The Rudolf Steiner Archive

107. The Social Question as an Intellectual, Legal, and Economic Issue

[ 1 ] Solving the social question would mean bringing about the harmonious unity of life for humanity. Dr. Rudolf Steiner has undertaken to lay the foundation for this solution, as he sought to explain in a lecture in the auditorium on Wednesday evening. The topic was: “The Social Question as a Spiritual, Legal, and Economic Issue.” Only when these three spheres complement one another harmoniously will humanity be granted a happier future. This insight has actually been present within humanity for a century, but the unitary state, with its legal dictatorship, did not allow it to bear fruit. As a result of the global catastrophe, this insight has now resurfaced. Karl Marx remains, even today, the most significant figure who grasped the thoughts and feelings of the proletariat, though not the social question in its entirety.

[ 2 ] The speaker describes it as a mistake to view the intellectual life of the people as an ideology, because everything develops out of life itself. Today, the ruling circles still believe in clinging to the past, which once stifled free research. That is why there is such a vast gulf today between intellectual and cultural values and the reality of life; otherwise, a catastrophe such as war would not be possible. The current state of technology proves what tremendous achievements humanity’s external thinking can accomplish, and how much human labor can be replaced. But this is merely an external triumph, one that has failed to develop the driving force of human love—and hence the belief that spiritual life is nothing but ideology. Yet this ideology could also be reality. Even the thinking of the proletariat now develops in only one direction: in the belief in Karl Marx, who, too, built solely upon a lifeless exterior. The future should be built not on tradition, but on development. The wake-up call should not be the cry, “Workers of the world, unite!” nor the dictatorship of the proletariat, but rather the political equality of all in social life. That is why even the most beautiful programs of political parties will not help humanity. The intellectual worth of the individual and his or her work performance must be brought to the forefront. It is not the state that should determine the intellectual development of the individual, but rather his or her free self-realization. This should also make democracy possible in economic life. The fight against capitalism has become a catchphrase, but without capital there is no production; nevertheless, ability should be the decisive factor for a profession or office, and capital should also serve the needs of the general public. Through the structuring of social life and the harmonization of the three spheres within the social body, freedom, equality, and fraternity will also come to fruition.

[ 3 ] The lecture was followed by a discussion. The speaker does not intend to point out the most obvious practical paths forward, but rather focuses on intellectual renewal in light of the issues he raises. Only time will tell whether his hopes will be fulfilled.

[ 4 ] On Wednesday evening, before an audience consisting largely of members of the upper classes, Dr. Steiner spoke on “The Social Question: A Question of Spirit, Law, and Economy.” They had likely all come to see if there might still be another path to “reorientation” besides the one laid out for them by the Muscovites. The only consolation they took home with them is probably that Steiner acknowledges capital. A meager consolation, for even a man like Steiner can be mistaken—and will be mistaken! Unfortunately, only a few party comrades were present; a pity, for it was a pleasure to follow the speaker’s remarks on Marx and Marxism. – The first opponent I’ve heard who actually knows Marx! And yet an opponent? It’s a simple matter. Steiner does not acknowledge that purely economic factors impose their direction of thought upon human beings—that is, that spiritual life is merely the fruit, the result of what has crystallized out of economic processes—and he emphasizes: How can one, on the one hand, point to the almost automatic course of economic development, while on the other hand demand that the individual needs of human beings be regulated? No solution to this problem can be found in Marxism either. — Why is that? It’s quite simple! Because the solution will be inherent in economic development, and there will be no socialist-communist economic order that has not resolved this question. For socialism demands, first and foremost, the economic security of the individual, whereas Marx does not. And then the spiritual advancement of humanity will follow naturally on this new economic foundation. Today, the state—this administrative machinery of the ruling class—determines the intellectual direction in schools, in public life, in morality, and so on. Contemporary intellectual life is thus the sad product of today’s economic order, and one can fully agree with Steiner’s scathing critique of this intellectual life.

[ 5 ] “It is never possible to sustain the economy without capital; it simply has to pass back to another individual! It must circulate from the most capable to the most capable—and all that’s needed is to establish a cycle of production!” says Steiner. Well, after the complete collapse that is now in the making and on the horizon, a distribution to the most capable will surely have to take place?! So there are still people who want to share. It’s a good thing they reject Marxism; otherwise, we’d be cast in a bad light. So he wants to devise—or perhaps has already devised—a social order intended to bring salvation to humanity, thereby straying from natural development into utopianism. When he goes on to quote Blanc and Fourier, he presumably wishes to align himself with them, and with that, we can consider Steiner a closed chapter. His “Alliance for Threefold Social Order,” like the “Alliance for Reforms of the Transition Period,” will, however, remain what they are: a phenomenon of today’s revolutionary era. They arose from a certain social class’s search for a social reform that best suits its own class. Ph. W.

[ 6 ] We were also informed of the following: After the presentation concluded, the chair of the meeting, Dr. Booß from Zurich, opened the discussion and explained that the “Association for the Threefold Social Order” is not a political party and therefore has no platform. The aim is simply to establish working groups everywhere that strive to spread the ideas presented by the speaker to a wide audience. As the first speaker in the discussion, Mr. Johannes Müller then asked the speaker whether the three members were on the same level or whether one was superior to the others, and if so, which member would then have to be subordinate? In a lengthy explanation, the speaker then established the principle that no hierarchy could exist; on the contrary, each branch must possess full freedom in and of itself, and yet one would automatically fit into the other. Next, Mr. Hefti, editor of the Echo, took the floor. He spoke of the path that must be taken, of philosophical treatises, of bridging the gap created by the 2,000-year history of religion, of the mentality of peoples who allow such widespread slaughter, and so on. The speaker’s rebuttal to the National Council member, however, was bitter. He said, word for word: “Anyone who speaks as Mr. Hefti does—no matter who he may be—is an obstacle to social progress; he is an obstacle to the reconstruction of a new economic order.” With this, Dr. Steiner demonstrated that he is not only a formidable orator but also a keen judge of character. This observation was valuable to us, for if the Grütlians are so thoroughly shaken off even from this side, then it will become clear even to the lowliest worker where his most dangerous enemies stand.