The Rudolf Steiner Archive

103. The Key Points of the Social Question and the Threefold Social Organism

[ 1 ] Dr. Steiner’s public lecture last night drew a packed house to the concert hall, filled with people from all walks of life and political parties in the city and the surrounding area. Everyone was eager to hear the new ideas directly from the lips of this social politician, who is currently so frequently mentioned, and to have them explained. Mr. Dedermann opened the meeting by remarking that the revolution had not yet brought about a way out of the chaos, and that Dr. Steiner wished to show us the way forward. Dr. Steiner then took the floor, amid the rapt attention of the assembly, to deliver his lecture on “The Key Points of the Social Question and the Threefold Social Organism.” The social question, which has been developing for 50 years, has become acute as a result of the revolution and requires every individual to take a stand on it. Behind the proletarian movement today lies a general movement of humanity, and the demands of the proletariat have become the demands of humanity. To resolve this issue, however, it must be separated from mere economic life—since it is not merely a matter of sustenance—and raised to a higher level: the threefold social order—spiritual life, legal life, and economic life. To claim that the proletarian movement arose from the workers’ exploitation is to state only part of the truth. The age of technology has given rise to a distinctive spiritual life, and this distinctive spiritual life of the leading circles has had a profound influence on the modern proletariat; under its influence, a vast gulf has opened up between the two, which—as a cultural concern of our time—must be bridged if we are to emerge from the chaos. The modern scientific mindset, with its abstractness and barren, spiritless worldviews, converged with the development of industry and capitalism. The notion took hold among the proletariat that man is merely a more highly developed animal, and this created within them a spiritual emptiness, trembling with a longing for something higher. Because even the ruling classes knew and sought nothing else, the view arose that only purely economic considerations were decisive, that the social question was merely a matter of bread and the stomach. – Yet in the process, the soul becomes desolate. Added to this was the fact that the intellectual life of the ruling classes had become alienated from real life and, under the influence of technology and capital, was no longer capable of resolving social issues. Several examples cited sought to demonstrate this point forcefully. If certain things have improved compared to the past, this is due more to the persistent struggle of the proletariat than to the free will of the ruling classes. Now there arose a movement to have the state completely take over the school—that is, intellectual education. In the past, it was said, science followed in the wake of the church; today it follows in the wake of the state. The state is incapable of guiding intellectual life. The educational system must be set entirely on its own feet, detached from the state. Schools must not be condemned to sterility by the state and must be rooted in life. Self-governance must be granted to schools from top to bottom; they must serve free intellectual life and not the state; all prejudices against this must be broken down. The legal system, too, must be placed on new foundations, as it is often weighed down by dead weight. A sure sense of justice resides within human beings themselves. In the age of capitalism, an intellectually educated proletariat was needed for exploitation. But within that same proletariat, a sense of human rights developed unintentionally; yet among the ruling classes, human rights were equated with class privileges and class discrimination. It came to be seen that one’s labor power is merely a commodity, dependent on supply and demand, which can be purchased—and is purchased as cheaply as possible; modern slavery took the place of a dignified existence. Therefore, economic life must also be placed on a different foundation. A clear line must be drawn between it and the state: it must be separated from the state. In public life, the legal relationship between employers and workers must be established in the spirit of true democracy; it must not depend on the economy. Capital, which intrudes into economic life, and the related issue of wages must be removed; only then will true human needs become apparent. Production should be carried out not for profit, but for consumption. In return for his labor, the worker receives as much as he and his family need to live. In place of the capitalist economy, a consumer cooperative should emerge that shuts down enterprises for which there is no need. Capital, necessary only for the development of the means of production, should be managed but not inherited. It should not accumulate in an unhealthy manner but circulate in the hands of the most capable as a common good for the general public. Then there will be no more wage contracts, but only contracts between free partners.

[ 2 ] It is through this threefold division into spiritual life, legal life, and economic life that true unity first arises: it guarantees humanity’s demand for liberty, equality, and fraternity—not the unitary state. That was precisely the misfortune that brought about the global catastrophe, because in international relations the three spheres became intertwined. We must grow strong in spirit to heal the wounds of war. However, we must not tinker with individual details; rather, we must create something on a grand scale. Above all, this would require the socialization of minds: then the solution to the proletarian question will be at hand, along with the liberation of the working class and of all humanity. Warm applause followed these generous remarks, which, as lofty ideas, are capable of steering humanity onto a happier course—provided the right paths to their realization are found and followed. Mr. Schmeißer of the Independent Social Democratic Party spoke in the discussion and stated that his party agreed with Dr. H [errn] Dr. Steiner; it simply desired to take a different path to reach it. One must act quickly to emerge from the chaos. Works councils were not merely a formality for his party; the ruling classes, however, still clung tenaciously to old privileges. A united front against this was necessary. The class divisions between white-collar and blue-collar workers must disappear. The revolution had brought nothing but new militarism; a particular thorn in his side was the vigilante force, for which there was no justification here. In response, Dr. Buff, an engineer representing the majority Social Democrats, spoke, describing the speaker’s remarks as consistent with the Erfurt Program and explaining that the Social Democrats had always fought for the threefold social order. However, he argued, socialization in our country would be of no use as long as international capital remained intact. In response to heated interjections from the independent side, he replied that the majority Social Democrats did not fight with machine guns but sought to root out the bad elements among the proletariat. In his closing remarks, Dr. Steiner took issue with both debaters, who had thoroughly misunderstood him and his remarks. It was evident that he was pained by his failure to find a better, deeper understanding. In particular, he spoke out against the rigid dogma of the Erfurt Program, which the party leaders held above all else and which was often mindlessly parroted and applied by their followers. The new era demanded new ways of thinking and feeling. It is not clinging to a party program that has proven ineffective that is vital for the Social Democrats at the helm, but rather acting in accordance with reality. Redner drew on his nearly 60 years of insight into human nature across all party factions and described in detail how he had arrived at his ideas and gained his life experience as both a manual and intellectual worker. With subtle sarcasm, he even warned the panelists against expressing their agreement with him, as it could put them in danger given the rigid dogmatism of party platforms and the “intolerance of the party pontiffs.” It was clear from Dr. Steiner’s remarks that he did not intend to present a program embellished with catchphrases, but rather, drawing on a profound understanding of reality, to outline the broad guidelines for how pressing social problems can be solved not in isolation but in their entirety.