is, to rape it. And by buying the right to use land, you acquire power.

It must be clear that this calamity cannot be overcome unless we tackle the matter radically. The finished means of production, or rather, the finished means of production that are used to produce further products, have exactly the same value in the economic process as land, or rather, the same importance. In reality, you can't buy these finished means of production either. But if you buy them, you are actually acquiring the right to use them exclusively. So, you buy a right again. And now you can see best of all from these means of production that when they are finished, they simply must not be for sale, that the means of production must cease to have a value on the economic market. When they are finished, they are just like land. Now the question arises that really contains a social demand: How do we manage that the means of production no longer have an economic value when they are finished? We can only manage this – as I said earlier – by allowing everything that does not belong in the economic process to be transformed into independent members of the social organism.

What is necessary for production? Is capital really necessary? No! It is nonsense that capital is necessary. In order for the means of production to be operated, it is necessary that intellectual work is there. Of course, every worker understands that intellectual leadership and intellectual work must be present. And he also understands that he would soon have to stop working if there were no intellectual leadership or intellectual work. But today it is not about spiritual leadership, but about private ownership of the means of production and about profitability, about the ability to reinvest the capital invested in the means of production. Therefore, it is necessary to separate the means of production from the economic process so that they can always reach the person with the appropriate abilities and in whom the workers have confidence, through the social order itself. Therefore, the threefold social organism requires an independent spiritual organism. It is simply nonsense to say that this would create new ownership structures... In this spiritual life, which is of course closely connected with the other branches of life, it is then ensured that the means of production make their way through the world differently than through purchase. And in what I call the constitutional state – it really has nothing to do with the old state – it will be ensured that labor can get its rights. In the economic life itself, only the production, distribution and consumption of goods then remain.

Then, when we have such an economic process before us, we will be able to demand that there must be a liquidation government. This government then says to itself: Well, I have to exist for a while because the old order must continue. But I must at most retain only something like a Ministry of Police, a Ministry of the Interior, and also a Ministry of Justice, which will establish the legal conditions through the corresponding democratic representation.

It is again a calumny when it is said that then only the legal scholars will prevail on the legal basis. No, the people will rule; there will be a real democracy that will expand. The government to the left and to the right must be a liquidation government that, on the one hand, transfers spiritual life to its own administration and, on the other hand, transfers economic life to its own administration. The liquidation government will have to take the initiative in such a way that it creates the free space for economic life, so that in the economic sphere, out of the forces that regulate the respective values of goods, that is, the prices necessary for the healthy maintenance of life, a real socialization can occur.

You see, I know, of course, that when I explain something like this, people always say from the most diverse points of view: Yes, he expresses himself so vaguely. — I would just like to know how someone should express themselves definitively about something that is an infinite area. One can only point out what actually underlies things. But I always have the hope that precisely those who, out of their life's struggles, have acquired a certain inner sense of the truth of this matter, would like to see that what is presented here is based on a really thorough insight into the entire process of production and consumption. And only from such an insight can one proceed to action. That alone is therefore the truly practical thing, while those who always make the laws or design institutions in such a way that one hole is closed and another is opened as a result are not practical people.

You can set up an economic enterprise quite nicely if you leave it capitalist, that is, leave the whole economy capitalist. Then it may be possible in the individual economic enterprises that even what is so beautifully called a full labor yield comes about for the worker, but that no more surplus value is generated. Walther Rathenau will come and say: the surplus value is there for nothing other than for the reserve, that is, for the continuous improvement of the means of production and the expansion of the business. Everything that is generated in surplus value goes back into the business. I would just like to know how those who do not work but receive royalties or the like live when everything goes back into the business. Well, you can let such people talk. But something else is much more important.

Let us assume that the entire surplus value is simply distributed among the workers. Do you think that if the old capitalist order remained and if the surplus value were distributed among the workers in a company, that there would be no need to work for surplus value? You can still make a profit if you do not socialize the economy. In that case, it is not subtracted from the workers' wages, but the consumer has to pay it. It is not important that no surplus value is generated, but that the producer does not pay for it... the consumer has to pay for it. But who is that? The worker again. So if you add the surplus value to your wages, you in turn have to pay for what you have earned as a consumer. You plug one hole, but open another.

You can never escape this unnatural economic cycle unless you eliminate the fifth wheel, which is only there to enable people who have not worked to make a profit. This fifth wheel is called capital. And you cannot get out of this cycle if you do not establish a direct relationship between the means of production and the intellectual worker on the one hand and the physical worker on the other. If you do not want this, if you do not throw out this fifth wheel on the wagon, which only serves those who do not work, then you will not achieve socialization.

As you will find, the main thing described in my book is that it really strives to eliminate what capital is from economic life and what is a forced relationship of work. This cannot be done otherwise than by creating a legal basis on which labor is regulated independently of economic life, and by creating a spiritual basis on which human individual abilities are regulated independently of economic life. Then they will flow into economic life in the right way.

Those who understand this will not be very impressed when people come and say: Yes, you want to destroy the unity of social life by dividing it into three parts. No, I want to establish precisely this unity, and those people who speak of dividing this unity, like the foolish writer of an article in yesterday's Süddeutsche Zeitung, believe that I want to cut up a horse. I don't want to cut up the horse, but they believe that if I don't put it on a single foot, I will cut it up. What matters to people is that the horse is only a unit when it stands on one leg. But the horse must stand on four legs. I do not want to cut up the social organism, but to place it on its three healthy legs. In doing so, I want to shape it straight into a whole. That is what matters.

Now I have again told you something about how things are to be understood, but from a different angle than I have usually said in lectures. I just wanted to introduce this evening, and I hope that now many of you will say something that can help us move forward this evening. We must move forward, especially with regard to a real dismantling of capitalism and a real dismantling of forced labor.

Discussion

Mr. Biel asks two questions: 1. Is democracy a necessity for the implementation of such a new form of economic life, or is it right, under certain circumstances, to use force if such a state of affairs cannot be brought about through democracy? Can violence in this case also be a right? — 2. Is this threefold division or socialization possible without taking into account international conditions, that is, without all culturally developed peoples coming onto the scene at the same time with the same ideas and demands?

Rudolf Steiner: Regarding the question of whether democracy is a necessity for the implementation of real socialization, I would like to say the following: In a sense, it is true that so far a majority of people have not been able to warm to new ideas, but, as the previous speaker has already said, only small groups have done so. But on this point in particular, we must realize that today we are not on the threshold of a small reckoning of world history, but of a great one. Many things must change, and they will only change if we are willing to strive for something different, especially with regard to the most important issues, from what has existed so far. Those who today not only look back at the practices of earlier times, but can see today what people want, will take into account the most diverse real factors.

For example, the previous speaker said that a small group of people drove humanity into the world war. Well, I will be publishing a small brochure in the next few days about the outbreak of the First World War, which will show how small the number of those was who, for example, were behind it on the German side. This small group worked in a way that was completely out of touch with the circumstances of the time. They simply carried the old conditions into the present. In terms of attitude, not with the technical means, it would not have been possible to govern in Berlin as it was done if, for example, the art of printing had not existed, through which education and the ability to judge were carried into the broadest masses. But did not this catastrophe of the world wars really bring about the downfall of that which had simply continued to be managed? |

Today we are on a different footing, and today people are not so that they want to let small groups dictate to them what they have to do, and that they just want to exchange one small group for another. Today everyone wants to be involved. Today is the time to learn the difference between ruling and governing. It seems, however, that this difference has not yet been thoroughly enough recognized. The people must rule today; a government may only govern. That is what matters. And that is why democracy is necessary today in a healthy sense. That is why I have no hope that one can achieve anything with the most beautiful ideas if one wants to realize them through small groups and if one is not supported by the knowledge and insight of the real majority of the population. The most important task today is to win over the vast majority of the population for what has been recognized as a possibility for change. Thus, today we are faced with the necessity of having the majority of the population on our side in a democratic way for what will ultimately be truly achieved in terms of socialization.

Of course, there could be transitional periods in which a small group would implement something that is not recognized by the majority. But that would only be short-lived. On this point in particular, it must be made clear that even today the time has come when, through democratization, people are to be regarded as equals, and therefore we must create the conditions in which all people can be equal in their judgment, which we must detach from that in which people cannot be equal in their judgment. Just imagine if some child at school is particularly talented at learning arithmetic and you want to make a musician out of him, then by training the child wrongly you are depriving the social life of a very special strength. The healthy development of individuality must be nurtured precisely in the social organism. You cannot democratize there, you can only apply the insight into the real knowledge of human nature. Something completely new must be introduced into the field of education and teaching.

And in economic life, do you want to make democratic decisions? For example, how to make boots or valves? Here, based on factual knowledge, corporations must be formed in relation to production and consumption; here, objective interests must be decisive. The purely factual interests must be separated to the left and to the right, and then the ground of democracy remains in the middle, on which nothing else comes into consideration than what every mature, fully developed person has to demand from every mature, fully developed person as an equal, and from where law then radiates into the spiritual and economic life. Precisely because the call for democracy is so justified today, we must recognize how democracy can be carried out. That was not necessary in capitalist society. There, too, people called themselves democrats, but it was not yet necessary to approach the concept of democracy as thoroughly as it is today. Today we have reached the point where we have to ask ourselves: Because democracy must come, how can we realize it in practice? The answer must be: only by basing it on its own foundations, and what cannot be administered democratically, what cannot be judged by all people, that is separated factually to the left and right.

It is so easy to understand why this tripartite social organism is necessary that one must actually always be surprised that people have so much against it. If they ask who is open and honest about democracy, for example, it is precisely the tripartite social organism, because it seeks to find out how to realize democracy and does not want to mix and confuse everything, so that there can be no democracy in the unitary state. Of course, those who always shout “For throne and altar!” have not made democracy. But, my dear attendees, they will not make democracy either, who put the office in place of the throne and the cash register in place of the altar. Democracy will only be made by those who are sincere about human society and do not want to carry the democratic to where expertise can be the only thing that matters. Therefore, people will have to come to terms with the fact that, as reasonable socialists have always said, there must be factual administrations in the future and no sham administrations through elections and the like. Of course, there must be elections, but beyond the technique of voting, one will have to learn other things than one already knows today. I just want to point out: Democracy must come, but we must have a social organism of such a kind that it thoroughly makes democracy possible.

As for international relations, I will just say that, while this world war was raging, it was precisely because of the internationality of this threefold order that I established it, because I saw only in the threefold order a remedy for somehow emerging from the terrible devastation and devastation of this world war. For if you have been an attentive observer for decades, you clearly recognized that this modern catastrophe, the greatest in world history, which, by the way, is far from over, was bound to happen as a result of the mixing up of everything possible.

Let us illustrate the story with a single phenomenon, the Baghdad Railway question. You may know that the Baghdad Railway question played a major role in the events that led to the First World War. Anyone who studies the negotiations in connection with the Baghdad Railway question knows how intertwined the economic interests of capitalist imperialism or capitalisms and national, chauvinistic, state, and legal prejudices are. For example, a certain German financial consortium thought it had the matter in the bag because it had attracted certain people in England, also financial consortia, that is to say people steeped in capital-economic interests. Then the state dimension emerged and confused everything so much that the English dropped out again. Then the French dropped out for the same reasons. Then again it was against German national interests, and so it went through the whole negotiations. Those who know real life know that in modern life the three spheres of life, intellectual life, to which national life also belongs, economic life and state or legal life, have become increasingly intertwined.

You see, when I came to Vienna during this world war – people judged this world war and their fate in it from the most diverse points of view – some people told me: This whole war is a pig war. – Not condemning, but characterizing, they wanted to express that one of the most important causes was that Hungary refused to let the Serbian pigs be imported. Thus it was a purely economic matter that became entangled with national, that is, spiritual issues. Thus various cauldrons were formed in which what then became a world war was brewed: all kinds of legal, extra-legal, class-legal and similar issues. Therefore, anyone who looks at the international situation must point out that the only hope for the future is to separate the three areas of life so that a three-part social organism is formed. Then the individual areas will support each other, then one will point to the other.

Sometimes people are so stubborn that it is amazing. You see, I once spoke to a person who is a legal scholar and even a ministerial director, and I pointed out to him that if the social organism is tripartite, conflicts can no longer arise at the borders because one does not interfere with the other. I said that state conflicts do not arise so quickly from economic conflicts if everything is not mixed up. Good economic relations, for example, will help with state conflicts and the like. Yes, he said, but if you implement that, then you are going against something that has always been in history, namely that the most important wars in history are actually wars over raw materials. If you want to introduce that, you are eliminating the raw material conflicts from the world, and it is our experience that these raw material conflicts have always been there. I had to answer: Yes, if you had wanted to give me confirmation that I am right, then it would make sense to me. That you tell me it as a refutation, I cannot understand. That is how people are today. When they think straight and naturally, they cannot bring themselves to accept it, because people's ideas have already been distorted.

So, with regard to the international as such, it was precisely the threefold order that was thought of first. It is the basis for a real socialization of international life as well. But it has another special feature. It does no harm at all if one social organism becomes threefold and the others do not yet want to become threefold. If the others are not yet ready, those who have introduced the threefold structure can enjoy the benefits of the threefold organism. Outwardly, if it should hinder them, they can of course act as one. If there are three parliaments, they can join together in negotiations with foreign countries because the others will not yet allow it otherwise. But they will still be ahead of the others because they are realizing the threefold order in their own area. That is precisely the important thing: not to think that you want to revolutionize the whole world, but to start in a particular area. Then it will be - and I am quite sure of this - very contagious when truly salutary conditions arise in an area. That will have a very contagious effect. And that is precisely what will contribute to internationalization. We just have to think practically. The only thing that could happen now is that the Entente would prevent us from introducing these blessings so that we cannot set an example. But we must show courage and drive in what we are able to create. Perhaps it is precisely through something like this that we will be able to fight against the strong capitalist-imperialist powers.

Discussion participant Mittwich asks: 1. How will it be possible to tax people in the socialist economy in the future? - 2. How will we socialize?

Rudolf Steiner: By pointing out the importance of democratization in the transition period, I do not think that the two previous speakers have really presented anything different from what I have said. Of course, misunderstandings could arise in one circle or another, but nothing really different from what I have said has actually been presented.

You see, you have to see this as a basis for the whole impulse of threefolding, namely that it aims at reality everywhere, that it does not theorize at all. In fact, if I may express myself somewhat paradoxically, what is written in my book about the social question is not so important as what happens when one sets about realizing what is written there. There people will notice that all kinds of things come out that they had no idea of before, precisely the things that are unconsciously demanded today by the truly working and productive people. And in a special case this is the case with democracy. Of course, for the transition period a very important question will be this: If we now really get a sufficient majority, and I consider that the only healthy one, because nothing can be maintained in the long run with small groups, if we get a sufficient majority for something that can really be carried out practically, then of course the question arises from the actual circumstances in question, it can only come from them: How do you then, more or less clearly, compliment — you know what I mean by that — those whom you wish were no longer in power? This is, of course, a significant transitional question, and I believe that if there is a real relative majority – I would even say a sufficient majority, it just depends on there being a number of people who can tip the scales and carry the matter, who are there out of conviction, out of insight and not out of following, not out of authority – then there will also be a way in which the new can be achieved.

But, you see, the question, which Mr. Mittwich has discussed very nicely here, does not seem to me to have been dealt with in a completely practical way, especially when I imagine that things are supposed to happen in space and not in our heads, not in our thoughts. Mr. Mittwich was right to say: when it comes to the fateful questions of Germany, when it comes to the big, serious questions of the present, only those who are productive workers, who are in some way truly productively active, should have a say. I fully agree. But you see, human society would be in a bad way if the majority of people were not productive, if they were inactive. The majority are already productively active. And if we only had all those who were productively active, if they really formed a majority, then we would be fine. Then those who are productively inactive would be in a strong minority: the parasites of society.

Now the thing about the tripartite organism is that only the productive workers, that is, those who really produce something and mean something to society, will certainly appropriate what is in its impulses. When they appropriate it, we can rely on these people, and the minority who do not appropriate it do not come into consideration. By accepting what is really reasonable, we will in practice get a majority that can be relied on. So I think that if it is accepted, the matter itself will ensure that the majority of those who are productively active will assert themselves. But how you want to push something through without being able to rely on the majority of those who are productively active, I don't see that in practice yet. It is not enough to demand that only the productive workers should share in the fate of Germany. The question only becomes practical when one considers how the productive workers alone can form a majority. The parasites will be weeded out if we can adhere to the tripartite social organism. Because that will bring about a real socialization, and those who are unproductive social parasites – you can be quite sure of that – will not be able to find any taste in this socialization. They will have to fall back into inactivity – well, they are already in there – but also into inactivity in terms of their vote and so on.

It is true that, economically, capitalism can be used to exert pressure, as I have sufficiently explained. But this compulsion ceases to exist when we render it harmless by ensuring the dismantling of capitalism. That is why I actually cannot understand how people constantly mix up what is appropriate for the present and what is appropriate for the time to come, which must really be just around the corner, because we do not have much time. For the present, one can indeed speak of the fact that the capitalists can strangle us, but we want to prevent them from doing that. So we cannot imagine conditions that we want to eliminate. Therefore, it is not correct to object that the capitalists will have the power. They will not have it if we move forward as the three-part social organism indicates. It will be taken from them. And finally, for those who take a closer look today, the question arises like this: Is capital, as such, really so extraordinarily powerful today, mainly as economic power over wide areas?

You see, I'll try to make something clear to you with a comparison. I once knew a family that had a really big dog. And suddenly, after the woman of the family had looked at this dog very thoughtfully for a long time, she came up with a strange idea. She said that if this dog were suddenly to become aware of its strength and were to use it, then it could tear us all apart. But it is so tame, and we are only saved because it has become accustomed to tameness. — You see, a great deal of the power of old capitalism has already been undermined. People just don't think about how much has already been undermined, how much is only maintained in appearance today by the fact that the old conditions are being propagated. Yes, you see, if after the German Revolution – don't get me wrong, comparisons are always misleading, the comparison is only meant to express the balance of power – those who came up afterwards had produced within themselves the awareness of the power that lies in the bulldog, if they had not allowed themselves to be hypnotized by muddling through in old ways, then we would have come further today.

Now, it is not always easy to answer specific questions, especially when it comes to practical people. I will tell you why. The specific questions are to be answered differently depending on the circumstances. Things can be handled in very different ways, and it is not always necessary to do them in the same way. The programmatic person, the theorist, is usually so clever that he thinks up a socialist program down to the last detail. There have always been such people. But that is not the point, but rather to show how the ground must be shaped so that people can socialize themselves, so that they come together in socializing.

I must always emphasize: I do not feel smarter than others with regard to the details, but I am trying to give suggestions as to how each person can bring out what can contribute to socialization. Therefore, I want people to place themselves on three levels. After all, people will not be divided into classes, but they will all be within each area. And it is people who will form the unity. Therefore, I would like to join the community of ideas in such a way that socialization can really be brought about by the people. Then, under the new conditions, we will also find a fair system of taxation. We must not forget: we cannot find a just principle for taxation from today's wealth statistics, since we are working to place them on a completely different footing. All these things, such as income tax, consumption tax and so on, will be placed on a completely different footing in the future. Read my writing on the social question. There you will see that many things will indeed be quite different in the future. For example, the family man is in the social organism in a completely different way than the single person, and that is because, if the constitutional state really develops as I assume, then every child has the right to an education. Then the situation is not that the family man has to distribute his meager wages among a large family, while the single person can use it all for himself. The circumstances will be quite different. [Interjection: And the other consumer goods?] The right to consumer goods is a matter of course. This is ensured by the fact that the economic process is a real one. Everyone who produces something will, simply through the economic process, have the opportunity to procure the consumer goods, which is much more certain than an abstract right. The aim of the emancipation of economic life is to have enough. Needs are better met if you have a right to consumer goods and thus enough in your wallet. That is the aspect concerning the right to consumer goods. In reality, it is not really important if one is really thinking about realizing the threefold social organism. Then, in fact, what is produced is what really equates one person with another from a certain age onwards.

Isn't it true that, in a truly socialized community, income as such need not be the determining factor for what one can consume. For it is quite possible that a person, by performing some kind of, well, let's call it quality work, may appear to earn more than another in a socialist community; but that does not mean that he has more for his consumption than another; he must spend it in the appropriate way. It is not a matter of keeping this concept of income and consumption in mind in the future, but rather of ensuring that - because one person will be economically fair in relation to another - it will be possible in the future to even eliminate the state as a tax collector from the economic process.

You see, one concept will have to disappear completely in the future: the concept of legal personality, including economic-legal personality. What is to be paid in taxes will actually be paid by individual people, because in the state, in the democratic state, on the ground on which the law is to live, the individual human being faces the individual human being. Human beings can only be equal when one human being is face to face with another. In the sphere of economic life and in the sphere of intellectual life there must be corporations. In the sphere of the state there can only be law, which is the same for all human beings, and which every adult can understand. The corollary of this, however, is that every private person, every individual, is only the bearer of the tax. This can be proportioned so that injustice never occurs, but this proportionality will not be necessary if there is real equality among people. The tax issue will then be something completely different. Therefore, the things that are at stake and that can be asked about today apply more to the transitional stage. Often, things have to be done that are not permanent. Of course, the aim is to gradually create the conditions for taxing the individual, not for taxing complexes [...] Of course, a consumption tax must also be created, by which I do not mean indirect taxes, which are unfair. So, a consumption tax must be created, that is, those who consume a lot of money must, of course, be taxed more than those who do not consume much, because if someone puts the money in the straw bag, it has no significance for social life. It only acquires significance when it is spent.

These are, of course, very specific questions, which today, because they are very specific practical questions, can basically only be answered insufficiently, because the institutions in the transition stage cannot yet be good either. If we can find a way of thinking that makes it possible to distribute fairly what is due to the state, we will also find a way to tax those who today still have a large income more than those who have less. And what Mr. Mittwich said about the future can only be realized when everything that can be created through the threefold social order is in place.

A very real question is how to think about implementing socialization. Some say it can only be achieved by increasing production. Yes, but there are many other things to be considered. In this regard, there is still a lack of clarity in contemporary humanity. You see, I once said in a lecture – I think to Daimler workers – that the peculiar thing about the more recent development of humanity is that, due to machines, the number of workers on the whole earth does not correspond to the number of people given in the encyclopedia as the population of the earth. It says there are about 1500 million people, but in reality, if we count the working population, there are 2000 million, so 500 million more. That is a curious fact. Of course, I am not saying that ghosts are walking around, who would not work even if they were walking around, but that is so because we have machines and can compare what is produced economically using machines, for example, in contrast to the Orient, where there are not yet so many machines, where man does more by hand. This makes it possible to calculate that the increased output resulting from the use of machines throughout the world is equivalent to 500 million people. Imagine how much labor and productive power could be saved if this were actually utilized in a sensible way. But strangely enough, I was met with the following response: Yes, I had said quite correctly that through the machine there are 500 million imaginary people, so 500 million more than in reality, so that the work is done by 2,000 million people, but on the other hand, people's needs have increased during the machine age and the same is true as before. That is an objection that one hears very often, that simply when the productive power is increased, needs also increase. One hole is closed, another opens. But in reality it is different. It is the case that everything must be taken into account that can lead to rationalization, to the proper design of the production process. Those who only think that the production process must be increased will not get it right – and that is: a proper balance between consumption and production, not the greatest possible increase in production. That does not lead to what must be striven for, that is, to a pricing system that really creates decent living conditions for all people.

What is necessary, in particular, is that in production, the kind of mistakes that have been made, let's say, in Germany, are not made. One of them – and there have been many – is that in the years long before the outbreak of the World War, twice as much coal was used for German industry as would have been necessary. So many resources were wasted, which could have been used for something completely different. What matters most is that we have people in the economic process who are up to the current situation. But we don't have them. People may be able to think very advanced on a large scale, but we don't have any real economic leaders. The economic process is not really organized at all in the way it should be, because people have no idea how important it is not to squander productive forces unnecessarily.

I have often used a grotesque example in these lectures. It is not uncommon today for a young badger to have to write his doctoral thesis after graduating from university. I will give you a concrete example. A young person was given the task by his professor to write his doctoral thesis on the commas in Homer - which, by the way, do not exist. This is, of course, a thesis that does not contribute the slightest thing to the social process. People who are hypnotized by scientific thinking take offense when you say something like that. But this matter must be viewed in an economic light. From an economic point of view, it is taken into account that this young man needs a year and a half for the work. During this time, he must eat, drink and dress. The fact that he can do this means that so-and-so many people have to work to provide him with food and drink, but he squanders his productive power and does nothing for society. Through what people call “free independent science,” he becomes a parasite on social life. This is just one example. But there are many such things in our production process, in our whole social life, where one can be very hardworking but ultimately unproductive. This raises the question: how do we find this out? We cannot find out without placing the spiritual life on its own ground. Is it on its own ground today? Wherever it is attacked, you can feel the unhealthy ground. Where do the numerous people come from who are let loose on the working population and who are supposed to lead or govern those who work?

In my lectures, I have often used the example of a certain government councilor Kolb. This Mr. Kolb did not do as many others do, who retire after a certain time, but went to America and worked there among the workers, first in a bicycle factory, then in a brewery. Then he wrote a book: “As a Worker in America”. In this book you can read the following beautiful sentence: “Earlier, when I saw a person on the street who was not working, I thought: Why isn't this bum working?” Today I see the matter quite differently. Today I know that the uncomfortable things in life look quite comfortable in the study. — Well, you see, this person has made it to the level of a senior government official. He has certainly studied in our present-day intellectual workshops, but he had no idea of life, no idea of work. And today, life is run by people like that! One has no idea how much our living conditions depend on such things! But must not these conditions be unhealthy? Yes, I only ask you to consider that man really depends on his thoughts. What is in the mind is not indifferent, it is contagious, it infects the whole person, especially when it comes to people during the developmental years. And now I want to tell you something: Do today's teaching institutions ensure that people are educated who then understand something about life, on the ground of which the work takes place? No, the circumstances are quite different. And in the minds of those who are released from our teaching institutions today, what kind of thoughts live in them? The thoughts that people absorb through the Greek language, for example, live in them. But a language is the clearest mirror of external life. Grammar, word formation, even intonation and everything else is taken from life. The Greek language, when I immerse myself in it, makes me able to find my way into Greek life. In those days, only those who pursued politics or art or science or perhaps managed agriculture could be free. All the rest were unfree. Everything is geared to this when one takes in Greek. People who come out of the teaching institutions today come out with thoughts that can only be applied to a social order in which only a few people are free and most are unfree. People do not notice what is happening unconsciously, what is flowing into them. That is why intellectual life must be freed, so that we do not have capitalists and their servants as intellectual leaders, but so that intellectual leadership is in line with economic life. Isn't it absurd – we are talking about the 'great reckoning' here – isn't it absurd that our intellectual leaders do not do things the way the Greeks did? The Greeks learned for their lives in their educational institutions. You can criticize that today as you like, but that was life back then. Today, life must not be that! But we do not learn what is necessary for our lives; instead, we let our youth learn what was for ancient Greece.

Yes, you see, people today still do not think about these basics for healthy socialization. But this is necessary, especially when we are talking about the proper organization of production, which is quite complicated today. So today we have to learn to understand, for example, how large a production plant can be. Because, you see, what Mr. Mittwich said applies to a production plant that is too small. Of course it cannot survive because it belongs to an old economic order. But we must not let the production plants become too large for purely economic reasons, and this is why: too small plants - I must express this as an economic law today - too small plants will lead in the future to those who work in them starving to death. Too large plants will cause those who are supposed to buy what is produced in these plants to starve. The production plant must have a very definite size, and this size will only be able to be determined when in the future, through the people who understand something, a right balance between consumption and production is created. The interests of consumption are always such that they want to expand. You will always see that consumption cooperatives have an interest in becoming large. Production cooperatives always want to become smaller. The right balance is created by what production and consumption achieve together. Then such enterprises will come into being that will have a size that is appropriate for the spiritually active person to work for the benefit of the physically working person, and from this will come a natural prosperity that will ensure a dignified existence for the broad masses.

So, as you can see, it is not that simple. It is necessary to realize that it is unhealthy for someone to say that if all production is done by machines – as the gentleman told me at the time – then needs will also increase. It is a question of whether it is a healthy state of affairs if needs are allowed to increase, or whether we should not consider the possibility of relieving people of work so that they can find some rest. This can also contribute to the proper regulation of prices. People often fail to see the simplest things. I would like to give you an example: I once had a friendly argument with someone about scribbling on postcards. I said: I don't like writing postcards, because most of the time they are just a whim and actually unnecessary. And I believe that I can spare all the postmen who have to run up and down stairs from having to run up and down stairs. I want to spare them this work. The other one said: That's not right, because first of all, I'm happy when I can make someone else happy with the card. – Well, that was still tolerable. But then he said: Secondly, the current number of postmen will soon no longer be sufficient, and more will have to be hired. So someone will have bread again because I write a lot of postcards. – To that I said: But think about what you are actually saying now. Do you really believe that you can increase the amount of bread by even a single gram by employing people to carry picture postcards around? Carrying the cards around will not increase the amount of consumer goods needed for the same number of people! You have to distinguish between productive power, which just needs to be transformed into labor, and completely unproductive forces. And this horrible phrase, which is often used, that work must be created so that people can be employed, makes no sense at all when it comes to creating something completely unproductive.

So, it is important that, through sensible socialization, production is not simply increased blindly, but that a proper balance is struck between consumption and production. You see, it is so very necessary that we develop the good will today to educate ourselves about these things. Because if we continue to think in these dreadful terms, with which one thinks out of the capitalist order, then we will not get anywhere. One must always ask oneself: Is something still being thought in a capitalist way, or is it a realistic germinal idea for the future? Therefore, one must say to oneself: Today one must turn around a thought twice to be sure that it is a thought for the new structure and not a thought learned from what is ripe for the dismantling. That is what I wanted to say about the questions.

The following question was asked: Under the present circumstances, we can hardly get a majority for the threefold social order because not even the proletarians are united among themselves. What can be done to bring about this unity?

Rudolf Steiner: Yes, that is one of those questions that always comes down to the fact that although one understands what is right, one imagines that for some reason it cannot be achieved. This question should not really be raised; it really gets you nowhere. The question must become a will question. I cannot express myself on this. You just have to do something. What we have recognized as being right must be carried from person to person. We must not ask ourselves: Will we win over the majority or not? but we must do everything to win that majority. Then we shall have done our duty, not only to ourselves but to all humanity. It must be a matter of will, not a mere theoretical question, such as: How can we get the majority? I say: We must have it! And therefore we must work to get it. It must be a matter of will. There is no other way.

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear attendees, At our last meeting, we spoke at length about the threefold social organism, and I believe that you are essentially aware of what this threefold organism should consist of and that the only way to achieve real socialization lies in this threefold organism. Because, you see, at present the main thing is that no one really knows anything about the nature of socialization, especially not anyone who is still so influential today. This can best be seen from the laws that have been passed and that are supposed to be in the spirit of socialization. I am referring in particular to the law on works councils.

You may know that in Berlin, in particular, the word [...] was coined: “Socialization is marching!” — I don't think it's possible to say today that socialization is marching. It's not even plodding along! One might even be of the opinion that socialization is hiding. Well, in the future it will be important to really understand that the impulses of the threefold organism do not contain something utopian, something ideological, but that they contain the seeds of what can become deeds.

The essence of this threefold organism is that economic life, legal life and spiritual life are truly and distinctly set out. However, since we are in a transitional period, some kind of beginning must be found. As you can well see from the circumstances, this can be found today, initially in economic life, for the following reason: the proletarian is part of economic life, and the proletarian knows from what he has experienced in his body and soul the necessity of socialization. It can truly be said that apart from the proletarian, hardly anyone can form such a truly full and valid concept of what socialization is. Of course, some of the intellectuals can do so as well. And they can be counted on. But the point today is not for a few people to realize that this or that is right, but for as many people as possible to recognize what needs to be done and bring about a new social order that is truly social. Therefore, in my introduction today, I would like to say something about what is important for our progress in this matter. Further details can then emerge in the discussion, based on the questions that I hope will be asked by a large number of you. Therefore, in my introduction, I would just like to give a few very brief suggestions. What must happen, above all, is that we get people with whom socialization is possible. But these people must really be genuine representatives of the broad masses of the proletariat. They must, in a sense, have a mandate from these broad masses of the proletariat. Now, the impulse of the threefold social organism is so practical that it can be applied everywhere. You can start working from any point. Today, the question of works councils arises as a very important starting point. And we would like to discuss this question, about which you have already heard something from the previous speaker, in detail today.

When dealing with the question of works councils, it is now important that these works councils are initially, I would like to say, set up in such a way that they only arise from economic life. We must tackle the tripartite organism in such a way that we first do something really practical in one of the three links. Of course, something practical must then also be done in parallel in the other two links. We can only do something practical if we have first, so to speak, set up those people who are suited to work in a practical way. For this we need the works councils, which must emerge from the individual companies.

Now it so happens that these works councils can emerge from the individual companies in the most diverse ways. It is only necessary that the works councils that emerge from the individual companies have the absolute trust of the workers and, to a certain extent, as far as possible, also the trust of the intellectual workers of the company concerned. Therefore, it will be a matter of the actual workers of a company and those in the managerial positions who are really able to go along with it, initially setting up this works council based on the circumstances of the individual company. The circumstances can be very different in the most diverse companies. For example, in one factory the election or appointment – or whatever you want to call it – of a works council may be carried out in one way, and in another factory in a different way. The main thing remains that those who are appointed have the trust of the physical and intellectual workers in the respective factories.

But then we will only have the basis we need for practical work. These works councils will then exist as such and will form a works council. This works council must be clear about the fact that it must be the body from which the recovery of our economic life must initially emerge. Today it is not a matter of taking half-measures or quarter-measures, but of actually working from the ground up. This can only happen if we have people who are inclined to work from the ground up. Do not be beguiled by the idea that there are not enough educated people among the working class. This will prove to be the biggest mistake, perhaps even the biggest nonsense. Because it is not a matter of getting people with a specific technical education, but of getting people from the direct practice of economic life who have the trust of those who work in it. Then the rest will follow if there is real seriousness and goodwill to create something new from the ground up.

So once we have set up works councils in the individual companies, we will have a works council system. Then we need a plenary assembly of this works council system. And this works council system must, regardless of what is fabricated as a law on works councils by certain bodies, give itself a constitution based on the experiences of economic life. It must see itself as a primary assembly. This works council must negotiate the powers, the tasks, and the entire position of the works council itself. This can only be done by first discussing in this plenary assembly what actually needs to be done to restore our economic life. So it is not a matter of us now theorizing a lot about what the works councils have to do. That must arise from the plenary assembly of the works councils themselves.

Let us first state: you cannot socialize a single company. That is complete nonsense; you can only individualize companies. You can only socialize a closed economic area. Therefore, we do not need any general regulations on the functioning of works councils in individual companies, as is once again expressed in the laws, but we need an inter-company constitution of the works council. A fine works council over a closed economic area must be a whole. When this plenary assembly, this original assembly, has given itself a constitution, then it will be able to have an effect on the companies.

In a next step, a committee must then be elected from this plenary assembly of the works council, which could be called: works council director or central council of the works council. The election would have to be conducted according to an electoral system that in turn emerges entirely from the works council itself. Once this central council of the works council is in place, a significant step will have been taken. Because what we need in the future within the economic body is something like an economic representation or, if you like, if we want to use the old word, something like an economic ministry. These things cannot come about in any other way in the initial transition period than by seeking representation through the aforementioned assembly, the plenary assembly of the works council. And in order to have a basis for a socialist social order in the future, we must create a central office from this works council that is capable of forming what could be called a ministry of economics at any time. We must therefore prepare in this direction for what a truly appropriate administration of economic life from within the social society can be. If we do not work in this way, then the moment, which will surely come, when socialization is to be tackled, will catch us unprepared, and it must not catch us unprepared! That is a fundamental question today. The moment must not catch us unprepared. Those who have the power – and you see that this is a question of power, albeit a reasonable one – must know what they have to do. That was precisely the characteristic feature of November 9, that the people who came to the top did not know what to do. It must be ensured that the people are there who know what they have to do.

On various occasions, I have emphasized in my lectures that works councils alone are not enough today. Other councils will be needed as well. But that is not something we need to worry about today, because the point is that we first start to work practically at one point. The impulse for the threefold organism is not there to be used for further theorizing, but to move on, to move directly on to real practical work. The time when this practical work is needed need not be so far off. For if certain circles imagine today that with any peace agreement - some peace agreement must come about after all - an end would come, then that is complete nonsense. A peace agreement today does not put an end to it, but it marks the beginning of a period that we will have to go through and in which socialization must take place in the civilized world simply out of an inner necessity, but made by people.

We must take two things into account, and I would like to mention these two points in my introduction today. You see, in many gatherings – and I have now attended quite a few gatherings and discussions – capitalism is talked about in the same way as it was talked about before this world war catastrophe. Of course, all the evils of capitalism are just as valid today as they were before the war, but the fact of capitalism has become quite another as a result of this world war catastrophe. Consider only the conditions in Germany itself. Capitalism has indeed undergone a change through the war economy. The war economy has, in a sense, raised capitalism to its highest level. And it was able to do so because it was completely divorced from the real needs of the people, because it only produced for the war. But because capitalism has been driven into this crisis, because only unproductive things were created, the whole of capitalism has actually entered into a completely different relationship with the working class than was the case before. Today, capitalism is not in the same position as it was before the world war catastrophe. And what is actually at hand is that one should become aware that this capitalism no longer stands as such. For this capitalism, even if it is not so evident today, has simply ruined the economy of a large part of the civilized world, undermining it. It has already done so much to its own destruction that this destruction must come, not in “some time,” as was said earlier in socialist circles, not in “a distant future,” but in the immediate future, capitalism will point out to the civilized world that it was able to continue to work under the old regime and to enter into the relationship with the working class that you are so familiar with. But this relationship cannot be restored. That is why the question is so urgent today: what will the proletariat do at the moment when, as a result of capitalism's self-destruction, it is faced with the task of reshaping the world? Capitalism was able to continue operating under the old conditions. It can no longer do so. It cannot do so at all. It would lead to utter chaos and confusion if capitalism were to continue to operate in this way.

Let us assume that some kind of peace were to come about, even if those who now want to reject it do so. Something must come of it. But whatever comes of it, it could only be – and I ask you to bear this firmly in mind – that with the help of the not yet completely crushed Entente capitalism, Central and Eastern Europe would be trampled to death, because we would have enslavement as far as the Rhine, especially for the working people. That could only be if Entente capitalism were not crushed. For what might then happen? Any practical person can see that clearly. For the following would happen: Let us assume that peace were to be established, this peace, which is actually a peace of the already ruined capitalism of Central and Eastern Europe with the Entente capitalism, because the proletariat has not yet been called upon anywhere, despite the socialist government, to somehow participate in the fate of the world. Assuming that this peace is established, it would only make sense if the German proletariat were willing to rebuild capitalism by settling for a terribly low wage. If it accepted this terribly low wage, at which it would gradually starve, then German capitalism could rise again through this low wage, and it could be paid, so to speak, at the expense of the working class, what Entente capitalism demands. That is the one case.

The other case is that, which you probably will not believe, it occurs that, for example, the American and English proletariat decide to work as cheaply as possible, with the lowest possible wages, so that means of production can be supplied to Germany, which Germany can initially only pay for if the proletariat works almost for free. In either case, the German proletarian will find himself in a terrible situation. Only a genuine socialization, one that places social life on a completely different footing, can free him from this situation. If, as has often been stated, capitalism is removed from the social order in this way, then the peace, compromise or understanding that comes about cannot be something that is concluded between the capitalists of Central and Eastern Europe and the Western capitalists, but can only be something that emerges from a society that is becoming more and more socialist. And that alone can bring about healthy conditions in international relations. Because then it will be the case that, precisely as a result of the peace agreement, the Central and Eastern European capitalism, which is no longer on its feet, must actually withdraw from the scene. And that will have the consequence that capitalism can also be fought in a real way in the Entente states. Because if there is no capital in some place and yet productive life and productive power prevail, then one must approach such a productive economy in a completely different way than if one hopes that capitalism will regain its strength and pay war reparations or something similar. You see, I only say the latter so that you do not believe that something is being postponed to a distant future. It is about the very near future, it is about the fact that the time that begins with the necessary understanding between nations or with the conclusion of peace will either be the beginning of a terrible situation for the proletariat of Central and Eastern Europe or the beginning of a real socialization, which must arise out of your courage, your strength, and your insight into necessity. That is what I wanted to say beforehand.

I believe that we should talk about works councils today, but in such a way that it leads to real action, so that we do not just talk but see how the impulse for the threefold social order consists in the fact that it contains ideas that can be put into practice, that can become action.

Discussion

Debater Biel objects to the law on works councils proposed by the government and to an article in the newspaper about the coalition government.

Debater Lange asks: If the works councils are to be elected or appointed, has consideration been given to the fact that employees and directors, technical or commercial directors, should also have a say in the election? It is surely important that the laws or regulations that are made should really be made by people who have an overview of the whole context.

Rudolf Steiner: This question is extraordinarily important. The point is to bring about something that can work. Of course, in the present economic system, we cannot work without spiritual leaders. The economy would be driven into a dead end. Production would come to a standstill after a relatively short time if we could not win over the technical leaders for it. As you know, in Russia, due to the different circumstances – which it would be interesting to discuss at some point – it was not possible to win over the technical managers to the real idea of socialization, so that there one was faced with the fact was faced with the fact that on the one hand there was perhaps even a sufficiently large proletariat of manual laborers that could have taken up the idea of socialization, and on the other hand it was not possible to win over the masses of the so-called intellectual workers for the idea of socialization. The consequence of this was what must be most regretted for Russia: the sabotage of this intellectual labor. This sabotage of the intellectual workers must be avoided at all costs. That is to say, every effort must be made to overcome the obstacles within the intellectual workers. Let us not misjudge the serious obstacles that exist.

You see, I have already spoken about this here. We are faced with the fact that the proletariat has been politically educated to a certain degree through a long process of training. The proletariat is politically educated, even if this does not apply to every individual. Political education does not consist of knowing one or two details, but rather of having a certain basic disposition of the soul that is political. The proletariat has this, but those who belong to the circles of the so-called intellectual workers do not. These intellectual workers have become accustomed to cultivating what might be called a sense of authority. Whether this authority is a state authority or a factory authority is not decisive. What is important is to know that a deep sense of authority prevails in these circles. Of course, the individual may inwardly revolt, but mostly he does it with his fist in his pocket. But the intellectual workers are not dispensable for real socialization. That is why I say: It is necessary to win over the employees and also the plant managers and, above all, to win over those among them who have a sense and a heart for real socialization.

We must not let it come to the point where, when the time comes, a kind of Ministry of Economic Affairs is set up in such a way that? this ministry is forced to set up five or six or twelve armchairs as the top level, and the whole apparatus continues to work in the old spirit. But there is something else we must not let come to either. Mr. Biel has already given a good indication of what would be at stake if something like the works council system were to be included in this unfortunate law that is now being proposed. I have already told you that it is an essential fact that we are now at a point in time when capitalism has actually ruined itself and cannot rebuild itself from within. If a reconstruction is to happen, it must be done by the working people. The capitalists cannot continue. That is what proves that we must seize the moment. Such laws as the one that is to become reality are designed to help capitalism, which cannot help itself, to be nursed back to health with the help of the misled working class, and to regain its old dominance. The working class should form such works councils that, by the very nature of how they are set up, will help to resurrect capitalism. We can only counteract this if a works council is created from the bottom up by the working people themselves and gives itself a constitution, that is, if it does not concern itself with what basically wants to be a continuation of the old capitalism because it cannot imagine the world as anything other than capitalist.

We must be quite clear about the fact that our first task is to set up the works councils at all, and that we need the intellectual workers in these works councils as well, as far as possible. Those who have no sense or heart for socialization, we can't use there. It would hardly be a matter of having as many directors or top people in it as possible, but above all those who really have to do intellectual work. Then it is possible to accomplish something like socialization through such a works council. But if you endorse a law like the one currently being drafted, then you have done nothing more than rename the old labor committees. It is only a renaming, and of course – because the two cannot coexist – the old workers' committees are to be abolished. The old workers' committees were unable to eliminate capitalism, and the new works councils to be established under the law will not be able to do so either.

So, we must establish a works council as far as possible, and it must be able to run the factories by itself. We must not think only of agitation, but we must think of the practical work from which the enterprises can be newly shaped. It is not enough to advocate that production should be socialized, but it is important to know as precisely as possible how it should be socialized. This will happen when we really get the intellectual workers into the works councils. That must be our aim. Therefore, the apolitical attitude of intellectual workers must be eliminated. And we must not lose sight of what is being waited for today either. Today, under circumstances that the intellectual workers are perhaps sufficiently familiar with, the non-proletariat is waiting for not just any socialization to come about, but for the proletariat to be overcome. Do not forget, there are statements like that of a German industrial magnate who said: We big industrialists can wait, and we will wait, until the workers come to the gates of our factories and ask for work! This attitude is not uncommon. They are waiting to see if the workers will not let themselves be beaten. And that is what must be prevented by reality. That is what matters. This must also be borne in mind when considering the question of how to win over intellectual workers to our cause. At the beginning of what is to be revived as an act among us, there must first be the setting up of works councils, and secondly, as far as it is possible today, the intellectual workers must also be included.

A speaker asks: What do the works councils actually have to do? And what must be done in the very near future?

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to emphasize that what I have said is not for the near future, but for the very near future. I have already emphasized: today is not the time for us to think much about how to get well-educated works councils; instead, the first thing we need to do is set up the works councils and come to a plenary assembly of works councils. What is most necessary is that we have people from the business world itself who will then take it from there. Today, it cannot be about saying, with regard to individual situations, that the works councils have to do this or that, but rather, I see it as being very practical. Of course, among these works councils there will be some who already know how to proceed in this or that case with regard to socialization, while others will not know. But if there is real goodwill, it is not that difficult to identify the real tasks for the immediate future.

There are, of course, different approaches to the way forward. Let us assume, for a moment, that socialization cannot be limited to Stuttgart, so let us assume, for a moment, that it is limited to Württemberg. One approach would be to go around the whole country, going from workers' circle to workers' circle and talking to the individual groups about what is most necessary in terms of threefolding, where one is usually met with the reply: These are aims, but not ways! Although it is precisely intended to point to the right way. That would be the one way, because today we can achieve nothing without having a really large number of people on whom we can rely. But we do not have the time to go down this road, bearing in mind that it is not a matter of working for the immediate future, but for the very near future. So we have to think about the other way. We have to get those people, and that is what the works council wants to be, who, by having themselves elected or appointed as works council members, are fully committed to the work of socialization. Then I really don't imagine that it is so difficult to deal with such a cohesive body that has the trust of the broadest masses.

Once we have these works councils, the question of whether people already know exactly what they have to do is no longer so important. After eight days they will know. The only problem is finding the people. The problem today is not that it is terribly difficult to know what needs to be done first, but that there are so few people with the good will and desire to do what needs to be done. So, if we have those people who feel an inner responsibility to work on socialization because they have been elected by the trust of their colleagues, then we will have created the basis for the very next practical step.

As for the practical work that lies immediately ahead, let us not let ourselves be put off by saying: We must first educate. Those who say today: Socialization takes a long, long time, because every individual must first be educated. That is not the point. The point is to create a body of people who have the trust of their colleagues. Then it will be possible to continue working with them, and because they have a direct sense of responsibility, you will not constantly face the problem of having difficulty in reaching the masses. Because, you see, you can hold as many meetings as you like, there will always be some who have reservations about such meetings, such as: Today the sun is shining so beautifully, we are going for a walk, or: On Ascension Day it is not possible to attend a meeting — and so on. The work that lies ahead of us is enormous. We will not succeed if we proceed by educating each individual, so to speak. We must have responsible people who then take on the tasks completely. With them, the work can be carried out in the very near future.

Discussion speaker Mittwich proposes that the works council election be held separately for salaried employees and wage earners and that delegates be elected from each side.

Rudolf Steiner: I just want to say a few words, since I agree with everything essential that the esteemed previous speaker has said. But I would like to come back to an important question that he asked, namely the way in which the works council, which will of course consist of individual works council members, comes about. I also believe that the number he has given is sufficiently large for the individual companies. Of course, one or the other view can be gained from the different practical circumstances. But what I think is important is how this works council is set up in the first place. Don't think that when I said “by election or appointment” I meant an appointment from above or something similar. Rather, I was thinking, of course, of the fact that today, in the beginning, there are the most diverse conditions in the individual companies, and it is certainly very true that today there are numerous companies in which the workforce knows exactly: this is the right works council for us – where there is no need for long debates, but where it is clear simply from the trust: this is the right one. And I would like to point out the extraordinary importance of this existing trust being expressed in the election of the works council, so that the people who come into the works council are precisely those who have the trust of their co-workers. That would be similar to an appointment.

Of course, the election must be carried out in a practical and technical manner, but care should be taken to prevent the election from resulting in any kind of random composition. Only those personalities should be elected to the works council who have the trust of their employees. This is necessary because, above all, we need people who feel responsible for what they do. That is one thing.

The other thing is that I don't think it's right to ask how the number of works council members should be distributed between salaried employees and workers. I don't think it's possible to set up any kind of regulation today. I therefore fully agree with what the previous speaker said, namely that employees should not elect their works council on the one hand and workers their works council on the other, as this would lead to something monstrous. In that case, we would have an unworkable works council from the outset. Rather, it must be elected jointly by employees and workers as a unified body. And as to how many then come from the circle of employees on the one hand and on the other from the workers, we want to leave that to the election. It goes without saying that anyone who comes from the intellectual workers, for example, into the works council must be such a person who has the trust not only of the employees, but must also have the trust of the workers. The workers must accept him as an intellectual worker as well. So, for example, if in any enterprise, let us say, five manual workers and one intellectual worker are elected, it must also be possible for three intellectual and three manual workers to be elected elsewhere. It must be left entirely to the workers' own discretion. Intellectual and physical workers must elect those who are to be members of the works council as a unified group, based on their trust. In this primary election, every social distinction between intellectual and physical workers must be eliminated.

I cannot imagine that the one demand that we elect physical and mental workers together should lead to anything other than the fact that the person elected as a mental worker also has the trust of the entire workforce, regardless of whether they are a physical or mental worker. If we were to organize the election in such a way that we were forced to elect so-and-so many works council members from the ranks of the intellectual workers and so-and-so many from the physical labor force, then it would no longer be a free election based on trust. If we think that among the intellectual workers in the factories there are not so many who deserve trust, then people would be admitted to this primary assembly who are not needed! The election itself must not only be carried out in such a way that mental and physical laborers are considered without distinction, but that they have the power to elect together and elect together the one they want, and as many from one side or the other as they want. The mental laborers must be clear about the fact that they can only get into the works council if they have the trust of the entire labor force. This is the question that I consider to be of the utmost importance. I have come to this conclusion on the basis of my extensive experience. Today we must really make sure that the works councils are set up. In eight days' time, they will be in a position to provide a sound basis for socialization, stemming from the trust of the entire working class. Even if they are not completely ready, they will be ready enough to serve the purpose I have described.

Plenum: The assembly adopts a resolution containing the demand that works councils be set up everywhere as quickly as possible before the law, which is only a half-measure, comes into force.

Rudolf Steiner: I must confess that I cannot really connect the question, which arises very often: What means of power are available or do you want to give? I cannot really connect it to a practical sense. You see, it must be a matter of the works council, as I said before, really coming to form something in some central council or the like, which can really be a kind of economic ministry in an emancipated economic life. Now I ask: if it can be a real economic ministry, then only because it has the masses behind it. I would like to know who could resist such a central council or economic ministry if it had the masses behind it, if it had really emerged from the trust of the masses. By doing so, you give it power. Today, power can consist of nothing more than everyone wanting the same thing and having it carried out by individuals, so that there is really something behind such a ministry that makes it impossible for it to be shot down and the like, while at the same time enabling it to stand on firm ground, based on the trust of the broad masses. There is no other way to gain power. But this power is then there by itself, when the body is there. The question of what means of power I want to give such a body can only be seen as extraordinarily abstract. I don't know what people think about such a question. Do they think that regiments should be deployed or that proposals should be made to draft so-and-so many people so that when this body meets, it can function against the will of the others? I don't know what is behind such a question. Because if what comes into the works council comes from the trust of the masses, what happens then? Then the Central Council or the Ministry of Economic Affairs will be able to bring about real socialization, and the broad masses will then agree to it, because it is, after all, flesh of their flesh.

So, I think that by really putting something real on a healthy basis, power comes naturally. It did not come on November 9th because what was about to happen did not come from the trust of the masses and they did not know what to do up there either. All the other power is useless. There are no other means of power than those that lie in the matter itself. That is why I have always regarded it as a highly peculiar, quite abstract philosophical question when people today say: You tell us nothing about the way to get power. That is precisely the way to power: to find representation based on trust and then to shape that representation in such a way that it appeals to those who have given that representation their trust. That would be a practical way. Self-appointment and the like can only lead to the glory coming to an end soon.

In the way we are speaking today, we are discussing the question of power, and it would be a great mistake to lead the matter onto a side track by raising the question of what means of power should be given to those who already have the power because they came into their position on the basis of trust and not on some other basis. I ask you to bear this in mind, because I see confusion arising again and again over the weeks from the fact that on the one hand people say: Yes, that's all right. Such goals may be achieved one day, but first we need power. - We must gain power by placing ourselves with these objectives in the place where, when we go about implementing them, we actually win the understanding of the broadest masses. That is the way to real power, to real socialization. Any other way will lead to disappointment and to a repetition of what happened on November 9 and in the period that followed.

Radio commentator Funk asks: How should we act if the employers ignore or do not recognize the workers' councils?

Rudolf Steiner: Certainly, one can raise the question of how to deal with the matter when the works councils are in place and not recognized by the employers. But, you see, the way the matter has been presented to you this evening, everything possible has already been done to prevent such an eventuality. We do not think of this works council in such a way that it depends on whether the employer recognizes it or not. That is why this dreadful changeling of a works council should not be created, which is supposed to consist of the works councils in the individual companies in turn throwing dust in people's eyes, in order to reassure the workers by saying: We have works councils. We want a works council that extends across the entire economic area and from which a central power gradually emerges. This central power will be supported by the majority or, as I have repeatedly said, by the broad masses. Now I ask you: if this works council system leads to the establishment of a future economic government, what significance will the opposition of the various entrepreneurs have? These various entrepreneurs will simply be unhinged by this works council system as entrepreneurs! The works council system should do something. If it achieves its goal, it will no longer be confronted by the business community at all. Recently, I have often come across this in a wide variety of discussions: on the one hand, people want socialization, but on the other hand, they say, “Once we have socialized, what will the capitalists say?” Yes, if we get involved in this question, we will never achieve real socialization. But if we seriously tackle socialization, then the position of the capitalists is not important. That is precisely what “socialization” means: that in the future it will not depend on them, on the capitalists. They will be eliminated by not continuing to listen to the lies of individual works councils that are recognized by the capitalist authorities. We don't want to continue to work with them. That is why this law must be fought. We must actually take socialization seriously. If we take it seriously, then this question will fall away by itself. If the question, “What do the capitalists say?” continued to exist, then we would not have socialized. But we want to accomplish socialization! Therefore, we must not be discouraged by such questions, but we must gain clarity, must create a will in us that can take decisive action because it is based on healthy impulses. Then we just want to ask: How do we do it in order to push through this will without taking this or that into consideration? – and not: What could come? What do we want to do? – that is what matters.

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear attendees,

In order to have a fruitful discussion about the establishment of workers' councils, I would like to say a few words to set the scene. I believe that it is essential to grasp the socialization task of the present time in the right way from the outset when setting up workers' councils. This means that, in setting up these works councils, we are carrying out a real socialization effort or, better said, making a real start on socialization. You know that the impulse for the threefold social order is intended to achieve what can lead to such a comprehensive real socialization. Now it must be said that the establishment of works councils in particular immediately shows how little understanding there still is today for the real social movement. Should not certain people, who mainly represent the interests of employers, think about how it has come about that today, in such a loud voice, precisely the working class is raising this call for socialization? When a specific issue arises, such as the question of works councils, then you immediately notice on this side, I mean on the side of those who represent the interests of the employers, how little understanding there actually is for such an institution. One can say: The resistance that comes from this side shows how difficult it will be to implement a true socialization rather than a false one. You have the leaflets in front of you, which were written at the suggestion of the Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism for the appointment of works councils.

Now, what do we hear from the other side, from the representatives of the employers' interests, in the face of what is expressed in these leaflets? You see, the first thing they say is: Yes, if it is as it is explained in this leaflet, then the workers are taking the law into their own hands! The people who speak in this way do not consider that basically the working class has only ever resorted to self-help when it was urgently necessary to do so!

In my lectures, I have explained on various occasions how the non-proletariat, how the ruling circles in modern times have missed every opportunity to respond sympathetically to the social movement. And I have also described how even the small crumbs given to the workers in the form of insurance, pensions or the regulation of working hours or the prohibition of child labor and the like, I have described how even this all only became possible because the workers resorted to self-help. Today, however, things are somewhat different. What I have just enumerated is rather a trifle in relation to the great task of socialization that is now at hand. In the past, the workers resorted to self-help in relation to trifles. But now there are bigger tasks to be tackled, which means that now, for once, we have to take a big task and take steps to achieve it by self-help. But in doing so, one must always bear in mind that, from the employers' point of view, the slogan “the workers are taking up self-help” always acts as a red rag. Because, you see, the employers are now once again striving to instill trust and a desire to work in the companies, even though they could have seen how unsuitable the representatives of the employers' interests are to justify this trust and this desire to work. It is precisely because of the way these leading circles have proceeded that trust and the desire to work have disappeared from the factories. And now they want to say: It is not for you, it is for us – when what is necessary for production and for social life is to be taken into the hands of those who have personally experienced the work of the employers.

They will know from the flyer and perhaps also from the last few meetings, if you were there, that it is important first of all that there are works councils, works councils that have really emerged from the totality of of all those who are involved in working and organizing in the economic life, and that it is important that the people who have been elected now also really have their say, can express themselves about what should happen. The old economic structures cannot simply be continued, but something new must be created from the very foundations. And we can only make progress by electing works councils in the individual companies today and then, emerging from a larger coherent economic area, say Württemberg, a general meeting of works councils is convened and that this then gives itself a constitution based on the experiences and knowledge of the works councils, thus defining what the works councils have to do and what their rights and duties are. In this way, what is necessary for economic life must arise today from economic life itself, from independent economic life. So something must first come into being through the works councils. We cannot create today, out of the old institutions, what should actually be achieved through the truly new works council.

You see, that should actually be the aim of the broadest sections of working people today: Through the trust that the person who is to be elected has in the company, through this trust he should be supported. And then he should unite with the works councils of a larger contiguous economic area, let's say Württemberg in this case, in order to determine and define the tasks of the works councils together with them. Today, that should be the view of the broadest circles of working humanity.

This is now contrasted with what is being demanded from the other side – to my amazement, however, also by very many circles of the working class. This is that, initially, in the old way, as it has always been done, a law should be passed by the old state that determines from the outset what rights and duties the works councils should have. If we proceed in this way, I believe that we will not only make no progress, but, in view of the times, we will even take quite a few steps backwards. We have clearly seen what might come from this quarter. What, then, are the demands that are coming from this side? For example, it is said that the state, the entrepreneur and the workers must get their money's worth. That the state, which today is still basically conceived as the protector of capitalism, should get its due, that can be sincerely meant. And I don't doubt that the entrepreneur should also get his rights. But what people mean by the fact that the worker can get his rights when they make such laws, I think that needs a closer look, because these people usually confuse the interests of the worker with how they can best use the worker in their own interests.

So these people come up with strange words, words that are basically always used to throw dust in people's eyes, a dust that usually has a very strange purpose. This dust is supposed to turn into a little gold when it falls back on those who scatter it. People say: the works councils must serve the whole, the whole of the state. They are not there to obtain advantages for the individual worker either, but to serve the flourishing of the whole enterprise. – Now I ask you what that actually means when one says something like, “the works councils should serve the flourishing of the whole enterprise”. That means nothing other than that what it is actually about is veiled in an abstract way. What are enterprises in the world for at all? They are there to provide something for people, and all people are individuals! Factories exist only to ensure that what is produced in them becomes a consumer good for individuals. And to speak of a flourishing of the factories in a different sense, as the individual coming to flourish through what is produced in the factories, that is not speaking from reality, but covering reality with smoke.

It always sounds so terribly beautiful when one says that the whole should be served. In the economic sphere this has no meaning, because: What is the whole there? It is the individuals all together! So one should not say “the flourishing of the companies”, but “the flourishing of all those who are involved in the companies and in the economy in general”. Then the matter would be presented correctly and the facts would not be covered up by deception.

You see, it is often said that the impulse for a tripartite social organism is an ideology. But in truth, this impulse wants to eliminate all the smoke and mirrors, which have not only been talked about enough but have been used in the service of oppression, and to replace them with the true reality, with the human being and their needs. Now you see, what are people demanding? The people demand that the powers of the works councils be regulated by experts after a thorough examination of the circumstances – that is what people always say when they don't want something – and the experts named are employers, employees and social politicians. Now, the concept of the employer – you can see it from my earlier lectures and also from my book on the social question – the concept of the employer, must actually disappear as such in a real socialization. For there can only be an employer if there is an owner of labor, and there must not be any owners of labor. There can only be directors of labor, that is, people who are active in the organization of labor in such a way that the physical worker also knows how to best use his or her labor power and the like. Of course, in a company, work cannot be done in such a way that everyone does what they want. There must be a management, the whole enterprise must be imbued with a spiritual purpose, but these are not employers, they are work managers, that is to say, workers of a different kind. The greatest importance must be attached to the fact that we must at last grasp the real concept of work, because an employer who does not work himself does not really belong to the enterprise at all, but is a parasite on the work.

People today have very strange ideas about these things. The day before yesterday I was in Tübingen, where I spoke to a meeting. There were also professors there, and you see, one of these professors seemed to be particularly upset by the fact that I said that the worker has now finally realized that the old wage relationship must end, because under this old wage relationship the worker has to sell his labor power as a commodity. Well, one of the professors then objected as follows: Is it really not humane to sell one's labor? What difference does it ultimately make whether the worker in the factory sells his labor or Caruso sings for an evening and gets 30,000 to 40,000 marks? Has he not also sold his labor? You see, people still have ideas like that today, and we still have to fight against them today!

But what is being demanded today? Employers, employees and social politicians should first consider what the works councils should do. Well, the social politicians are the very gentlemen who represent the similarity of the work of the factory worker and Caruso. These gentlemen should therefore have the most weighty vote. But the point today is that we should finally come to the conclusion that these people have cast their votes for long enough, and precisely by the way they have cast their votes, they have shown that they have no say in the matter. The social politicians can be dispensed with to a large extent. I am convinced that we can achieve something much more sensible if we elect shop stewards for the works council from among the workers in the factories, from among the physical and mental laborers, than if the social politicians get together, who have thoroughly proved that they can ruin everything but cannot build anything. And because this has been recognized, the impulse for the threefold order has, above all, realized that something can only come out of a general assembly of works councils. And if it were asked today who has a say in this, then I would say: above all, not those who still cling to the old concept of the employer, and not those who are theorizing social politicians, they had better stay out. There are people who then say: This requires detailed studies, as carried out by socialization committees. You see, a real socialization committee is exactly what the works council would like to have, one that arises from the real trust of the people. On the other hand, however, these people say that the most serious damage is to be expected from violent interventions by the works councils, which, without prior legal regulation, give themselves their powers and form a central council in the sense of the leaflet. It should be clear that perhaps serious damage to the old capitalism is to be expected, but that such damage will prove useful in the service of truly active humanity.

Then there is another phrase that is used again and again today and that is also used in employer circles, namely that the establishment of works councils can only fulfill its purpose through extensive education and training of the workforce and entrepreneurs. Yes, some of this kind of training has already been implemented. The purpose of this type of training is, after all, to prepare people thoroughly so that they can best serve the ruling classes, and not to teach them anything worthy of human beings. The aim of the training is to thoroughly expel from their minds everything they have learned through life and what they would like to express from their souls in view of the current conditions. The intention of establishing and strengthening the trust between employer and employee is associated with this training. As I said before, after doing everything to thoroughly eradicate this trust, it has been realized that this trust can be restored by training people in this trust. In this case, that means nothing more than training people to feel comfortable in the service of capitalism.

Something else must be taken into account, namely that the state also wants to profit from the working class. Recently, in the city where the headquarters of the highest intelligentsia in Württemberg is located, a professor of constitutional law said: Yes, we are heading for sad times. People will be very poor! —The gentleman may be right to some extent. But then he said: We will have large, large expenditures. How will these large expenditures be covered? The people will have no money to cover these expenditures. The state will have to step in to cover these expenses! — Now, ladies and gentlemen, I must say that this is a fundamental proof that, once and for all, the intellectual life must also be put on a different footing, when an outstanding representative of the intellectual life asserts today that the state must stand up for the poor so that it can pay the large expenses that we will incur. I would just like to know how the state can do this without first taking the money out of people's wallets? So one speaks of the state as if it were a real personality. If people were to talk about ghosts paying their debts today, they would naturally laugh at you as a foolish fellow. But this state, as it is spoken of, is nothing more than a ghost. After all, you can't get ahead in the real economy by printing one banknote after another, because these notes only have a value if they are redeemed through labor!

You see, people today also like to say: Until it has been determined, with the help of experts, what powers the works councils can have without destroying our seriously ill economic body, and until the laws to be created by the government have established the rights of the works councils, wildly elected – I emphasize wildly elected – works councils can only cause harm. Yes, these spontaneously elected works councils are supposed to be those works councils that are only set up by the trust of the working population. They are to be opposed to those who are placed in the factories by telling them: This you may do, this you may not do, this you must refrain from doing. Yes, of course this leads to nothing but the preservation of the old conditions. It does not lead forward, but a few steps back, because it was already a disaster when the economy was still flourishing that people thought of workers' committees in this way. Now that the economy is on the ground, it is an even greater disaster if the works council does not arise from the working population itself and if, when something like this occurs, it is said that it is a wild-grown humanity.

Well, after seeing what is to be planted by the other side, one must resort to the wild-growing ones. That will be the healthier, healthier than that which is to be planted in the ornamental gardens of those who so much want to remain stuck in the old conditions. I would like to mention another nice sentence that has also emerged in recent days against our efforts to elect works councils. Namely, various fears are expressed about these randomly elected works councils. Among other things, it is said that the one-sided exploitation of the companies by the workers contradicts the idea of socialization. But I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I am racking my brain to come up with something to go with this sentence. What is meant by the workers' one-sided exploitation of the factories? You see, when the workers have their due share of responsibility for the factory, then they will know that if they do not take care of the factories on their own initiative, the factories will quickly be in such a state that they can no longer exploit them. One should not assume that the clever representatives of the business community expect the workers to be so foolish as to try to get everything out of the company, only to throw themselves out on the street afterwards. After all, the workers have learned well enough what it means to be put out on the street by others. I don't think that they will imitate this themselves, because they have seen enough of this practice with others.

And then the statement that the idea of socialization is being contradicted. Yes, socialization should be: calling for cooperation in the social order in the spiritual, legal and economic life of all those who, as working people, are involved in this life and who, as working people, are really at work. This is to be achieved by the working population electing the works council – as the gentlemen say – “wildly”. Well, that is supposed to contradict socialization. So I also agonize over the second half of that sentence and just can't figure out what is meant by it, because the fact that works councils are elected from among those who run the companies and ensure the prosperity of the entire economy is supposed to contradict socialization. Perhaps it could mean that those who work in the factories participate in the fructification, while those who previously only participated in the profits in various ways get a raw deal. That is to say, those who make their living purely from capitalism will fare badly. So I would have to interpret the sentence as meaning that the one-sided selection of works council members, as we want it, contradicts the eradication of the actual capitalists. Then I would have to think that in the mind of such a person the thought may arise that the eradication of private capitalism contradicts socialization. I can even imagine that some people understand socialization to mean that, by contradicting the interests of private capitalists, it is not a true socialization. But then we have to admit that we ourselves have to develop ideas about socialization, that we truly cannot let people impose on us the ideas of true socialization or of what contradicts this socialization. No matter how much we scream about laws, we will not gain a true concept of the works councils. That is why we must decide to create these works councils as a true concept of works councils, and not be deterred from doing so by the fact that we are opposing the wild-growing works councils to the ornamental gardens of the system of today's economic order. We must take courage and say to ourselves: From the institution of those works councils that we now establish through direct election – the details of which can be discussed later – a works council system should emerge that is now suitable for creating a basis for socialization. Then it may be that socialization will really march, whereas so far, only those people who are known to understand by real socialization a capitalist specter in a new form that is supposed to gorge itself with all sorts of parasites, talk about the march of socialization.

If we can penetrate this, then we will be able to ignite the courage within us to finally send this wild forest of works councils out into the world, so that not everything will be corrupted again by the ornamental plants of those who understand nothing about socializing.

Discussion

Fran Bühl: She distributed the flyer of the union about the creation of works councils in Calw and learned that the workers there show little interest in the creation of works councils. She therefore asks Dr. Rudolf Steiner to give a lecture there to shake people up a bit.

Mr. Armbruster is not satisfied with the course of events and, like the “Social Democrat”, finds Dr. Steiner's comments “soft as a plum”. He also finds that socialization is nothing new. He hopes that a new government will help.

Rudolf Steiner: Yes, the fact that the “Social Democrat” admitted that my remarks were “plum soft” did not mean anything to me at the time. I said to myself: There have been so many statements about all kinds of socialist and social programs that tasted like sour plums, so it doesn't seem so out of order to finally bring the plums to maturity; then, as everyone knows, they are soft.

But one thing that the previous speaker said is very close to my heart, because I believe that it is perhaps not so much directed at our intellect as at our will. It may be true to say that if, when the revolution occurred in 1918, people had spoken of threefolding and socialization in the way that is being attempted today, and had striven for them, we would be further ahead today. You see, I did not appear myself at the time, there were reasons for that, because I finally thought that the others, who had always been in the party, who had always been inside, could do it better, and I also waited to see if they could do it better. Now the honorable speaker before me has said that we have not actually achieved anything in particular. It may perhaps appear justified in the light of the facts that, after those on whom we relied have achieved nothing, we then get involved in the matter. What is important – if the previous speaker really means that we would be further ahead today if this had been tackled back then – is that we say to ourselves: Well, then we want to at least tackle it today, so that when we are again as many months after today as we are now after the revolution, we will find ourselves in the reality that we want today. So I would like to express this as an appeal for the will and courage to socialize. And here I do believe that we should rely a little on experience.

Please do not take it amiss if I say that the saying “When we have a new government, it will do it” has actually been heard again and again under the old regime. Yes, there is even a cute example where roughly every few months it was said: “When we have a new government, things will get better.” That was in Austria in the decades before the war. Every few months a new government was formed and relied on. But now we should have learned from the facts that we should not rely on any government in such a way. That is why the works council is to be created precisely for the purpose of enabling the broad masses of the working population to be creative with regard to socialization. It seems to me that one thing in particular – as I have said here before – has not yet been grasped, but should be, and that is that there is a difference between ruling and governing. In the future, the entire working population will have to rule. In the past, the people in power and the government were confused, because it was believed that the government should also rule. In the future, governments will have to learn to govern. To govern means to express what the working people actually want. This is a difference that must first be learned.

The new government has learned far too much from the old governments, which were governments of domination. It has appropriated far too much of what was always said before, namely that the government will do the right thing. I think that, with regard to the problem of socialization, a significant step forward will have to consist precisely in the fact that what the government does can be properly controlled by the people. The government will have to give its direction, so that one does not rely solely on ballots, but on real life, which basically points the government in the direction of its actions every day. But this will not be achieved if we always say: if we only have a new government, then things will go better, it will socialize. Rather, it is now time for every person to work towards socialization. That is precisely the meaning of our time, that every person feels that they must work together. And we must learn to understand that if we want to socialize, the first thing we must do is socialize domination. Domination must be socialized. It must not be continued in the old forms. Therefore, I do not want to hear any more talk about “the government will do it,” but I would be more satisfied if it were said by the broadest sections of the people: We will do it, even if not only the government but all the devils were against it.

A participant in the discussion reports that the clothing and maintenance office in Feuerbach is about to elect its works council. The commanding officer has expressed himself to the effect that he is not averse to the election of works councils, but must emphasize in advance that these works councils may only have an advisory vote and not a deciding one.

Rudolf Steiner: What the esteemed previous speaker has said is to be avoided by the special way in which the works council is meant here. Of course, if the works councils are to be set up in accordance with the law, which is to be made in the old spirit, they will of course be straw dolls. And so that not straw puppets arise, but real works councils, should, well, let's say, first these wildlings are elected against the plants of the others. And so it will not interest us particularly at first, when it is said: Well, I want to agree to the election of works councils, but they may only have an advisory vote.

We would like to see works councils in place to start with. And I said that we would then strive for the works councils to feel that they are a legislative assembly from which a kind of central economic council will then emerge, and that this will then take over the functions of those who currently want to create straw dolls. We want to arrive at a system of works councils precisely through this special approach and thus prevent this law from becoming reality. To do that, it is necessary that the workers really stand behind this subversion of the works councils. If the workers really stand behind it, there is no need to fear that some law that turns the works councils into straw dolls will be passed. That is what it all comes down to.

I must say that I was quite astonished the day before yesterday when I heard a very interesting personage, who spoke in favour of the socialization of all conditions, but kept saying, “Yes, but you have to bear in mind that now, finally, since November 1918, everything has been achieved. Württemberg has become a free people's state in which everything can be achieved. This People's State of Wuerttemberg will even give itself a wonderful school law, and it will also manage to get a law that properly establishes the works councils, and one should not tamper with the law. So it will be a matter of finally realizing that mere calls for power achieve nothing, but that this power must first be created. But how is it created? It will be created by people no longer believing in things as I have described them, but by more and more people coming together to perform a truly free deed. The power will consist precisely in people becoming more and more aware of this power of theirs. If they only ever talk about this power should come from this or that quarter, then this power will never be attained. This power will be attained when people become aware that they must act on the basis of their own understanding. When there are enough people who understand how to go from the working population to socialization, then I am not at all worried about power.

In a lengthy discussion, in which trade union issues are also touched upon, the speakers unanimously emphasize that, where this has not yet happened, works councils should be elected as quickly as possible despite the resistance of employers and the management of state-owned enterprises.

One speaker refers to the work of Professor Abbe of Jena, who, although under the favorable conditions of a monopoly operation, has done good preparatory work for socialization. He also refers to the ideas of Friedrich Naumann and Walther Rathenau.

Debater Grosshans, Heilbronn: Unfortunately, I was unable to attend Dr. Steiner's lecture, but I heard him speak in Heilbronn once. My 39-month imprisonment in Russia gives me cause to say a few words to you in order to explain my experiences of the various problems that the revolution in Russia has brought with it. When the Bolsheviks' second revolution began in Russia, it was the case that these Bolsheviks made the biggest mistake by chasing away all the technical management and all the officials. They wanted to take their fate into their own hands. I think this is right, but given that the situation in Russia is such that 60% of the population is illiterate, how can they be capable of running the factories themselves? Experience shows, then, that it was fundamentally wrong to chase away all the officials, technical managers, etc., and to want to take the fate into their own hands. In my opinion, these are the thoughts that Dr. Steiner probably presented to you this evening as well, according to which the aim should be to work towards the independence of the entire working population, in order to achieve the long-desired power of the working, the creative people.

What I would also like to discuss are the major mistakes that have been made in our country since November 9. I disapprove of the fact that the war with Russia is still being continued today, even at the behest of the Entente. But do not forget: if we had sought an alliance with Russia, the Entente would not be able to confront us as it is doing today. In Russia and Siberia, I myself have seen colossal quantities of coal lying on the surface, which do not even need to be mined, because they are on the surface. There are colossal copper mines on the Murmansk coast, as well as mercury and all the raw materials that we could so urgently need in Germany today. Furthermore, I saw how in Samara in the Volga valley, colossal grain stocks from 1912, 1913 and 1914 are still lying today, that is, in July 1917, they had not even been threshed. They were piled up in heaps as tall as a three-story house. If our government after the revolution – I don't want to go back to the old system, which has been swept away, because we don't need to devote any more words to it – if we had sought an alliance with Russia after the revolution, if we had worked towards an understanding with Russia, we would have different times today and would not be at the mercy and mercy of our enemies, whom we face powerless.

And I would like to add the following: When I look at what has happened in Germany since November 9, I come to the conclusion that it is high time that we came to an agreement. We, the entire working population, the manual laborers, the intellectual workers, the employees, must trust each other, must be able to rely on each other and not let ourselves be drawn into the party and union barriers again and again. I am convinced that a large number of our leaders have long since been overtaken by the new times. These proposals for socialization prove this to us. When we read through the individual paragraphs, we and our works councils are ultimately nothing more than a token. We may be works councils, but we have no rights; we are only there so that we can sit in the company.

In fact, if you look at this program of our government, it is well over 50 years old, and I believe that this program can no longer be our guide today. Therefore, I ask you, who are here today, to carry these ideals, which Dr. Steiner presented to us, out to the broad masses of the working people. See to it that we come to an understanding and that we introduce the works councils as quickly as possible, because time is pressing. It is high time that our economic life was finally uplifted for the benefit of the whole working people.

Rudolf Steiner: Our main task today was to discuss the importance and necessity of works councils, so that with these works councils we finally have the positive, the actual basis from which further work can be done. I can certainly understand when it is said here that it would have been desirable for us to have made significant progress today. Of course we all wanted that, but we needed this work in order to at least get to the point where we have now achieved the result that we can look more clearly towards the establishment of this works council. I think it is a great step forward that we have been able to tell so many of those present how far the matter has progressed, and that we have even dealt with the matter with regard to the elections and will deal with it even more in the near future. I believe that we can see from this how necessary it is, first of all, to prepare the ground for these works councils and at the same time to see that, if you only have the good will, you can really make progress with it.

There will be hard work associated with what I have called a kind of legislative assembly that arises from the works council, and it seems to me to be of particular importance that we do not harbor the illusion that we can anticipate anything to this primal assembly of the works council. The very issues that the gentleman from Heilbronn mentioned, in connection with the nature of the distribution of goods and the like, will be an essential part of the work of the assemblies that the workers' councils will have to hold. All these matters should be discussed there in terms of the basic conditions of our economic life, so that the appropriate foundations can be laid. I recognize that many good beginnings have been made, such as that of Professor Abbe. Many others have been made as well; in England, in particular, a wide range of experiments have been carried out. It has been rightly pointed out that Abbe was only able to achieve as much as he did because his business was of a very special nature. On the other hand, it has always been shown, precisely where the matter has been pursued further, that these things cannot, after all, lead to a certain end. And then one must raise the question: why is that so? Well, the reason is precisely that these things have been tackled again and again by well-meaning people, like Abbe, in a very individualistic way and not really socially. This is what I ask you not to underestimate and to fail to recognize: that we now really want to take the matter in a social way, that we actually want to create what is then tackled in individual companies, from the social sphere of the whole economy across a closed economic area. Württemberg would come into question here. Only then, when one has worked in this direction, which can probably happen relatively quickly with good will, then one will see how individual operations cannot actually be socialized at all, but that the socialization of the individual operation can only result from the socialization of a closed economic area. Only then will we have the opportunity to truly implement what socialism has always demanded, namely that production should not be for profit but for consumption.

You see, with today's structure of society, there is actually no other way to produce than with a view to profit. The principle of producing to consume must first be created! And whether ways can be found to distribute goods in a corresponding way will depend on this principle. It will depend a lot on finding, I would say, an economic unit cell over a large area.

This economic unit – I would like to say a few words about it – what is it? If we start not from production but from consumption, from the satisfaction of needs, then we must first arrive at a practical conclusion as to what leads to an appropriate pricing in terms of satisfying needs. Today, this is done in an anarchic and chaotic way by supply and demand, and that is why it is so impossible to get anything at all these days. The formula of supply and demand will not help us to achieve the goal of producing for consumption. No, to reach the goal, it is necessary that what I produce must be worth so much compared to other goods that I can exchange it, no matter how the exchange is organized, all those goods that satisfy my needs up to the point where I have produced a product the same as now. In this calculation, everything that one has to contribute for those who are currently unable to produce directly themselves must be included, i.e. for children who need to be educated, for those unable to work, and so on. So what we have to start from is to be clear about this economic unit. Only by doing so will it be possible to achieve a fair pricing system on an economic basis, so that in the future, when more is earned on the one hand, more does not have to be spent on the other, because things naturally become more expensive under the influence of the extra income.

Today, people still complain time and again that there is an unnatural relationship between the price of goods and wages. Socialization will have to solve the big problem of eliminating this difference between the price of goods and wages altogether, because wages as such must be eliminated, because in the future there must be no wage earners, but only free comrades, free collaborators of the spiritual worker, the spiritual leader, because the relationship between employee and employer in its present form must become an impossibility. Only when it is possible to eliminate everything that exists today and that contaminates the pricing process, only then will it be possible to achieve real socialization.

Today, people don't just buy goods, but rather, they buy goods, rights, and labor. You buy rights when you acquire land. The fact that land can be exchanged for production goods today creates an impossible situation, which is due to the fact that land is subject to the same pricing mechanisms as other goods on the general market. Furthermore, the means of production today also cost something after they have been completed. You know that in my book it is assumed that the means of production, when they are completed, are no longer for sale, but are to be introduced into society by other means. In the future, a means of production must only consume labor until it is finished.

If you ask today's economists: What is capital? you will get very different answers. The best economists are ultimately those who say: capital is produced means of production, that is, completely produced means of production that one can own and that can then be sold. Yes, precisely when you look at capital as corresponding to the produced means of production, then capital proves to be a fifth wheel on the wagon. You know that in my book I have listed as the basis for all future distribution of goods that in fact the means of production may only devour labor until it is completed. A locomotive, when it is finished, may only be brought into social circulation through measures other than purchase. We therefore need to be clear about the fact that, with regard to the means of production and land, completely different measures must be taken than have been taken so far. Only by doing this – and there is no other way – only by allowing the means of production to consume human labor only until they are finished, can we truly establish labor's rights. After all, what is money? Money is nothing. He who possesses a great deal would have nothing if he were not in a position, through the existing power relations, to cause so and so many people to do work for his money. They will no longer be able to do so if we set the prices of the means of production in such a way that these prices cease altogether when the means of production are ready. A further problem is that of the distribution of goods:

The gentleman who raised the issue of the distribution of goods must bear in mind that our entire distribution of goods has become one that is entirely in line with capitalism over the past three to four centuries and must therefore also be socialized. This can only happen when we have a primal assembly of people who are truly willing to develop the courage to develop new and necessary forms of pricing against all odds. It will be hard work, and it will be accomplished all the more quickly if we do not take the third step before the first, but decide to really take the first step. Today everything depends – and it is no small thing – on our first step being the formation of this workers' council. This workers' council should not draw up programs and the like, but should start by creating facts.

I just wanted to hint at how difficult the problem of the distribution of goods is. We will only overcome it when we have the foundations, and the foundations are the people who have the trust of their fellow human beings to come together as they have never come together in the world before, not to undertake small atomistic experiments, which are also called socialization, but to really socialize from the whole.

Various names have been mentioned, including that of Rathenau. The name Rathenau reminds me of something that is not at all unimportant for the present. Yesterday the latest issue of “Zukunft” was published, containing an essay by Walther Rathenau entitled “The End”. This essay “The End” is a perfect example of how the capitalist is truly at a loss when it comes to judging current events. Walther Rathenau is more sincere and, in a certain sense, more honest than the others, but he does not go any further than those who do not form their ideas out of social thinking but out of capitalist thinking. I would like to say: What Walther Rathenau says in this essay 'The End' is all too well founded. He says: Well, for a long time we have only heard what was false from all sides. Our first demand should be that people should not be told what is not true, but what is true. And he rightly asks: What if the current peace treaty is not signed? Well, then another one will be made, and then another. But what if it is signed after all? Rathenau says: Rantzau can then do nothing but declare the National Assembly dissolved; he can declare that it no longer makes sense for Germany to have a president, a chancellor, and so on. So there is nothing he can do but place all the sovereign rights of the former German Empire in the hands of the Entente and ask them to take care of the 60 million people in Germany. Yes, that is the truth from this point of view. It is the truth that those people who have steered the destiny of the country so far are now at the end of their tether with regard to Central Europe and have to admit to themselves: We have brought it to the point where we can actually do nothing but offer the Entente: take over our entire government and take care of us! – He is even justifiably a little proud of those who say, “Better to die than to sign the treaty!” – by pointing out that one cannot imagine that 60 million Germans will die at once.

What is there to say about this? Only one thing: what has taken place between Central Europe and the West is a game between capitalism and capitalism. And as long as it is a game between capitalism and capitalism, it will lead to nothing but its end. A new beginning can only be made when work is done from below, that is, when the working population works on a truly serious social reconstruction. [...]* And because we need a beginning for domestic and, above all, foreign policy reasons, this impulse of the tripartite social organism has emerged, which alone is capable of helping a realistic production of goods to its right. At the same time, it is important to find new ways of distributing goods, which will prevent the emergence of what has so far been capital-forming and what has also caused our international conflicts. Therefore, the most important thing today is to recognize that socialization must begin with us having a base of socially minded people. These will make it possible to find the way to such a distribution of goods as I have just indicated, and to arrive at a new way of dealing with the problems associated with land and the means of production. It is not enough just to make demands. Socialization of the means of production is good. But the main thing is to find ways and means of fulfilling these demands. There is no other way than to get down to work. Today it would be quite interesting to talk about how we distribute goods in all sorts of ways. But the first thing that is necessary is that we are finally able to talk to people who are willing to undertake a different distribution of goods. We do not need words that are programs, but words that put people on their feet. Programs will never be of use to us. Today we need people who are truly aware of their power and who put into practice what the words are meant to be the germinal thoughts for.

I ask you not to take this as meaning that it would be good if we had made more progress and already knew what needed to be done. People like Naumann always know what needs to be done; but I would not worry so much if I knew what was to be done in Naumann's sense. Then I would know that these are fine thoughts to enjoy, but they do not socialize. The impulse of the threefold social organism differs from other impulses in that it does not introduce a new program into the world, but merely seeks to show how people in the world must come together, how they must find each other, so that realities and not utopias or programs arise. In this sense, it is a source of satisfaction to me that so many of our friends have already proclaimed how far things have already come. I would ask you not to slacken, to continue the steps that have been taken and to take them faster and faster. Because if we have the councils, everything else can be achieved with their help. Those who today are truly taking what has been said to heart should have understood that. They should have understood that it is essential that we first have people who really want socialization. That is the first actual socialization program. And the first step towards socialization will have been taken when the works councils in the local economic area have been elected. And then we will be able to say: Now we want to take the next step. Because for that, they must first be there for us to take the next steps. For socialization, we need the people who want socialization. And the works council will probably be seen in the future as the first step towards true socialization.

According to the chairman, it has just been announced that four works councils have been elected and that the election of six further works councils is in progress.

Chairman Mr. Lohrmann: I open today's meeting. Unfortunately, it is very poorly attended, which is probably very much due to the fact that the parties are beginning to fight our cause. This is based on an error. I have also argued with various party members. They see in the matter of threefolding a fragmentation of the working class, of the proletariat, in the struggle that will lead to the liberation of the proletariat. For this reason, the party fights the threefolding of the social organism. We can still discuss today what position we must adopt in future, especially with regard to the parties. I believe that this matter can be raised later in the discussion.

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear Participants, I will be very brief in my introduction because I believe that the main thing should be dealt with in speech and counter-speech. The chairman has just drawn your attention to the fact that there is a strong counter-movement against what the “Federation for Threefolding” wants here. And you have also heard the reasons for this counter-movement. I would even like to say that one could express the matter quite differently, that is, what is said about the reasons for which this counter-current asserts itself. If this counter-current were really based on the assumption that a wedge could be driven into the party system, then it would be based on completely false premises. I cannot understand how anyone can maintain that there should be any intention on our part to drive a wedge into the party system. Because, you see, the situation is like this: the parties have their program, and they also have the intention of doing this or that in the near future. They are not prevented from doing this or that! The only thing is that members of any party - they can stay in their party context and go along with what the party context demands of them - are offered the opportunity to take on something positive that can become action. There can be no question of this being connected with the intention that the personalities of the “Federation for the Threefold Social Organism” themselves want to take the places that party members want to take.

You see, the situation has arisen in such a way that it has been seen that with the party program, nothing can be achieved at present with regard to the most important question, the question of socialization. You have experienced the so-called revolution of November 9. You have seen that the party men have taken the lead in the government. But they also experienced that these party men knew nothing to do with what was really at hand, that they had power over it to a high degree. They could experience a great disappointment, yes, I would like to say, I am convinced that they really experience it, if they would not at all respond to something like the striving for the tripartite social organism. You might experience the disappointment that after the second revolution other party members come to the fore who, not out of any ill will but simply because party programs are powerless, after some time produce nothing positive. They may experience disappointment again. The “Bund für Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus” has set itself the task of protecting them from these disappointments, these new disappointments, by pointing out what is needed in the present time and what can actually be implemented.

Parties always have the peculiarity that they gradually depart from what originally inspired them. Parties have a strange destiny in general. Since I did not pluck the impulse for the threefold social organism out of thin air, but rather grasped it on the basis of a truly intensive experience of the social movement over decades, I have also experienced many things. For example, I experienced the rise of the so-called liberal party in Austria. This party called itself liberal, but stood on the ground of monarchism, as was natural in the 1860s and 1870s. So it was a liberal party. But when this liberal party wanted to assert itself within the existing Austrian state, this liberal party acquired a strange designation: “Your Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition”. That was an official epithet for the opposition in the Austrian monarchy.

I have given this example to show that in certain situations the parties are sometimes deprived of their actual impact. But there are even more telling examples. In North America, for example, there are two main parties, the Democratic and the Republican. These two parties got their name right a long time ago: one called itself Republican because it was Republican, the other called itself Democratic because it was Democratic. Today, the Republican Party is no longer Republican at all and the Democratic Party is anything but democratic. The only difference between the two parties is that they are fed by different consortia from different election funds. Parties come into being, have a certain lifespan, which is relatively short, then they die. But they remain, so to speak, even when they are already dead, still alive as a corpse; they do not like to die. But that does no harm. Even if they have lost their original meaning, they are still a rallying point for people, and it is still good that they are there, so that people do not stray. Therefore, if you are not a theorizing politician, as party politicians often are, and if you do not want to be an ideological or utopian politician, but want to stand on practical ground and are aware that in political life you can only achieve something with united groups of people, then you have no interest in fragmenting the parties. We would be doing the most foolish thing we could possibly do if we were out to split the parties, or even wanted to found a new party. We couldn't do anything more foolish. So, that's really not an issue at all.

So one wonders: where is this resistance actually coming from? You see, I would say it comes from people's conservative attitudes. In my many lectures, I experience it again and again that the following happens. Discussion speakers stand up, and when they speak, one has a strange experience. They have only heard what they have been accustomed to thinking for decades. Much of it is correct, because the old things are not wrong. But today new things must be added to the old things! The strange thing that one can often observe in the speakers is that they have not even heard the new with their physical ears. They have only heard what they have been accustomed to hearing for decades. Yes, this is based on a certain inner dullness of the present human mind. One must become familiar with this inner inertia of the present human mind, and one must fight it.

But what is difficult for me to understand is when a certain side says: Yes, we actually agree with what Steiner says about fighting capitalism, as well as with the threefold social organism, which must come. But we are fighting against it! We must fight against it! — Anyone with a certain common sense must find this strange. And yet this point of view exists!

We are now facing the establishment of works councils. Yes, these works councils are an extremely important thing, for the following reason. Today, works councils can be set up in such a way that they are nothing more than a decoration for a mysterious continuation of the old capitalist system. They can be set up in this way, but they will certainly become nothing more than that if they are set up in the sense of the bill, which you are of course sufficiently familiar with. They will certainly become nothing more than a mere decoration if they are appointed on the basis of another bill. The only way to save them is to establish the works councils, as I have often said here, out of the living economic life, that is, to have them elected out of the economic life itself and to join together within a self-contained economic area. Here, because we have to keep to the old national borders, it would be Württemberg. This must be a constituent assembly that creates out of itself what the others want to make law. The rights, the powers, everything that the works councils have to do, must arise from the works council itself. And we must not lose the courage to create the works council out of economic life itself. But you see, as soon as you start at one end, as soon as you really take it seriously, to take the one link of the tripartite social organism as it is to be taken in the economic cycle, then you have to stand on the ground of the tripartite social organism. Then the other two links must at least somehow participate and be set up in parallel, otherwise you will not make any progress. Today it is easy to prove, simply on the basis of the facts, that what the threefold social organism wants is needed. Because, whatever is said about that socialization experiment that was carried out in the East, the important thing is always not emphasized.

If you have followed the reports carefully, you will have heard from the ministerial side in the local parliament in recent days that Lenin has now come full circle again, namely to seek help from capitalism because he doubts that socialization as he wanted it can be carried out in the present day. Such things are indeed noted with a certain satisfaction even by socialist governments today. Let them have their satisfaction. But you see, what matters is that we must ask ourselves why this Eastern experiment has failed. It is because – it really is possible to see this, you just have to have the courage to fight your own prejudices – it is because, above all, no consideration was given within this Russian, Eastern, socialist experiment to establishing an independent socialization of intellectual life. This link was missing, and that is why it failed. And when people realize this, they will know how to do things differently. We must learn from the facts and not from the party program spectres that have been haunting our minds for decades. That is what matters, and I can tell you: either the works councils are set up in such a way that they are the first step towards what is planned on a large scale in the sense of a social organization of the human community, so that something can emerge from the works councils that amounts to real socialization, or it is not done that way, and then real socialization will not be achieved. If we wait until the continuation of the old system of government sets up works councils on the basis of a law, if we always start from the idea that those who want to take practical action are fragmenting the party, then we will get nowhere.

One question must be asked again and again. You see, when we started talking about things here in terms of the tripartite social organism, we and our friends from the parties relatively quickly gained the trust of the working class, the trust of a large part of the working class. At first, they apparently watched this with composure, because they thought, well, as long as a few people are fooling around, it is enough to say: don't worry about these utopians. But then they saw that it was not about utopia at all, but about the beginning of actually doing something practical. The utopia and ideology thing didn't quite work anymore. But then, when we tried to work for the works councils, the accusation of utopia could no longer be maintained at all. And now they are saying that fragmentation is being carried into the party. Yes, but they had to come first and say that; they had to tell the people first that fragmentation was being carried into the party. We did not introduce it. But those who say that they themselves introduced it. Where does the fragmentation come from? There is only one answer to this question: you do not have to talk about it the way you do, then there would be no fragmentation. Well, the matter of the works council is just too serious for such things not to be discussed today. And so I hope that from these points of view, one or other of you will talk a great deal more about the various things that are necessary at this unfortunately poorly attended meeting.

Actually, I am very surprised at the opposition that arises here when I take a closer look at some things. The parties, for example, they all actually need a certain going out beyond themselves, namely a going up to something positive. Yesterday I received the “Arbeiterrat” (Workers' Council), the organ of the Workers' Councils of Germany, whose editorial office is held by Ernst Däumig. In this you will find an article entitled “Geistesarbeiterrat und Volksgeist” (Intellectual Workers' Council and National Spirit) by Dr. Heuser, KPD. It discusses a number of issues. In this article, you will find the following, among other things, which I consider so important that I would like to read it to you. So, the article is by Dr. Heuser, a member of the KPD: “However, it is a condition of life in the socialist state that the intellectual element in the life of the people be given its due consideration. There is a great danger that the one-sided consideration of the materially active part of the people will stifle the spiritual conditions of life in the socialist community and transform the state of the future into a material entity in which spiritual forces have no leeway and thus no freedom. The purposeful working class rightly demands: All political power to the workers' councils – all economic power to the works councils. We demand: All spiritual power to the intellectual workers' councils!” — Please, a member of the KPD! All intellectual power to the intellectual workers' councils! “We demand, in addition to the body of workers' councils (political body) and that of the works councils (economic body), a body of intellectual councils (intellectual body), in which the intellectual element of the people can make itself heard at any time and which, to balance the enormous political and economic rights of the overwhelming manual laborers, sufficient influence over the filling of the more important positions in the community with intellectual, capable personalities, since otherwise there is no guarantee that these positions will not be filled, as has been the case so far, in a spiritless manner according to power-political or material-economic considerations. The militaristic Hohenzollern regime collapsed because it failed to understand the social demands of our time, just as the capitalist sham democracy will collapse despite its 'victories'. A socialist state that unilaterally favors the interests of manual laborers and neglects the interests of the intellectual element of the people is just as untenable: it will create a new class antagonism, new oppression, and new struggles.

Now I ask you – there is no mention here of reading my book – but I ask you: what is this other than threefolding? And now an especially important conclusion:

"However, the spiritual element of nations alone is capable of shaping the international understanding of the future and creating a league of nations that is not hypocritical. Let us assume that in the new socialist state the political workers' councils or the economic works councils have the decisive say – where would that lead? Foreign policy would then either be decided according to (political) power considerations – the cabinet wars of earlier centuries are already a sufficient warning for us – or politics would be decided by economic interests; the world war we have just experienced is a terrible example of this. If, however, politics is guided by considerations of spiritual humanity, then this alone will ensure that a permanent barrier is erected against the temptations of human lust for power and possessions. Only then will civilized man return to justice towards himself and others."

This, you see, is an article by a member of the Communist Party on the “Workers' Council,” which is edited by Ernst Däumig. So, those who see things not only through the party glasses, but see them as they are, confirm what has been said here often, namely that the threefolding of the social organism is in the air. It is strange that more people do not think of it. But here you have the whole story of the threefold social order without our movement being mentioned. In my book, of course, it is fully substantiated and developed in detail. You can already find it hinted at in the appeal “To the German People and to the Cultural World”.

Unfortunately, however, it is still the case that people today cannot rise to the great issues that are really necessary. Therefore, they will not be able to establish even the smallest institutions in the sense that they correspond to the great reckoning in which we find ourselves. Therefore, it is necessary that we really know today that a cure for economic life can only come about if we first set up an independent economic body – at least we have to start with that. That must be the works council. The other things that have to come will also grow out of the works council: the transport council and the economic council. From these three councils, it will follow that the works councils will deal more with production, the transport councils with the circulation of goods, and the economic councils with the consumer cooperative in the broadest sense. Everything else, such as forestry, agriculture, the extraction of raw materials, and above all, international economic life, can then be incorporated into this council system of economic life. It must be clearly understood that economic life does not present the difficulties which are always mentioned in order to create a bugbear. It is only necessary, when one socializes economically, to record the passive trade balance, that is, the surplus of imports over exports, on the consumption side. Then the right thing will come out by itself.

All this is contained in the system of the tripartite social organism, and when people say they do not understand it, it is only because they do not want to take the trouble to really draw the appropriate conclusions, but believe that you first have to draw up a program. Yes, reality is not a program; reality needs more than what can be said in a program. Anyone who talks about reality must assume that people think a little, because reality is very complicated. And I ask you, when it comes to the important question of works councils in a practical sense, not to really imagine the matter as simply as many do today. The future social economic order will have to start from the principle that has been proclaimed for decades, and quite correctly: Production must be for consumption, not for profit. The question is: how do we do it? This question cannot be answered in theory, but rather by you electing works councils and then these works councils coming together in a works council federation. If you proceed in this way, the question of production for consumption will be answered from within people. There is no theory about it, but the solution will be what the living people who come from the economic life have to say, each from their own needs, and what they contribute to the solution.

Things have to be tackled in such a way that you don't call it practical when you say that this or that should happen, but when you put people on their feet who should now figure out the right thing through a living interaction. On the surface, it can be said that it is easy to understand what is related to consumption, because the statistics everywhere tell us how much pepper, how much coal, how many knives and forks and the like we need. And if you have the exact statistics, you will simply have to produce as much as these statistics indicate. Yes, even if the statistics are not too old, they would still be completely useless for the present moment. And even if they are new, they are only valid for this one year, and by next year they will already be outdated. What needs to be said about consumption must be continually grasped and approached in a living way. For this you need economic councils. They must be in constant motion. Because it is not that simple. We cannot rely on literature, but we need a living council system that covers the entire economic system. But you have to have the courage to do that. We need living people in place of what capital has done in an egoistic way, so that the reorganization of economic life is done in a social way. Otherwise we will not get anywhere. This is what must be seriously considered today, especially with regard to the question of works councils. In practice, this means nothing other than that the works councils are elected and then meet in a plenary assembly of works councils. Then this works council will have to be supplemented by the transport council and the economic council. In this way we will move forward.

How the fact that a practical way is now being indicated to lead to the fragmentation of the parties and to a confusion of minds, that is something that another person can see more clearly than I can. I cannot see it. The parties should not be harmed by this, certainly not if they want to form a united phalanx. They may do it. That will be much better than if the people go their separate ways. We certainly have no interest in people going their separate ways. But we do have an interest – especially when we see that nothing positive can be done through mere programs – in the positive being carried into the working class. Our aim was never to found a new party, but the intention underlying the founding of the “Bund für Dreigliederung” was to help the proletariat achieve a truly social position. And this can only be realized when class rule ceases. But then the question is not what small or large numbers of members adhere to a party program, but rather to ask oneself: What has to happen? And because it is increasingly recognized that the proletariat will never achieve its goal with the old party programs, that is why the impetus for the threefold order is there.

I wanted to say this by way of introduction. Now I hope that we will have a lively discussion about the works council question and other related issues. If the works council election is to be the first step towards real socialization, then it can only be good to keep looking at socialization from a different, higher point of view.

Discussion

Chairman Lohrmann: It is very important for us in the present time and under the present conditions that, as Dr. Steiner has read, a communist leader writes that threefolding must be undertaken. When we talk to our comrades, we are dismissed with short catchwords. This is the stumbling block in our work for the election of works councils! We have convinced comrades as leaders in the factories, but they are influenced by the party against our cause, so that they are not even interested. They dismiss the matter without looking into it. Our main work will be to overcome this resistance. The parties fear that the threefold order will create a rift in the working class that will weaken the proletariat in the struggle against capitalism.

But I have also spoken to many comrades who think our cause is good. However, people do not want to appear in public so as not to compromise themselves with regard to the party leaders and comrades. This is the great cancer in our movement. Everyone who has grasped the cause should freely and openly profess it.

At Bosch, we have set up a works council, but only as a provisional measure. This is another problem, because if we now have a provisional works council, the people are not appointed by the workforce, and so not all of the workforce is interested in the matter. Our main task is to interest the whole proletariat in the matter, in order to show the present government, which supports capitalism, seriously, what we want.

Mr. Huth: When I look at the empty hall, I have to say to myself that those who have to bear responsibility as members of the working committee should also have the courage to stand up for what they have recognized as right. And those who recognize the threefold order as right, as their strong applause always showed, also support it. It is said that the threefold order means fragmentation of the working class. Let us take a look at the working class. It is so torn between different parties that they fight each other fiercely that it is almost impossible to fragment it even further.

We need the unification of the proletariat, but not just under any slogan, such as “All power to the councils,” as it is given by the communists, but no one knows what they actually want to say. It is just a slogan, and we need action. When we utter such slogans as “The dictatorship of the proletariat”, it is necessary that we can imagine something under this slogan.

What exactly is the “dictatorship of the proletariat”? Should it come from above or from below? If we wait for the government to create a works council law that meets our needs, then we probably won't see it, and if we want to wait for some proletarian party to give us the guidelines we need to achieve unity of the proletariat, then I am convinced that we will never achieve unity, just as we will never achieve true socialization. Today everyone clings to the words of Karl Marx: “The emancipation of the working class can only be the work of the working class itself.” And when they do start, people say: Leave it alone, you don't understand it, until we tell you what to do. The fact that every party wants something different is what causes the fragmentation. We need a revolutionary act in which every worker, regardless of which proletarian party they belong to, can participate. And one such act is the creation of workers' councils on a truly revolutionary basis, as Dr. Steiner showed us. What Dr. Steiner read as the words of a communist are actually exactly the same as what Dr. Steiner tells us, namely threefolding.

Let us read the brochure in which comrade Däumig's speech at the USP party conference is printed, and let us apply it to practice. He doesn't say “threefolding,” but what he says means threefolding. For example, when he explains that a strict distinction must be made between the political and economic tasks to be solved, and that a special council system must exist for both branches. He only mentioned this briefly because he was not fully aware of it. It will be necessary for the members of the workers' committee who agreed with what Dr. Steiner said not to be deterred by the appearance of the parties, who now see themselves excluded from the truly revolutionary work, and not to be deterred by the clamor that the world, but to consistently continue to implement what they have found to be right, namely to hold elections for works councils in all companies and to have these works councils meet to form a works council that will create the laws itself, which we need.

We have elected the works council in our company, and I would now like to ask all the works councils that have already been elected to register with both the “Federation for Threefolding” and the Action Committee of the United Proletariat. This Action Committee has issued a flyer for the election of the works councils because this Action Committee also wants the election of the works councils to be carried out on the basis of how it has been characterized. It is therefore necessary for the works councils to come forward so that we can get down to the real practical work. It was asked earlier whether the action committee still exists. Yes, it still exists, although the party has called on its members to resign from the action committee. That is an assumption on the part of the party. The members of the action committee have been elected from within the factories, against the parties and against the leaders of the parties. Only if we can go beyond the parties can we achieve a healthy party life. The parties have driven us apart; they cannot bring us together again. They have fought each other so fiercely that, as they themselves say, they refuse to sit down at the same table. But when I, as a member of the USP, talk to a member of the KPD today, we are in complete agreement. This unity can only be embodied in an organization that is supported by the trust of all workers. We must have the courage to tell the leaders what is necessary and right. If they reject the threefold order without having given the idea any thought at all, then it is, yes, I can't find a suitable expression, almost a meanness to simply expect the worker who has familiarized himself with the train of thought of the threefold order to go away and to put him on trial before an inquisition because he considers something to be good and true based on his conviction. If the labor leaders act courageously, we will also be able to convince the workers who are organized in the parties that the threefold order must come. They themselves, the members and leaders of these parties, unconsciously provide us with the weapons to beat them themselves. Read the article in “Spartakist” about the threefold order. You can see that they completely agree with the threefold order but still fight it. Why? If we show the article from the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” to our leaders, I am convinced that the workers who are organized in these parties will also be convinced that the threefold social order must come and that it is a revolutionary act when we work for it and stand up for it. It is only the conservative thinking of all these leaders who want to be revolutionary that prevents them from really understanding the threefold order.

So I would like to ask that in the companies where there is some kind of beginning, where a small start has been made towards the works council election, the committee members should not be misled, but should consistently continue and always take a stand again at every works meeting on the works council election. We must achieve the unification of the proletariat at all costs, and nothing is more important. We will never achieve unity through the parties. The working class will become more and more fragmented, and the socialization of the entire economic life, including intellectual life and political life, would never be realized. In this sense, I would like to ask those present to no longer raise the question: What power do we have? – This is a completely secondary question. We should only come forward and go to the heart of the matter, and we should have the courage to defend the threefold social organism to the parties. Only if we speak with courage and self-respect to those who are too comfortable to embrace a new opinion will we make progress.

Mr. Sander: I have heard all of Dr. Steiner's lectures and have never seen the matter through party glasses, but rather considered it an ideal matter. Now the parties are coming and saying that the path of threefolding is a new party. However, I do not yet consider the matter feasible because we do not yet have humanity for it. We only have party people who quarrel with each other and who have not yet entered into a spiritual life at all. Since the worker has no spiritual life at all, he cannot live with the matter. Only material interest plays a role for the proletariat. In this respect, the proletarian is no different from the capitalist. He also never gets enough. Only through threefolding can things improve; only through it can a recovery of the whole of life come about, for the whole of social life is suffering from the confusion of the three spheres. But the proletarians have often been disappointed and are therefore mistrustful. They are always afraid: Stop, that man and that man - there is something else behind it. They think that Dr. Steiner could also be in the thrall of capitalism. They cannot explain it differently, they just think: the man has been paid! — That, of course, is out of the question. I have also noticed in meetings and lectures that many people clapped so enthusiastically that others said: Why are they clapping like that? — People become so mistrustful as a result of their great disappointment.

In the last Sieglehaus lecture, a USP agitator said that people who support threefolding should simply leave the party. — This is an assumption on the part of the party that must be denounced. The matter of threefolding has nothing to do with the party. The parties themselves fragment the masses. The Action Committee of United Proletarians was a party too, and that was a big mistake. If it had not been a party, then unity would have been much more easily achieved.

The question of works councils is a very serious one. Whether the system of councils adopted by the National Assembly will be developed is another question. But if we set up the works councils now, we will encounter difficulties with the government, which is of the opinion that it is up to us to accept the laws that we present to you. And for the time being, we have to abide by that. Works councils can only be set up when the parties or trade unions order it. I would also say that works councils should have been introduced long ago, and we must thank Dr. Steiner for telling us what a works council looks like. No one has yet stood up and said what a works council is and what its duties and tasks are. We could only learn this from Dr. Steiner. I think the others either conceal it or don't know about it. Even if it cannot yet be put into practice, it is still a tremendous step forward for our time that we have finally received guidelines, that at long last a movement is taking place in the innermost heart through Dr. Steiner. He has gained a deep influence over inner human feeling and thinking. Anyone who has been to the lectures will have to admit to themselves, even if they do not confess it publicly, that the man is right after all. Mr. Sommer from Munich-Pasing: I came here to find out how conditions in Bavaria could be shaped in the future. Bavaria has a very special interest in emerging from the revolution with a profit. The government that now exists in Bavaria has not yet brought a solution that the Bavarian people and also the other German states need. To make it easier to understand what I want to say, I would like to point out that I am a senior civil servant. In my job, one of the things I have to do is procure documents for the very large projects that are now being discussed everywhere, including outside Bavaria, and that are to be carried out in Bavaria. These projects are concerned with major water connections between the Rhine and the Danube. Bavaria is, relatively speaking, extremely favored in Germany. According to recent studies, if everything were done in the best possible technical way – which of course will never happen, it is only the highest limit, the theoretical one, that could be achieved with technical means – one could obtain about six million horsepower from water power. Walchensee project, Middle Isar project and so on. (Interjection: To the point!) I am interested in hearing and being educated in lectures by Dr. Steiner when such great things are being prepared, how this should be done in the future. Is it more expedient to maintain the course that the relevant government in Bavaria has taken so far, or is it more correct and better for the welfare of the people to take the course proposed by Dr. Steiner? On the basis of what I have learned here, I have come to the conclusion that it can only be in the interest of the people's welfare if work is carried out on the basis of Dr. Steiner's proposals. Dr. Steiner's ideas must be disseminated in all circles. I believe that unfortunately relatively very few of the middle and higher officials who have now been drawn into the tow of the existing government and who, in very many cases, at least as advisers, are consulted when drafting laws, are informed about the matter. One reason why things are progressing more slowly than one would like, knowing the seriousness of the matter, is that people are afflicted with fear. I am speaking here in Stuttgart today. It is questionable whether I would be allowed to say what I am saying here in my home country without risking this or that. But in the here and now, we must rise above fear of man and only look at what is best for the general public.

Mr. Pfetzer: We must not believe that we can persuade capitalism to help the working class. This can only be done through violence, through struggle. We can elect the works councils, but what function and what role do the works councils have vis-à-vis the current government, which is completely in control? The government is working closely with capitalist society! The fragmentation of the parties really exists, but I am clear that the workers are united in their plight. But we all have selfishness on our minds, and that is also present in the party leaders. I am convinced that the parties think of nothing but: How can I get a ministerial seat or a seat in parliament? We should elect representatives who can be removed if we have reason to believe that they are harming the general public. Then I am convinced that we will not have parties in charge.

Mr. Lange: There is far too much mystery in the threefold order, in Dr. Steiner's work, and people are adding this and that that he did not say at all. We should simply try to grasp the new for once! One of the speakers said that if you want to buy a place, you have to have money. But Dr. Steiner says that money must be introduced into the economic cycle, and the soil is a means of production; that is what matters. In the new order, everyone who has the desire and love for it must be able to find their place. The gentleman from Bavaria was right to say that we cannot exploit the economic and technical possibilities as much as we could. Why not? Just because of the tiresome money and because money has such a position today as it has? As the previous speaker said, making your body available is not that important. The practical thing is not to let yourself be shot dead. Then you are no longer there and cannot work anymore. You have to realize: I have to be there, I have to be the carrier of the right ideas, I have to really work and not think, that I have to let myself be shot dead. That the parties, like the dear church, are falling out over it: How is the matter likely to be accurate to a hundredth of a millimeter? - and can't come to the right one, you can see that. Schiller said: I don't belong to any church - out of religiosity. - So today you can say: I don't belong to any party. But many then swing back and forth between the parties.

The issue today is to create works councils, and so the question is: What will the government say? — We don't care what the government says, it doesn't matter at all. The main thing is that we set up works councils. People will then make the laws. We first need to have people who can represent the economy. Now they are still scattered. There is no one who would really be the champion of practical fulfillment. People always say: That is theoretical, you can't understand it. — I recently spoke to commercial employees. I said: Now we want to have pushed through our salary and wage demands [...] Yesterday people were talking about it, I wasn't there, but they understood without further ado: We must have workers' councils, we must have people who can really determine what is to become of economic life. It is essential that these people, who are immersed in the economy, do what is necessary. Then people will no longer ask, “What will the government say?” or “What will happen to us?” Nothing will happen to us, but we must simply recognize how simple the matter is and not read into it anything that is not there.

Dr. Unger: The subject of today's deliberations is, first and foremost, the question of works councils, and second, how we can respond to the attacks that have been made against the goals of the “Bund für Dreigliederung”. In this context, it is surely our duty to refer to something that I said publicly last Tuesday at the Siegle House regarding the strong resistance from industry against the election of works councils. Now, please note that these industrialists have more or less decided to reject the works councils as a matter of course. But secondly, those industrialists who are active in the “Federation for Threefolding”, for example, or those who want to join forces with the other productive forces to form works councils, are also rejected. A heresy trial is held by the industrialists over such members of the “Federation for Threefold Order”. So on the one hand we see parties that declare that those who want to propagate the threefold order of the social organism must now be asked whether they can remain in the party or not. On the other hand, we see industrialists doing exactly the same. They see the use of force from both the right and the left against something that can take hold of the mind, the heart, the head, the whole human being as a way out of chaos. Against this, the law asserts itself, which violently seeks to suppress the emergence of an idea. [Some critical remarks about the attitude of the parties and leading business circles follow. The remarks conclude with the words:] I would like to relate something that happened last week. We had a meeting at which a communist said: I followed Dr. Steiner's appearance with great interest. But then I had to tell myself that such theories do not mean very much in the end. Now, however, I see more and more clearly that this 'Federation for Threefolding' has not remained at the level of theory, but is practically taking up an issue that is in fact a fundamental question of the present day, namely the question of works councils. Since I realized this, I am in complete agreement. I have to admit that there is indeed a determination here to move forward with practical work. Now that was a confession we can use.

Another participant in the discussion speaks up: As a worker, I naturally have the greatest interest in the question of works councils being implemented in practice. The Reich bill for the establishment of works councils still represents nothing more than silhouettes. [...] The parties' aversion to the threefold order is primarily because they feel that the working class is being drawn away from the class struggle. But we are still standing on this ground of the class struggle and we will also know how to represent our interests there. For the time being, we just have to achieve practical results, and that is to elect works councils. The question of works councils is also the question of the class struggle. It is even the most practical question, and we must do everything we can to create works councils as quickly as possible. If the bill passes, then the old capitalism will remain. We must learn our lessons from the overall opposition and the statements from the right and the left. How can we do that? There is only one answer: we elect our works councils despite all the hostility. We are promoting the idea of works councils because it is the only true way out of the chaos that we cannot escape from without practical work.

Mr. Navrocki from Berlin-Friedrichshagen: Dear Comrades! If I may be so bold as to make a few comments, I would like to start by saying that before I came here, the problem under discussion was new to me. But as a proletarian who thinks and feels with the masses, it was clear to me that this problem, if it is to be truly addressed, cannot be treated as a party program, but, as Dr. Steiner said, must be addressed from life itself. [After some critical remarks about the way the parties have proceeded so far, Mr. Navrocki concludes his remarks with the words:] Several speakers have said: We must move on to action. But this action can only be to go beyond the government program and prove that it is possible to carry out our program. The most necessary and important thing, however, is that all those who devote themselves wholeheartedly to this program because they are convinced that only by realizing this program can something meaningful be created also commit themselves completely to it. These can only be people who think and feel proletarian. Only someone who is in touch with the masses and has perhaps gone through the proletarian school of misery himself will also care about leading the proletariat out of misery. He will have to realize that the only direction in which work can be done is to lead all people to lofty human thoughts. It is at this level that thoughts also arise, and we are only those who have to go out to realize this program.

Mr. Jansen: I want to be the first to report on the state of the elections for the introduction of works councils. If a workers' group in our company had not taken a separate position, we could tell you that the election of the works councils took place today. Last Monday, we negotiated with our management about the introduction of workers' councils. We presented the various points of view and said: The purpose of introducing workers' councils is to replace private capitalism. We want to replace private capitalism, and that is why we want to elect workers' councils. At first, the director made a strange face, but he is a jovial and reasonable man and came to terms with the situation. He said: Well, whether we hold the election of the works councils a little earlier than is legally required is of no concern to me. By all means call the election. — This as a message. The one group of us who have not yet been able to bring themselves to comment on it will have to answer for it on Monday, so that the election will take place on Wednesday either way.

From discussions with colleagues and others, it can be seen that people feel that the introduction of works councils is a path that leads into the dark. There are a lot of people who are not used to thinking and acting independently. They do not want or desire to do or refrain from doing something in any way. They want to be presented with the consequences of their actions down to the last detail from the outset. But because the works councils are required to have the obligation and responsibility, after they have been elected, to bring the life of the company and the economy into the channels that should be decisive for the welfare of the proletariat and the entire nation, they shrink back. This is too much to expect. And truly, one can understand this. For years and years there has been organization, there has been leading. We must not overlook this. For decades, the majority of our work colleagues have not been able to bring themselves to think independently or to come to an independent act. They need support and guidance in everything. The resistance and dislike on the part of some of the workers can be traced back to this. A certain lack of interest prevails, combined with a great deal of laziness. With Dr. Steiner, one could also speak of mental laziness. We must fight against this.

The question of wages is still too much in the foreground for colleagues. When it comes to works councils, the first question is: will we get more wages? If we could say, two marks more a day, then we would have nothing but friends. But because we say: colleagues, look ahead for once! If you achieve today through struggle that you get one mark more, tomorrow you have to spend one mark fifty more. It's an eternal screw. One drives the other. Your life situation is getting worse and worse. Suddenly you have reached the point where you can no longer exist.

Mr. Lorenz: All shop stewards and committee members should consider it their first duty to put their will into action as quickly as possible, especially by promoting the idea in those companies where nothing is yet known about it. — A works council has been set up in our company a month ago. Of course, as long as the works councils are only introduced in individual companies, it is futile. We need to gather the works councils here as quickly as possible so that a general assembly can be held.

Mr. Baumann: The parties, especially their leaders, repeatedly make the accusation that Dr. Steiner is not a Marxist. He does not stand on the ground of Marxism. So we cannot deal with him. — This remark seems to me to be made by people who take the view that they are venerating the bones of a saint. It must be said that a great many party members are bone or fetish worshippers because they only want to adhere to the old ways. Marx says in his manifesto: Proletarians of all countries, unite! If Marx could speak today, he would use glowing words to point out that parties should not be fragmented and pushed to the fore, but used as a rallying point so that something can be achieved through them. He would say: If you cannot even agree in Germany, let alone in the whole world, then you are not worthy of anything but the contempt of capitalism. We should not place ourselves in the worship of bones, but in the living effect of thought, in the thoughts that Dr. Steiner has shown us. Marx would say: If someone comes after me who brings something new and his name is not Marx but Steiner, then hold fast to the living spirit and not to the old bones.

Mr. Conradt: Much has been said against the threefold social order, but especially that the idea could not be translated into reality. Since the issue of the workers' councils has been raised and factual objections cannot be raised, more convenient means of fighting have been resorted to, in that untruths have been circulated in the parties. One of these untruths was that those who advocate the idea of threefolding receive money for doing so. The one who said this said that for reasons of purity, the party must expel such people. What should be done with those in the party who have to resort to defamation for reasons of purity? When the speaker in question rebuffed Mr. Gönnewein and said that no one would seek to discredit the other if they had not done so themselves, the speaker used a word that was appropriate in this case: he shouted “meanness!” But the word falls back on him, because he has approached us with such an accusation. So the resistance we experience increases. At first it is unobjective objections, then meanness. We will see what will follow. We absolutely must discuss the question of threefolding with those who have so far avoided discussion. Although the leader of the USP has said that threefolding should not be discussed at every meeting, I still think that we can get things moving in party meetings. That is the right way to justify ourselves, not before the small circle of initiates, but before the general public.

[The following resolution is read and unanimously adopted:]

Resolution

The assembly of many workers' and employees' committees in Greater Stuttgart, which took place on June 14, sees the threefold social order as the right practical way to heal our entire national life, despite all the hostility from employers' associations, trade unions and party leaders.

The assembly recognizes the legally prescribed works councils merely as a shadowy form of the same, which will never be able to gain influence over socialization, and therefore has no interest in the election and establishment of such shadow works councils.

Rudolf Steiner: Today's discussion has only expressed approval. Therefore, I will be able to be quite brief in my closing remarks and only make a few comments.

You see, it is good, when faced with such facts, as they have been discussed many times today and which have a hindering effect on what one wants to do in the sense of the progressive socialization of the human community, when faced with such facts, to really look at the whole attitude, at, I would say, the whole state of mind from which something like this arises. At such a serious moment as the present, we should have no illusions or allow ourselves to be deceived. A few days ago you will have read a strange article. I believe it was in the “Sozialdemokrat”. It talks about “pushing and pulling behind the scenes”. The underlying issue is that a so-called “Daimler-Werk-Zeitung” has been founded. This “Daimler-Werk-Zeitung” is supposed to state that the management has no inclination or trust in conducting oral negotiations with the workforce. That is why they are trying to set up a company newspaper. If you read what one or the other writes, it might be easier to reach an understanding. Well, I read this in the Sozialdemokrat. It reminds me that it does happen that people who live together in a family cannot communicate properly, and then, even though they live in the same apartment, they write letters to each other. But apart from that, it is pointed out that a great deal of work has been done behind the scenes, probably between me – this is clearly stated – and between Mr. Muff, who is said to be a major, and between Director Dr. Riebensam.

But you see, I heard about this Daimler factory newspaper for the first time through the article in the “Sozialdemokrat”. I knew nothing about Mr. Muff, with whom I am supposed to have conferred, until then. I don't even know him. Dr. Riebensam was at various public meetings, and I occasionally spoke to him quite publicly after these meetings. Beyond that, however, I never had a meeting with him. We merely met each other at a few gatherings, which were not exactly the place to conspire against the Stuttgart working class or against the Daimler workers in particular. There were workers from the Daimler factory standing around everywhere, because most of the gatherings were attended by the Daimler workers themselves. You see, these things arise from strange ideological backgrounds, and you have to be very attentive to see the matter in the right light.

Then I would like to point out how strangely this or that point is thought of. I once attended a meeting where socialization was discussed in such a way that ultimately nothing could come of it. I cannot go into the matter itself now. Well, there was also a trade union leader who said: We cannot agree with this matter of threefold social order. I thought that the man would now explain to me his reasons for opposing the threefold social order. But I miscalculated. He knew nothing about it. But he did say, “Yes, you know, you published a flyer with the words ‘Lord’ and ‘Sir’ underneath it, and when you are in such company, we want nothing to do with you.” You see, there is the condemnation, which may have taken on great dimensions now. It comes from very strange ideological backgrounds. I think it would be quite good, precisely in order to muster the impetus to do the things that are important in the first instance, if one were to face such things, which actually arise from quite murky backgrounds – I could also say are washed up – if one were to face such things quite disillusioned. For we are living in such serious times today and need to approach the things we do in such a serious way that we must resolve to believe that progress will only come to those who work with pure means and from a pure mind.

My esteemed audience, unfortunately, a great deal of work has been done all over the world in recent decades with impure means and an impure mind, and the world has ultimately come to the great murder through this way of working with impure minds and impure means. If we really want to get out of what we have gotten into, then we need moral strength and courage. That is what I want to say quite openly, especially because it would give me particular pleasure if those people who have so often worked with unclean means and, by virtue of their social position, veiled this would be to point out to them that those whom they have oppressed and in whom the consciousness of their humanity has now awakened, work only with pure means and want to show them how they should have done it. It would give me great pleasure if it could be said of the German proletariat, in particular, that it can be a model for the world in terms of the choice of means. I believe that a great deal will depend on such things in the near future. If you look at the international situation – you only have to look a little beyond the borders – it is immediately apparent that people around the world are waiting for a different tone to be adopted in Germany than was the case before 1914 and after 1914. But not only those in Germany who are still capable of thinking, but also those in the world, that is, outside of Germany, do not believe in anything positive coming from Germany as long as the continuers of the old ways are on top. These things are very important. And that is why courage must not be lacking, so that, despite the present government and despite all party leadership, those whose names have not yet been mentioned will stand up. That they will stand up, lift themselves out of the broad masses of humanity and say: We are here! — Therefore create a works council in a sensible way, because I believe that the works council can be the first step for new people to come to the surface, who judge from completely different backgrounds than those who are now showing the peculiar spectacle of governing the world.

It is a national and an international matter that is at stake. Look at such a question as that of the works councils from as high a point of view as possible. Try to create something with it that can exist from a high point of view for the first time, then you will have created something great – even if it is only a beginning, but it will be a beginning to something great. We must not be fainthearted and say: We don't have the people, the proletarians are not yet ready in their education, we have to wait. — We can't wait any longer, we have to act, and we have to have the courage to set up the works council so that it is there. Then the people who have not yet been able to emerge will come to the fore from among them. That is precisely the important thing, that we put people in the right places, where they belong. Because those who have come to the fore so far have shown quite clearly that they have had their day. We need a new spirit, a new system of human activity. We must be quite clear about this. We must write this very thoroughly into our souls. If we take the matter bravely in hand, then we shall make progress. Therefore, I would like to say again and again: Let us take the risk, let us set up the works councils! I have no doubt that there will be those in this works council who have something sensible to say about the progress of human development. Because if one wanted to doubt that, then one would have to despair of humanity altogether, and I do not want that.

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.