The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Second Lecture

[ 1 ] If you consider the foundation of our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science in relation to other — and there are indeed a great many of them — so-called worldviews, you will find, among other things, one characteristic feature: namely, that this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, as a worldview and philosophy of life, strives to apply what it seeks to fathom through its exploration of the spiritual worlds to life as a whole, to everything that a person may encounter in life. And anyone with a sense for what is essential—what really matters, especially in the pressing and burning questions and impulses of our present—may also be able to gain an understanding that it is precisely in the realm of connecting the great ideas of worldviews with immediate life that what is so desperately needed by the present and the near future lies. For among the reasons that have brought about humanity’s current catastrophic situation, one of the most significant is that people’s worldviews—whether rooted in religion, science, or aesthetics—have all gradually lost their connection to life over the course of time. There was, so to speak, an impulse—one might even call it a perverse impulse—that sought to separate so-called everyday practical life, in its broadest sense, from what people sought in the realms of religion and worldview to satisfy their needs. Just consider for a moment how life has gradually taken shape over the past few centuries, with people letting themselves go in outward matters—being, so to speak, “practical” people—organizing their lives according to “practical” principles, and then spent about half an hour each day—more or less, or not at all—or used Sunday for this purpose, to satisfy the needs of the heart and soul, which were directed toward finding a connection with the divine-spiritual that permeates the world.

[ 2 ] This will be quite different if anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is able to take hold of people’s minds. It will be such that thoughts will spring from this worldview that are applicable to our most immediate daily lives, thoughts that will enable us to assess life in all areas with insight. The principle of the Sunday afternoon sermon is certainly not meant to be that of our anthroposophically oriented worldview; rather, the whole of life on all days of the week—and also on Sunday morning—should be permeated by what the anthroposophical worldview can offer human beings. Because this has not been the case up to the present day, the world has gradually drifted into chaos. People have neglected to turn their attention to what is actually happening in their immediate surroundings, and today they are surprised that the consequences of this neglect are clearly evident. They will be even more surprised in the future, because these consequences will become even more apparent.

[ 3 ] We should certainly not turn our gaze away today from what is unfolding among humanity across the entire Earth. We should use the insights that enable us to see through the great impulses coursing through world events to try to penetrate what today stands, in part, as such a mystery before the human mind—and what threatens to plunge the social structure into chaos. We should not continue to let things happen however they may, without trying to penetrate them with our sound judgment.

[ 4 ] We must put an end to the principle that says: “This is mundane, this is profane, this belongs to external life; from this one turns away and turns one’s gaze toward the divine-spiritual.” — That must stop! A new era must begin in which even the most mundane things are brought into connection with the divine-spiritual, and in which things drawn from spiritual life are not viewed solely from the most abstract standpoint.

[ 5 ] In the course of these reflections, I have said that a favorable turn in the social movement can only come about through a growing interest that each individual has in other people. Social structure is, after all, the very structure that connects people socially. It can only become healthy when people truly feel at home within it—when they are consciously present within the social structure. And this is what is unhealthy about the present and has led to the catastrophe: that people have neglected to cultivate any sense of how to be truly present within the social community. The interest that connects us as human beings to other human beings has ceased to exist, even though people often believe they have such an interest. The trite theosophical principle—“I love all people; I already have an interest in all people”—does not suffice, for it is abstract and does not intervene in real life. And it is precisely this intervention in real life that is at stake; this must be understood more deeply. A lack of understanding of real life has, after all, been a defining characteristic of the past few centuries. Now, without people having followed the process, these past centuries have brought about the present situation and will bring about the future situation. In the historical life of humanity, there is no other way but for people to accompany what is happening—what is taking place among them in social life—with thoughtful reflection. But the events that have been unfolding for a relatively long time now cannot be accompanied in any other way than by acquiring a sound understanding of certain phenomena. To the objective observer, it became all too clear that, across almost the entire world, society was—and continues to be—administered, governed, and so on, according to principles that had actually become obsolete centuries ago, while life has naturally progressed over the past few centuries. And a key factor in the development of humanity has been modern industrialism, which has created the entire modern proletariat. But this emergence of the modern proletariat—it was not accompanied by thought. The ruling classes continued to live in the old way, filling their leadership positions just as they had been accustomed to doing for centuries, and without their having done anything at all—without even having reflected on the course of world history—the modern proletariat developed out of the facts, out of the course of events, out of the emergence of modern industrialism, which essentially began with the mechanical loom and the spinning machine in the eighteenth century. And the world-historical fate of today and the near future depends on what is “haunting”—if you will—the minds of the modern proletariat. For this proletariat strives for power, for the majority, and its actions must be regarded as the results of natural necessities, as elemental events—not as something that can be criticized, that one likes or dislikes, that is discussed depending on whether this or that makes one impression or another; but it must be judged like, say, an earthquake or a tidal wave or the like.

[ 6 ] Now, first of all, we see taking shape that which emerges from the modern proletariat—or perhaps, to put it better, that which arises from the tendencies and sentiments of the modern proletariat; like a skirmish, I might say, we see what confronts you from a certain angle in Russian Bolshevism. This Russian Bolshevism—as I have said many times before—naturally does not fit the fundamental character of the Russian people. It has been imported from outside. But that is not the point, after all, if one wishes to face the facts; for once it is within the territory that was formerly the Tsarist Empire, it is present on a large scale, and it must simply be observed as a natural phenomenon—a natural phenomenon that has an inherent drive to expand farther and farther. Above all, when considering something like Russian Bolshevism, one must look beyond the accompanying phenomena. One must focus on the main issue. The fact that it began precisely in 1917, or that it exhibits this or that external manifestation—perhaps obvious reasons were decisive in that regard. I have told you that even Ludendorff’s helplessness—and various other factors—played a part in the immediate outbreak of Bolshevism. However, one must set all that aside if one wishes to view things constructively, and must look at the impulses that live within this Russian Bolshevism. One must ask oneself quite soberly: What does this Russian Bolshevism want, and how does it fit into the overall development of humanity? — For there is no doubt that it is not merely an ephemeral, passing phenomenon; it is a profound, world-historical phenomenon. And it is extraordinarily important to lay out before us the basic social structure as reflected in this Russian Bolshevism, so that we may then, as it were, observe how it emerges from the deeper world impulses.

[ 7 ] Now, when one considers the fundamental characteristics of this Russian Bolshevism, one must say that its primary aim is to destroy and eliminate what we, in the Marxist sense, have characterized as the bourgeoisie. That is, so to speak, its fundamental maxim. Everything that has emerged as bourgeois culture or the bourgeoisie in the course of historical development is to be eradicated root and branch, as it is, in its view, harmful to human progress. Various paths are supposed to lead to this end. First, the overcoming of all class distinctions among people. Bolshevism does not engage in such an objective overcoming of class and social distinctions, as I demonstrated to you again yesterday. It, after all, thinks in entirely bourgeois terms. And what I demonstrated to you yesterday is not conceived in bourgeois terms, but in human terms. It seeks, in its own way, to overcome class and social distinctions. Now it tells itself: The structures of present-day states are built upon the bourgeois conception of life. Therefore, the forms of present-day states must disappear. Everything in present-day states that is an appendage of the bourgeoisie—such as the police system, the military system, and the judicial system—must all disappear. Thus, whatever the bourgeoisie has created for its own security and for the administration of justice must disappear, along with the bourgeoisie itself. The entire administration, the entire organization of the social structure, must pass into the hands of the proletariat. As a result, the state, as it has existed until now, will wither away, and the proletariat will administer the entire human structure, the entire social order. This cannot be achieved through the old institutions that the bourgeoisie has created for itself; it cannot be achieved, for example, by electing national assemblies or other representative bodies according to this or that electoral system, as has been done in the bourgeois conception of life; for if such representative bodies were to continue to be elected, only the bourgeoisie would perpetuate itself within them. Thus, with all such representative bodies—whether based on this or that electoral system—one cannot achieve the goals that are being sought. Therefore, the task at hand is to ensure that, first and foremost, those measures actually take hold which arise from the proletariat itself—measures that cannot take root in the mind of a bourgeois, because the bourgeois mind can necessarily devise only those measures that are to be overcome, whereas such measures can come only from the mind of a proletarian. Therefore, nothing can be administered by any national or state assembly, but solely by the dictatorship of the proletariat; that is to say, the entire social structure must be transformed into the dictatorship of the proletariat. Only the proletariat will have the will to truly do away with the bourgeoisie. For if the bourgeoisie were to sit in representative bodies, it would have no sense of the need to do away with itself, whereas what matters is that the bourgeoisie be stripped of its rights. Therefore, only those people who are proletarians in the true sense—that is, only those who perform work that benefits the general public—can exert influence on the social structure. According to this proletarian worldview, therefore, anyone who, in any form, receives services from other people whom they pay for such services has no right to vote. Thus, whoever employs people—hires people to work for them and pays them for their services—has no right to participate in any way in the social structure and therefore has no right to vote. Nor does anyone who lives off the interest on their wealth—that is, a rentier—have the right to vote. Nor does anyone who is a merchant—and thus does not perform manual labor—or who is a middleman have the right to vote. All these people—those who live off interest, who employ others and pay them, who are merchants or middlemen—cannot serve in government bodies while the dictatorship of the proletariat is in force. During this dictatorship of the proletariat, there is no general freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, and no freedom of association; rather, only those who perform manual labor may hold assemblies and organize themselves. All others are prohibited from free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to organize themselves into societies or associations. Likewise, only those who perform manual labor enjoy freedom of the press. The bourgeois press is suppressed and not tolerated. — These are, roughly speaking, the maxims that are to guide—I might say—the transitional period. For once these maxims have prevailed for a time—as the proletarian worldview expects from its course of action—only the working class will remain. Only the proletariat will remain. The bourgeoisie will have been eradicated.

[ 8 ] In addition to these matters, which are primarily significant during the transitional period, there are those that have lasting significance. These include, for example, the general obligation to work. Every person is obligated to perform some kind of work that benefits the community. A far-reaching principle that also applies permanently is the abolition of private ownership of land. Larger estates are transferred to agricultural communes. According to this proletarian worldview, private ownership of land is not to exist in the future. Industrial enterprises and private businesses are expropriated, transferred to societal administration, and managed by a centralized workers’ administration; at the head of which stands the Supreme Council for the National Economy; this is precisely what Bolshevism in Russia is all about. Banks are nationalized, and a general accounting system encompassing the entire community is established, which must cover all production. All foreign trade of a community becomes collective; the enterprises are thus nationalized.

[ 9 ] These are, roughly speaking, the principles that form the ideal of Trotsky and Lenin, and from which you can see emerging—I would say—the cornerstones of what is demanded of the modern proletariat.

[ 10 ] Of course, it is not enough simply to let one’s newspaper tell you every day that Bolshevism is responsible for so many acts of bloodshed. If one compares the atrocities committed by Bolshevism with the immense number of atrocities committed during this war, then the atrocities of Bolshevism are, of course, a mere trifle. What matters is to see what has been overlooked, what has been neglected, so that in the future the development of humanity may be followed with thoughtful consideration. One must first grasp this matter—which is so intimately connected with the entire further development of humanity—emotionally and then spiritually. That is precisely the task of spiritual science: to truly grasp these things both spiritually and emotionally. The time must come to an end when lazy pastors and ministers have been preaching theoretical nonsense from the pulpit every Sunday—nonsense unrelated to life—purportedly to “warm the souls” of the people. Instead, a new era must begin in which everyone who wishes to participate in spiritual life is obligated to look into life itself and to be in direct connection with it. This is in no small part to blame for the misfortune of the present day: for a long time now, precisely those who have administered humanity’s religious sentiments have spoken from their positions, from their pulpits, about things that actually had no connection whatsoever to real life, They have delivered sermons that were given solely to offer people trite nonsense for their hearts or souls—nonsense that merely touched them pleasantly but did not make a real impact on their lives. That is why life has become godless; that is why it has remained spiritless and has ultimately descended into chaos. Look for the cause of the many debts that must be paid today precisely in the foolish rhetoric of those who, for example, were entrusted with managing religious sentiments and who had absolutely no connection to life. What have they accomplished of what must happen in an age in which a wholly new humanity has emerged in the form of the proletariat? What have they accomplished, these people who preached useless drivel from the pulpits—drivel that people craved only because they wanted to delude themselves with all manner of illusions about the true realities of life? These are serious times, and matters must be viewed seriously.

[ 11 ] When it is said that people must take an interest in one another—each individual in the other—this must not be viewed merely in terms of attitude, as is often suggested in Sunday afternoon sermons, but must be understood in a way that delves deeply into the social structure of the present. Take a concrete example. How many people today have a completely abstract, confused idea of life—of their own, personal life! When they ask themselves, for example: “How do I live?”—they usually don’t, but if they ever did—they tell themselves: “Well, off my money.” — Among those who say to themselves, “From my money”—there are very many who, for example, have inherited this money from their parents and now believe they are living off the money they inherited from their fathers. But, my dear friends, one cannot live off money! Money is not something one can live off. That is where one must begin to think. And this question is intimately connected with the genuine interest one has in other people. Anyone who believes that they live off the money they have inherited or obtained in some other way—as opposed to how it is normally the case today, that one earns money through work—anyone who lives this way and believes they can live off money has no interest in their fellow human beings, because no one can live off money. People must eat, and what is eaten must be produced by other people. People must clothe themselves. The clothes they wear must be made by others. In order for me to wear a skirt or a pair of pants, people must devote hours of their labor to produce them. They work for me. That is what I live on, not my money. My money has no other value than that it gives me the power to make use of the labor of others. And given the way social conditions are today, one only begins to take an interest in one’s fellow human beings when one answers this question appropriately, when one realizes in one’s mind: So many people have to work so many hours so that I can live within the social structure. It is not a matter of doing oneself a favor by saying, “I love people.” One does not love people if one believes one lives off one’s money and cannot in the least imagine how people work for one so that one might have even the bare minimum necessary for life.

[ 12 ] But this idea—that so many people work so that one can have the bare minimum to live on—is, after all, inseparable from the other idea that one must in turn give back to society, not through money, but through work done on one’s behalf. And only when one feels obligated to repay, in some form, the amount of work done for one—only then does one take an interest in one’s fellow human beings. Giving one’s money to fellow human beings means “only that one can lead them by the leash, by the slave’s chain, and force them to work for one.” Can’t you, based on your own experience, answer the question yourself: How many people realize that money is merely an instruction for human labor, that money is merely a means of power? How many people realize in their hearts that they could not even exist in this physical world without owing to the work of others what they themselves claim for their own lives? — Feeling indebted to the society in which one lives—that is the beginning of the kind of interest that must be fostered for a healthy social order.

[ 13 ] These are things one must consider from time to time; otherwise, one becomes absorbed in spiritual abstractions in an unhealthy way, rather than progressing in a healthy manner from physical reality to spiritual reality. The lack of interest in social structure is precisely what has characterized the last few centuries. For in recent centuries, it has gradually become a human habit for people to develop interest only in their own valuable personality in relation to social impulses. More or less, everything was, in a roundabout way, focused solely on their own personality. A healthy social life is only possible if this interest in one’s own valuable personality is expanded into genuine social interest. And in this regard, the bourgeoisie itself must ask: What have we failed to do? — Consider the following: There is a spiritual culture; there are works of art. Let me single out one thing: Ask yourself: How many people have access to these works of art? — Or better yet, ask yourself: To how many people are these works of art completely inaccessible? For how many people do these works of art not exist at all? — But now calculate how many people have to work so that these works of art can exist. Some work of art is in Rome. Some bourgeois can travel to Rome. Just add it all up: how much work must be done by creators, etc., etc., etc.—the “etc.” never ends—so that this bourgeois can travel to Rome and view something that is there for him because he is a bourgeois, something that is not there for all those people who are now beginning to assert their proletarian outlook on life. It is precisely within the bourgeoisie that the notion has taken hold that enjoyment is taken for granted. But enjoyment should never, in fact, be taken for granted. One should regard it as nothing short of a social sin to enjoy anything without giving back its equivalent to the community—in whatever form one is able, but in some form. Nothing should remain unused for the community. It is not in the order of nature or the spirit that anything should be withheld from the community. Time and space are merely artificial barriers; they are not real barriers. Those things that are tied to a specific location can be replicated anywhere; they can be accessible to all people. And those things that can be reproduced are not tied to a specific location; they can—and this is a universal law—be brought anywhere. It is merely an anachronism of the bourgeois worldview that the Sistine Madonna hangs permanently in Dresden and can be seen only by those who are able to travel to Dresden; for it is portable—it can be transported all over the world. And arrangements can be made—to cite just one example—to ensure that what one person enjoys, another may also enjoy.

[ 14 ] I’m singling out one example, but I always choose examples that serve as illustrations for everything else—that is, examples that can also fully explain other things. You see, one need only strike such a note, and then one touches upon a whole host of things that people haven’t really given much thought to, but have simply taken for granted. Even in our circle, where things are so obvious, it is not always considered that everything one takes in requires that one give an equivalent back to society in return—that one does not merely enjoy it.

[ 15 ] Now you will see a question emerge from all that I have just cited from individual examples—examples that could be multiplied not a hundredfold, but a thousandfold—the question: Yes, how can things be any different if money is, in fact, merely a means of power? — The answer to that lies in the fundamental social principle I spoke about here last week; for that is the distinctive feature of what I have presented to you as a kind of social science drawn from the spiritual world—that it is as certain as mathematics. With these matters, it is not a question of anyone looking into practical life and saying: Well, we first have to check whether these things are actually true. — No, the things I have presented to you as a social science derived from spiritual science are roughly like the Pythagorean theorem. If you take the Pythagorean theorem—if you know that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the two legs—then no experience can contradict it; rather, you must apply this principle everywhere. So it is with the principle I have presented to you as the principle of social science and social life. Everything that a person acquires in such a way that they receive it in return for their work within the social context becomes a source of harm. Well-being in the social context arises only when a person must sustain their life not from their work, but from other sources within society. This seems to contradict what I have just said, but only seemingly so. It is precisely this—that work is no longer remunerated—that will make it valuable. For what we must strive toward—in a reasonable, not Bolshevik, way, of course—is to separate work from the procurement of the means of subsistence. I explained this recently. If a person is no longer remunerated for their work, then money loses its value as a means of power over labor. There is no other way to prevent the abuse perpetrated through money itself than to structure society in such a way that no one can be paid for their work, and that the means of subsistence are provided from an entirely different source. Then, of course, it will be impossible anywhere to force anyone into work through the use of money.

[ 16 ] Most of the questions that are now arising are approached in such a way that they are handled in a confused manner. If they are to be brought into the light, this can only be achieved through spiritual science. In the future, money must not be an equivalent for human labor, but only for dead commodities. In the future, one will only be able to obtain dead commodities for money, not human labor. This is of immense importance, my dear friends. And now consider that it is precisely from the proletarian worldview that the idea emerges in various forms that labor, in modern industrialism, is first and foremost a commodity. This is, after all, one of the principles of Marxism—one of the principles with which it has won the most followers among the proletariat. Here you see that, from a completely different angle, a demand emerges—confused and muddled—which, however, must be fulfilled from an entirely different direction. And that is what is peculiar about the social demands of the present day: insofar as they arise instinctively, they stem from entirely correct and sound instincts—only they emerge from a chaotic social structure and therefore appear confused and consequently lead to confusion as well. This is the case in many areas. That is why it is so necessary to truly grasp a social worldview grounded in the humanities, because that alone can bring true salvation.

[ 17 ] Now you will ask: Yes, but will that really bring about any change? If, for example, someone is merely an heir, then he will continue to buy goods with the money he has or has inherited, and those goods already embody other people’s labor. So nothing changes, you will say. Yes, if you think abstractly, nothing changes. But if you were to look closely at the full impact of what is happening—when the means of subsistence are separated from labor—you would judge the matter differently. For in reality, it is not merely a matter of drawing abstract conclusions; things also have real-world effects. If it really turns out that the means of subsistence are separated from the performance of labor, then there will be no more inheritances. This brings about such a change in the structure that one has no money other than for the purchase of goods. For when a matter is considered in real terms, it has all sorts of effects. Among other things, this separation of the means of subsistence from labor has a very peculiar effect. When speaking of realities, one cannot speak in such a way that you might then say: “I don’t see that.”—You might as well say: “I don’t see why morphine induces sleep.”—After all, that does not follow from a mere conceptual connection; it only becomes apparent to you when you observe the effects.

[ 18 ] There is something highly unnatural about the social order today, namely that money multiplies simply by having it. You deposit it in a bank and receive interest. That is the most unnatural thing imaginable. It is, in fact, utter nonsense. You do absolutely nothing; you put your money—which you may not even have earned but inherited—in the bank and receive interest on it. That is complete nonsense. However, when the means of subsistence are separated from labor, the necessity will arise that money be used when it is available, when it is produced as an equivalent for the goods that are available. It must be used; it must circulate. For the real effect will be that money does not increase, but rather that it decreases. If someone today has a certain amount of wealth, in about fourteen years—at a normal rate of interest—they will have nearly double that amount; they have done nothing, they have merely waited. If you consider the transformation of the social structure that must occur under the influence of this one principle I have outlined to you, money does not increase but rather decreases, and after a certain number of years, the banknote I acquired just a few years ago will no longer have any value; it will be devalued—it will cease to have any value.

[ 19 ] As a result, a natural process takes place within the social structure whereby conditions arise in which money—which is, after all, nothing more than a token, an indication that one has a certain power over people’s labor—loses its value after a certain period of time if it is not put into circulation. So it will not increase, but will progressively decrease and, after fourteen years—or perhaps a slightly longer period—will be absolutely zero. If you are a millionaire today, you will not be a double millionaire in fourteen years; rather, you will be a pauper if you have not acquired anything new during that time.

[ 20 ] When you say that today, it is sometimes still perceived as if certain animals were biting you—if I may use that comparison. I know this; I wouldn’t have used the comparison if I hadn’t noticed the strange movements in the auditorium. But because that is how it is today—that people perceive the matter as if certain animals were tickling them—hence Bolshevism. Just look for the real reasons. There they are! And you cannot get rid of what is coming up there in any other way than by truly engaging with the truth. It does no good that the truth is unpleasant. And an essential part of the education of humanity in the present and the near future will be that people will no longer believe that truths should be determined by subjective judgment, by subjective sympathies and antipathies. But spiritual science can already ensure this, if it is understood with common sense. For the matter can also be viewed from a spiritual perspective. The vague way of speaking—which I have even heard from anthroposophists—where people take money in their hands and say, “That is Ahriman!”—this vague way of speaking accomplishes nothing. Money today is an equivalent for goods and labor. It is an indication of something that is happening. If one moves from mere abstraction to reality—if one considers that when one has ten hundred-mark bills here and pays them to someone, one is passing on from hand to hand, as an equivalent, the labor of so many people through these ten hundred-mark bills; that in these bills lies the power to compel so many people to work—then one is already immersed in life. Then you are immersed in life with all its ramifications and impulses, and then you will no longer dwell on the mere abstraction—the thoughtless abstraction of paying with money—but you will ask yourself: What does it mean that I am passing ten hundred-mark bills from hand to hand, which demand that so many people—who have minds, hearts, and senses—must work? What does that mean?

[ 21 ] Ultimately, only an intellectual examination of the matter can provide an answer to such a question. Let’s take the most extreme case, my dear friends. Let’s assume that someone has money without having made any effort for the sake of humanity. Such a case does exist. I want to consider this extreme case. So someone has money without having made any effort for the sake of humanity. He buys something with that money. He is even able to carve out a quite comfortable life for himself by virtue of having this money, which represents human labor. Fine. This person doesn’t have to be a bad person; they can be a very good person, or even a very ambitious one. Often, people don’t really understand the social structure. They aren’t interested in their fellow human beings—that is, in the actual social structure. People think they already love others when, for example, they use their inherited money to buy something for themselves, or when they give it away as a gift. When you give it away, you’re really doing nothing more than making so many people work for the person to whom you’re giving the money. It’s merely a means of power. Because it represents a claim on labor, it is a means of power.

[ 22 ] But, my dear friends, that is how it turned out; that is how things developed, and it is a reflection of something else. It is a reflection of what I mentioned in the previous lecture. I pointed out to you that the God Yahweh ruled the world for a certain time by driving the other Elohim from the field, and that he can no longer save himself from the spirits he thereby awakened. He has driven his companions—his other six Elohim—from the field. As a result, only that which the human being already experiences in the embryonic state has come to dominate human consciousness. The six other forces, which the human being does not experience as an embryo, have thereby become ineffective and have fallen under the influence of lower spiritual beings. And in the 1940s, as I told you, Yahweh could no longer save himself. Since the wisdom of Yahweh—acquired in the embryonic stage—allows one to comprehend only the providence of external nature, and since this providence ceased to be understood, mere atheistic natural science took hold. The reflection of this is the circulation of money without any goods circulating along with it—that is, money simply passes from one person to another without any goods circulating. For no matter how hard a person may strive in any field, the Ahrimanic force lives in what money, as money, seemingly produces. You cannot inherit without a certain amount of Ahrimanic force passing along with the money. There is no other way to have money in a wholesome manner within the social structure than to have it in a Christian way—that is, to acquire it in such a way that one earns the money through what one develops between birth and death. Thus, the way one obtains money must not be a reflection of what is Yahwist. What is Yahwistic is that we are born—that is, we pass from an embryo into outer life. The mirror image of this is that we inherit money. The qualities we inherit through our blood are inherited through nature. The money we inherit rather than earn would be the mirror image of this.

[ 23 ] Because Christian consciousness has not yet taken root, and because the social structure is still essentially shaped by the old wisdom of Yahweh—or by its specter, Romanic statism—this is how all the factors that have contributed to today’s calamity from one side have come about. I said: One must not view the matter so abstractly—that money begets money—but must consider it in its reality. Every time money begets money, this is something that takes place only on the physical plane here, whereas what a human being is is always connected to the spiritual world. So what are you doing when you yourself do not work but have money, and you give this money away so that another person must work for it? Then that person must bring to market what is his heavenly share, and you give him only earthly things; you pay him with only earthly things, with purely Ahrimanic things. You see, that is the spiritual side of the matter. And where Ahriman is at work, only ruin can result.

[ 24 ] This, too, is another unpleasant truth; but it doesn’t help if, for example, someone tells themselves: “Well, I’m a decent guy or girl otherwise, so I’m not doing anything wrong by using this or that portion of my pension to pay for things.” — In fact, you are doing exactly that: you are passing off Ahriman as God. Certainly, in the current social structure, people are often forced to do so. But one should not bury one’s head in the sand and try to hide the truth; rather, one should face the truth head-on. For the future depends precisely on our ability to face the truth head-on. Much of what has befallen humanity so catastrophically has come about precisely because people have closed their eyes—and the eyes of their souls—to the truth, because they have constructed abstract concepts of right and wrong for themselves and have refused to engage with what is real and concrete. And we will continue to speak about this tomorrow and then elevate the matter to spiritual heights.