The Rudolf Steiner Archive

8. Brotherhood and the Struggle for Existence

[ 1 ] Our task today is to speak about two spiritual concepts, one of which represents a great ideal—brotherhood—that has permeated humanity ever since it began to truly feel, and the other something we encounter at every turn in our lives, especially today: the struggle for existence. Brotherhood and the struggle for existence. Those of you who have even briefly considered the goals of the spiritual science movement are certainly familiar with our first principle: to form the core of a brotherhood founded on universal love for humanity, without distinction of race, gender, profession, creed, and so on. In this way, the Theosophical Society itself has placed this principle of universal brotherhood at the forefront of its movement and made it the most important of its ideals. In doing so, it has demonstrated that, among the cultural endeavors we need above all else today, it regards this great ethical impulse toward brotherhood as intimately connected with what is, in fact, the very goal of human development.

[ 2 ] Those who strive for spiritual knowledge are convinced—and not merely convinced, but fully aware—that profound insight, insight into the spiritual world, when it truly and genuinely takes hold of a person, must lead to brotherhood; that the noblest fruit of deep, innermost insight is precisely this brotherhood. However, the spiritual-scientific worldview thus seems to contradict, in the eyes of some, certain trends that have emerged among humanity in recent times. In certain circles, in particular, the supposedly progressive power of struggle is pointed out time and again, and how often do we still hear today that a person’s strengths grow through resistance, that a person becomes strong in will and intellectual initiative by having to measure their strengths against an opponent. A worldview that has emerged from spiritual foundations—the worldview of Friedrich Nietzsche—includes, among many other battle-inspired statements, this one: “I love the critic; I love the great critic more than the small one.”—We can find this, in various forms, time and again in Nietzsche’s work as something that is entirely integral to his outlook on life. It is linked to certain economic views that have long prevailed—the view that the struggle of all against all in general competition is a powerful lever of progress. How often has it been said that humanity can best move forward when the individual serves his own interests as best he can and asserts himself. The word “individualism” has virtually become a catchphrase—admittedly more in the realm of external, material life, but not without validity in the realm of inner, spiritual life as well.

[ 3 ] That people are most useful to their fellow human beings when they make the most of life economically, because by becoming economically strong, they can also be of greater benefit to society as a whole: this is the creed of many economists and sociologists. On the other hand, we hear it emphasized time and again that people should not be confined to a mold, that they should develop their inherent abilities in every respect, that they should live life to the fullest without reservation, that they should bring to fruition what lies within them, and that in this way they can be of the greatest benefit to their fellow human beings. There are many among our fellow countrymen who are downright anxious in their pursuit of this principle, who cannot do enough to live life to the fullest. The spiritual-scientific worldview does not overlook the necessity of the struggle for existence, especially in our time; but at the same time, this worldview is also clearly aware that today, when this struggle for existence is at its most intense, the principle of brotherhood, in its deepest meaning, must once again be brought closer to our understanding.

[ 4 ] The most important question will be this: Is it true, as so many believe, that human strength grows primarily through resistance, and that it is above all the struggle that man must wage that has made him great and strong? In the lecture on the idea of peace that I had the privilege of delivering before you, I already pointed out that this principle of the struggle for existence is strongly reinforced in human life today by the fact that the natural sciences have made it a general, natural principle of the world; that, particularly in the West, for a time believed that the beings in the world were most effectively designed to be those who had defeated their opponents and survived this struggle for existence.

[ 5 ] The naturalist Huxley says: When we look at life out there, it appears to us like a gladiatorial contest; the strongest emerges victorious, while the others perish. — If one were to believe the naturalists, one would have to assume that all the creatures that populate the world today were able to drive out those that were here before them. There is also a school of sociologists that has sought to derive a theory of human evolution directly from this principle of the struggle for existence. In a book titled *From Darwin to Nietzsche*, Dean Alexander Tille has attempted to show that the future happiness of humanity depends on unreservedly championing this struggle for existence as the banner of human progress, on ensuring that the unfit perish, and on cultivating and promoting the strong and vigorous in the struggle for existence. The weak should perish. We need a social order that suppresses the weak because they are harmful. — I ask you: Who is the strong one—the one with an ideal intellectual capacity but a frail body, or the other, who possesses a less lofty intellect but a robust body? — As you can see, general rules are of little use here. It is difficult to decide who should actually survive in the struggle for existence. If we were dealing with practical measures, this question would have to be settled first. We now ask ourselves: What do we see when we consider human life? In the development of humanity, has the principle of brotherhood or the principle of the struggle for existence achieved great things, or have both contributed to the development of humanity?

[ 6 ] I would like to briefly reiterate what I already said in my lecture on the idea of peace: even today’s natural sciences no longer stand on the same ground they did just a decade ago. I have already referred to the seminal lecture by the Russian researcher Kessler from 1880, in which it was demonstrated that the animal species capable of development—and truly progressive—are not those that engage in the fiercest struggle, but rather those that stand by one another and offer each other help. This is not to claim that struggle and war do not exist in the animal world. Certainly they exist, but it is another question entirely as to which promotes evolution more: war or mutual aid? The question was also raised: Do those species survive whose individuals are constantly fighting one another, or those that provide mutual aid? The research mentioned here has already demonstrated that it is not struggle, but mutual aid, that is the true driver of progress. I have already referred to Prince Kropotkin’s book *Mutual Aid in the Animal Kingdom and Among Humans*. You will find many insightful contributions in that book regarding the issues we are discussing here today.

[ 7 ] So what role has brotherhood played in human development? We need only take a look at our own ancestors on the very same land where we live today. It is easy to get the impression that hunting and war were the primary driving forces and that they were the main factors shaping the character of those people. But anyone who delves deeper into history will find that this is not true, that it was precisely those—even among the Germanic tribes—who had developed the principle of brotherhood to an extraordinary degree who flourished the most. We find this principle of brotherhood manifested above all in the way property was regulated in the periods before and after the Migration Period. To the greatest extent, there was communal ownership of land. The village common, where people lived together, had shared land ownership, and with the exception of the few items belonging directly to household use—such as tools and perhaps a garden—everything that constituted property was held in common. From time to time, the land was redistributed among the people, and it became apparent that these tribes had grown strong by taking their brotherhood with regard to material goods to an extraordinary level.

[ 8 ] If we move forward a few centuries, we find that this principle presents itself to us in an extraordinarily fruitful way. The principle of brotherhood, as it was embodied in the old village community, in the old social conditions where people found their freedom in fraternal coexistence, was expressed in a particularly characteristic way by the practice of going so far as to burn what an individual owned on his own land upon his death, because people did not want to possess anything that belonged to an individual as private property after his death. When this principle was broken as a result of various circumstances—namely, because individuals had appropriated large estates and the people in the surrounding area were thereby forced into serfdom and compulsory labor—the principle of brotherhood asserted itself in another, resplendent way. Those who were oppressed by the lords, the landowners, wanted to free themselves from their oppression. Thus, in the middle of the Middle Ages, we see a great, powerful movement for freedom sweeping across all of Europe. This movement for freedom was characterized by universal brotherhood, from which a universal culture blossomed. We are in the so-called urban culture of the Middle Ages. Those people who could no longer endure corvée labor on the estates fled their lords and sought their freedom in the expanding cities. Then people came down from the north—from Scotland, France, and Russia—they came from all directions and brought the free cities together. Through this, the principle of brotherhood developed, and in the way it manifested itself, it became a powerful force for cultural advancement. Those who shared similar occupations joined together to form associations known as sworn brotherhoods, which later evolved into guilds. These sworn brotherhoods were far more than mere associations of artisans or merchants. They developed from practical life to a higher moral plane. Mutual support and assistance were highly developed within these brotherhoods, and many matters that almost no one concerns themselves with today were the subject of such support. For example, the members of such a brotherhood helped one another by providing support in cases of illness. Each day, two brothers were designated to keep vigil at the bedside of a sick brother. The sick were provided with food, and fraternal concern extended even beyond death, as it was considered a particularly great honor to bury a member of the brotherhood in a fitting manner. Finally, it was also considered an honor for the sworn brotherhood to provide for widows and orphans. From this you can see how an understanding of morality in communal life arose, and how this morality was formed on the basis of a consciousness that is difficult for people today to imagine. Do not think that the present conditions are being criticized in any way here. They have become necessary, just as it was necessary for medieval conditions to find expression in their own way. We must simply understand that there were other phases of development besides the one we experience today.

[ 9 ] In the free cities of the Middle Ages, people everywhere spoke of a “court price” and a “court market.” What was meant by this? I will illustrate it with a concrete example. When products were brought into a city from the surrounding countryside, it was strictly forbidden to sell them in any way other than by retail during the first few days. No one was allowed to buy in bulk and act as a middleman. At that time, it had never occurred to anyone that prices should be determined by supply and demand. Back then, people knew how to regulate both. The groups in the cities—or the guilds—had to set the price for these products for members who had been admitted after demonstrating what was required to produce goods and become producers. No one was allowed to exceed that price. If we take a brief look at working conditions ourselves, we see how thoroughly people understood what a person needed. If we examine the wages of that time, taking into account the entirely different circumstances, we must acknowledge that the way a worker was paid back then bears no comparison to today’s wages. This fact has often been completely misinterpreted by researchers.

[ 10 ] These guilds were organized according to practical considerations and, as a result, gradually took shape in accordance with those practical considerations. They then spread from one city to another, for it was natural that those who shared a common trade and common interests in the various cities would join together and support one another. Thus, the associations expanded from city to city.

[ 11 ] At that time, humanity was not yet united by police regulations, but rather by practical considerations. Anyone who takes the trouble to study the conditions that were uniformly evident in the cities of Europe at that time will very soon realize that we are dealing here with a very specific phase in the deepening of the principle of brotherhood. This becomes particularly evident when we see the fruits that developed from it. We could begin by pointing to the highest peaks—the magnificent artistic achievements of the 12th and 13th centuries. They would not have been possible without this deepening of the principle of brotherhood. We can understand Dante’s monumental work, *The Divine Comedy*, in a cultural-historical context only if we understand the manifestation of the principle of brotherhood. Consider, furthermore, what emerged in the cities under the influence of this principle—for example, how the art of printing, copperplate engraving, papermaking, watchmaking, and the inventions that appeared later were laid the groundwork under the free principle of brotherhood. What we are accustomed to calling the bourgeoisie arose from the cultivation of the principle of brotherhood in medieval cities. Much of what has been brought about by scientific and artistic advancement would not have been possible without the cultivation of this principle of brotherhood. When a cathedral was to be built—take Cologne Cathedral or any other—we see that an association was first formed, a so-called builders’ guild, which gave rise to a decisive collaboration among the members of such a guild. If one has an intuitive eye for it, one can even see this principle of brotherhood expressed in the architectural style; one can see it expressed in almost every medieval city, and you will find it everywhere, whether you go to the north of Scotland or to Venice, whether you look at Russian or Polish cities.

[ 12 ] We must emphasize one thing: that the principle of brotherhood emerged under the influence of a current of the times that was decidedly rooted in material culture; and therefore, we see the material and the physical everywhere—both in what emerges as higher culture and in what remains to us as the fruit of that era. It had to be cultivated at one time, and in order to cultivate it properly—to give it form—this principle of brotherhood was necessary back then. This principle of brotherhood arose at that time out of an abstraction, and through this abstraction—through this intellectual thinking—our life has been divided, so that today we no longer really know, no longer really understand, how the struggle for existence and the principle of brotherhood interact in their mutual relationship. On the one hand, spiritual life became increasingly abstract. Morality and justice, as well as views regarding the state and other social conditions, were subsumed under ever more abstract principles, and the struggle for existence became increasingly separated by a gulf from what human beings actually feel to be their ideal. Back then, in the middle of the Middle Ages, there was harmony between what people felt was their ideal and what they actually did; and if it has ever been demonstrated that one can be both an idealist and a pragmatist, that was certainly the case in the Middle Ages. The relationship between Roman law and life was also still a harmonious one. If, on the other hand, you look at the situation today, you will find that our legal relationships hover above moral life. Many say: We know what is good, right, and just, but it is not practical. — This stems from the fact that thinking about the highest principles is separated from life.

[ 13 ] From the 16th century onward, we see intellectual life developing more in accordance with the principles of reason. The man who, as a member of his guild, sat on the bench with the other twelve lay judges to adjudicate some offense committed by a fellow guild member was the brother of the one who was to be judged. Life was intertwined with life. Everyone knew what the others did for a living, and everyone tried to understand why someone might stray from the right path. It was as if one could see right into the brother and wanted to look deep within him.

[ 14 ] A body of jurisprudence has now emerged in which judges and lawyers are concerned only with the law code, and in which both see only a “case” to which they must apply the law. Just consider how everything that is conceived in moral terms is detached from jurisprudence. We have seen this state of affairs develop more and more over the last century, whereas in the Middle Ages, under the principle of brotherhood, something had emerged that is necessary and important for any flourishing progress: expertise and trust, which today are increasingly falling by the wayside as principles. Today, the expert’s judgment has almost entirely given way to abstract jurisprudence and abstract parliamentarianism. Common sense and the majority are now supposed to be the determining factors, not expert knowledge. The prioritization of the majority was bound to happen. But just as one cannot vote in mathematics to arrive at a correct result—for 3 times 3 is always 9 and 3 times 9 is always 27—so it is here as well. It would be impossible to implement the principle of the expert without the principle of brotherhood, of brotherly love.

[ 15 ] The struggle for existence has its place in life. Because human beings are unique creatures, because each individual must make his or her own way through life, they are dependent on this struggle for existence. In a certain sense, Rückert’s words apply here as well: When the rose adorns itself, it also adorns the garden. — If we do not make ourselves capable of helping our fellow human beings, we will be of little help to them. If we do not ensure that all our talents are developed, we will have only limited success in helping our brothers. To develop these talents, a certain degree of self-interest must be present, for initiative is linked to self-interest. Whoever knows how not to let themselves be led, whoever knows how not to let every impression from their surroundings affect them, but instead to descend into their inner self, where the sources of strength lie, will develop into a strong and capable person, and will have far greater capacity to serve others than one who submits to every possible influence of their environment. It stands to reason that this principle, which is essential for human beings, can be taken to extremes. However, this principle will bear the right fruit only when it is paired with the principle of brotherly love.

[ 16 ] It is precisely for this reason that I cited the free city guilds of the Middle Ages as a practical example to show how practical life became so strong precisely under the principle of mutual, personal, and individual assistance. Where did they draw their strength from? From the fact that they lived in brotherhood with their fellow human beings. It is right to make oneself as strong as possible. But the question is whether we can become strong at all without brotherly love. Anyone who rises to a true understanding of the soul must answer this question with a decisive “no.”

[ 17 ] Throughout nature, we see examples of how individual beings interact to form a whole. Just take the human body, for example. It consists of independent entities—millions upon millions of individual, independent living beings, or cells. If you examine a part of this human body under a microscope, you will find that it is literally composed of such independent entities. But how do they work together? How has that which is meant to form a whole in nature become selfless? None of our cells asserts its individuality in a selfish manner. The marvelous instrument of thought—the brain—is likewise formed from millions of minute cells, yet each functions harmoniously with the others in its proper place. What brings about the interaction of these tiny cells? What enables a higher being to find expression within these tiny living entities? It is the human soul that brings about this effect. But the human soul could never function here on earth if these millions of tiny beings did not relinquish their individuality and place themselves in the service of the great, shared being that we call the soul. The soul sees through the cells of the eye, thinks through the cells of the brain, and lives through the cells of the blood. Here we see what union means. Union means the possibility that a higher being expresses itself through the united parts. This is a universal principle in all life. Five people who are together, thinking and feeling in harmony with one another, are more than 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1; they are not merely the sum of the five, any more than our body is the sum of the five senses. Rather, the coexistence and interdependence of human beings signify something very similar to the interdependence of the cells of the human body. A new, higher being is present among the five—indeed, even among two or three. “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.” It is not the one, the other, and the third, but something entirely new that arises through their union. But it arises only when the individual lives within the other, when the individual draws strength not merely from within themselves but also from the others. But this can only happen if he lives selflessly within the other. Thus, human communities are the mysterious places into which higher spiritual beings descend to work through individual human beings, just as the soul works through the limbs of the body.

[ 18 ] In our materialistic age, this may be hard to believe, but from the perspective of the spiritual sciences, it is not merely a figurative concept, but something that is real in the highest degree. That is why the spiritual scientist does not speak merely of abstract things when he speaks of the national spirit, the national soul, the family spirit, or the spirit of another community. One cannot see this spirit at work within an association, but it is there, and it exists through the brotherly love of the individuals active within that association. Just as the body has a soul, so too does a guild or a brotherhood have a soul, and I repeat once more: this is not merely a figure of speech, but must be taken as full reality.

[ 19 ] Magicians are those who work together in the Brotherhood because they draw higher beings into their circle. There is no longer any need to resort to the machinations of spiritualism when one works together in a community with brotherly love. Higher beings manifest themselves there. When we surrender ourselves to the Brotherhood, this surrender—this merging into the whole—is a tempering, a strengthening of our faculties. When we then act or speak as members of such a community, it is not the individual soul that acts or speaks within us, but the spirit of the community. This is the secret of the progress of future humanity: to work from within communities. Just as one epoch succeeds another and each has its own task, so it is with the medieval epoch in relation to our own, and with our epoch in relation to the future one. In immediate practical life, in laying the foundations of the useful arts, the medieval brotherhoods were active. They only began to lead a materialistic life after they had reaped their rewards, once the foundation of their consciousness—namely, brotherhood—had more or less faded away, and the abstract principle of the state, the abstract, spiritual life, had taken the place of genuine empathy. It is up to the future to reestablish brotherhoods, and to do so from the spiritual realm, from the highest ideals of the soul. Human life has thus far given rise to the most diverse associations; it has brought about a terrible struggle for existence, which today has reached its very peak. The spiritual-scientific worldview seeks to develop humanity’s highest goods in accordance with the principle of brotherhood, and so you will see that the spiritual-scientific world movement replaces the struggle for existence with this principle of brotherhood in all areas. We must learn to lead a communal life. We must not believe that one person or another is capable of accomplishing this or that.

[ 20 ] Everyone would probably like to know how to reconcile the struggle for existence with brotherly love. It’s very simple. We must learn to replace struggle with positive work, and to replace war with the ideal. Today, people still understand far too little of what that means. People don’t know which struggle they’re talking about, because in life, all they ever talk about are struggles. There’s the social struggle, the struggle for peace, the struggle for women’s emancipation, the struggle for land, and so on—everywhere we look, we see struggle.

[ 21 ] The humanistic worldview now strives to replace this struggle with positive work. Those who have come to embrace this worldview know that struggle leads to no real results in any area of life. Seek to introduce into life that which, in your experience and according to your understanding, proves to be right, and to assert it without fighting your opponent. Of course, this can only be an ideal, but such an ideal must exist—one that is to be introduced into life today as a spiritual-scientific principle. People who draw close to others and devote their strength to the benefit of all—these are the ones who lay the foundation for a flourishing development into the future. The Theosophical Society aims to be exemplary in this regard; it is therefore not a propaganda organization like others, but a brotherhood. Within it, the work of each individual member makes a difference. One need only understand this correctly once. The person who works most effectively is not the one who seeks to impose his own opinion, but rather the one who sees what is evident in the eyes of his fellow members; the one who probes the thoughts and feelings of his fellow human beings and makes himself their servant. The person who works most effectively within this circle is the one who, in practical life, is able to refrain from sparing his own opinion. If we seek to understand in this way—that our greatest strengths spring from the Society, and that the Society is not merely to be upheld as an abstract principle but, above all, is to be put into practice in a theosophical manner in every action, in every moment of life—then we will make progress. We must simply not be impatient in this progress.

[ 22 ] So what does spiritual science show us? It shows us a higher reality, and it is this awareness of a higher reality that moves us forward in the practice of the principle of brotherhood.

[ 23 ] Even today, theosophists are still called impractical idealists. It won’t be long before they prove to be the most practical of all, because they take the forces of life into account. No one will doubt that throwing a stone at a person’s head causes them harm. But people do not consider that it is far worse to send a person a feeling of hatred, which wounds the human soul far more deeply than the stone wounds the body. It all depends on the attitude with which we face our fellow human beings. Yet our ability to work effectively for a prosperous future also depends precisely on this. If we strive to live in this spirit of brotherhood, then we are putting the principle of brotherhood into practice.

[ 24 ] In the humanities, being tolerant means something different from what is commonly understood by the term. It means respecting the freedom of thought of others as well. To push someone else out of their place is rude, but when one does the same in thought, it does not occur to anyone that this is wrong. Although we speak a great deal about respecting the opinions of others, we are not inclined to apply this principle to ourselves.

[ 25 ] A word has almost no meaning for us; we hear it and yet have not really heard it. But we must learn to listen with our souls; we must understand how to grasp the most intimate things with our souls. Whatever later becomes reality in physical life first exists in the spirit. We must therefore set aside our own opinions in order to truly hear the other person—not just the words, but even the feelings—even when we feel inside that what the other person is saying is wrong. It is far more powerful to be able to listen while the other person is speaking than to interrupt them. This fosters a completely different kind of mutual understanding. You will then feel as if the other person’s soul were warming and illuminating you, when you meet it in this way with absolute tolerance. We should not merely grant personal freedom, but we should value complete freedom—even the freedom of differing opinions. This is just one example among many. From the perspective of a spiritual worldview, the person who interrupts another is doing something similar to the person who physically kicks another. Only when we come to understand that cutting someone off is a far more powerful influence than kicking them do we begin to understand brotherhood down to the very depths of our souls; only then does it become a reality. This is the greatness of the spiritual scientific movement: it brings us a new faith, a new conviction in the spiritual forces that flow from person to person. This is the higher, spiritual principle of brotherhood. Let each person imagine for themselves how far humanity is from such a spiritual principle of brotherhood. Let each person cultivate this within themselves, whenever they find the time, by sending thoughts of love and friendship to their loved ones. People usually consider this to be something insignificant. But once you come to realize that a thought is just as much a force as the electrical wave that emanates from one device and flows over to the receiving device, then you will also understand the principle of brotherhood better; then the collective consciousness will gradually become clearer, and then it will become practical.

[ 26 ] From this perspective, we can gain a clear understanding of how the spiritual-scientific worldview conceives of the struggle for existence and the relationship of brotherhood. We know full well that many who find themselves in this or that position in life would simply perish if they did not howl with the wolves, if they did not wage this struggle for existence just as ruthlessly as many others. For those who think materialistically, there is almost no escape from this struggle for existence. We should, of course, fulfill our duty in the place where karma has placed us. But we are doing the right thing if we realize that we would accomplish much more if we refrained from expecting to see, in the immediate present, the successes we hope to achieve. If, while you are perhaps engaged in the struggle for existence with a bleeding soul, you can bring yourself to let your thoughts flow in a loving spirit from soul to soul toward the one you have hurt in that struggle, then, as a materialist, you might think you have done nothing. After these struggles, however, you will come to realize that this must have an effect later on, for nothing—as we know—is lost that takes place in the spiritual realm.

[ 27 ] Thus, we can sometimes take up the struggle of existence with a hesitant spirit and melancholy in our hearts, and transform it through our active participation. To work in this struggle of existence means, in practical terms, to change the struggle of existence. This is not possible overnight, but there is no doubt whatsoever that we can do it. When we work on our own souls in the spirit of brotherly love, we benefit humanity most by first benefiting ourselves; for it is true that our abilities are uprooted—like a plant torn from the ground—if we remain stuck in selfish isolation. Just as an eye is no longer an eye when it is torn from the head, so too is a human soul no longer a human soul when it separates itself from the human community. And you will see that we develop our talents best when we live in brotherly community, that we live most intensely when we are rooted in the whole. Of course, we must wait until what takes root in the whole ripens into fruit through quiet introspection.

[ 28 ] We must not lose ourselves either in the outside world or within ourselves, for what the poet said is true in the highest spiritual sense: that one must be at peace with oneself if our talents are to come to the fore. But these talents are, after all, rooted in the world. We can strengthen them and improve our character only when we live in community. That is why it is true, in the sense of the genuine principle of brotherhood, that brotherhood makes a person strongest precisely in the struggle for existence, and he will find the greatest measure of his strength in the stillness of his heart when he develops his entire personality, his entire individuality, together with his fellow human beings. It is true that talent is formed in silence—but it is also true that character, and with it the whole person and all of humanity, is formed in the flow of the world.