The Rudolf Steiner Archive

5. Economic Life in the Threefold Social Order

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to the esteemed Board of Directors for their kind invitation, and in particular to Professor Hallo for the kind words he has just spoken. I feel all the more compelled to do so because it is understandable that anything one is able to say today about an issue that so deeply affects humanity—such as the topic of my talk today—can be nothing more than an attempt, perhaps even just the beginning of an attempt. And an appeal to our fellow human beings’ understanding and compassion is necessary.

[ 2 ] This brings me straight to the point where the remarks I have to make to you today differ in principle from all similar discussions that have arisen in such great numbers in recent times regarding economic issues in the narrower sense and social issues in the broader sense. We have seen enough utopias and utopian constructs. They have emerged from legitimate foundations of modern human endeavor.

[ 3 ] Modern technology has complicated economic life and has brought all of social life into extraordinarily diverse new circumstances compared to those to which humanity was previously accustomed. And so the view took hold in many people’s minds that one could, in some dogmatic way, prescribe how this increasingly complex modern social life should be shaped so that every person—including the broad masses—would be able to lead a dignified existence. But it must be said: Anyone who believes today that they can impress their fellow human beings with some utopian, dogmatic prescriptions regarding social conditions does not understand the fundamental nature of today’s civilization or of human life today at all.

[ 4 ] Suppose, ladies and gentlemen, that someone were to ingeniously devise some economic or social system—or even construct one dogmatically based on a wealth of life experience—and present it to humanity; even with the most ingenious arguments put forward in this vein, he would still fail to make an impression. For we live in an age in which prophets should, in fact, have died out. We live in an age in which people are not inclined to accept anything on the basis of authority or prophecy. Anyone who takes something as seriously and honestly as, for example, the social question or the restructuring of economic life—which affects both the present and the future—must reckon with this.

[ 5 ] People today take the view that they must discover for themselves what the guiding principles of life are. They take the view that they should shape what they define as the goals of life out of their own elementary soul and organic forces. This standpoint—which I would describe as democratic in the most universal sense—is the basis for what I call the impulse toward the threefold social order. This impulse is not meant to say: “Economic or other social conditions should be shaped in this or that way”; it is meant only to point out how people can be enabled to organize their lives in accordance with the demands of the present and the demands of their own souls—regardless of whether they strive for these consciously or unconsciously.

[ 6 ] The impulse toward the threefold structure of the social organism appeals to human beings, not to the description of any institutions or conditions. It seeks to call upon human beings and to hear first from them what they themselves consider appropriate. But this impulse seeks to show how a situation might be brought about that would enable people to take an active part in shaping their own destiny. Thus, the impulse for the threefold structure of the social organism seeks to work entirely out of the habits and aspirations of contemporary life, without any utopian overtones, purely out of practical experience. It does, however, proceed from two prerequisites. The first prerequisite—which is probably still acknowledged by few people at present, but which springs from what I will be compelled to characterize at least to some extent shortly—springs from anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

[ 7 ] It is the conviction that human development passes through meaningful epochs, so that one can look back—for my part, initially only at historical periods. One can see that there have been various epochs in human development, and, in a sense, in each such epoch, humanity passes through a phase of its existence, a phase of its soul and spiritual constitution. What has occurred in one epoch cannot be repeated in a later one. What humanity on Earth must undergo in the course of its development over time thus manifests itself, in the course of successive epochs, as various missions.

[ 8 ] In our era—which, in this respect, has been unfolding for three to four centuries, during which time what has now reached a certain culmination has slowly been taking shape—we see welling up from the depths of the human soul what I would like to call the democratic impulse that runs through the entire modern, civilized world. By this, however, I do not mean the triviality that is very often associated with this term; when I say “democratic impulse,” I mean that form of human self-awareness that is developing in our era, through which every human being wishes to find within themselves the source of a spiritual life that springs from their own inner being and convinces them — a life of knowledge, a life of faith, a life of art — and in which every human being wishes to develop, from within themselves, those feelings through which they establish a relationship with their fellow human beings, without this relationship being rigidly determined by authority. Human beings wish to find their relationship to their fellow human beings from within their own free inner being. And with regard to economic life, human beings wish to establish conditions that enable them to possess these foundations of soul and spiritual life in such a way that, in the highest sense of the word, the democratic impulse can find full expression. In earlier epochs, such a democratic impulse was not universally present within human development. Principles of authority dominated social organisms. And it was not until around the middle of the fifteenth century that the groundwork was slowly laid for what then, so to speak, erupted magnificently at the end of the eighteenth century and culminated in our own time, as it writhes its way out of civilized humanity through convulsions, through severe trials, through misery and hardship, even through something like the terrible catastrophe we endured in the second decade of the 20th century.

[ 9 ] This is [the] one thing that catches the eye of anyone who comes to understand the impulse behind the threefold structure of the social organism. He asks himself: What is the most important historical characteristic of modern human beings? And the other aspect, which serves as the starting point for the threefold structure of the social organism—I can only characterize it by becoming, in a certain sense, personal.

[ 10 ] I may say that, over the course of decades, I have observed European economic life, European political life, and European intellectual life from various perspectives. During these thirty years of observation, I lived in Austria—a country that served as a testing ground for such observations; the very Austria whose decline has just demonstrated how unsuitable the external conditions were for resolving, in any way, the great questions of contemporary existence. These and many other conditions of European civilization as a whole show that, in fact, everywhere in the depths of the human soul—one cannot always speak of “consciousness,” for much of it still resides in the unconscious or subconscious of most people today—there exists an instinct that a new order must come about. And what I am presenting as the threefold social order is not a figment of the imagination; far from being a fantasy, it is, in a certain sense, derived from what one could observe by cultivating an unbiased understanding of the economic, political-legal, and spiritual developments of the present and the past decades. And so what I have to present is the result of observation and experience.

[ 11 ] If you take everything that has been put forward up to and including Karl Marx and his successors regarding social and economic issues, you will find everywhere that these are logically structured systems. A great deal of intellectual acuity has been applied. But what humanity needs today is not a logically structured social system; rather, it is something as multifaceted as reality itself. Reality often presents itself to us in such a way that what takes shape within it could also be different. And if it were different, one could not even say that it would be less perfect. Reality is not unambiguous. Therefore, anyone who speaks about social conditions based on reality cannot speak with the kind of unambiguity that certain dogmatic prejudices often demand. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, some of what I have to say will be open to objection, just as reality itself is open to objection in one way or another. But such objections are irrelevant; what matters is whether what is put forward in social terms has vitality, whether it has the staying power to endure in the present and into the near future.

[ 12 ] Today I will be speaking to you, in the narrower sense, about economic life from the perspective of the threefold social order. However, I would not be able to do so unless I also provided you with at least a rough outline of the nature of this threefold social organism and of the nature of the starting point underlying what I would like to present as a certain characteristic of economic life, namely, anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

[ 13 ] When people speak of anthroposophy, they easily imagine something mystical and vague, something far removed from the world and out of touch with reality. Because they observe all sorts of sectarian movements—mystical-theosophical and similar movements—they are accustomed to identifying anthroposophy with such movements. One will thoroughly misunderstand anthroposophy if one identifies it with such movements. Anthroposophy is based on the same principles as modern scientific thinking—the very scientific thinking that has brought us such tremendous insights into the external world, that has, in essence, created all of modern technology, and that has transformed our social life to such a degree. But just as it is true that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science fully recognizes the great significance of natural science and modern technology, so it cannot, for that very reason, remain confined to the methods developed by natural science. Starting from these methods, it must develop spiritual-scientific methods in order to penetrate from the physical world into a superphysical world. For everything that surrounds us in the physical world has its roots in the superphysical world. A person only becomes aware of this when, in addition to the powers of cognition acquired through ordinary heredity, ordinary childhood and school education, as well as through academic life and so on, they develop other powers that, so to speak, do not come into play or become active in ordinary life and ordinary science, but remain latent in the human soul life for the time being.

[ 14 ] Through very specific methods—methods of genuine meditation and concentration imbued with a mathematical spirit, and through methods of genuine training, which I have described in my books *How Does One Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds?*, *Secret Science*, and *A Path to Self-Knowledge*—through such methods, certain higher powers of perception are drawn forth from the human soul. In my books *The Riddle of Man* and *The Riddles of the Soul*, I have referred to these higher powers of perception as “spiritual eyes” and “spiritual ears,” in the spirit of Goethe’s worldview. In fact, just as our physical constitution develops the physical eyes and ears within us, we can develop spiritual organs—which, however, are not localized in any one part of the body but engage the whole human being, working from the perspective of full humanity. We can develop such spiritual organs and become aware of a supersensible world around us, just as we perceive the physical world around us through our physical organs and through the intellect—which is bound to our brain and combines physical phenomena. And just as we trace the development of the universe through conventional natural science—by looking back to the earliest physical states and attempting to understand how individual beings have unfolded all the way up to the human being—so, through spiritual science, we come to discover the spiritual foundations and starting points of the universe and the spiritual goals of this universe. In this way, two parts of our spiritual life are brought together into a unity that modern spiritual life has tragically torn apart for human beings.

[ 15 ] Ladies and gentlemen, anyone who, like me, has come to know those individuals who do not merely live in the theoretical sense within the understanding of modern times, but with their whole being, their whole heart—such a person knows what tragedy can unfold today in the souls of precisely those who take the achievements—the fully recognizable modern achievements of scientific understanding—seriously and honestly. You see, I have met people who said to themselves: Here I am looking out into a world of mere natural necessities. Humanity, too, emerges from this world of mere natural necessities. But within the human soul, something sprouts that enables a person to truly find value in life. These are the moral ideals, the religious sentiments, the artistic perceptions of the universe—all that which we call justice, morality, and so on. But such honest people then say to themselves: All of this arises from a colossal illusion, from a great deception, like smoke and mist emerging from the depths of the human soul. For in reality, human beings are external physical organisms that have evolved from a universe that can be understood solely through natural necessity. One must consider how this universe will one day reach a state of heat death or something similar, and how, at that point, the great graveyard of all ideals, all moral life, and everything that appears to human beings as if it were what first gives them a dignified existence, will have vanished and been obliterated.

[ 16 ] But anyone who has seen people suffer under the influence of this modern worldview on the human mind knows what it means for spiritual science to unite what lives within the human soul—as moral ideals, religious impulses, and artistic perceptions—with what exists out there in nature. I can only sketch this out today; in the books I just mentioned, you will find what I have just outlined substantiated and proven. But I would like to clarify this further with a comparison: We see a plant growing out of the ground. As it grows out of the ground, it unfurls leaves and flowers; but then, within the flower, it also unfurls the seed, which already contains the potential for a new plant the following year. The seed is inconspicuous, but it is the potential for an entire plant the following year, whereas the leaves and flowers wither and fall off. This is how the universe appears before the insights of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. There we see the outer universe with the natural laws that govern it, right up to the law of the conservation of energy and matter. We see it, in the sense of this spiritual science, as that which withers, that which dies, that which passes away in death. And we see in the human being the moral ideals, the religious impulses, the artistic perceptions, and we know: These are seeds for future worlds. What we see around us today as nature is the result of moral experiences of beings from a distant past. What we carry within us as spiritual worlds is the seed for physical worlds of a distant future.

[ 17 ] As I said, I can only outline this briefly at present. I am doing so in order to point out what spiritual science—by building upon the scientific spirit—can offer humanity as a worldview. There one learns to recognize the living spirit once again. There one learns to recognize the difference between the conviction that says, “Through spiritual science, I approach the real, true spirit of the world,” and the realization that “Within me live not only thoughts and ideas, but living spiritual beings within those thoughts and ideas.” One learns to recognize the living spirit once again. The ancient religions, by continuing to exist merely as traditions, have shed the great significance they once held. We need a creative force within the human soul to attain such a spiritual life that works at the elemental level. In contrast, the spiritual life that has developed over the course of the last few centuries is an abstract and theoretical one. We experiment, we observe, we make use of wonderfully ingenious tools and instruments to explore the physical environment and its laws. But everything we explore there is merely something that provides us with abstract concepts and theories, which we may then apply, but which do not inwardly fill us with living spirit. So that we can say to ourselves: We do not merely think in thoughts, we do not merely live in ideas; rather, as human beings walking here on Earth, supersensible worlds live within us through their spiritual beings, just as the three kingdoms of nature live within our physical organism.

[ 18 ] What the threefold social order has to say about the various spheres of social life also stems from this genuine understanding of the spiritual world. For the social question today is, after all, rooted in economic issues. And if one has come to know this social question not from the outside but from the inside, then one must think about it somewhat differently than is generally the case today. For many years I taught at a workers’ educational school, where I taught only proletarians in a wide variety of subjects—people who wanted to satisfy their, after all, extraordinarily strong thirst for knowledge. But it was also possible for me, through that experience, to get to know the proletarian souls—and, at the very core of those souls, to recognize what wells up from the broad masses of the people as the true foundations and fundamental difficulties of today’s economic problem. Time and again, one hears from thousands upon thousands of people—from those from whom one can hear it; today there are millions of them, and those who have not come to know the proletariat certainly do not have the correct understanding of these matters—time and again, one hears a word, a word that carries a terrible significance: the word “ideology.”

[ 19 ] The word “ideology” has become popular among the broad masses today. What does it mean, then? It means that today these broad masses—who, by standing at the modern machine and being woven into the web of modern technology, have become alienated from the joy of the immediate products of their labor—have come to hold a deep inner conviction that reality consists solely of the external, material, economic processes, as people put it: the processes of production, the modes of production, the forms of production. That in which human beings are engaged—namely, material production—is the actual reality, and whatever they develop in terms of customs, law, religion, science, and art is merely what people call a “superstructure”—that is, something that rises like an ideology, like smoke and fog, from the sole reality, which is material reality.

[ 20 ] Those who belong to the educated classes still cling to old traditions, or at least live a life that is still dominated by old traditions—religious traditions, artistic traditions, and so on. The vast majority of the people, however, have bid farewell to these traditions. The broad masses have adopted as their deepest conviction what is merely a theory for the other classes. One can hold such a conviction, one can even defend it, one can cite all sorts of logical reasons for it, but one cannot live with it. And the fact that one cannot live with it in the deepest recesses of one’s soul is evident to anyone who has spent years in the company of these people, especially as their teacher. It desolates the soul; the soul becomes empty when it regards spiritual life as ideology.

[ 21 ] Truly, the ruling classes, having alienated themselves from a living spiritual life, have reduced what could become spiritual experience to mere theory, to mere abstraction, to mere intellectual culture. The modern worker seeks to fill his entire being with this, and as a result, he remains, as a human being, afflicted with a desolation of the soul. It is in this state of mind—which the modern proletarian has inherited as a legacy of the spiritual life of the ruling classes—in this desolation of the soul, that the origin of modern economic difficulties must be sought. These economic difficulties do not lie in external institutions; they lie in this state of mind—just outlined and characterized—prevalent among the broadest circles, the millions of modern humanity: ideology instead of a living spiritual life.

[ 22 ] One must then search for the causes—how it actually came to be that, even outwardly in social life, ideology was able to take the place of a vibrant spiritual life. And this leads to something that may still be perceived as a paradox today, because people fail to realize that what is fully justified for one epoch of humanity cannot necessarily be so for all epochs of humanity.

[ 23 ] As this modern way of life emerged, beginning in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, there were, of course, individual states—political entities that had formed under various conditions within modern civilization. These political entities gradually took on all the tasks of human development. We know, of course, how educational life in earlier times depended on the religious denominations. The state structures were right to take over schooling, upbringing, and educational life from the denominations. They could not remain within the framework of the denominations. To this end, it was necessary to incorporate what constitutes schooling and educational life into the framework of the state. And another impulse developed; because, in effect, this social framework of the modern state was all that existed, an impulse also arose—as modern economic conditions became increasingly complex under the influence of triumphant technology—to have economic life gradually encompassed more and more by state principles and state forces.

[ 24 ] And so what are the three spheres of human development were made into an external, abstract unity. In a certain sense, the emergence of this unity was beneficial; but on the other hand, we now find ourselves at a historical juncture where the three distinct spheres of human social life are breaking apart this unity, demanding that they be granted their own form of governance, one that arises from their very nature.

[ 25 ] Let us first consider spiritual life as I have characterized it—as it seeks to emerge anew from the creative sources of the human soul through anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. This spiritual life can only develop if it is able to govern itself independently on its own ground, if it does not receive its guidelines from any state measures or from a state administration. These points, ladies and gentlemen, are certainly easy to challenge logically. Yet for anyone who can immerse themselves in the unique fabric of spiritual life, it is immediately clear that spiritual life—that which is creative within it, that which brings its own character to the surface—can develop only if educational life, starting with the very foundations of early childhood education and schooling, is set on its own feet; if this spiritual life—namely, the most important component of this spiritual life, the public education and school system—is structured in such a way that those who teach, instruct, and educate within it are also, at the same time, the administrators. They should devote only as much time to education and instruction as leaves them, on the whole, time to administer this educational and instructional system themselves according to the same principles by which they teach hour by hour. Intellectual life, as well as the educational and instructional systems, must not be dependent on any external standard. For it is precisely the imposition of an external standard that kills what must fundamentally be present in every educator and instructor: direct responsibility—not to a state, not to an economic power, but to the supersensible spiritual life itself.

[ 26 ] If each person, as an individual of humanity, feels responsible for spiritual life in its essence, then we will have a living spiritual life. In order to shape this living spiritual life, it is necessary for this spiritual life to have its own administration. It will then be able to assert its own validity. One need only emancipate this spiritual life from political and economic life, grant it its own administration, and one will see that, since the abilities of capable people are needed, these abilities will also be recognized. And the very moment when a person’s position in spiritual life is no longer determined by external laws and administrative regulations, but rather by relying on the individual to act from their own individuality according to their abilities within a free spiritual life—at that very moment, the free recognition of human abilities in relation to spiritual life will also be present.

[ 27 ] And, fundamentally speaking, one can only gain an understanding of such a spiritual life through anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. Abstract spiritual life is alienated from the world. The spiritual life we cultivate at the School of Spiritual Science in Dornach, from the Goetheanum, is a spiritual insight that addresses the whole human being; it is not merely an intellectual culture, but rather one that can be said to foster a person’s development right down to their manual dexterity. I would just like to briefly mention that last fall, university courses were held at this Goetheanum, featuring thirty distinguished individuals—scholars, artists, businesspeople, and industrialists—who sought to demonstrate how the whole human being and the whole of life can be enriched by anthroposophical spiritual science. That which is theoretical and abstract spiritual life does not, after all, extend into the muscles or into dexterity; one must first acquire routine. Living spiritual life extends into manual dexterity, into the muscles and the development of the nerves.

[ 28 ] Therefore, a free spiritual life—which, from this perspective, forms the foundation of the rest of the social order—will not comprise those often unworldly, academic types—who are not to be blamed for this, since they are, after all, the product of present-day human conditions— it will not be these unworldly scholars—who are often active today—who will be at work, but people of life. And it is precisely from this mindset that practical insights into life—everything connected with immediate everyday existence—will be recognized and developed from the spiritual life in exactly the same way that philosophy or fundamental religious convictions are developed. For in such a spiritual life, everything material and everything spiritual form a unity, and the spirit possesses the true power within the human being only when it does not cut the human being off from material life, but rather when it gives the human being the ability to intervene practically in material life in every sphere. We must not withdraw into a nebulous, mystical spiritual life; rather, we must allow ourselves to be permeated by the spirit, so that external, physical reality itself may be spiritualized.

[ 29 ] We need this spiritual life as the foundation of a healthy economic life. For this spiritual life will, in turn, touch people’s hearts. Unlike the so-called spiritual life of the last three to four centuries—which has presented the masses with nothing but a dreary, stifling ideology—this will give them a sense of their human dignity. Then it will be possible to work with them. For social and economic issues can only be resolved from within the human soul—from human insights, human feelings, convictions, and impulses of the will. We must find a way to reach the souls of working people. We will not find this access if we continue to speak to them about our sciences the way we have spoken to them so far, and if we speak about social conditions the way these sciences have so far guided us to speak about social conditions.

[ 30 ] I have thus described to you the first member of the threefold social organism: the independent spiritual life, which is entirely placed under the administration of those who are spiritually creative—namely, educators and teachers. This stands, so to speak, on one wing of the modern social organism. On the other wing stands economic life. This economic life, of course, differs fundamentally from spiritual life. What does a person strive for in spiritual life? They strive, from within their soul, to grasp the harmony of life. Even the simplest person must possess a certain wholeness of life with regard to spiritual life. With regard to economic life, we can never achieve this. Here, if a person truly observes life and has a sense of its meaning, they must make a confession to themselves: that in economic life, there is no comprehensive judgment for the individual. What does that mean? Let me first clarify this with a historical fact. Around the middle of the nineteenth century, the gold standard was being discussed in many countries—indeed, in many areas of public social life. In some countries, the gold standard was indeed introduced. What was said at that time about the gold standard by members of parliament, by practical economists, and by other practitioners of life—and I truly mean this not ironically, but quite seriously and honestly—was indeed very astute and intelligent. Even today, one cannot help but feel great respect for those people who spoke about economic life back then.

[ 31 ] But everything that was argued—again, with excellent reasons—led to the prediction that, under the influence of the gold standard, free trade would flourish, individual states would open their borders, and the emerging global economy would be able to develop freely, unhindered by the borders of individual states. These national frameworks, after all, arose from entirely different conditions than modern economic life, which has gradually become a unified whole through the global economy and requires connections quite different from those that states can create. Free trade would flourish. So said very clever people. And what actually happened? Tariff barriers have sprung up everywhere; much was subsequently said about the merits of protective tariffs—less cleverly, but with a better chance of achieving results.

[ 32 ] What is actually at issue here? The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that in the realm of economic life, the very intelligence through which one progresses as an individual human being in spiritual life is of no use in economic life. This is a profound and significant truth: no matter how intelligent an individual may be, if his economic judgment is to carry weight in economic life, a judgment based solely on individual abilities—no matter how intelligent—is worth nothing; in economic life, the only thing that matters is what we acquire through expertise and professional competence within the various fields of economic life. However, this cannot unfold directly in economic life; rather, it depends on being supplemented by what others in other industries and fields can develop as authoritative judgment—judgment that holds true in reality. In economic life, the only thing that can be decisive is collective judgment—that which is presented by a specific group of people who unite the most diverse branches of the economy in such a way that it is not a matter of mutual advice; advice does not yield much; it results only in meaningless parliamentary debate; rather, one is dealing with mutual interests that relate to one another; one is dealing with working life itself; one person must realize this, another that; one person has something to assert—a skill in a particular field—while another has something to contribute in the field of [production], and so on. And it is entirely possible that associations will form that must be of a certain size—associations in which people from the most diverse economic spheres of life come together. Things stem from needs. Then the issue is that people who, based on their life experiences, can speak about the needs of certain circles join forces with others who are actively involved in specific branches of production that meet those needs.

[ 33 ] And, ladies and gentlemen, there is something else possible besides what is expressed in such a clichéd manner in modern social democracy, when one repeats over and over again the phrase—which, as a phrase, is indeed correct—that one should not produce for profit, but for consumption. What could be more true than that! But what is easier than uttering such an abstract statement? The question is always how to put something like that into practice. For the matter is, in fact, self-evident.

[ 34 ] Well, ladies and gentlemen, until now it has really only been possible to carry out such things in a limited sphere. And so I would like to begin by presenting an area that you may not recognize, because it belongs more to the spiritual realm, but I will characterize it here solely in economic terms—I would like to present to you the field of anthroposophical book publishing. Many years ago, we founded the Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag in Berlin. Just consider how a publishing house is generally run today. I’ll use an example from spiritual life, but you’ll soon see that this can certainly be applied to the entire material realm. How is a publishing house run today? The publisher receives the manuscript from the author. The manuscript is typeset. Books are produced, and these books are sent to book wholesalers, but are they all sold? Well, anyone familiar with the book trade knows what the term “returns” means. These are the books that come back from the book wholesalers. There are many such returns, not just among poets, where almost everything that is printed ends up as returns. But let’s take a look at what’s actually happening here. A certain number of people are employed to manufacture the paper, a certain number to typeset and print the books, to ship them, and so on. Think about how many people are employed by books that aren’t even necessary for everyday life. The vast majority didn’t need to be produced at all; life would go on even if they were left out—especially in a field where the focus is solely on production. How did we handle this at the Philosophical-Anthroposophical Publishing House? How did we go about it there?

[ 35 ] We have not printed a single book about which it was not certain from the outset that it would sell. For we started from the premise of spiritual consumption. First, there was the Anthroposophical Society. No matter how critically you may view it—I am speaking here solely in economic terms—this society developed a need; people were aware of this need; they lived in association with the Anthroposophical Society; they came to know its needs firsthand; and these needs were taken into account in our spiritual production. And the publishing house in question was never in a position to employ people unnecessarily. Far more important than the empty rhetoric we encounter today in many programs and the like would be to think about how to do things, how to combat worthless production and the worthless employment of people within social life. This can only be achieved through the principle of association. However imperfect this association I have described may be, it is an association.

[ 36 ] Later, I tried something that was then interrupted by the war. We had a member in the Anthroposophical Society who was a master baker. I said: Why shouldn’t we also view the Anthroposophical Society as a group of bread consumers—which it certainly is. “So I’ll provide you with enough customers to keep your production going,” I told him. It didn’t work out, partly because of the individuality of the person in question, but it could have succeeded; however, the war also intervened. Once again, starting from the need, an attempt was made to link that need with production.

[ 37 ] You see, even what I am describing to you here as an associative principle in economic life appears to be something that, so to speak, wells up from the subconscious of human society today. On the one hand, we see the formation of cartels; on the other, the formation of trusts—though always one-sidedly among producers alone, while the connection between producers and consumers is handled one-sidedly by the agencies. To establish associations—by eliminating the agencies—that, with their vital interests, stand at the very heart of the relationship between consumption and production and act as mediators: this is what will ensure a fruitful future for economic life. Cartels ration profits; they ration consumption; they ration various other things. It is clear that, under the influence of the global economy, consolidation is necessary, but the issue is being tackled from the wrong end to begin with. Instead of encompassing the entire economic life within associations, only producers are being brought together at first. This exacerbates the very thing that has brought chaos to our economic life; it does not reduce or mitigate it.

[ 38 ] Well, ladies and gentlemen, what exactly is it that, when we observe our economic life with an open mind, leads us to conclude that economic life—as a distinct component of the threefold social organism—must be separated from the other two, just as I have already characterized the spiritual component and will yet characterize the other component?

[ 39 ] I will describe to you a very concrete aspect of today’s economic life, which, for those who are now seasoned veterans of the business world, is certainly felt as an economic difficulty, but one that is not easily understood. The fact is: In our complex social structure, where the division of labor prevails and people work for one another, we pay for goods as products of labor; we pay for human labor in the same way that we pay for goods as products of labor. We pay for both, so to speak, with the same money. At one time, money may represent a certain amount of coal; at another time, it may represent a certain amount of labor. Now imagine if someone wanted to measure lambs and apples using a common standard—things that simply have no common measure, things that have nothing in common. Human labor power as such is not comparable to a commodity in an agitational sense; this idea is presented in a completely false way in Karl Marx’s agitation.

[ 40 ] But in every unbiased human mind there is, as it were, a wellspring of insight into the fact that in our economic life we have crammed together two things that really cannot be measured by any common standard. And here, too, modern life is already acting in such a way that it seeks, unconsciously, so to speak, to steer itself toward what is right. Individual states have attempted to regulate working hours, establish workers’ compensation, pension plans, and so on—in short, to regulate labor through a specific legal system, independent of what economic life itself entails. For economic life, after all, consists solely of the production, circulation, and consumption of commodities. Labor is involved in economic life only indirectly.

[ 41 ] Basically, the situation is this: On one side of economic life, we have nature. We cannot possibly dictate—based solely on economic considerations—that there should be a certain amount of rain or sunshine next year, simply because, as a consortium, we may need to sell wheat at a particular price next year if we are to succeed in our goals. Nature is a given. We must accept it. We want to subject human labor directly to economic considerations. We want to regulate human labor based on economic considerations. Social democracy wants this itself; it wants it precisely on the basis of economic considerations. It represents nothing other than the terribly one-sided continuation of what led us into chaos.

[ 42 ] The point is to recognize that commodities and human labor power are not comparable values, and that they must be managed from two different perspectives. We do not need to manage nature; it cannot be managed. It underlies our economic life, just as it underlies the economic life of birds and the like. Within economic life itself, we manage commodity production, commodity circulation, and commodity consumption; but modern conditions have led to a confusion between what is the comparative value or price of a commodity and what remunerates labor in exactly the same way—we call it “remuneration,” but in truth it is “payment”—as we pay for commodities, whereas labor must be regulated according to entirely different principles.

[ 43 ] Just think for a moment about everything that has arisen from the unnaturalness of modern conditions; for example, within modern proletarian theory. People say: The manual laborer does this or that, expending organic energy that must be replenished; for this, he must be compensated. A major contrast has even been constructed between manual and intellectual labor. Mental labor consumes less because it produces ideas that are then constantly reproduced. It does not produce something that is consumed in this way. All these theories have arisen because labor has been incorporated into the process of commodity consumption, commodity circulation, and commodity production—because no distinction has been drawn between actual economic life and state, legal, or political life. This brings us to the three components of the social organism: the intellectual component—which, in particular, encompasses the most important, public aspect of intellectual life: the system of education and instruction; the state-political component, in which, for example, labor is to be regulated.

[ 44 ] How is one to cope with what I stated at the beginning of my lecture—namely, the realization that modern humanity must move toward democracy—if one takes it completely seriously and honestly? Only those who set aside those aspects of democracy that cannot be democratized can take democracy seriously and honestly.

[ 45 ] There is a broad and comprehensive realm of human affairs in which every person who has come of age is competent; this is the realm in which majorities rightfully rule. This is the realm where one can achieve something through parliamentary processes. Nothing can be achieved through parliamentary processes in the realm of spiritual life, where only the unfolding of the individual’s uniqueness can bear fruit. Nothing can be achieved through parliamentary processes or majority decisions in the realm of economic life. There, associations must come into being in the manner I have described, emerging from the most diverse branches of life. And these associations take shape into a very specific entity. Statistics are not needed; they are of no help—they are only for the past, but what matters is life itself, and that life be grasped by the people who are part of these associations, and that through these associations they first grasp the needs, not regulate them. Economic life has nothing to do with ethics or with a critique of needs, but merely with the observation that needs exist. Critique and the regulation of needs are the concern of free spiritual life. Political life deals with what I have just spoken of and what I will speak of later. In economic life, associations are concerned only with that which is alive in the production, circulation, and consumption of goods.

[ 46 ] Once the need has been identified, one knows how many people must be engaged in the production of certain goods. For if too many people are engaged in it, the products will become too cheap relative to the need; if too few people are engaged in it, the products will become too expensive. This leads to what I would like to call: the formation of price out of the life of associations. Of course, one can only take this, to a certain extent, as a kind of calculation, a kind of general formula. But it is possible to achieve something fruitful out of such associations by entering into contracts that ensure just as many people as are necessary can be engaged in the production of a good in a certain field. Through this, we can arrive at a situation where what I would like to call the “primordial cell of economic life” is increasingly fulfilled. It will seem paradoxical to you. And yet, in its subconscious depths, humanity strives for economic satisfaction in the sense of this primordial economic cell: Every person should receive for the product of their labor—not for their labor itself, since labor does not belong in economic life—as much as they need for themselves, their family, and everything else for which they must provide, in order to produce an identical product again; that is, as much as they need to satisfy their needs until they can produce an identical product. Roughly speaking: If I manufacture a pair of boots, I must receive enough for that pair of boots through the regulation of economic life so that I can make a new pair of boots, and while I am making this new pair of boots, have everything I need for myself, my family, and other obligations.

[ 47 ] I am not saying that this should be determined by some kind of socialist dogma, but rather that the associative principle is essential. Let us not fear that this will lead to a terrible bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is already a sufficient concern today in every country on earth, arising precisely from other circumstances. What I mean here by an economic system of association can be established alongside work, through work itself. And since economic regions and economic associations become unmanageable when they grow too large and operate at too high a cost when they are too small, the economic organization must have a certain size depending on climatic and other conditions, as well as on the character of the people and so on.

[ 48 ] Associations continue to form. This, in turn, provides the foundation for a great global association—for the great global economic federation—which can be created solely on the basis of economic factors, out of an economic life independent of spiritual and political life. Certainly, labor plays a role in this economic life, but on the other hand, labor must be left to the realm of the political and legal state. When it comes to determining the extent of labor, every person who has reached the age of majority is competent to do so in association with others.

[ 49 ] Ladies and gentlemen, I spoke earlier about Austria, that unfortunate testing ground where I spent thirty years. There, one could see how modern parliamentary life emerged. There, one could see what it means to bring economic interests into political life. When parliamentary life was to be established in Austria in the 1860s, the parliament was composed of four curiae: the Curia of Large Landowners, the Curia of the Chamber of Commerce, the Curia of Cities, Markets, and Industrial Centers, and the Curia of Rural Communities—purely economic considerations! Four curiae, organized solely according to economic interests. These were now supposed to decide on legal and political matters. Not merely intellectual and national life, no—the inherent impossibility of such a complex, intricately structured country as Austria had already given rise to forces of decay that were already noticeable in the 1870s and 1880s to anyone living in Austria with an unbiased mind. There one could observe how necessary it is to keep economic life separate, with its own administrative bodies rooted in the associations of the various professions and industries—indeed, the various spheres of economic life—and to have, in addition, a free spiritual life that certainly influences economic life. I have described exactly how this interplay occurs in my “Key Points of the Social Question.” You can also find details in our Threefold Order newspaper, which is published in Stuttgart, as well as in a Dutch newspaper dedicated to the threefold social order.

[ 50 ] Just as you can learn about the fruitfulness of a free spiritual life at the Free Waldorf School in Stuttgart that we established—a school founded by Emil Molt— and which I direct, so you can also gain an understanding of our economic principles—which are, admittedly, still in their infancy—by familiarizing yourself through our writings with what is being attempted, for example, in the economic institutions of the “Futurum” in Switzerland and the “Kommenden Tag” in Germany. Of course, it is not yet possible today to establish much associative life; the realities of external life and the current social order run too much counter to this associative life, but the foundations for it should nevertheless be laid. The impulse given for the threefold structure of the social organism must certainly work its way into the practical realities of life. And so, in my aforementioned book *The Key Points of the Social Question*, I have also shown how capital, in essence, has its origin in spiritual life as well, and must therefore also be transferred to the individual management of human beings in connection with spiritual life—that is, with the spiritual member of the social organism.

[ 51 ] There have been people—critics of the threefold social order—who said: Yes, this threefold social order tears apart into three parts what is actually a unity. No, it is precisely by managing these three spheres in accordance with their own essential nature that true unity is created. Through spiritual life and human individuality, the circulation of capital will gradually come into being. I can only mention this briefly here, but you can read more details in my book *The Key Points of the Social Question*. The regulation of labor will be subject to the rule of law. In this legal or political state, all those matters for which every person who has come of age is competent will be regulated. And it is precisely those who are sincere about democracy who must, on the one hand, exclude intellectual life and, on the other hand, economic life—areas in which nothing can be regulated purely democratically; this leaves a broad sphere for the state proper, encompassing all truly human affairs—that is, those matters in which human beings stand as equals before one another, those matters in which all human beings are truly equal.

[ 52 ] This impulse for the threefold social order truly springs from the depths of human nature. Because of the distinct nature of spiritual life, political life, and economic life, separate administration is required for all three spheres; and because the human being is involved in all three, true unity and proper cooperation will only emerge as a result. Capital, managed by the spirit, influences economic life from the realm of spiritual life. From the realm of the state, the manner, measure, and so on of work—regulated by every human being as an equal facing another human being—influences economic life. One will have to accept this work just as one accepts nature in economic life. One will say to oneself: Rain and sunshine—I cannot control them. I must accept economic life as it takes shape under these conditions. Likewise, in the realm of economic administration, I must accept what is regulated as labor. And in the pricing process carried out by the associations, only the product of labor will be taken into account, not labor as such.

[ 53 ] This brings us precisely to the intimate interpenetration of the three members of the social organism. And an economic life that does not concern itself in any way with all manner of spiritual matters, a political life that does not concern itself with all manner of spiritual programs and the like, but rather concerns itself only with those matters in which all people are equally competent—such an economic life and such a political life will receive the most beautiful enrichment from the free spiritual life. A dynamic interplay among the three members will take place precisely when each is administered in its own way.

[ 54 ] I have also been told that I am attempting to revive an old Platonic idea of the teaching class, the military class, and the productive class. No, it is not a matter of establishing just any estates; rather, what constitutes external administration is to be established by guiding people toward free judgment in these three areas. A utopia should not be presented dogmatically. How institutions should be structured should not be determined by fanciful notions. Rather, the aim is to point out how people must organize themselves within the social organism so that, through their cooperation, they may find the enduring solution to the social question—and so that the structuring of economic life, which must fundamentally take place with the continuous, active participation of competent associations, may be achieved—just as the human organism must be sustained anew every day through nourishment.

[ 55 ] And so we can say: Three spheres confront us within the entire social organism; three spheres, each of which, by its very nature, demands its own form of governance. Freedom should reign in spiritual life; equality should reign in democratic political life, where only those matters are administered by the majority that can truly be decided by a majority, because every person is competent to do so. And brotherhood can develop precisely in an economic life that is built upon the associative principle in the manner described. These three great mottos of human development echo to us from the eighteenth century. And what human heart would not beat faster when it allows these three mottos of human development to take effect upon itself with deep understanding? But wise people in the nineteenth century emphasized time and again that, within a unitary state, these three lofty ideals contradict one another. And they were right. The solution to this puzzle is that, although people have asserted—out of an inner intuition—the three greatest ideals of social life—freedom, equality, and brotherhood—they have until now remained under the influence of the unitary state, believing that only the threefold social order can realize these three ideals, namely: freedom in the spiritual sphere, equality in the political-state sphere, and brotherhood in the associatively organized economic sphere.

[ 56 ] And in seeking to characterize economic life today, I had to show how it can be structured as the foundation for a free spiritual life and for the true, state-based democracy to which modern humanity aspires. But these two spheres are in intimate harmony with economic life. For such an economic life is the only one that can provide all people with a dignified existence; one that is built upon the very laws that shape the economy, that draws its creative forces from an independent, real life governed by state law, and that draws its administrative roots from a free spiritual life. Therefore, one can say: An economic life of the future is conceivable only when accompanied by an independent legal life and a creative, free spiritual life that springs from the human soul.

[ 57 ] Q&A

[ 58 ] Question: You haven’t told us how these associations are supposed to come into being. Do these associations just float in the air? Where do they come from? Do you think that today’s workers’ organizations or existing consumer cooperatives can, through their further development and expansion, become associations, or are these associations merely utopian? Are they based on something that has historically emerged, or do you want to build something, do something, create something? You have spoken so often of utopias.

[ 59 ] Rudolf Steiner: When I speak of utopias, I mean something that has come to light, for example, in the works of Proudhon, Blanc, Saint-Simon, [Bakunin], and, in a certain sense, also in those of Karl Marx. There you will find utopias—conceptual constructs regarding a future social order. The Marxist utopia has only one advantage over the others: it appeals to a specific class, strikes a chord with the instincts of a specific class, and has therefore become a very real impetus for agitation. But precisely in the present, when this utopia is bearing its most terrible fruits by claiming to be actually realized, one can see the utopian nature of this whole affair. This utopian aspect can even be seen to the highest degree among those who believe they are standing firmly on the ground of reality. One truly need not go to Russia to study in detail the ways in which Leninism destroys culture and civilization. One need only familiarize oneself with what lives in Lenin’s mind. There, all manner of social conditions are described that this new tsar intends to bring about. But then Lenin says: All of this will not, after all, achieve what is truly worthy of human dignity; rather, it will achieve something that destroys the present. Then the present will perish, and with it, humanity will descend into decadence; and then a new human race will emerge, which will finally establish an existence worthy of human dignity. — We have embedded something utopian right down to our very core. This utopian element fundamentally exerts more control over the minds and souls of people today than one might think. What I have presented to you is by no means conceived as utopian, but rather in such a way that, in essence, one can begin addressing the relevant issues every single day.

[ 60 ] To follow up on what the previous speaker said: We have consumer cooperatives. Consumer cooperatives do not function in a way that would actually eliminate the disparity between labor, the product of labor, and goods today; rather, they operate right within these conditions. Unless they are production-consumer cooperatives, they ultimately amount to nothing more than the regulation of consumption—unlike associations, which aim for cooperation between producers and consumers. But this can be expanded upon. It is not a utopia if one builds on what already exists. Of course, one must not think that it is already a utopia simply by not leaving what exists as it is. So what exists are, in a sense, the elements that associate with one another. I am not talking about organization.

[ 61 ] Ladies and gentlemen, I am actually Austrian, but I have spent half my life in Germany, then in Switzerland; yet I come from Germany. Even though I come from Germany, the word “organization” really strikes me as something burning. I expect absolutely nothing from organization, for organization emanates from a central point. Organization is regulated from above. In reality, it is precisely this special love for organization that has shaped Germany into what it is today. And if one visits Germany today, one finds that this obsession with organization is still flourishing terribly, even when people believe they have outgrown these organizations. What is called “organization” in Germany has the same effect on me as a red cloth on a bull—not that I’m claiming to be a bull. Associating is different from organizing. It is the best and most capable who come together, not those at the top in the center who want to organize.

[ 62 ] Germany serves as a particularly good example of this kind of organization. A German professor has recently written a book on price formation during World War I. Based on exceptionally thoroughly compiled material, he has determined what occurred as a result of the state’s intervention in economic life through price regulation. He presents four conclusions drawn with proper logical consistency, which are worthy of inclusion in a scholarly book—in terms of methodology: First, none of the price-setting authorities knew what really mattered. Second: Prices were regulated everywhere in such a way that the opposite of what was actually intended was achieved. Third: By regulating prices, large segments of the population were hit in the most terrible way. Fourth: Black-market profiteering was encouraged at the expense of honest business and honest trade. These are the scientific conclusions reached by the economist in question. He then adds: Yes, science may say this about economic life, but in social life there are other interests; there, the state must intervene, and what is recognized as economically correct—even by the economist himself—no longer applies in the face of the state.

[ 63 ] Well, which is wiser: for the economist to stand there and lament that the state is thwarting his correct, scientific conclusions, or to say: Economic life must simply be organized in such a way that there is no need to point out what disrupts proper price formation. Everywhere, what serves as the impetus for the threefold social order is linked to natural conditions. From the capabilities of the individual, from the individual and from individual groups of people, must emerge what constitutes the production, circulation, and consumption of goods. And these individual capabilities come together in association. At first, one has no idea what is coming together there—it is not organized; only then, in accordance with one’s own capacity, does what is to emerge actually come into being.

[ 64 ] The same is true in spiritual life; for example, if you look at the Waldorf school, it leads a completely free spiritual life. I lead the school, but I have never done anything other than offer advice to individuals. I visit the classrooms, study the children’s development from a psychological perspective, and then discuss these psychological findings—again, in an advisory capacity—with the teachers, who then try to put them into practice. In fact, we have even discovered entirely new principles regarding childhood development at various stages of life, including, for example, how children interact with one another and so on. But how does this Waldorf school actually work? Well, you see, imagine if, at the beginning, one had felt like a government official or a member of parliament; then one would have sat down with others who also felt like government officials or members of parliament and drawn up programs. The programs are very cleverly designed, because when it comes to intellectual matters, people are incredibly clever. You can draw up the most perfect programs, but can they actually be carried out? We didn’t do that; rather, at the Waldorf School, what matters is that we have our twenty-two teachers, and the Waldorf School becomes what it is based on how capable these teachers are. Nothing is more disingenuous than setting a program that cannot actually be followed, because teachers can only work according to their own capabilities and not according to programs. We strive to act based on our competence. And the same is true in economic life. Associations are formed not utopianly, but by building upon what already exists. I do believe, however, that as associations form, individualities will also become more competent. Today, however, we build upon what is already there.

[ 65 ] Chair of the Students: This evening you have given us insight into your view of economic life. Of course, it is impossible to grasp the entire problem, but your lecture will certainly inspire many of us to take a closer look at the threefold social order. And in doing so, you have achieved an important goal. You came to see us even though you are almost overwhelmed with work. I would like to thank you for that on behalf of the assembly. It was a very interesting evening.

[ 66 ] Rudolf Steiner: Dear Mr. Chairman and all those who helped make today’s invitation possible. I can only say that this invitation has given me a very special sense of satisfaction. It came from the student body. And who could be more aware than those who face the very problems I have spoken of that, in order to solve these issues—which will, after all, take the next few decades to resolve, though initially we will likely need only a provisional solution—we need, above all, those who are currently part of the student body.

[ 67 ] I’ve long since moved past that, but I often think back today to those times, which we experienced differently than you do today. Back then, we were filled with intellectual, political, and especially economic hopes, and many of those economic hopes have indeed—not just here and there, but throughout international life—proved to be illusions. This has deterred many from seriously pursuing the deepest questions of humanity. Those who are now in the position of going through their college years can hardly indulge in illusions in the same way. They are learning from the great hardship and the crisis-ridden nature of life today that deeper engagement is necessary. That is why it fills one with deep satisfaction to find interest in ideas of this kind, especially among the student body. For I did not intend to offer anything more than ideas. From this perspective—that perhaps, even when I am no longer here, work will continue on the basis of these ideas, particularly by those who are young today; that at least, even if only a very small, tiny drop has been added today through this invitation—from this perspective, I thank you and the entire committee warmly for your gracious invitation.

[ 68 ] Herman Sijbrand Hello: Dr. Steiner, you have expressed your thanks for the invitation. Let me raise a point here now; let me give voice to what has just come to mind. The situation is actually the exact opposite—it is I who am truly grateful. For you are the one who has succeeded in showing me once again the synthesis of art, science, and religion. It is you, after all, who—even though I am and wish to remain in the strict service of science and technology—have shown me once again the true path to the model of humanity, to the ideal of humanity, to Christ. The true understanding of Christianity, the true understanding of Christ and his teachings—I owe it all to you. I wanted to say that right now.

This was followed by a closing address by Herman Sijbrand Hallo to those gathered, delivered in Dutch, the text of which has not been preserved.