The Rudolf Steiner Archive

1. The Social Question and Theosophy

[ 1 ] The question we are to address today is one that will be immediately clear to everyone: the social question did not arise from a mere idea or from the unquestionable needs of a few individuals; rather, it is a question that the facts present to us today as forcefully and clearly as possible. Anyone who looks around the world even a little will know how clearly this fact speaks for itself. It may well be that those who refuse to hear this language of facts will, before too long, come to realize that they have closed their ears for too long to what is undeniably evident. In the struggle that still occasionally plays out beneath the surface of our social order, the people of the present find themselves caught up in it with regard to the social order; and anyone who wishes to describe with any degree of accuracy how the social struggle has increased in scope and intensity—I merely wish to draw attention to this and will not delve further into the details— (one need only) draw attention to the massive labor movement sparked by the Crimmitschau work stoppages, [to] the miners’ strike triggered by the electricity workers’ lockouts, and, as a summary of all this, [to] what is taking place in Eastern Europe. (In all of this) we will witness the social question playing out to the full.

[ 2 ] Theosophy has often been accused of having a number of dreamers among its followers, of seeking to exert its influence only where people withdraw from the great collective questions of the present, where they wish to remain in idle contemplation of the human soul, so that it is said: “Theosophists are a group of people who have nothing special to do, who selfishly wish to withdraw into themselves and cultivate their inner selves in the spirit of Theosophy.” It is all too easy to accuse Theosophy of wanting to stand apart from the great struggles of the present, from what affects humanity in the immediate here and now. The Theosophist should correct this perception time and time again. (He should) repeatedly point out that wherever there is something to explore and think about regarding legitimate concerns of people today, the Theosophist must be present—one who must have a clear heart and clear thinking, (who) must not lose himself in a pipe dream, but must stand within the immediate everyday life, helping and caring.

[ 3 ] And another accusation could (also) easily be made—that we tout Theosophy as a panacea for all the evils and ills of the present. This, too, is not the case, because it is claimed that Theosophy—the Theosophical Movement—has something to do with everything that must be prepared in the present for a prosperous future; but we do not extol Theosophy as a solution to all problems or as a panacea—rather, we wish to (only) show that there is something so all-encompassing within it that, without it, one cannot make progress today in the most essential matters that must concern us, and that all speculation and reform must remain incomplete if one does not approach the matter from the Theosophical perspective.

[ 4 ] It is not for this reason that we, in the inner circles of our Theosophical Movement, study the teachings of the thinkers on the great, all-encompassing interrelationships of the universe, on the universal law of world destiny and world events—so that we may idly gaze upon the vastness of the stars—but because we know that these laws, which we study, and which are at work in the vast universe, are also at work in the human heart and in the soul—and even give that soul the ability to truly look into the very fabric of life. We are like an engineer who retreats for years into his technical studies, [but] not to contemplate the mysteries of calculus and [to] admire them, but rather to seek out the laws that we can then apply to human life, just as the engineer builds bridges and applies (his laws) in reality.

[ 5 ] There is something universal that transcends all things and opens up a broader horizon for us. Who would dare to accuse thinking as such of being a universal panacea, even though this thinking is necessary for what can happen in the universe? Theosophy is not a dead thing, not a dead theory. No, it is something that awakens life. It is not about the concepts, not about the ideas we acquire. What is being described here is not intended to work through ideas as such, nor is it intended to develop interesting insights into hidden facts; rather, what is presented here to the human soul possesses a very special quality—and those who are not yet theosophists may or may not believe this. But anyone who has studied the subject knows that what I am about to say is practically true. And anyone who examines how the world and life are governed in Theosophy will notice that their sensory and soul experiences become different from what they were before; they will learn to think in a different way and will observe human relationships with a more open mind than before.

[ 6 ] We have only a more distant future in mind when we speak of awakening higher powers through inner development. But in the near future, we still have in mind the kind of life that we can also bring about through theosophical development—namely, the possibility of arriving at a comprehensive, clear, and unbiased assessment of the human conditions immediately surrounding us. Our culture, with all its scientific rigor, as it has developed thus far, has produced theories that are powerless in the face of life. The theosophical worldview will not produce such powerless theories. It will teach humanity a way of thinking and awaken thinking powers within humanity that are not powerless in the face of reality, but will enable us to intervene directly in human development itself—to intervene in the immediate practice of life.

[ 7 ] Let me cite a small example that will further illustrate my point. Recently, a clear example [in the political sphere] was provided by a Prussian government councilor who had taken a leave of absence to seek work in America, to get involved there, and to familiarize himself with the conditions. A government councilor is, after all, called upon to contribute to the development of humanity. In a higher sense, it is his duty and responsibility that something should live in his heart that is in harmony with reality—and not merely with theories. And if they do not have something that resonates with reality, then their theory is powerless. That man, who for years had been called upon to contribute to the edification of humanity, came to know that edification firsthand. Of course, what I am saying does not imply the slightest reproach against that individual. This act is highly honorable, bold, and admirable. But in terms of what is needed, what he has written is [a symptom]. (It reveals) the [inconsistency] of his attitude toward the world and the workers. Here are just a few words from his book about his experiences among the workers in America:

One day after another came and went without bringing us any steady work. How often did I ask, with moral indignation: Why aren’t those good-for-nothings working? In theory, some things look different than they do in practice. Theories can make some things quite bearable to deal with, but once you come into contact with real life, you may realize that they are inapplicable to real life.

[ 8 ] This is because our zeal for education has produced a way of thinking that is powerless in the face of facts. There is no greater admission of failure than this: when someone who was called upon to contribute says that the theory he held did not correspond to reality. This is the point at which to address the matter. Just as logic enables people to think at all, and just as no one can become a mathematician without mastering logic, so too can the power of practical thinking never be developed (without theosophy). Consider the field of economics, which has overrun our educational landscape. Try, for once, to explore [these matters] with sound and comprehensive thinking—theosophical thinking—and you will find that the things that are meant to serve as signposts—perhaps leading to university professors or party leaders—are actually gray theories suited for the convenient handling of [matters] at a desk, but which are powerless when confronted with reality. Such things become apparent at conventions. One need only examine these matters. They bear this character entirely. If those who concern themselves with them were to descend into practical life, they would soon find that they are of no use. Merely observing life is not enough. Nor can anyone judge the women’s issue, the social issue, or other issues from the standpoint of the education currently in vogue, nor can anyone judge them who merely wishes to observe things. For that, too, is not enough.

[ 9 ] If you were to ask this gentleman, who wrote these words, “What can lead to improvement?”—then [you would find that] he has apparently only learned how it looks, but how it should be done is an entirely different matter. But this is also not a question that can be answered in an hour, or even in a day. In fact, it cannot be answered through theoretical discussions at all. No theosophist worthy of the name will tell you: “I have this program—on social issues, on women’s issues, on the issue of vivisection, or on the care of animals, and so on”—but rather he will say: Bring people who are Theosophists into all these [relevant] institutions. Place [such] people in chairs of economics, and then they will have the ability to develop the thinking that will lead to making the individual branches of their activity beacons in the realm of public life. As long as that is not the case, people will remain quacks in this field and will have to watch as the world around them collapses and as the idle chatter at conferences reveals its futility.

[ 10 ] I say this not out of fanaticism, but out of what constitutes true theosophical sentiment and true theosophical thinking in every theosophist. Theosophical thinking develops clarity regarding the various spheres of life, a clear, objective view of the forces and powers at work in the world. Theosophical living enables one to view matters correctly. Therefore, Theosophy is not a panacea in the ordinary sense, but rather the foundation of present-day life.

[ 11 ] Following these introductory remarks, let us offer some insights into what has shaped our social question, as we now see it emerging from the facts. Anyone who wants to see what is to come must know the laws governing the development of humanity; they must not cling to vague theories—they must know the laws governing the development of humanity. We cannot discover these laws through any abstract science. Theosophy does not proceed abstractly. It is based on clear, concrete thinking. And so let us at least briefly point out how this life has taken shape today, how this life has come to be. Anyone who wishes to see even a little will clearly recognize that a certain degree of self-knowledge is also necessary in this area in order to see clearly. First, I look at the external facts; then I say a few words about what is at stake.

[ 12 ] Each of us knows what a person needs to live. Everyone has an idea of what they need in terms of food and clothing. Some figures tell us how much the majority of people have of all these things. We need only examine the tax systems in this regard. It has been said time and again, but it bears repeating over and over. In Prussia, anyone with an income below 900 marks pays no taxes. It is very easy to verify how many people in Prussia have an income of less than 800 or 900 marks; of those who pay taxes at all—which is still fewer than 30 million—21 million, or more than two-thirds, earn less than that. And 95 percent of the total population has an income of less than 3,000 marks. Only 5 percent of the total population has a higher income. Take England, for example. There, only those with an income of more than 150 pounds are taxed. In England, there were 63,000 taxpayers. As you can see, we have quite extraordinary figures that demonstrate how many people have what is considered an absolute necessity.

[ 13 ] Take a look at the statistics. They speak for themselves. But what does this have to do with our self-awareness? A great deal. For the point is to gain the correct perspective on these facts from our own standpoint. And in this regard, people fall far short of what is right. What are the people around us doing? How do they end up with such low incomes? That is what we give them in return for what they produce for us. We make no distinction whatsoever between workers and non-workers, between proletarians and non-proletarians. For if one makes this distinction, then the whole matter is already completely wrong. And that is the main flaw in all economic analyses: that they proceed not from self-knowledge, but from the work itself and from categories.

[ 14 ] So what do people do for us? Take clothes, for example. We all wear clothes [that are manufactured] under conditions [illegible in the transcript], clothes that are produced to meet the needs of an unemployed person—an unemployed person who cannot make ends meet. (That’s not possible); everyone can tell themselves that—even the seamstress herself, who works for a pittance, wears clothes that are, in turn, made for a pittance. So it’s not this or that class that’s to blame. It must be clear to everyone that this reflection must begin with ourselves. That this is useful and necessary only becomes apparent when we allow these trains of thought to take shape, when we begin to channel these thoughts from here into our feelings and emotions. And if, within these [our feelings and sensations], we are able to feel a certain pain at the fact that the clothes we wear are made for a pittance, then you will see deep into the heart of the matter. If you consider where everything you wear on your body [clothing] and put into your mouth [as food] comes from, only then will you truly grasp the social issue. It is not through speculation, but through lively observation, that one comes to [understand] what this is all about.

[ 15 ] It is not true [when people say] that, even though we can paint a grim picture of poverty, poverty today is greater than it was in earlier centuries. That is not the case. We would be decisively distorting objective reality. Try, for once, to objectively familiarize yourself with and study the conditions in the city today and 120 years ago. You will see how much has actually improved. And yet we still have the social question. We face it because people have undergone yet another development—namely, because they have, in large numbers, come to think for themselves and developed self-awareness, and because their needs have become entirely different. And when we study the issue in this way, we are inevitably drawn to the broader contexts that emerge for us in world history—provided we are not, like the modern researcher, too short-sighted.

[ 16 ] To assess these matters, it is necessary to understand the great laws of life. What has caused society to take on this form in the first place? This is the form that the human spirit has assumed. Look back to the time of the French Revolution. People demanded different things back then. It was a question with a more legal focus that gave rise to the words “Liberty—Equality—Fraternity.” The heroes of the French Revolution in Western Europe called for liberty. Those fighting in Eastern Europe today call for bread. These are merely two different forms of one and the same thing, two different demands made by human beings who have learned to ask such questions because their souls have been transformed.

[ 17 ] We must study this transformation of the soul in greater detail. We must study and understand why the souls of the great masses of people today—and this has been the case for centuries—demand [such things]. Here, the theosophical worldview comes into play for the first time in practical application, supporting our understanding. Only those who understand things are able to judge them. Only those who see, within the greater context of the world, what is taking place within a soul are able to look into that soul. And only those who understand something of the laws of the soul are able to effect a change within souls and guide them toward the future.

[ 18 ] A brief aside: Contemporary sciences—biology, Darwinism, Haeckelism—have brought us great ideas, [including] the idea that every living being, in the early stages of its existence, while still in the embryonic state, repeatedly reenacts the life forms that have previously been experienced out in nature. This brief repetition of the various life cycles, the stages of life, [also exists] in the being that encompasses them all and rises higher than all [others] on the ladder of evolution: [in human beings]. Suppose a spirit had possessed consciousness at a time when there were no humans yet; if consciousness were to have guided it earlier through the entire process of development up to the human stage, then it would not only have had to know what had already happened, but it would also—in contrast—have had to form a picture of future development. It would have had to form a picture of the future based on the animal state of that time.

[ 19 ] Only a person whose germ potential repeats the previous forms of existence can show us what needs to be done. Action is what must go beyond all knowledge. No knowledge deals with anything other than what has already been. But if we wish to influence the future, we must do what has not yet been. (This is shown to us by) the great laws that are to be realized in the future. In a certain sense, everything that will come into being in the future has already existed—namely, through intuition. The spirit that would have intervened back then would have had to possess intuition in order to discover the hidden laws of existence that apply to both the past and the future. That is why Theosophy cultivates intuition. This is what transcends mere physical experience of the world. Theosophy seeks the laws that can be recognized through intuition and that guide us toward the future of the human race.

[ 20 ] One of these great universal laws that can serve as a guide for us is the law of reincarnation. First of all, it helps us understand that, in higher spiritual realms, this law is nothing other than what the law implied in the sense of Darwin and Haeckel. It helps us understand why this or that is perceived as a need in a particular age. Anyone who delves deeply into it knows when life, thirsting for universal liberation, last lived; when (and what) they [human beings] absorbed within themselves as impulses—the very things they are meant to cry out for today. Those who today cry out for freedom and equality—I say this with the same objective certainty with which the natural scientist has spoken of physical phenomena—all those souls who today cry out for freedom and equality have learned this on another stage of their existence, in a previous incarnation. The great [needs] of today’s people were embodied in the early days of Christianity, during the first Christian centuries. They all absorbed the urge for equality that confronts people today in their spiritual lives. Christianity brought the message of equality before God. In earlier centuries, such equality did not exist.

[ 21 ] What I am about to say, I do not say in a derogatory manner; I say it with the same sober objectivity with which I would speak about any scientific problem. The same soul that once internalized the impulse “they are equal before God and before humanity”—when one considers its true essence—and everything that causes (external) inequality has no significance in the spiritual life. When the grave closes over us, we will all be equal and become equal. The fact that the soul has absorbed this lives on in the soul and emerges in a new form. (The contemplation of) the wider world holds immensely broad educational perspectives in its cultural progress. I have already pointed out once before how this education manifested itself on Earth in pre-Christian times. Let us look back to the times of ancient Egypt. What a vast number of people were engaged in work whose difficulty no one today can even begin to imagine. They worked willingly. And why? Because they knew: This life is one among many. Everyone told themselves: “The one who commands me to work is just like the one I, too, will one day become. This life must be worked through in various incarnations.” Nevertheless, it is governed by these insights.

[ 22 ] This is followed by the law of karma. What I have experienced in life is either deserved, or it will be repaid to me in later times. But if things had continued to develop in this way, humankind would have overlooked the earthly realm. This one life between birth and death would not have mattered to them. Christianity then provided the educational guidance necessary to make this life between birth and death important. It is only apparent that Christianity deviates from this, for it has also strongly emphasized the afterlife. It has even staked eternal punishment and eternal reward on this one life. Whoever believes that this one life is of infinite importance learns to value this life while living it. It revolves around the truths that benefit humanity, and it benefits humanity to be educated in the idea of this one earthly life. These were the two tasks: education in the importance of earthly life between birth and death, and, on the other hand, the understanding that, apart from this earthly life, all are equal before God. It is only through this understanding—that all are equal before God—that this earthly life has been borne. Anyone who views it this way will observe, in the development of humanity since the emergence of Christianity, a descent into the physical world. Human beings feel increasingly bound to sensory existence. As a result, they have increasingly transferred the significance of the principle of equality before God to equality in material existence itself.

[ 23 ] This image should not be misunderstood. The soul that, some 1,800 years ago, was accustomed to claiming the right to equality in the afterlife brings with it that impulse—the impulse toward equality—but in relation to what is important today: “Equality before Mammon.” Please do not see any criticism or disparagement in this, but rather the objective observation of a universal law governing the evolving soul. This is how one must study the course of history. Then one will understand that there is only one thing that can once again set this soul on a different path—a path of ascent—if we can guide the soul, which cries out for equality, back into the afterlife. Before the afterlife, we had looked outward; after the afterlife, we had looked upward—it was somehow taken for granted. Today, through this impulse, the soul is turned back upon itself. Today it seeks the same thing in this life. If it is to find ascent once more, it must find the Spirit, the innermost essence, in this life—within the soul itself. This is what the theosophical world movement strives for: to prepare the soul for the three stages, so that it may become inwardly filled with God, filled with divine wisdom, and thus know how to reposition itself within the world, so that it may once again find harmony between itself and its surroundings.

[ 24 ] Such thoughts serve as a guiding principle. We cannot bring this about overnight. Nor can we focus solely on our individual actions. Every action must be influenced by something. Then it becomes practical; then it is something; then it is not a gray theory, but immediate life, because we look into the workings of the soul.

[ 25 ] Our economists and social theorists so often say today: Human beings are merely the product of external circumstances. Human beings have become what they are because they live in these or those external circumstances. For example, social democracy seriously maintains that human beings become what their environment makes them, that because they have become proletarian workers as a result of industrial development, they are also, in their very souls, shaped by these very circumstances. Human beings are a product of their circumstances. - We hear this often. Let us study the circumstances themselves; let us consider what is around us, what we are most dependent on. Are we dependent on nature alone? No! We only realize what we are dependent on when we stand in front of the bakery, starving, with nothing in our pockets to buy anything.

[ 26 ] All these conditions are, once again, created and brought about by human beings. The spirit that has developed throughout history has brought about these conditions. What exists today is something that people—sometimes only a short time ago—conceived as beneficial to humanity; they were the ones who first instilled it. Thus, anyone who believes that people are dependent on their circumstances is caught in a circular argument, for these circumstances are brought about by people themselves. When we bear this in mind, we must tell ourselves: It is not the circumstances that matter, but rather understanding how these circumstances came to be. It is futile to state and say that human beings are dependent on their circumstances. Even in fifty years, human beings will still be dependent on the circumstances that surround them. You can concede to any social democrat that human beings are dependent on circumstances—but on those that we create today, those that spring from our minds and our souls. We create social conditions! And what will then come to life are the crystallized sensations and feelings that we send out into the world today.

[ 27 ] This shows us what it’s all about: that we must learn the laws under which the world develops. It cannot be science that is at work here, but rather it can only be intuition—the insight into what we must recognize as law. This insight comes to us precisely from a line of observation that seems utterly fantastical to most people, yet is far clearer and more objective than much of the fanciful imagination of our scientists. Whoever can say what lives in the soul and emerges from the soul—and then crystallizes in the outer world—can also say, from the wisdom of the Divine in the soul, what only one person in the world can spread, and what benefits humanity.

[ 28 ] If you want to have such conditions around us in the future—if you want to have them as a system, as an institution that satisfies people, about which people will be able to say, “This is it; these are the conditions under which we want to live”—then you must first infuse these conditions with humanity, so that humanity flows out of them again. The deepest humanity, the innermost depths of the soul, must first flow out from our own hearts into the world. Then the world will be a reflection of the soul (and within this soul there will be a reflection of the world). This will once again be able to satisfy people.

[ 29 ] That is why people cannot expect anything from all the half-baked social experiments that are carried out based on an observation of external circumstances. These external conditions are created by human beings; they are nothing other than human souls that have flowed out. What must first be addressed—what we must first tackle as a social issue—are the souls of today, which will create the environment of tomorrow. You can see how better conditions flow from the soul into the environment, if only you are willing to study it. I have heard it time and again from social policymakers: Improve the conditions, and people will become better. If only they would study what individual sects—which develop in isolation from world developments—are doing in terms of soul culture, and what these contribute to the shaping of external conditions. When people come to realize that improving conditions depends on them, when they have attained theosophical insights, and when they have recognized the first principle—to form the core of a universal brotherhood and to cultivate it within ourselves as a social sensibility toward our surroundings—then (that) social order will be possible, (and we will be prepared) for what is to happen in the near future.

[ 30 ] Our entire national economy today operates on the basis of false categories. Our theories are therefore mostly wrong because they are based on premises that are entirely different from those that arise from (individuals and from) humanity. Everywhere, the starting point is production. People believe they can achieve something by focusing on the development of production wages. All thinking moves in this direction. A change in thinking will not immediately bring about an improvement. But it will occur once the direction has been changed. Even our proletariat has no idea what is at stake here. What is demanded is higher wages and shorter working hours. Consider a worker in any industry—let’s say the electricity industry—who has organized into a union to secure better wages and working conditions through this collective effort. What does he want? He wants a different relationship with his employer regarding wages. That is all he wants. The relations of production do not change. All that happens is that the worker receives a higher wage, which comes at the expense of capital. That is all that happens—a redistribution [from capital].

[ 31 ] But this doesn’t really change anything. If you earn a higher wage today, food prices will go up tomorrow. It’s simply not possible to bring about any improvement for the future in this way. The fact that people still have this aspiration is based on flawed thinking. What this is all about is production and consumption. A great, all-encompassing universal law of labor governs this realm. One must be aware of this. Perhaps certain people, who are accustomed to thinking in terms of today’s socio-economic theories, will say that I am presenting them with a pipe dream. Anyone who has developed into a Theosophist has, as a rule, passed through contemporary ways of thinking. It is meant to be active within us as a life impulse. But just as every thought draws into us and every single action will inspire us, so too should this inspire us. (We need) not to think that we can realize it [already]. In this way, even a state councilor who does not live in abstract theories can view life quite differently. He need not first travel to America to gain the insight that someone who cannot find work need not be a scoundrel. The nature of work has changed greatly over time.

[ 32 ] Look back at ancient Greece. What was work like back then? The worker had a completely different relationship with his master. Back then, the worker was a slave. He could be forced to work by violence. What he received from his master was (his) livelihood. The proceeds of his labor, however, went to his master. It had absolutely nothing to do with the worker’s relationship to his master. He had to work; he was (admittedly) provided for, even under difficult conditions; but he was not paid individually for his work. There we have labor under compulsion, without wages.

[ 33 ] Commodities are the result of something other than directly paid labor. Their value, therefore, has nothing to do with what is paid as wages. Look at the conditions today. Today we have work for which the worker is partially paid, and partially not. The portion that generates income flows into the entrepreneur’s pocket as profit. So the work is partially paid. What has the worker himself become as a result? He puts his labor power into the work. In ancient Greece, a piece of work was a product of slavery. Today’s products and commodities contain something entirely different. Today, the luxury item I receive is crystallized labor for which the worker is paid. If we consider this, we will find that a state of half-freedom has replaced the old slavery. A contractual relationship has taken its place. Therefore, labor today is half compulsion, half freedom. As a result, labor has become a commodity in the form of the worker. Thus, we have labor that is half-compulsory and half-free. And the course of development is moving toward completely free labor. No one rejects or alters this path. Just as the Greek laborer performed his work under the compulsion of his master, and just as the modern laborer works out of compulsion for wages, in the future there will be only freedom of labor. Labor and wages will be completely separated in the future.

[ 34 ] This is the health of social relations in the future. You can already see it today. Work is a free activity arising from the recognition of its necessity—(from the recognition) that it must be done. [People] performed it because they looked at their fellow human beings and saw that they needed the work. What was work in ancient times? It was a tribute; it was performed because it had to be performed. And what is work today? It is based on self-interest, on the coercion that selfishness exerts upon us. Because we want to exist, we want to be paid for our work. We work for our own sake, for the sake of our wages. In the future, we will work for the sake of our fellow human beings, because they need what we are capable of producing. That is why we will work. We will clothe our fellow human beings, provide them with what they need—in complete freedom of action. [The] wage must be completely separated from this. Work was a tribute in the past; in the future, it will be a sacrifice. It has nothing to do with self-interest, nothing with remuneration. If I allow my work to be dictated by consumption, by consideration of what humanity needs, then I am in a free working relationship, and my work is a sacrifice for humanity. Then I work to the best of my ability because I love my fellow human beings and make my abilities available.

[ 35 ] This must be possible, and it is only possible if livelihood is separated from work. And this will happen in the future. No one will own the product of their labor. Humanity must be educated to engage in free labor—one for all, and all for one. Everyone must act accordingly. If you were to found a small community today in which everyone contributes what they earn to the communal fund, and everyone works to the best of their ability, then their livelihood would not depend on what they are able to produce, but would instead be provided for through communal consumption. This results in greater freedom than regulating wages based on production. When this happens, we will move in a direction that meets people’s needs. This can already be incorporated into every law and every regulation today. Not absolutely, of course, but to a large extent. We can already design factories in the right way. But this requires healthy, clear, and sober thinking in the spirit of theosophy. When such things enter the human soul, then something will be able to live again within that human soul itself. And just as one thing determines the other, so too will this life of the human soul determine that external institutions will be a reflection of it, such that our work will be a sacrifice—no longer self-interest—so that it is not remuneration that governs our relations with the outside world, but rather what is within us. We offer to humanity whatever we can and are capable of. (If we are capable of little, then) we offer little; if we have much, then [we offer] much.

[ 36 ] We must realize that every action is the cause of infinite consequences, and that we must not allow anything within our soul to go to waste. We will make every sacrifice from within our soul if we completely renounce any reward that may be bestowed upon us by external circumstances. Not for our own sake, not for the sake of our well-being, but for the sake of necessity. We wish to strengthen the soul through the law of its own inner nature, so that it may learn to place its power at the service of the whole from perspectives other than those dictated by the law of reward and self-interest. In a certain sense, there have already been thinkers who thought this way. In the first half of the nineteenth century, there were thinkers who introduced this aspect of a profound, spiritual contemplation of the laws of the world. Is this aspect not a sanctification of work? (Is it not) so that we can lay it upon the altar of humanity? In this way, work becomes something entirely different from a burden. It becomes something into which we pour our most sacred feelings—our compassion for humanity—and we can then say: Work is sacred because it is a sacrifice for humanity.

[ 37 ] There were, in fact, people who lived off “sacred industry” in the first half of the nineteenth century. (One of them), because he had a sense of the great ideas of the future, was Saint-Simon. Anyone who studies his writings will gain immeasurably for our time if they delve into them from a theosophical perspective. He [Saint-Simon] spoke in rudimentary terms of a way of living together similar to that of a cooperative. He envisioned cooperatives into which individuals would pay their dues, thereby securing their independence. He had grand ideas about human evolution and made many discoveries. He said: The races of humanity correspond to a planned evolution, and souls emerge one after another and evolve upward. This is how one must view the development of humanity; then one arrives at the correct perspective. He (also) speaks of a planetary spirit that transforms into other planets to which human beings come. In short—there is an economist whom you can read, who lived in the first half of the nineteenth century. You read his work as if it were a theosophical book.

[ 38 ] The palingenesis of the soul can be proven today. Anyone who accepts Haeckel’s views will also have to accept reincarnation if they carry Haeckel’s ideas further. Fourier also thought along these lines. You can find primitive theosophy in his work. Therefore, for those who view things as they are, theosophy—with its first great principle of establishing the core of a universal brotherhood—is the only thing that can promote healthy conditions in this world. This view of the theosophist is not impractical; on the contrary, it is more practical than the views of all social theorists, and only the theosophist—as you will have to recognize when you apply the theories to real life—will say the same thing that the good Kolb said: Studying the theories of political economy is still quite bearable. — Only when Theosophy is heard in discussions about the social question can a sound perspective and sound thinking enter into those discussions. Thus, for those who wish to see and hear in this field, it is necessary to engage with Theosophy.

[ 39 ] Two things are clear to the theosophist who says—not out of fanaticism, but out of an insight gained from observing life—: One option is to stick to abstract theories and entrust the matter to people who will later have to admit that it looks different at the study table than it does out in the real world. Then we will have to wait a long time, and what must come will come anyway. Ultimately, the theory that is alive with life will have to intervene in life, or—as can already be heard today—one can already grapple with what Theosophy has to say about the social question. Then one must not merely hear a lecture on the subject, but must engage with Theosophy in its entirety. We will draw upon the gift, the ability, [to] view life in a healthy way from top to bottom, in its most secret and intimate forces. Then healing and blessing can soon enter our social order.

[ 40 ] Let us carry out within ourselves, as much as we can, what is meant to happen. Transforming work—not working for wages—is a sacrifice. Then we will have fulfilled our duty; (then we will) have viewed life in a healthy way. Or (we will continue to view) a world through the lens of gray, unrealistic theories. Then it might turn out that future humanity could say: Questions have been raised. As long as these questions were to be studied, as long as salvation was well on its way to becoming possible, they did not want to study them. Goethe once said that revolutions could only become terrible if those in power failed to do their duty. — He knew who was to blame for the revolutions. Let us try to consider what future history might say about our present. You have seen how time has taken its toll until the earth was drenched in blood, and how time has raised the most burning questions in an even more terrible way.