The Rudolf Steiner Archive

32. The History of Capitalism

Discussion post

[ 1 ] Rudolf Steiner: If I have understood Dr. Schuler correctly, his main concern was to examine the conditions and trends—particularly those related to education driven by economic interests. And indeed, when one brings this perspective to the forefront, it becomes clear that it is instructive and leads to very fruitful insights regarding the prewar conditions of our economic life, particularly when one takes this structure as a basis.

[ 2 ] Historically speaking, it can be said that this structure was most clearly evident in European-American economic life in the 1890s and at the beginning of the 20th century.

[ 3 ] Back then, in the 1990s, the heyday of liberalism—which had previously made quite an impression on all sides—had come to an end. Capitalism had, in fact, decisively broken away from the liberal ideas with which it had previously been closely intertwined, and only then, I would say, did it emerge in a sort of “pure form.” In contrast to this “pure form” of capitalism, the other two categories mentioned here under No. II grew stronger, so to speak. The aristocratic-feudalist group and the other, peasant group, grew stronger; they had, in fact, already receded in their binding influence in the early 1880s and during the 1870s, and then grew stronger again—I would say—as a sort of reaction against the rise of capitalism, becoming what we actually understand today as the proletariat. Almost everywhere people speak of “proletarians” today, they actually talk as if the war had never happened at all! It is actually impractical to apply these categories today in the same sense as, for example, in 1912 or 1913. But what we now understand as the proletariat took shape precisely as this category in the late 1880s and early 1890s, and manifested itself in its purest form. So it is certainly true that considering these categories has a certain significance if one wants to understand modern economic life.

[ 4 ] However, it is important to realize that it was precisely the interaction of the most diverse currents and forces of social life that made such a structure possible in the first place.

[ 5 ] People talk about capitalism today. The important thing, however, is to first distinguish between what has emerged as—I would say—a historical current of capitalism, [and that] which has caused tendencies specifically labeled as “capitalist” to become intertwined with our social life.

[ 6 ] These capitalist tendencies have, in fact, increasingly led to the emergence of what—as I believe 1908—I emphasized in a lecture in Nuremberg: that capitalism at that time was already clearly showing how it was becoming impersonal, how it was, so to speak, bringing out the impersonal-social element in contrast to the earlier personal element, from which capitalism itself had, in turn, arisen.

[ 7 ] Isn’t it true that, back then, I used a small example—one intended merely to characterize historical stages—to illustrate how capitalism gradually transitioned from a personal stage to an impersonal one? Take, for example, the Rothschild stage of capitalism: that is the personal stage. It’s truly characteristic, as illustrated by the anecdote I’ve mentioned several times, how Rothschild negotiates with a leather merchant in the spirit of capitalism. And while he’s negotiating with this leather merchant, the finance minister of the King of France arrives to be announced—he, too, now has to negotiate with Rothschild on capitalist matters; this finance minister of the King of France. The servant who announced him may not yet have fully adopted capitalist tendencies; he is probably still steeped in artisanal and peasant ways, so to speak. So he announces the minister and believes that something must happen immediately when he announces the finance minister of the King of France. But Rothschild says: he should wait. – The servant goes out and hardly dares to tell the King of France’s Minister of Finance that he is to wait. And after he has timidly conveyed this, the Minister of Finance says angrily: “But tell Rothschild: the King of France’s Minister of Finance is here!” – “I’ve already said that,” replies the servant. – After waiting a while, the minister himself flings open the door and says: “But I am the finance minister of the King of France.” Rothschild, who had intended to finish his business with his leather merchant first, says: “Please take a seat if you don’t want to wait outside.” – “But I cannot wait. I am the finance minister of the King of France.” – “Then take two chairs,” said Rothschild. That is the personal element, which is quite clearly evident here; that is the personal element.

[ 8 ] Take a somewhat later example, such as one I mentioned in my 1908 lecture in Nuremberg, which had already come to pass by then: In that case, the personal element is no longer present at all. It continues slowly throughout history, but is no longer as strongly present. By then, a trend had already set in: first, on the one hand, the rise of joint-stock companies, which suppressed the personal element entirely and allowed capital to operate as such. But in addition, this aspect had already become clearly evident—that one person is sometimes on top, sometimes at the bottom, and then another is on top. Things didn’t move as quickly back then as they do now. But capital was at work; one person was rich one moment and poor the next, and the same was true for another. That, after all, was the trend in economic life. And one would arrive at interesting results if one were to examine the personal element inherent in economic life as early as 1908.

[ 9 ] Well, capitalism as such has certainly existed. But at the time, this capitalism had an extraordinarily strong educational effect—an effect on the general public. It educated the people. And the capitalist mindset is something different from capitalism itself. The capitalist mindset extends to the whole person. And isn’t it true that, let’s say, if someone owns a few shares, he is certainly a capitalist in a sense; but he does not yet possess the capitalist mindset. However, if someone is both socialist and capitalist, and his personality shines through with the greatest intensity, he remains a capitalist through and through to the very core. He is thoroughly capitalist, in his entire being!

[ 10 ] These are certainly things we must take into account. This shows, on the one hand, how useful it is to establish such categories; but on the other hand, it clearly reveals how these things—having developed as they did around the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—actually, at their very core, already contain within themselves the potential to lead themselves ad absurdum.

[ 11 ] Pure capitalism, after all, arose from entirely necessary conditions. Economic life—particularly that of the nineteenth century—simply could not have unfolded if capitalism had not developed.

[ 12 ] But on the other hand, one could say: Capitalism has never succeeded in completely reclaiming the social order, so to speak. Isn’t it true that a striking example is a statesman who, after all, had a strong influence, yet fundamentally lacked such personal character and personal values that he cannot be portrayed as an individual, but rather as something typical: Prince Bülow is a characteristic man.

[ 13 ] Well, you see, Prince Bülow—who played an immense role right at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—is such an influential figure that he was able to become German Imperial Chancellor simply because he had been “capitalized”! He owed his representative duties—which he was required to perform as German Chancellor—to a large donation from a pure capitalist.

[ 14 ] So here, the art of statecraft in Germany has become capitalist—I don’t want to say “entrepreneurial”—but it has, outwardly and as it appears, been put on a solid foundation. So there we have an art of statecraft grounded in capitalism. A donation from a major capitalist makes it possible—doesn’t it?—makes it possible for Germany to be governed by Prince Bülow’s enlightened leadership!

[ 15 ] But this capitalist-minded statesman set as his ideal, during a very important vote in the Reichstag, that his tombstone should one day read: “This man was an agrarian chancellor.” He was, therefore, a chancellor who was particularly sympathetic to the aristocratic-feudalist movement.

[ 16 ] You can see how things are all tied together.

[ 17 ] On the other hand—Dr. Schuler did raise a very interesting point regarding the relationship between Catholicism, Protestant-Evangelicalism, and capitalism. This is true, and such a connection has indeed already been debated from other perspectives. However, on this occasion, one must also draw attention to the counterexamples, which in turn show that, if one asserts such a viewpoint, it cannot be sustained in a radical manner.

[ 18 ] To begin with, one could point out, right at the dawn of the modern era, the capitalist nature of Tetzel’s sale of indulgences: behind it all lay pure Catholic capitalism. As is well known, this was not a transaction concluded in Germany on Rome’s behalf for each and every individual indulgence; rather, the entire scheme had long since been sold by the Pope in advance to a Genoese banking house! The banking house took the risk only because it counted on as many people as possible—especially in Germany—falling for it. But the Pope had long since pocketed the money by the time Tetzel was traveling around. These are things that can already be called state capitalism.

[ 19 ] And if we turn to more recent times, we find that even during the rise of capitalism in the 1880s, one of the greatest and most comprehensive [undertakings] by the [Contra Group] was carried out precisely by the Church—the Catholic Church—and was entirely aimed at bringing about a strictly Catholic […] [illegible]—but through capitalist means. – I don’t know if this [Contra story] has become well-known here; but it certainly shows how the Catholic Church did not simply weave the old capitalist order into its web. All of this shows [how] things—such as what has just [been mentioned], such as the categories that one can so strictly distinguish from one another—in turn are thoroughly intertwined. And what constitutes the proletariat is under this influence. It is still present there today. Isn’t it quite clear that it is the most barren thing of all as […] [illegible] due to the manifestations of war? Isn’t it true, if one can put it that way, that in its purest form, this proletarian element was present precisely in Germany? Well, isn’t it true that no one—unless they happen to belong to a proletarian party—needs to carry laurels to [Castle] Amerongen, and I have often spoken here to the effect that such things are unnecessary. But of course, it could really be quite difficult at times to find a difference in status between His Majesty [His Majesty] Wilhelm II and His Majesty—namely, master saddler Fritz Ebert. Now, even he is a [well-known great man], and this distinction between the notorious militarism and its [subcategories]—this distinction—is also one that cannot quite be easily categorized. All these things would, of course, have to be elaborated on further now, and they would show that, as things stand, indeed in all these categories that have emerged and that one must be familiar with, the […] [illegible passage] can be understood. Only those who still believe today that, when speaking of the extent of value [stenogram breaks off].