The Rudolf Steiner Archive

4. Spiritual Science and the Social Question

[ 1 ] When people today hear the term “social question,” it evokes a wide variety of feelings, depending on their life circumstances and experiences, as well as on the seriousness with which they are able to take life. And so it must be with an issue that should actually preoccupy our time more deeply than it does. Admittedly, this may sound paradoxical. Those who are directly affected by what the term “social question” encompasses certainly do give it their full attention. But those who are still spared today from coming into direct contact with the underlying causes of the social question are still not thoroughly convinced that this issue is something in our time that every thinking person has an absolute duty to address. And those who live from day to day, perhaps even turning a blind eye to the demands of the day, may find that either they themselves or their descendants could suffer adverse consequences precisely because of their ignorance. Even today, when people speak of the social question in the sense that our era must find a way out of the situation into which many people have fallen as a result of the structure of our social life, one often hears the words: “There have always been rich and poor; there has always been a social question, as long as humanity has lived and strived.” It is therefore not surprising that even in our time, those who are not blessed with the fruits of fortune express this in a more or less explicit manner and, through struggle, seek to seize what fate has not granted them. The rich and the poor—those who are oppressed and those who are more or less blessed with the fruits of fortune—have always existed. — With these words, one presumably seeks to brush aside or obscure the very peculiar and distinctive nature of the social question. One points to the slave revolts of antiquity, to the revolts of the Middle Ages, and to other events in which the oppressed sought to secure their rights, and takes comfort in such phenomena.

[ 2 ] Everyone today should really know that what is currently called the “social question” is truly something new in human life, that it is something entirely different from similar movements in other periods of history. For those who are seeking a solution to the social question today are, above all, people within our social order—an order that, in the form it takes before us today, has existed only for a short time. The oppressive conditions are, at most, a result of the last one hundred twenty to one hundred thirty years; they have been created by the current, infinitely significant advances in human civilization. We see this progress emerging at the end of the 18th century, when those machines and so on sprang from the minds of our inventors. It is only since those times—since life has increasingly converged in industrial centers and cities—that the wage laborer, the proletarian in the modern sense of the word, has come into being. What is today called the “social question” cannot be separated from this class of people, which was in fact only created by the tremendous progress of human civilization. The slave of antiquity actually fought only when he felt particularly oppressed, and he lacked the awareness that any other social order could provide a remedy for his life and his oppression. The situation was similar in the Middle Ages. The modern proletarian, however, is increasingly demanding not that this or that individual issue be addressed, but that only a thorough reform—perhaps even a complete upheaval of the existing conditions—can change his situation. And this conviction has found tremendous acceptance among the working class—a much greater acceptance than those who close their eyes to reality would believe. It is sometimes quite astonishing to those who see through these matters that there are still people who do not take all these issues seriously.

[ 3 ] Now, it might seem quite strange for someone to approach such a practical, everyday need—such a vital question of life—and shed light on it from the perspective of spiritual science. After all, most people have the impression that it is something impractical—the most impractical thing in the world—that it sprang from the minds of a few dreamers and deals with all sorts of things that have nothing to do with reality. People probably hear that there is a global movement that calls itself spiritual science, which teaches about what exists in the world as the supersensible and about the various beings that surround us, as well as what underlies human beings themselves as their own supersensible nature. One also hears that this spiritual research speaks of many facts, such as repeated earthly lives and the great law of spiritual causation governing our actions and destinies. One hears that it leads up into all sorts of higher worlds and so on. One might easily think: What practical and worthwhile insights could someone who deals with such matters possibly offer on a vital issue like social matters!

[ 4 ] But there is a particular aspect to the practice of daily life. Let us discuss this topic today, precisely to show that spiritual science has real significance only when it is capable of addressing practical questions of life. In doing so, we ask ourselves: What should we focus our attention on when discussing the social question? — It is undeniable that the social question exists; appearances alone can convince us of this, and these appearances convince anyone who engages with life in the most compelling way. We could point out that, with the flourishing of our industry—especially in England—social conditions of the most appalling kind have arisen. For those who sought to make industry fruitful for what they called their world, the sole question was: What is the cheapest way to produce labor? — And there we see those excesses that have often been described, how industry casts deep shadows alongside its bright light, and how the blessings of our machines, railroads, and steamships developed throughout the 19th century. But we also see how, as a result, people are forced to work, sometimes for shifts that undoubtedly exceed all human limits. We know that, throughout the 19th century, it was not only adults who were made to work twelve-, sixteen-, eighteen-, and twenty-hour shifts in England’s factories—and sometimes even longer. People who are not directly affected simply know nothing of these things. We also know that children of the tenderest age were employed in factories in a manner that is almost unbelievable. We know how people have become blind to the impossibility of such a thing.

[ 5 ] We need only point to one fact: the fact that there was once a debate in parliament about whether it was outrageous for children to work eighteen to nineteen hours a day—as was the case—in industry, and a doctor objected, arguing that under certain circumstances there was simply no other option! And when the gentleman was asked whether he would not consider a twenty-four-hour workday to be impossible, the man replied: “I am convinced, for profound reasons, that the platitudes spoken in such matters must by no means always be taken seriously, and I am not in a position to specify any working hours below twenty-four hours that could in any way be described as detrimental to health.” — Such a statement characterizes, far more than the fact itself, the situation into which humanity has been brought by what is at the same time such a blessing for it. And who among us has not experienced in life—if one knows how to open one’s eyes—how, at times, even children at the tenderest age, when they are sent to school, are unable to learn anything, and how all the efforts and ideals aimed at making them into human beings bear no fruit, because, as a result of social hardship, they are not equipped with the strengths necessary to lead a life worthy of human dignity.

[ 6 ] It is impossible to describe the social distress into which humanity has often been plunged; that would require recounting far too many images. But we need only use what has been said for other purposes, only allow what you have seen to rise within us as a source of feeling, and we will no longer be able to deny that one thing is certain: The great advances of the human mind—those tremendous advances that have led to the invention of machines and so on, that have woven our entire Earth into an unparalleled network of transportation—this development of the human mind has not, not at all, kept pace with another line of thought: the reflection on what constitutes the best possible form of human coexistence. No one today would believe that a machine constructs itself, that no intellectual power, no mental power, needs to be applied to bring the machine to life and create a transportation system. But how many people today—even if they do not admit it—hold, in their innermost convictions, the view that human coexistence should take care of itself, that no intellectual effort is required to intervene in this machinery, just as one intervenes in the machinery of a factory.

[ 7 ] Admittedly, one need not go as far as a great 19th-century naturalist who said: “Oh, humanity has made tremendous progress in its knowledge and understanding of the world, but in terms of morality, humanity has not advanced a single step!” — One need not go that far, but what has just been said—that very few people who are not directly affected by social misery feel the need today to address social issues—is an undeniable fact.

[ 8 ] But if we look at those who either deal with the social question or should be dealing with it, what is the situation there? For example, there is a book published not long ago by State Councilor Kolb: *As a Worker in America*. With tremendous selflessness and genuine dedication, this man temporarily stepped away from his bureaucratic post and went to America. To gain insight into social life, he worked hard in a bicycle factory. I must preface this—so that I do not run the risk of being accused of making an unfair judgment—by saying that this man’s act is extraordinarily commendable and cannot be praised highly enough. But let us now look at a single statement from this book. There is a sentence in this book, characteristic enough, that reads: “How often in the past, when I saw a healthy man begging, had I asked with moral indignation: Why isn’t that scoundrel working? — Now I knew.” So says the government councilor in question. “In theory,” he adds, “things look different than they do in practice, and even the most unpleasant categories of political economy are still quite bearable when dealt with at a desk.”

[ 9 ] Well, one might say that such a statement speaks volumes about human feelings and human actions. We have before us a man who has risen to a position that is outwardly referred to as a government councilor. He reveals that he knew so little about life that he labeled anyone who didn’t work a scoundrel, that he first had to extricate himself from his office and go far away to America to get to know the very life for which he was supposed to offer advice—the life to which his actions pertained. So one can study, rise to a prominent position, and still be in such need! One lacks the eyes to look left and right; one knows nothing of life. That is possible!

[ 10 ] When we become aware of such things, we may ask whether it might not be the case that the situation is so dire in certain areas precisely because some of those whose actions matter refuse to engage with life. There is a lot of talk today about all kinds of improvements, proposals, and things that are to be put in place. They must be put in place by people. Shouldn’t there be a slight difference between things put in place by people who understand something about life and those put in place by people who admit in such a grandiose way that they understand nothing? What good is all this talk if one fails to realize that what matters is who is speaking and whether the speaker actually knows anything? How much of what swirls through life might then be nothing but empty chatter, and how much of what is empty chatter could actually be put into practice and come to life? — The question is certainly valid. But there are many today who reflect on the social question—far too many, if we take the issue more seriously, if we consider what is necessary to truly understand something useful about this issue. There are a whole host of people today who say: The moment conditions improve, the moment conditions are changed, people’s lives and circumstances will also improve. — We know that, above all, perhaps the most widespread and comprehensive social theory of our time—socialism itself—also takes this position. We know that it always emphasizes: “Oh, don’t come to us with all sorts of suggestions about how people should improve themselves, how people should behave! Don’t come to us with all sorts of moral demands! What matters, they stress, is simply improving conditions.”

[ 11 ] This is symptomatic of a certain do-gooder who travels to various places in Germany promoting his social theories, always saying: “Yes, people claim that human beings must first become better if conditions are to improve.” But, he says, everything depends on humanity being placed in the right circumstances. — And he also recounts how taverns were once restricted in certain places and how, as a result, there were indeed fewer drunkards in such places, and how this led to a better life for a number of people. He then preaches to the workers that love of humanity and mutual brotherhood are empty phrases. Everything, he argues, depends on creating working and living conditions in which everyone has a sufficient livelihood; then moral conditions across the earth would follow naturally.

[ 12 ] Well, as you know, socialism is largely shaped by such a worldview. This is nothing other than a consequence of the materialism of our time—a materialism that, unlike spiritual science, is unable to look into the inner being of the human being and recognize that all social conditions, insofar as they are relevant to the social order, are created by human beings and are the result of human thoughts and feelings; rather, it believes that the human being is a product of external circumstances. This belief is extremely paralyzing for a fruitful consideration of social life. It is paralyzing, and we do not wish to present any theoretical proof of this today, but rather to provide historical evidence.

[ 13 ] If anyone was suited to be a social reformer, it was Robert Owen at the turn of the 18th to the 19th century. He possessed two virtues that enabled him to intervene in social life from his own perspective: an open-minded view of industrial progress and the harms it brings, as well as of human well-being and happiness. He had an open mind and an open heart toward human suffering, and on the other hand, he possessed the goodwill and initiative to secure a dignified existence for at least a number of people. He initially lived in a materialistic age and was therefore, like so many others, initially dependent on the theory that one need only bring about the appropriate conditions to foster a thoroughly moral humanity within them. And so he founded a small colony in America that could have been called exemplary in every respect, had the premise been correct. He had guaranteed the people a dignified existence through external arrangements. Among hardworking and ambitious people, he had those who had fallen on hard times, who were to be inspired by the example of the former to become decent people. This gave rise to a model economy, which in turn prompted its founder to attempt the same on a larger scale. Then came the second colony, which was organized in an equally practical and philanthropic manner. But he—who had not only formulated the theory that changing conditions must bring about an improvement in human circumstances—had to experience the disappointment that we can characterize through his own words. Because people were not ready for those conditions, he wrote: “What good is all improvement in conditions if general morals and general knowledge are not first raised?” First and foremost, it is essential to enlighten people from within, especially regarding the powers of their souls; only then can we hope that the social question will move toward a solution that is somewhat worthy of the name.

[ 14 ] This is the judgment of a practitioner, not a theorist, and it is, in a certain sense, characteristic of how little humanity learns from facts—that despite this disappointment, the same theories are asserted time and again. But anyone who is able to look even a little deeper into the souls of the people of our time will know that such an isolated phenomenon is connected to the development of human souls in the present day as a whole. Whether one admits it or not, the fundamental conviction is that today anything can be achieved by changing external circumstances, and that harm threatening humanity can be quickly remedied by passing a law. These are the fundamental convictions of our time. And when, for example, we see time and again that laws are justified by the argument that “inexperienced humanity must not be left at the mercy of this or that group of people”—then we fail to realize that we have a completely different task than simply making laws; namely, that we should educate inexperienced humanity so that it can act with self-determination.

[ 15 ] It is not easy to shift one’s focus from circumstances to people. Yet this is the task of the science of the spirit. It shifts our focus entirely away from circumstances and entirely toward people. Let us ask ourselves, with regard to all the things around us that are circumstances and conditions: Where do these conditions and circumstances come from? — Insofar as they are not imposed by nature, they are the results of human feeling and thinking. What are conditions today were once thoughts and impulses of will from people who lived before us. And circumstances are the way they are because people have made them that way. If we want to create better conditions, then above all we must learn more; we must develop better thoughts, feelings, and impulses of will. But if we look around at social theorists—even the most radical ones, say, those of social democracy—we find that these theories, for the most part, do not go beyond what people have always thought. They spring from the same thoughts and impulses that gave rise to our circumstances and led to our current situation. We must be able to have people who know life and understand what the forces behind life are all about. What was Robert Owen lacking? He had to admit it himself: knowledge of human nature! — One never comes to know human beings if one adopts a worldview that focuses solely on the external. As soon as one’s view is clouded by materialism and focused solely on the outer human being—as soon as one does not know what lies hidden behind this physical form, and thereby fails to acquire the ability, so to speak, to look behind the scenes—one is utterly incapable, truly incapable, of understanding anything about the forces that direct and guide life. But that is precisely the task of spiritual knowledge. It may be admitted that today it does not fulfill its task to the proper extent everywhere; it must be admitted that within the circles seeking it, the highest questions of existence are often treated lightly. That is not what matters, but rather what spiritual research can be for us. And it can be more than just something that teaches us or provides us with dogmas; it can be a powerful education of our innermost soul forces. This is the greatest benefit one can gain from spiritual knowledge when we view the spiritual-scientific worldview from the perspective of what it can make of human beings. Then the picture presents itself as follows:

[ 16 ] We have been able to speak here about the perspectives that spiritual science holds on the most diverse areas of life. We have been able to speak about its teachings on this and that. But that is not what we are here to discuss. Anyone who familiarizes themselves with spiritual science, however, will notice one thing: in one important respect, it differs from everything else that is considered theory today. And that is important. For today, in most cases, people are quite quick to form a worldview, and they prefer to have a well-rounded picture of the world as soon as possible. To those familiar with the situation, it is clear that many a materialist is often a materialist for no other reason than that they do not think deeply enough—that their thinking is superficial. And materialism makes it easy—very easy—for its adherents. One can easily grasp the structure of the world from purely material facts, especially when photographs are used to illustrate how humanity has developed. One need only stare at them and can trace the entire course of the world’s development from the concepts familiar in everyday life. It is easy to follow everything the materialists say about the mysteries of the world, because one’s thoughts do not become entangled, and because no special demands are made.

[ 17 ] In spiritual science, things are not that simple. It does not make things easy for people, for it proceeds from the real and true premise that the world is profound in its mysteries and that one must make an effort, must delve deeply into the very core of things, if one wishes to understand the world. And so what spiritual research has to say about human becoming and human beings, about the becoming of worlds and the nature of worlds, is something that entangles the mind in the most manifold ways—sometimes forcing one to delve into minute details, sometimes leading one to the broadest of perspectives. But this has a certain consequence, and we may speak openly about this consequence for once. It trains the mind and prepares us to understand human life—even in its most complex manifestations—when we encounter it in specific cases. Some will say: “The worlds that spiritual science describes have made me feel quite dizzy.” — Yes, but is that really a bad sign for spiritual science? It would be better if this way of looking at things did not make people feel dizzy, but rather invigorated and strengthened them; then they would be ready to grasp life with strong spiritual powers. But this is how practical conceptions of the world and life work: When a person thinks about the mysteries of the world in superficial terms, they also think about the social order in superficial terms. And so we see that what famous people think today about social issues is a fairly accurate reflection of the materialistic worldview presented to us—one incapable of penetrating the depths of life. At the same time, everyone has the vague feeling that what causes them difficulty is some kind of fantastical, dreamlike nonsense, and that spiritual knowledge must be something fantastical, dreamlike—or at least quite idealistic—and in any case unsuitable for truly practical purposes in life. It is true that more than a hundred years ago, Fichte said to his students in Jena: “Those practical people to whom comprehensive ideas always seem impractical—because ideas and ideals are not always applicable in life—only prove that they were not accounted for in the plan of creation.” May a benevolent providence grant them sunshine, food, and wise thoughts. — Fichte also spoke of the inability of some people to conceive of the spiritual nature of the self: “Most people would find it easier to imagine themselves as a piece of lava on the moon than as a self.” But it is a necessity of life to conceive of the self.

[ 18 ] If we view life and the social question from this perspective, then we must say, we regard the humanities as the great school of life, which makes it impossible to go through life, attain a certain position—even become an advisor or counselor—and then have to go far, far away just to get a taste of life on leave, so as to no longer be convinced that anyone who does not work is a scoundrel. The humanities make such a thing impossible.

[ 19 ] Therefore, we are not merely speaking from a spiritual standpoint, about some views regarding the relationship between spiritual science and socialism, but we are speaking of something else. We regard spiritual science as a real thing, not merely as a collection of dogmas, but as something that provides insight and wisdom—insight and wisdom that flow into our immediate lives at every moment and open our eyes, so that we are able to cope with this life. Thus, spiritual insight is the general foundation for every judgment, whether we are judging in the realm of social life or that of education. Our judgment becomes sounder—because it springs from true human nature—when we proceed from the perspectives of spiritual science. We say that one must first be imbued with what spiritual science has to offer; only then can one arrive at a correct judgment oneself. Someone might ask: How does a follower of spiritual science think that this or that member of parliament should judge a question if, in his view, the parliamentarian has judged it incorrectly? — From a spiritual point of view, this is not the right question to ask; rather, it must be said: It is not at all a matter of telling this or that person how to think, but rather we are convinced that, once they are imbued with the fundamental truths, they will form a clear judgment in any position. We do not dictate his judgment to him; rather, he will arrive at the correct judgment on his own. In this respect, spiritual science is the most liberating principle of life that can exist. It does not impose dogma, but rather offers people the opportunity to exercise their own sound and free judgment in every situation.

[ 20 ] Circumstances—as we have assumed—are often regarded as the very thing that could change human beings, and people reflect abstractly on how circumstances can be altered. The science of the spirit deals solely and exclusively with the real human soul and with relationships between human beings. Now, it would be quite impossible today to go into specific, concrete issues related to the social question. However, we may point out this or that if we wish to find the building blocks that will show us the way to intervene appropriately in our current life circumstances. For it is up to each of us to intervene. If we wish to find these building blocks, let us ask ourselves: What, in fact, is the fundamental fact—the fundamental phenomenon, so to speak—on which all misery, all social suffering in the world, may depend? — Spiritual knowledge can reveal this fundamental fact to us by presenting us with a reality that is today neither understood nor acknowledged by the vast majority of people. This fact is connected to a fundamental aspect of all development. To put it bluntly, it shows us—through a deeper contemplation of life—that hardship, suffering, and misery do not depend solely—and certainly not, when one gets to the root of the matter—on external circumstances, but rather on a certain state of mind and, in connection with this, on its external effects.

[ 21 ] The practical person who thinks himself much wiser will find this ridiculous. But it is the most practical thing in life—one cannot emphasize this enough. It is the statement of which you will become increasingly convinced: that hardship, misery, and suffering are nothing other than a consequence of selfishness. We must understand this statement as a law of nature—not in the sense that hardship and suffering must always befall an individual simply because he is selfish, but rather that suffering—perhaps in a completely different place—is nonetheless connected to this selfishness. Like cause and effect, selfishness is linked to hardship and suffering. In human life, within the social order, selfishness leads to the struggle for existence. The struggle for existence is the actual starting point for hardship and suffering, insofar as they are social in nature. Now, based on our current way of thinking, there is a conviction in the face of which what has just been asserted seems downright absurd. Why? Because people today are convinced that a large part—by far the largest part—of human life must be built on selfishness. Although people do not want to admit this in words or theories, in practice they will soon admit it. They admit it in the following way. They say: It is perfectly natural that a person should be compensated for their work, that a person should personally receive the fruits of their labor—and yet this is nothing other than the application of selfishness to the life of the national economy. We live under the rule of selfishness as soon as we live by the principle: “We must be personally rewarded; what I work for must be paid to me.”—The truth is so far removed from this idea that it seems completely nonsensical. Anyone who wants to convince themselves of the truth about selfishness would have to take a closer look at all kinds of universal laws. They would have to thoughtfully consider the question of whether work, when personally rewarded as such, is truly what sustains life—whether this work is what really matters. — It is strange to raise this question. But only once we reflect on it will we be able to shed light on the social question.

[ 22 ] Imagine—and this is a paradoxical comparison—a person stranded on an island. He would have to fend for himself there. You might say: He must work! — But he must not merely work; that is not what matters. Rather, something must be added to his work. And if work is merely work, then under certain circumstances it can be absolutely useless for his life. Imagine, for a moment, that the person on the island did nothing but throw stones for fourteen days. That would be strenuous work, and by ordinary human standards, he could earn quite a lot of wages from it. Nevertheless, this work has not the slightest connection to life. Work is life-sustaining and has value only when something else is added to it. If this work involves tilling the earth and the earth yields a product, then work has something to do with life. We see even among lower beings that work is separate from production. Thus, we see a way to arrive at the immensely important proposition that work as such has no significance for life, but only that which is wisely directed. Through the wisdom that humans bring to it, we must produce and create that which serves humanity. Failing to grasp this even in the smallest detail, today’s social thinking violates this principle. And it does not matter whether anyone devises beautiful abstract theories; rather, real progress depends on every single person learning to think in a social sense. Today’s thinking is often antisocial. It is antisocial, for example, when someone is out on a Sunday afternoon and says, prompted by the occasion: “I’m going to write twenty postcards”—It is correct and socially minded to know and feel that these twenty cards will cause so many mail carriers to climb so many flights of stairs. It is socially minded to know that every action one takes has an effect in life. Now, however, someone comes along and says that he thinks socially insofar as he realizes that writing postcards means more mail carriers will have to be hired and will earn a living. — This is just like when, in the face of unemployment, one ponders what to build in order to create jobs. But what matters is not creating jobs, but ensuring that people’s labor is used solely to create valuable goods.

[ 23 ] If one thinks this through to its ultimate consequences, it no longer seems so strange when the age-old statement of spiritual science is uttered—a statement that sounds as incomprehensible as possible today: In social life, the motivation to work must never lie in a person’s own personality, but solely in devotion to the whole. — This is often emphasized, but never understood in such a way that one realizes that misery and hardship arise from the individual wanting to be rewarded for what he or she has earned. It is true, however, that real social progress is possible only if I do what I earn in the service of the whole, and if the whole provides me with what I need—in other words, if what I earn does not serve my own interests. Social progress depends entirely on the recognition of this principle: that one should not seek the fruits of one’s labor in the form of personal compensation. Someone who knows that he is not to keep for himself anything he produces—but that he owes his labor to the social community—and that, conversely, he is not to claim anything for himself, but is to limit his existence solely to what the social community provides him, pursues entirely different goals in running an enterprise. As absurd as this may seem to many today, it is nonetheless true. Our lives today are marked by the opposite trend: the tendency for people to demand, as they say, the full fruits of their labor. As long as thinking continues in this direction, we will find ourselves in increasingly dire circumstances.

[ 24 ] This antisocial way of thinking leads to a shifting of all concepts. Just think about how, within widespread socialist ideology, people speak of exploiters and the exploited. From a clear-headed perspective, who is the exploiter and who is the exploited? Let’s look at the person who works to make a piece of clothing for a pittance. Who is his exploiter? It could be the person who buys the garment and pays a very low price for it. Is it only the rich who buy this garment? Doesn’t the very same worker who complains about exploitation buy this same cheap garment? And doesn’t he demand today, within the social order, that it be as cheap as possible? See how the manual laborer, who works all week with bloody fingers, can wear that dress on Sunday for a cheap price precisely because another person’s labor is being exploited! In the light of clear thinking, this has nothing to do with wealth or poverty, but solely with what, in our world, constitutes our conception of human dignity. Now, one might easily say: If you demand that a person’s livelihood be independent of their performance, then this ideal is most beautifully fulfilled by the civil servant. Today’s civil servant is independent. The measure of their livelihood does not depend on the product they produce, but on what is deemed necessary for their livelihood. — Certainly, but such an objection actually has a very serious flaw. What matters is that every individual, in complete freedom, is capable of respecting this principle and putting it into practice in their life. It does not matter that this principle is enforced by general authority. This principle—that what is personally acquired and to be acquired must be made independent of what one does for the collective—must prevail in every individual’s life. And how does it prevail?

[ 25 ] There is only one way for this to prevail—one that will seem quite impractical to the so-called “practitioner.” There must be reasons why people still work—and indeed work quite diligently and devotedly—if self-interest is no longer the driving force behind their work. In truth, the person who has some achievement patented—and thereby demonstrates that he regards self-interest as what is significant in life—creates nothing of real value in terms of social life. But the person who is truly creating for life is the one who is guided in his efforts toward genuine achievements solely by love—love for all of humanity, to whom he gladly and willingly offers his work. Thus, the impulse to work must lie in something entirely different from remuneration. And that is the solution to the social question: the separation of remuneration from work. For this is a worldview that appeals to the spirit, awakening such impulses in human beings that they no longer say: “As long as my existence is secure, I can afford to be lazy.” — The only way to prevent people from saying this is through a worldview that appeals to the spirit. In the long run, all materialism will lead solely to the opposite.

[ 26 ] Now someone might say: That’s a nice little example of the social question; it’s quite charming! Haven’t we always preached, one might say, that people are, after all, selfish, and that one must reckon with their selfishness? And now along comes the spiritual worldview and says that things could be different. — Well, it’s certainly always been preached that things couldn’t be any other way, and people have taken credit for that, saying: “He’s a true practitioner who counts on human selfishness.” — Certainly, but unfortunately, this does not reverse the situation in people’s thinking. For those who blame everything on circumstances, who blame everything on institutions, must at least admit that, precisely because circumstances have been the way they have been up to now, this drive and impulse have also taken root in people. But that line of thinking falls short. Otherwise, they would have to say: Yes, under all circumstances, a completely different environment is created when the idea takes hold that it is improper to base everything on personal self-interest. — Here, materialism becomes inconsistent even with its own premises.

[ 27 ] We must realize that the impulses which can be provided by spiritual science have never before been attempted in the course of human development. In this respect, it is a new spiritual movement, and it will have the power to work into the very depths of the soul, because it reaches into the very depths of the world. Only a worldview that penetrates to the very core and draws the truth from there can show us the true face of the world. It is by no means true that true knowledge—when we see the true face of the world—can make us evil. It is true, after all, that evil in human beings can arise only from error, only from being led astray. Therefore, based on its understanding of human nature, spiritual science builds upon the conviction that through it we will attain precisely that which the noble Owen was so mistaken about. He says: It is necessary that people first be enlightened, that morals be improved. — Spiritual knowledge, however, says: Emphasizing this principle alone is not enough; rather, the means must be provided through which the soul can be ennobled. For when souls are ennobled and refined through a worldview that reaches into the spiritual, then the conditions and external circumstances—which are always a reflection of what human beings think—will follow. People are not determined by circumstances; rather, insofar as these circumstances are social, they are created by people. If a person suffers from circumstances, he is in truth suffering from what his fellow human beings inflict upon him. And all the misery that has come about through industrial development—as anyone seeking the truth must admit—stemmed solely from the fact that people did not deem it necessary to apply the very same spiritual power they had used for beneficial external progress to improving the lot of those people who are needed to reshape that progress.

[ 28 ] Whatever you may have studied in your outer life, study the laws of human coexistence just as diligently! For when people live together, it is not merely bodies but also souls and spirits that live together. Therefore, only spiritual science can serve as the foundation for any social worldview. And so we see that, in fact, what the deepening of the spirit offers us can provide each of us with what enables us, from our humble position within our own sphere, to contribute to great social progress. For this progress will not be achieved through an abstract measure, but is the sum of what each individual soul does. And a worldview such as that of spiritual science is the only one that approaches the individual soul in such a way that it truly elevates that soul above itself. If the root of our social misery lies in personal self-interest and in our position within our social orders, then only a worldview that elevates the “I” above personal self-interest can help. As strange as it may seem, sustenance does not come solely from our work; sustenance—rather than hardship, suffering, and misery—comes from deepening our understanding of spiritual science. Spiritual science is a means of providing people with sustenance and prosperity in the true sense of the word.

[ 29 ] And so, even given our changed circumstances, what Goethe said about true liberation from all of life’s obstacles and misfortunes remains truly valid. In his poem “Die Geheimnisse,” Goethe says:

From the force that binds all beings,
The person who overcomes themselves is set free.

[ 30 ] And this statement, which Goethe made about the individual human being, also applies to humanity insofar as human beings are social beings: And those who overcome themselves free the world from the force that binds all beings.