The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Second Lecture

[ 1 ] Today, too, I will share with you reflections similar to those I presented yesterday. Admittedly, from many perspectives, these reflections are not what is strictly speaking “anthroposophical,” but I believe we live in a time and under circumstances where the very foundation of the anthroposophical-spiritual-scientific movement upon which we stand is precisely the one upon which such reflections must be made—not merely can or should be made, but must be made in the present. I would also like, if possible, to refrain from offering my own judgment on this occasion—I say: if possible—and merely provide the basis for an assessment, insofar as such an assessment seems necessary to me, for those who feel compelled to assess the current circumstances. Yesterday I proceeded from the assumption that, in the face of the current catastrophic events, raising the question of guilt—as the concept of guilt is usually understood—steers the entire judgment down the wrong, erroneous path. For judgment is steered in the wrong direction the moment emotions, sympathies, and antipathies of any kind are allowed to influence a matter as earth-shattering as this catastrophe. This must be said, even though it is so natural for such sympathies and antipathies to come into play—indeed, I would say, as self-evident as it is that they do. But one can still strive, based on the facts, to at least find a direction for judgment—a direction toward the judgment that must, after all, develop gradually, a judgment that seeks its foundation in the tragedy and the inevitability of current events, and not time and again seeks it solely by asking: “Yes, did people here or there, at this or that moment, already think of the war that was to come, or did they resolve to wage war?”—or the like.

[ 2 ] One really must come to terms with the fact that, in most cases, such a judgment is completely devoid of substance. For what does it really mean when someone, somewhere—and of course one has heard many such things oneself—says that a war is bound to result from this or that set of circumstances? Such matters always boil down to whether, in any given situation—where, for example, someone wants war—that person is actually in a position to carry out that desire, to actually bring about the war, or even to do anything significant to bring it about. Countless people here and there may have wished for war: if they were not in a position to do anything to bring it about, then what they said is mere talk. Precisely when assessing current events, it is necessary to truly understand what it actually means to view history symptomatically. No one who is unable to weigh the motives and the facts can arrive at a sound judgment—unless they at least strive to do so—for in the present, all events are immensely complex. And if you pick up on a fact here or there—or even mere rhetoric—the question is always what weight such a fact or such rhetoric can carry within the context of events. Even when listing the facts, one must take what I have in mind into account to a very special degree.

[ 3 ] You see, for anyone who wants to understand—and in fact, everyone today should strive to understand what is right in this area—it was also a matter of focusing on the right things, of asking the right questions about events, so to speak; naturally, the degree of passion he possessed within himself prevented many from doing just that.

[ 4 ] I have had many opportunities to inquire in this direction, to learn about these matters. For example, whenever possible, I have waited for a definitive answer; I have asked this question quite a few times within Germany, and I have also asked it of Austrians: What, in fact, is the real objective of this so-called war, as defined by the authorities? — I received a very vague answer from an official source only once, and I observed that, in fact, wherever one could ask about a so-called war objective within German borders—and also within Austrian borders—people knew nothing about any such objective. The only thing I was ever given as a vague answer was that they wanted freedom of the seas. That is the only thing I was ever told.

[ 5 ] Now, of course, I know that one might respond: Yes, but the Pan-Germans—what all those far-reaching war aims they set forth—and so on. Yes, one must not forget that, naturally, in times like these, many people say many things, and agitation is rife. But there was never any possibility that what was said, for example, by the Pan-German side, could be taken seriously for any purpose other than to incite and spread folly. It is extremely important to weigh these matters, to realize, for example, that in Central Europe—particularly at the beginning of the war—there was no real war aim among those who were in a position to contribute, to take action in the course of the war, or to refrain from action in the course of the war. This alone gives direction to one’s judgment when one realizes: People, especially in the early days of the war, had absolutely no idea what they were actually fighting for. — Who could possibly imagine that one would set out to unleash a war out of the blue when one has no idea at all what one is actually supposed to do with this war! For even the vague answer I received—about freedom of the seas—was really just a stopgap response, because the person in question didn’t know anything else, and this was something one could at least say to save face. That is the one thing I would like to present to you, so to speak, as a factual context.

[ 6 ] Another factor seems important to me and will become increasingly important in assessing the situation the more one seeks to judge matters objectively. I explained yesterday that the actual decision regarding what should or should not be done in Germany in late July and early August—given the circumstances I described yesterday—unfortunately rested entirely with the Army High Command, which could make that decision only on the basis of strategic considerations, namely in accordance with the circumstances and the state of affairs. Consequently, one cannot even speak of a specific political will on the part of German policymakers, for example, in late July and early August or even in the preceding period. One cannot speak of either an overarching political will or any specific political will that was in any way connected to this catastrophe. One might even say: A political goal, a political concept, or a political idea did not exist at all in Central Europe. That is certainly a curious fact. But it is precisely this fact that must be taken into account as such. There were military ideas about how the war should be waged if it came. After all, under normal circumstances, military ideas are always based on so-called conditional clauses: “if it comes,” because the military should never be the one to decide whether or not to take action once war has broken out. Sound thinking about the relationship between politics and warfare—that is something that has truly not been cultivated at all over the past four years. For example, to my great regret, I have had to hear time and again that, in the Central European states, Clausewitz’s maxim has been repeated: “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” Well, there is no more foolish statement than this, for it is constructed according to the same logical pattern as the statement: “Divorce is the continuation of marriage by other means.” — Yet this statement—I mean the former one—was quoted everywhere as a wise statement and understood everywhere as such.

[ 7 ] It seems to me, particularly in light of this relationship between politics and warfare in Central Europe, that it is important to emphasize to the world what the German Army High Command actually intended to do should a war break out. After all, the German Army High Command had to base its assumptions—the assumptions for a strategic operation should war break out—on the following documents. The basis for the Army High Command was this: If war were to break out as a result of any European conflict, the alliance structure would mean that two blocs would face off against one another and automatically join forces; on one side would stand the Central Powers—which, in our foolish but sincere belief, always included Italy—and on the other side, Russia, France, and England. — Given the various alliance arrangements, as far as they were known, one could not have thought otherwise. The strategic plan had to be formulated accordingly, so to speak. And what was the aim of this strategic plan? It is important to consider the following fact: What did the Army High Command want? — The Army High Command wanted the following: it wanted to advance through Belgium into France as far as necessary to render the Russian-French alliance ineffective. — The Army High Command wanted nothing more than to induce France to refrain from its alliance with Russia with regard to the conduct of the war. Nothing other than a purely strategic march through Belgium—which would, of course, require that Belgium be fully compensated for this passage— nor anything other than an incursion into France—which, to the extent that it caused destruction, would likewise have to be compensated for—such as annexations of French territory and the like, could not be contemplated under the entire structure of the German military system, which I already characterized in part yesterday. It was merely a matter, so to speak, of preventing France from participating on a sustained basis in a possible war on two fronts. Strategically, nothing more was to be achieved in the west.

[ 8 ] Of course, this could only be carried out as long as there was no effective alliance between France and England. In this regard, the German leaders indulged in the—admittedly irresponsible—notion that they would succeed in preventing England from forming any alliance with France. The moment that alliance was established, the entire plan of campaign toward the West was, of course, effectively thrown out the window. This is the one thing that must absolutely be taken into account. And one must bear in mind that, for anyone who assumed any responsibility at all, this was the sole determining factor. As for the east, on the other side, the issue was not one of annexations, but rather of maintaining what was so philistinely called the status quo ante. So—whether one agrees with this or not—in the early days following the outbreak of this catastrophic military conflict, no one in the heart of Europe actually thought anything other than that they were dealing with a war of defense. Then various events occurred which, I would say, completely clouded judgment.

[ 9 ] You see, there are various issues to address here, which, of course, can only be properly understood if one is willing to deal with them in an appropriate manner. First of all, I would like you to keep in mind that, quite apart from other machinations originating from the forces I alluded to yesterday—financial and industrial groups and the like—though you may be sure that in every corner of the world, no one is any more innocent or guilty than anyone else— quite apart from these matters, given the various antecedents—I would say the circumstances in which the outbreak of war was presented to Europe—and when the question was: Must the German army, viewed purely from a military standpoint, intervene?—one must not lose sight of, for example, an incident that has indeed become public knowledge, although I do not know whether it has been given much consideration. The Chief of the General Staff of the German Field Army returned to Berlin on July 26 from an extended spa stay in Karlsbad. This must be taken into account, because it provides a basis for assessment when the individual who, due to the circumstances, bore sole responsibility for the outbreak of war—for that is how the matter stands regarding Germany’s participation in the war—was simply at the spa until four days before the decision was made; and the fact that this individual was taken completely by surprise by the events—that is among the things that can one day be historically proven. One hopes that the time for historical proof of this fact will come quite soon. For me, it is a fundamental basis for judgment to know that the individual who, due to the circumstances, was solely responsible for deciding: “Must we attack now or not?”—was, four days earlier, in a position where he could not concern himself with the entire situation in Europe, but was instead spending time at a spa, carefree and unconcerned about conditions outside the state. He was also outside the country on that date, July 5, 1914, which is regarded as particularly decisive—the day on which a conference is said to have taken place in Potsdam and during which the German Army High Command is said to have issued, so to speak, an ultimatum regarding the war. Yes, he was already absent at that time; he was not in Berlin. I have made a great effort, particularly with regard to this July 5, to find out what actually happened there. All I have ever been able to ascertain is that people were named who were said to have been present at this conference. I do not deny that something took place on July 5; but to claim that what happened then marked the beginning of a course of action in the war that would have had a prospect of success had it not been for the very constellation of circumstances I described yesterday—that must be categorically denied. For many threads run parallel to one another. The thread that led to the involvement of Central Europe—that is, Germany, let us say—in the war does not date back to any earlier day than July 28 at the latest. Other threads go back further. However, what actually happened does not lie in their continuation, even though one is very easily tempted and misled into seeking in their continuation what is said to have happened.

[ 10 ] I’ll show an example of such a thread, but first I want to say: Names have been mentioned of people who are said to have attended this conference on July 5. — Yet it was possible to verify the alibis of all these people! One was somewhere in the Black Forest on July 5, another was at the North Sea, and so on; though I certainly do not deny that others, whose alibis were simply not investigated, may have participated. But I just want to point out how often judgment is led down the wrong path. You see, I want to give you an example of just how dangerous it is, when one refuses to be objective, to go down the wrong track in such matters. Here is the example: In Berlin, as indeed throughout the world, there was, of course, a warmongering party. This warmongering party operated through its media outlets. Through this warmongering party, a special edition was published in Berlin on a day close to the outbreak of war, which claimed that the war had been decided upon in a meeting of the Privy Council. This was a special edition that had been published. At the time, this special edition was telegraphed to St. Petersburg as quickly as possible, the very moment it was published, so that a certain mood was created in St. Petersburg once the contents of this paper became known. It is now peculiar that immediately after it became known in government circles—in these utterly inactive government circles, in these incompetent government circles—that this paper had been published, it was immediately confiscated everywhere. It was immediately clarified that no such decision had been made, that there could be no question of such a Crown Council, and that, for the time being, mobilization had not even been decided upon. This telegram, which contained the denial of the telegram intended to stir up sentiment, was held up for six hours at the Berlin Main Post Office and was only telegraphed to St. Petersburg after six hours.

[ 11 ] There you can see that all sorts of people were indeed active—people who had good connections and were able to ensure that the sentiment they wanted to create in St. Petersburg—which had absolutely no basis in authoritative circles—had time to take hold. And yet, the entire clique in question was unable to spin a thread that, if continued, could have led to war. After all, fundamentally, nothing else in Germany prompted the decision to proceed with mobilization other than the news—one need only compile the bare facts, without embellishing them in any way with the sort of rhetoric people tend to use to embellish facts—that Russia was mobilizing its entire army. This became known through communication with the telephone exchanges along the borders. I say: It became known—it was brought to light—that three such reports were received. Only after three reports had arrived, all of which stated the same thing—that mobilization was taking place in Russia—did the following occur, which must be presented as a completely dry, sober fact if one truly intends to understand the facts. What happened was that a sort of aide to the Chief of the General Staff was summoned to draft a memorandum for the Emperor, in which the necessity of mobilization in response to the Russian mobilization was to be explained. In the room where this took place, there is a desk set into the corner of an alcove in such a way that one can stand behind it, and in that alcove stood the Chief of the General Staff, his hands clasped in anguish, saying: “If we are now forced to strike, then we must be clear that for years to come the peoples of Europe will tear each other apart.”

[ 12 ] This is a simple scene. Of course, you can trace it back to ways of thinking within military circles or the like. But that really isn’t what matters when you want to weigh the facts; what matters is that you put yourself in a position to face the facts calmly and objectively. Only when I am able to present the facts of the world step by step—one can do this hour by hour—simply presenting them, without passing any judgment—only then will it be possible to even begin to form a judgment on this tragic affair of humanity. To do this, however, it is necessary to recount the facts hour by hour—specifically, on that fateful Saturday before the outbreak of war, between half past three in the afternoon and half past ten at night in Berlin—plain and simple. Then one can follow every step; then one can follow all the details. And this straightforward account is the only thing capable of enabling the world to form a judgment. Perhaps I may say already today that, among the various efforts I have undertaken myself and which I have outlined, this was the first point: that a decision be made in Central Europe to present these facts plainly to the world, without saying anything else other than: This and that happened. — In addition to everything else involved, this has been presented to various people—I will have to prove this with documentary evidence at some point—it has been presented to various people in full detail. People capable of judgment have said something to me specifically regarding this first point, which I naturally had to assess differently than those “people capable of judgment” who said it. But today there is absolutely no reason left to conceal such judgments that have been made—the judgments that have been made regarding the fact that I have said time and again: Just think how the entire situation would have to change for the world if what I am actually proposing were to happen—and how much would be prevented, including for Central Europe, if that were to happen. — People of sound judgment replied to me that all of that might indeed be true—that immense calamity would be averted—but that if one were to do what I actually wanted, then something else would have to happen. And what they described as the thing that had to happen has now—after a long time, in fact, just yesterday—come to pass!

[ 13 ] For those who are concerned with reality, things—when approached from the right angle—contain that which then unfolds of its own accord through the logic of facts. Things in this realm are already more complicated than the frivolous judges—who have often spoken of these matters or still do—are in any way aware of. And anyone who wishes to address these matters in a way that corresponds to a proper, reality-based judgment must boldly engage with what was and what is, rather than with this or that sympathy or this or that emotion. |

[ 14 ] The next point I would like to bring to your attention is that, in fact, the entire outcome that was subsequently brought about had already been decided following the Battle of the Marne on September 9, 1914. I do not shy away from calmly admitting that I did not immediately realize this to be the case—that I did not realize immediately after the Battle of the Marne that what has now come to pass was, in fact, inevitable. I only realized this at a later point in time—at the very moment when I was trying to do this or that in order to steer events in one direction or another. I must say, I do not shy away from admitting that it only became clear to me later. For it was by no means easy to act—historically and truthfully, and at the same time in such a way that the relevant actions were taken correctly at the relevant moment—during that catastrophic period. When I published my *Thoughts During the War*, I compiled material that did not require any consideration of underlying occult insights—material that had emerged from a simple, modern historical perspective. One will likely notice that I had stopped writing—though at the time I still believed I would be able to continue at a later date—when I reached the section on Italy in my account. But I wish to suggest that for those who take things seriously and in accordance with reality, it is not as easy to arrive at a judgment as it is for some other people. I have merely outlined what was open to assessment. And I would like to say: I simply could not, through my judgment, penetrate the essence of what Italy’s position entailed. At the time, I wrote this little book, *Thoughts During the War*, first and foremost for the people of Central Europe—not to achieve anything in the eyes of the world, but for the people of Central Europe—and it soon became clear to me, after I had written this little book, what the situation was like in the wake of the defeat at the Marne. And I resisted with all my might ever allowing another edition of this little book to be published, even though it was, of course, not only suggested to me but there was also a clear incentive to do so. But anyone who thinks seriously about these matters knows that, in a world situation such as the one we were in—and still are in—it is not merely a matter of speaking out about what is right, but also of ensuring that this or that happens at the right time, or is refrained from at the right time. It was not merely a matter of having the impulse to express one’s opinion, but rather a matter of not only saying what one thinks, but also of paying attention to whether what one thinks should be said or not.

[ 15 ] With this, I would now like to point out to you how necessary it is to set limits and restraints when it comes to forming a judgment about this terrible catastrophe for humanity from the right perspective or steering it in the right direction. One must not forget that this war—as I already pointed out briefly yesterday—has gone through various phases; in fact, since 1916, this war has no longer been the same as it was at its beginning, at its starting point. It has become something entirely different. And I have often suffered from the fact that, over the course of these four years, people have ultimately held the same views they had at the beginning, even though world events have become completely, completely different in many respects. This so-called war has gradually been steered onto entirely different paths. One must not forget: If one wishes to trace the course in which this war has been steered, then one must not overlook another possibility that the Viennese war party, in particular, had in mind. Didn’t I tell you yesterday: Those people who stood behind the utterly incompetent government and behind the senile emperor—those people who are actually responsible for what happened in Austria, these people who are purely financial circles—they reckoned that the dynastic circumstances in Russia would lead to nothing more than a mobilization in Russia. They thought they could go about their little business in the Balkans, and that Russia wouldn’t seriously mobilize after all. And even if it did mobilize, it would only—well, you know, there’s a term that’s absolutely dreadful, one that’s used over and over again in politics—aim to do nothing more than “bluff.” That’s what they call “bluffing.” It’s the most frivolous thing one can imagine, but the term “bluffing” is, for example, quite commonplace in diplomacy. Only in this area was there a certain difference between Austria and Germany. As you know, Austria’s declaration of war on Russia wasn’t issued until August 7—that is, almost a week after Germany’s declaration of war on Russia. All of this points to machinations that I cannot go into here due to time constraints, but which will all come to light one day. It does, however, indicate that in Austria, people had anticipated a very different course of action than in Germany. In Germany, the expectation was nothing other than this: If Russia mobilizes, we must mobilize as well. — But given the nature of the German military administration, mobilization today means the start of war tomorrow. There was simply no other way to interpret it. Anyone familiar with the circumstances knows that Germany should either not have mobilized at all in response to the Russian mobilization, or it should have proceeded with a declaration of war the very next day.

[ 16 ] From a military standpoint—which, unfortunately, was the only one taken into consideration—this was simply a matter of course. But that was only the beginning. Over time, a different possibility arose, particularly for Austria’s warmongers. They counted on being able to align themselves with the Entente and hold things in check at the right moment. And the various negotiations that took place, particularly between Austria and the Entente, could, if properly documented, fill volumes. These negotiations began relatively early on. As you may have seen in the newspapers, these negotiations have not yet come to an end, for the Habsburg dynasty hopes to be reinstated in some form with the help of the Entente. The question will simply be this—for all issues that are to be decided will ultimately come down to questions of power—whether the Entente finds it in its interest to support the Habsburg dynasty in any way—indeed, one doesn’t really know how to describe something that is nothing—the Habsburg dynasty in some capacity within whatever is to be made of this confederation of nations that was formerly united under Austria. If that were in the Entente’s interest, it would, of course, happen in some form or another. One must simply not forget that. But this began very early on, and it marks a fundamentally different phase of the war when something like that happens. Anyone who considers how this war ended for Austria will not find it surprising to hear it said: Well, it was already evident in 1916 that Austria needed peace under any circumstances. There could be no doubt whatsoever—under any circumstances and under any conditions—that it was simply nonsense to continue the war in any way, even under the harshest conditions. This is evident from the course of events; I am not referring so much to what actually happened, but rather to the state in which the Austrian army returned. All these facts, taken together, naturally convinced even well-meaning people in Austria that they had much to gain if an agreement could be reached with the Entente to save Austria from a great catastrophe. One person sees what the well-meaning people are saying, while another sees what the ill-meaning people are saying, and forms their judgment depending on where their emotions are directed at that moment.

[ 17 ] Another fact comes into play here. What must be considered is that such events essentially influenced the entire course, the entire trajectory of the war’s catastrophe, and that, naturally, political factions also emerged within Austria. Some wanted to take one stance toward Germany, others another; there were mutual grudges and many other factors—too numerous to list here, of course, given the time constraints. This meant that, from the point in time just described onward, we were dealing with an entirely different phase of the war catastrophe than before. One could no longer simply maintain the convenient judgment: “Well, the Central Powers are allies, and the circumstances under which they were drawn into the war as allies in 1914 must be upheld even as the war continued.”—That was simply not true. Indeed, the tragedy for Central Europe lies in many things. It lies, for example, in the ill-fated alliance that eventually emerged with Turkey. The dissolution of this alliance—both with Turkey and with Bulgaria—took place slowly and gradually. Anyone who was aware of the events knows that the Turks could just as easily have broken away much earlier, as could the Bulgarians. The time finally came when the Turks withdrew, even after they had been given 40 million in gold—for 40 million in gold had been given to the Turks by Germany before they withdrew. Two hundred fifty thousand suits were delivered to Bulgaria before it withdrew. All these things were simply done. They show how little one actually grasped the situation, for it seems to me highly unlikely that one would have given the Turks 40 million in gold if one had known—as one could have known with a not very deep analysis—that they would soon withdraw.

[ 18 ] By this I merely wish to suggest to you—for I would have to multiply what I am saying a hundredfold—that this entire war-related catastrophe has gradually entered a course that differs quite significantly from its starting point; which made it necessary to completely reverse and transform the judgment if one were to base it on the facts. And it soon became apparent that, in the course of this war-torn catastrophe, all—and I mean all—the complacency and misdeeds of the bourgeoisie, which had been asleep for decades, came to light. And that is a significant point. Trotsky spoke a great deal of nonsense, committed even more nonsense, and wreaked havoc in the world, but he uttered one sentence regarding this war-torn catastrophe that began to prove true relatively soon. That statement is: The ruling circles—by which he meant those who, naturally, were involved in the outbreak of this war throughout the world, not just in Central Europe—have only the choice between perpetual war or revolution; there is no third option. — It is indeed true that world events have been pushed and steered in such a way—and this is where the responsibility of the broad masses of the civilized world begins—that we have finally been driven into a dead end where there was only one choice left: either hold on tenaciously or face the revolution. Well, you have seen how tenaciously they have clung to the war, for as long as it lasts, the revolution is not here. The moment it is over, the revolution will make itself known here or there.

[ 19 ] You may recall that I have often spoken to you here over the past few years about matters along these lines. I believe I told you, for example, quite, quite a long time ago—at the very time when this was relevant: In contrast to everything people are now judging, it is much more important to emphasize what happened, for example, in Russia, within Russia itself. — What happened within Russia immediately after the fall of the tsarist regime was far more important than what took place on the so-called theater of the World War. And so it became even more important to focus on what I emphasized elsewhere, where it was appropriate to do so: to look at what stood out among the Czechoslovaks who made their presence felt in Russia, rather than at all the other things that people conveniently focused on—even if, of course, this convenient approach was naturally challenged by certain tragedies or in other ways.

[ 20 ] And this brings me to a question that has been asked of me repeatedly and from all sorts of different quarters lately: what course of action one might now take, now that things have come to this point. I do not believe that what I am saying today will fall on more fertile ground than what I have said over the years; but nevertheless, everyone has their role to play. My task is to speak out, and I will not miss the opportunity—whether speaking to you or to the world, when the time is right—to actually say what I consider not only correct but also appropriate to say.

[ 21 ] You see, what is approaching—and here, where we are among ourselves, so to speak, we can speak very freely about this matter—what is approaching is undoubtedly a confrontation between the proletariat, which has emerged from modern industrialism over the last few centuries—as I myself mentioned in my recent public lecture in Basel—and the old classes of humanity. Well, I have already expressed myself to some extent when, in connection with my *Philosophy of Freedom*, I stated what I had considered to be of the utmost necessity in recent years and still consider so today, but I would like to add the following: What is at stake is recognizing that a current is gathering momentum as if driven by a certain elemental necessity. By this current, I mean the social movement—or the sum of the social demands being raised by the proletariat. The point is not to pass one judgment or another on this current, but rather to truly immerse oneself in what is emerging—what is simply emerging as a fact. That is what matters. To criticize it is something one can certainly do if one wishes, but it has little more value than an opinion that may be very well-founded, yet remains merely a private one. What really matters is that a way be found for the masses of the non-proletarian population throughout the civilized world to take a stand on what is on the horizon. Many of the questions put to me were directed precisely along these lines. And that is precisely what must now be at the forefront of people’s minds: taking a stand. Well, all I can say is this: With regard to the social movement—as it has developed out of this war-torn catastrophe, and has developed solely out of it in its present form—we have entered a stage where it truly can no longer be a matter of drawing up abstract programs, compiling this or that number of points, and saying that one should do this or that. — That might have been a possibility three years ago, two years ago, perhaps even a year ago. Today, that is no longer a possibility. Today, if someone asks me about this, I can only answer that the only thing that matters now is that, in every single place where one finds oneself—especially if one is a humanities scholar—one can determine, through a realistic assessment of the situation, what needs to be done, and that one also finds the means and ways to carry out what must be done.

[ 22 ] Of course, it is again helpful to objectively and carefully consider what the bourgeois circles, in particular, have failed to do. Isn’t it true that the abstract statement is easy to understand: The bourgeoisie must find a way—if terrible catastrophes are to be avoided—to align itself with the proletariat. — But this statement is, after all, a completely abstract one; it does not really say anything specific. What is at stake is something entirely different. This alignment—which is necessary and must take place—will not be easy. For it is precisely the bourgeois classes that, over the years, have failed to do things of immense importance, which has led to their now lacking much of what is needed to align themselves directly with the proletariat. The majority of the bourgeois classes have no idea about the state of mind of the proletariat. What drives them are mass instincts. But these mass instincts—one must truly be able to understand them; one must truly grasp them as they are by their very nature. And precisely in the face of this situation, one must not entertain the belief that an understanding of these mass instincts, which are at work today, will come of its own accord. A patriarchal mindset—or what bourgeois circles today call an “understanding” of such matters—does not even come close to addressing the issue. When it comes to social issues—even if they have engaged with them in one direction or another—bourgeois circles understand little more than that people are hungry and crying out for bread, because that is indeed what they do when they are hungry. That is what they have in common today with proletarian circles. They have done absolutely nothing in recent decades to truly strive for an intellectual communion with the proletariat, to initiate such a communion. I may well consider myself qualified to judge this matter, simply because what I say is not based solely on academic study; for anyone who, like myself, has emerged from the proletariat knows how the proletariat lives and thinks—I would say, in every conceivable area; and anyone who has then engaged—as much as any human being can engage—with the ideas that have shaped the proletariat over the decades, and with the sentiments that emanate from this proletariat, is indeed qualified to speak on this matter.

[ 23 ] It must be borne in mind and given due consideration that, over the course of the last few decades, the working-class circles have used every spare moment they had from their work to acquire ideas, concepts, and subsequently also feelings and impulses regarding capital and the capitalist economy, wages and surplus value, materialist historical development, entrepreneurship, and the working class. And one must not forget—if one wishes to steer one’s own feelings in the right direction—that in recent decades, during the time when workers, to the extent that they were able, sat evening after evening to acquire economic concepts for something they call a revolution, but which could just as well have been a reform—during that time, what, then, were the bourgeois circles doing? During that time, the bourgeoisie played cards or listened to so-called entertaining plays or read newspapers—or engaged in other similarly “useful” pursuits. As a result, with regard to human understanding on the part of the bourgeois population, the situation that exists today has finally come to pass: a state of complete inability to understand anything proletarian.

[ 24 ] This state of affairs could be maintained as long as basic mass instincts were not unleashed. It cannot be maintained once basic mass instincts are unleashed. For the entire course of the movement is such that one cannot conceive of a hierarchy without being immersed in the soul of the proletarian. Anyone who has truly been able to follow the development of the proletariat knows that all the various patriarchal machinations originating from economic leaders have been rejected most vehemently by the souls of the proletarians. What bourgeois circles believed they were doing for the benefit of the workers has, in fact, been strictly rejected in the innermost depths of the proletarian soul; it has even been perceived as a kind of insult, insofar as it has a patriarchal character. But in the realm of economic interrelationships, the proletarian has acquired the knowledge he possesses today; he has formed a judgment that he carries within his very soul—a judgment of which members of the bourgeois class have not the slightest inkling, not even a glimmer. For this is how it has come to pass that today the proletarian worker knows more about the functions of capital, about entrepreneurship and wage relations, and about materialist historical development than a university professor of economics, whose profession it is to know something about these matters.

[ 25 ] This is the situation that, above all else, must be properly grasped. For only by grasping it properly will one understand what I mean when I say: Anyone who now wants to come to terms with what is emerging needs to speak a completely new language. Everything that has been thought so far in bourgeois circles must be transformed into a completely different language; for what must be created is trust. You must be able to speak from the very soul of the people, and in every single place speak from the very soul of the people—and, above all, be able to act. You cannot do this with abstract program points, but only if you immerse yourselves in what is happening today—or are placed within it, if that is the right thing to do. For the time being, however, everything that is right is still being rejected; no steps are being taken on any front to undertake anything in this direction. For today it is no longer a matter of demanding abstract programs; rather, today it can only be a matter of developing the most personal course of action based on an understanding of the situation in each concrete, individual case. That is the only thing that matters.

[ 26 ] What can generally be said is the following. You see, because everything that the bourgeoisie neglected—things that were neither part of school education nor the subject of salon conversations or the like—was pursued in proletarian circles, most people today do not know much about the very things they need to be able to reflect upon. Now, only two approaches are possible today: either you reflect on certain social values from the perspective of today’s proletariat, or you reflect on them from the perspective of spiritual science. If you have been involved in the spiritual science movement for years and have made good use of your time there, then you will simply think correctly about whatever you may encounter today in specific situations, and only then will you be in a position to establish a relationship of trust, which is what matters above all else. For whatever the bourgeois may say today must be rejected everywhere, precisely because the proletarian speaks a much more advanced language. The bourgeois must learn to speak an even more advanced language. But first, he must be willing to do so.

[ 27 ] You see, what is necessary is to focus on the three “types” of economic values—which are the three most important types and around which the actual issues revolve. What must be addressed today, both in thought and in action, are these three types of economic values. However, you can only come to an understanding—and act in accordance with—what is emerging as a fundamental trend if you have the will to engage with the language spoken by the proletariat and are able to form and assert your own judgment, which is truly more objective and grounded in reality. The three types are what is known as entrepreneurial profit, capital gains, rent, and wages. There are no other types of economic values. All economic values fall appropriately under these three types: either entrepreneurial profit, rent, or wages. The proletariat stands, in a certain sense, in opposition to these three types of economic values. It seeks to eliminate the harmful aspects—what it considers to be harmful aspects—of these three types of economic values by bringing about the socialization of the means of production and of land, and by transferring power to the proletariat itself—power in the various spheres of society—because the proletariat has lost its trust in the other classes. Yes, today one cannot speak of this merely in theoretical terms; one can speak of it only in terms of reality. One can speak of it only by considering: How far have conditions progressed?—And by “conditions” I mean specifically: How far have the thoughts and feelings of the proletarian masses progressed? — After poring over this or that economic theory, one may consider one thing or another to be correct, but that says nothing about reality, about what needs to be done. As for what needs to be done, the only thing that matters today is what is in the minds of the proletarian masses. And that is very uniform; it has developed very uniformly over decades, and that is what must be taken into account above all else.

[ 28 ] Above all, one must be clear that certain goals must be pursued with understanding if the bourgeoisie is to align itself with the proletariat at all. Entrepreneurial profit—the tendency among the working class is to structure entrepreneurial profit in such a way that nothing from it flows into private earnings. This, however, is a matter on which an agreement with the proletariat would certainly be possible. If one were to trace all the channels, all the rivulets through which capital flows within the economic body, and then, when capital takes the form of entrepreneurial profit—if one were to trace all of this, and at the same time say to oneself: “It is the fact that entrepreneurial profit has been incorporated into private income to the greatest extent that has provoked the proletariat’s deepest mistrust of the bourgeoisie, particularly the big bourgeoisie”—and this will be beyond dispute in the future—then one is on the right track. But then, too, if one shows understanding for what the proletariat wants on this point, one will find the means to avert the profound social harm that is bound to occur if, in the spirit of the radical proletariat today, a campaign is waged against entrepreneurial profit. Unfortunately, the reality is that, given the bourgeoisie’s understanding of these matters, it is usually impossible to even engage in discussion with the proletariat, precisely because that understanding is lacking; because the bourgeois today knows nothing of the channels and functions through which something like entrepreneurial profit—whether the profit of an entrepreneur from a factory or from any other source—flows. Since the proletarian necessarily lacks the perspective to see where one social structure or another leads, he merely fights against the harms that have gradually been caused by the bourgeoisie’s conduct regarding entrepreneurial profit; but in doing so, he is certain to bring about only destruction and ruin. It would now be up to the bourgeoisie to reach a detailed understanding on this point. Precisely if agreement were reached on these details, those who—by virtue of having been part of economic institutions and having held leading positions within them—possess the knowledge necessary to ensure the continuity of economic life would, quite naturally, be placed in positions of leadership in accordance with the will of the proletariat; whether through workers’ and soldiers’ councils or other councils, they would naturally find their way into those positions. But the possibility must exist to truly negotiate with these people. If the possibility exists to negotiate, so that people realize: “Ah, he himself knows what we actually want, but he knows something more”—then what must come will come: trust, which cannot exist today. For the situation can never arise in which, if the proletariat simply has to believe: “Well, now they’re in charge, and the bourgeoisie, who have behaved in such and such a way up to now, now want to sit down at the table too”—that they will immediately let them sit down out of good will; that will not happen, but it must be supported by trust. And the difficulty lies in the fact that, in the broadest circles, there is actually no possibility of speaking a common language. One may, of course, hold the most diverse views, but one must be able to speak a common language.

[ 29 ] But then one must be clear that not only entrepreneurial profit but also rent will be fundamentally challenged. Now, it is precisely rent that has led to the worst excesses, and driven by the instincts of the masses, not only will entrepreneurial profit be targeted, but rent will naturally be targeted as well. It is quite clear, however, that once again, only those who understand the functions of rent can see through these matters. And the point is that today, if one speaks the language of the proletariat, it is easy to at least bring the issue up for discussion—understanding will develop only slowly and gradually, mutual understanding—and to build a certain kind of trust.

[ 30 ] Isn’t it true that, when it comes to entrepreneurial profit, the point is to recognize that one really should not view entrepreneurial profit as a basis for private acquisition, but rather that everything that constitutes entrepreneurial profit is related solely to the fact that one must manage the business and operate it, and that entrepreneurial profit must not be incorporated into private income in the future—into everything that constitutes private income. As for pensions, the point is that the world simply cannot function without them, for it is through pensions—in the broadest sense—that the entire realm of intellectual life, education, instruction, and everything else must be sustained; moreover, those unable to work, the sick, the elderly, and others like them must in fact be supported by pensions. The moment one speaks properly about these matters, the aim would naturally be to at least engage in a fruitful discussion; but one must also be clear that it is impossible to engage in a fruitful discussion if one does not realize that the true justification for pensions can consist only in their being directed toward the purposes I have just mentioned.

[ 31 ] The third is wages, which the proletariat seeks to regulate in such a way that no surplus value is generated that flows into anything other than the entrepreneur’s profit—which cannot be converted into private gain—and the justified rent. Of course, it is a horror for the bourgeois population—which is completely ignorant in this area—to come to understand that no one really has anything to fear, even in the slightest, if the following principle truly holds: that everyone receives the fruits of their labor, that the economic structure is in fact such that, for every worker, labor is transformed into the fruits of their labor. It is not an ideal—as you can see from my essay “The Humanities and the Social Question”—but today it is not a matter of an ideal, but rather of what alone can be achieved in the immediate future. And this involves actually fostering an understanding of what constitutes the minimum amount of surplus value, and withholding only that minimum from the wage—which will then no longer be a wage, but simply compensation for work.

[ 32 ] The social structure would take shape in the fairest possible way—one might even say, in the most convenient way—gradually, of course, if one initially sought nothing more than to align oneself with these three directions with genuine understanding. For one would then first bring about what is most essential: one would bring about the possibility of continuity in economic life. And that is necessary above all else. That is what was not possible under Bolshevism in Russia and what will never be possible unless an alignment takes place in the sense indicated. It is not possible in any other way than in the sense indicated.

[ 33 ] In these three directions, the aim is, above all, to foster an understanding such that this understanding gives rise to a movement in accordance with the rule in these three directions. Only in this way is it possible for capable leaders of economic life—which is urgently necessary if immeasurable disaster is to be averted; the capable, not the incapable, must of course come to the fore—to truly remain part of this economic life. There is no other way to win over the proletariat to the continuity of economic life than by speaking to them in a language they can understand. The continuity of economic life must be preserved. And then an understanding must be fostered of what the underlying interrelationships are.

[ 34 ] You see, there is one connection that, above all else, will have to play a major role in the near future if immeasurable misfortune—which can and must be prevented, despite the course of world events—is not to befall us, and that is this: Everything that constitutes the proletariat today is, after all, nourished in its thinking by the perverse scientific and other debates of the past centuries—and especially of the last century—of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat has, in fact, inherited everything that the bourgeoisie has produced in terms of thought and imagination. The proletariat simply stands in the world in a different way and draws different conclusions from it. The origin of what the Bolsheviks are doing lies in today’s university education, in the form that the educational system has taken, particularly for the bourgeois classes. For the proletarians have learned nothing other than what the bourgeois classes have produced. They simply draw their own conclusions from it in their own way. That is why it is necessary, above all else, to foster an understanding within the proletariat itself that they are in fact feeding on the scraps of useless bourgeois thought and now wish to spark a movement that can only be powerless, precisely because it springs from this barren bourgeois thinking. This understanding must be awakened, but of course it cannot be awakened in any other way than by realizing that a complete reversal must now take place within the bourgeoisie itself—precisely with regard to this point, with regard to intellectual life, and with regard to the educational system. The entire structure of the educational system is, in fact, truly unsuitable for the new era, and steps must simply be taken to ensure that the continuity of economic life is maintained until everything that interferes in an unhealthy way with our national economy—all the unhealthy bourgeois mechanisms of life—has been overcome.

[ 35 ] You have to take into account that one must understand the matter in a way that makes sense. Just think about it: you have to realize that money, in and of itself, is nothing at all. True values are, after all, nothing but work. Money is never anything other than a directive for work. But people don’t draw the ultimate conclusions from these things. I’ll take an example from modern-day education itself. You see, there are these young upstarts—I mean the students—who have to—well, let me highlight one example—write dissertations. It’s really true that dissertations have to be written—for all I care, about the dot over the “i” in the documents of Innocent IV. I know a man who, throughout his entire life, had a certain reputation for having written a dissertation on the swear words in Propertius, or on the parentheses used by the Greek dramatists, and so on. I could cite countless examples. But these are merely examples that could now be multiplied a millionfold—not just a hundred or a thousand times—across the most diverse fields. Yes, these matters must no longer be treated as mere literary subjects; rather, they must be placed within an economic perspective in accordance with the demands of our time. The young fox spends a whole year working on his dissertation, which, for my sake, deals with parentheses in Homer. Isn’t that right? He spends a whole year on it. It may turn out to be a so-called diligent, well-crafted piece of work. But what does that mean? It means that the student spends a year engaged in it—eating, drinking, and clothing himself. The food he eats, the drink he consumes, and the clothes he wears—all of that must be produced by a certain number of people. The social structure must be in place so that real, tangible labor is transformed in such a way that this young, toiling student can eat, drink, and clothe himself for a year in order to write about the swear words in Propertius or the parentheses in Homer. If someone were to give you even a rough idea of how, in this way, genuine human labor is transformed into stuff that is absolutely useless to culture—stuff that is worthless in every respect—then he would be performing an immensely beneficial act. But these are the things that must be brought to people’s understanding—that what one would not even think of doing, except perhaps to treat with a smile, must be viewed from an economic perspective. For we have reached the point where all things must be viewed from an economic perspective. The bourgeois who does not understand what it means to exploit people’s labor in order to enable a young person to eat, drink, and clothe themselves for an entire year through the act of systematizing Properz’s swear words—the person who does not grasp this will also fail to bring about the ranking I have spoken of.

[ 36 ] This also attests to the other thing that is necessary: on the one hand, to position oneself so that true continuity in economic life is possible; on the other hand, to foster an understanding—especially among the proletariat—that we wish to cultivate, together with the proletariat, a spiritual life that does not express itself economically in an unhealthy way, but rather in a healthy way. Only once this foundation has been laid—when, for example, the proletarian knows: “You agree with me; I can use you, because you know how to do this or that, since you have learned what I have not yet learned—people will not let you sit among them for any other reason than that they need you—once the proletarian realizes that the bourgeois has an understanding of such things, then he will create the possibility of establishing the continuity of economic life, simply for these reasons. There is no other way to do it. But then he will be open to it if one agrees with him that, furthermore, entrepreneurial profit must not be private gain in an unhealthy way, for it is only because entrepreneurial profit can be private gain that it is possible, in the dissertations of the young foxes at the universities—where entrepreneurial profit is in turn transformed into their food and drink—that the expletives in Propertius or the parentheses in Homer can be systematized. But this is only a figure of speech, for it could be multiplied a thousandfold or a millionfold.

[ 37 ] But this alone will evoke understanding—albeit indirectly—for what is particularly necessary on the spiritual path and what threatens to be completely destroyed if one does not take a stand—for from the proletariat will come the opposite of what is necessary on the spiritual path—and that is: the freedom of individuality. It is being crushed to death by the proletariat. The freedom of individuality—which makes it possible for aptitudes to be utilized, for talents to be realized, and for human beings to be free in relation to everything they produce spiritually or in which they are meant to participate spiritually—cannot be realized under the conditions of today’s proletarian worldviews. But it could be made understandable if one were to resolve to truly adopt the new language that is necessary. This is what one should absolutely clarify today—I would say, as a matter of daily necessity—and gain insight into. And once one gains this insight, one will see just how much has been neglected by creating a deep chasm between the proletarian—who has spent his time as I have indicated to you—and the bourgeoisie, which has, after all, remained fundamentally ignorant of these matters.

[ 38 ] But this is meant to show you that abstract programs and so-called ideals—no matter how nice they may sound—are of no use at all today; that today you simply have to find out what people want. But you don’t find that out by negotiating with them, because they are, of course, far from revealing anything about themselves when you negotiate with them. One must not merely negotiate, not merely live with them; one must learn to think with them, one must learn to feel with them. And one must then feel a commitment, a sense of duty, to ensure that what has been bestowed upon one through karma is now actually used in an appropriate way. The extent to which the terrible storms looming on the horizon today can be turned to good will depend entirely on whether or not we begin to gain an understanding of such things as I have, for example, initiated with my *Philosophy of Freedom* or similar works. After all, everyone does what they can, what lies within their karma, within their own path. Of the things I have done myself, I would like to emphasize in particular the production of ideas that can give social life a structure—ideas that, in the early 1890s, a quarter-century ago, I hoped might find a receptive audience even then, and which I hope today might find a receptive audience now that, after a quarter-century, the second edition has been published, and perhaps will find an audience—not only in spite of, but precisely because of the difficult times that are now beginning.

[ 39 ] The other point I do not wish to leave unmentioned is that I was only able to gain insights in the field I have spoken to you about today—and indeed in the field of spiritual science in general—because I have never in my life sought any position connected with the declining state apparatus. I have never been involved in any external government position, nor have I ever held any social position based on the monopolization of education. For all monopolies on education must, in essence, be regarded as factors that have contributed to today’s catastrophe—the medical monopoly and so on, and whatever else is entangled in this way. For freedom with regard to the spiritual is only harmless when the spiritual remains within the spiritual. As soon as—as is always the case today and has been for a long time—the spiritual, that is, the acquisition of abilities, is conflated with the possibility of turning entrepreneurial profit into private gain, so that private gain derived from entrepreneurship can somehow play a role in the exploitation of the spiritual—everything that happens in this way is something that can only cause the deepest harm to what will be necessary in the future. All these issues I am touching upon here are, in turn, connected to fundamental aspects that play a role in all of life. The most intimate connection has, in fact, arisen between intellectual abilities and entrepreneurial profit in the field of—with all due respect—journalism, which today dominates the entire world and on which so many other things depend.

[ 40 ] I would have to go on talking for quite some time if I were to tell you more. But I’ve already taken up quite a bit of your time today, and hopefully we’ll be able to continue this discussion in the next few days—though of course one can’t know now whether a necessity might arise overnight to leave here, or something like that, can’t one? Today, when days mean decades, one can say nothing other than: One must seize the moment and do what is necessary in that moment. — So we must also be prepared for this within our innermost circle. But I hope that we can continue our discussion again by Friday at the latest. Should anything happen, I will make sure that we can at least discuss a few other things here that we would like to say in this very area. Otherwise, we will continue our reflections on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and then achieve—what I was unable to achieve today—what I am striving for: namely, to explore the whole matter—both with regard to the destinies of nations today and with regard to the social question—on even deeper, spiritual-scientific and anthroposophical foundations.