Migrations, Social Life ...
GA 188
1 February 1919, Dornach
III. The Emancipation of the Economic Process from the Personal Element. The Separation of the Moral-Spiritual Life From the External Realities of Existence.
Socialistic thinkers believe that what they designate as the socialistic economic order is an immediate and causal continuation of what has gradually arisen within the economic order during the past centuries of human development. Those. who now adopt the proletarian socialistic conception of life, think as it were, that the capitalistic economic order must gradually, and of its own accord, pass over to the socialistic economic order, for the simple reason that the socialistic economic order is already contained within that which has developed through capitalism during the past centuries. In order to define this train of thought more precisely some people say: When any human order, or any life-structure has reached its culminating point, the summit of its development, then it already contains the seed of the following course of development.
You see, from an external aspect, from a statistical aspect as it were (and socialistic scientists above all love statistics), there is a great deal in what I have explained to you as the socialistic order. The process can shortly be characterised as follows: In certain spheres, modern technical engineering has led over into industry a process which was formerly entrusted to the individual human being, and which could be fully surveyed by him. As a very characteristic example, it suffices to consider the modern steel industry; quite a number of manipulations had to be comprised within it. Finally, these all culminated in the production of certain goods, which could only be produced by amalgamating certain complicated processes. Great masses of capital are needed in order to run the gigantic industrial concerns which modern economic life has called into existence, great accumulations of capital, against which the economic life of earlier times appears ridiculous. This accumulation of capital enables individual owners, or group of owners of such gigantic concerns to employ a large number of workmen. Through the fact that these industrial concerns have taken on such a gigantic size, they are able to assemble and to employ a large number of workmen. Moreover, the conditions of transport have led, to the circumstance that these large concerns cannot isolate themselves, because they must reckon with competition, so that, in a certain way, they had to amalgamate, thus creating still larger groups of employers and of workmen belonging to certain definite spheres of life. Modern socialists believe that the modern socialistic idea has led to the socialisation of industry, and that the accompanying phenomena of this socialisation must necessarily continue the whole process.
The continuation of this process would be that a community of workmen is no longer brought together by individual employers, but that they are instead employed by a common body, the State, the Commune, or Syndicates. Consequently, the socialistic process which has already been called into existence by the technical economic life of modern times, can continue in a regular way.
The above idea has a tremendously suggestive influence upon the modern proletariat. If the conditions of social life are to be understood, it is also necessary to study the soul constitution of the modern proletariat. There we find that such ideas exercise a strong, suggestive power over the minds of modern proletarians, which consists therein that workmen believe that they are completely at the mercy of their employers. They think that they can only escape from this bondage if they have a share in the activities of the employers.
It is characteristic trait of modern men (and this is due to many reasons) that they have a predilection for one-sided thoughts. Yet many conditions of the present can only be healed if modern men lose this habit of surrendering to one-sided ideas, and if they learn to consider things from all sides. If we view the development of capitalism end the technical economic life of the present merely from the aspect that it must finally culminate in the socialisation of industrial life, we simply apply modern natural-scientific ideas to economic life. I have already explained this to you yesterday, from another standpoint.
But if we merely consider things from a natural-scientific aspect, if we merely apply to them the natural-scientific forms of thought developed in modern times, certain impulses necessarily fall away, remain unnoticed. Of course, when such things are explained, many things can be misunderstood and consequently contested. But you know what methods are required, particularly from a spiritual-scientific aspect, so that it will not be difficult for you to see that the following explanations throw light upon things only from one aspect, namely from the aspect which is required in this particular case.
The purely natural-scientific aspect, which considers things only in accordance with the law of cause and effect, can be applied both to a sound and to an unsound organism. A sound organism can be studied from a physiological aspect, and by following natural science it will always be possible to ascertain the connections of cause and effect, But if this abstract connection of cause and effect is maintained, this same manner of thinking can just as well be applied to a diseased organism, it can be studied in this way from a pathological aspect. Even in a diseased organism, everything can be found to be in accordance with the law of cause and effect. But if we base a sequence of events upon this one-sided, abstract foundation, the law of cause and effect, then the impulse which must in one case be designated as impulse of health, and in the other case as the impulse of disease, necessarily falls away, remains unnoticed. It is not contained in such a manner of contemplating things. This has no serious consequences in natural science itself, and in tasks immediately connected with natural science. But if the natural-scientific way of thinking is applied to the study of social processes, it can have very serious consequences, for it is not possible to distinguish without further ado the difference between something that is sound or unsound in the course of human development. This is impossible.
It must be emphasized that the way in which people now face social questions, which have become so urgent, does not enable them to distinguish whether a process is sound or unsound, whether it should be furthered of healed. Indeed, we can say that the deep tragedy of the present has befallen humanity, because people cannot see this difference, which has just now been characterised to a certain extent.
If we consider the development of humanity during the past three or four centuries, if we study above all the development of what has been designated as capitalism, another standpoint must be borne in mind, as well as the one that smaller industrial concerns were swallowed up by the gigantic industries of modern times, etc. We must, for example, face this question, which is a decisive on: What position does the capitalistic production take up within the social process of humanity as a whole?
Things can only be judged in the right way if we compare the modern capitalistic production to the craftsmanship of past times, and if we make this comparison from a certain definite standpoint. The artisan of olden times produced his goods and delivered them to the consumer, and the money which he thus earned enabled him to live, provided the foundation for his existence.
If we study the life of such a craftsman and the industrial process of the past, if we go back to about 1300 B.C., we shall find that people were paid for the goods which they had made, or else they exchanged them for other goods. The articles which they manufactured, provided the foundation of their existence.
In a certain sense, this economic life was a restricted one, but it was closely linked up with the individual human being., Lad every form of production was therefore linked up with personal skill, personal diligence, and the personal ambition to do something as well as possible, and so forth. Significant moral impulses were connected with economic life in those days of simple craftsmanship.
During the past three to four centuries all this changed. After a period of transition, which went from the 15th century to about the 16th/17th century, a complete change took place during the past three to four centuries. For, what may be designated as the capitalistic production, as capitalistic industry, only developed during the past three to four centuries.
If we wish to understand that which really lies at the foundation of the social question, if we do not only base ourselves upon that which people think, the following characteristic must be borne in mind: For a capitalist, in so far as he is a member of the capitalistic economic order, the essential point is not that of providing for his own existence, of forming a life foundation through his capital, but the essential point is for him that of increasing his capital, of seeing to it that it grows. This increase in capital constitutes the profit. Consequently, the aim of the capitalistic economic order is not that of earning money enabling the capitalists to meet their cost of living, but its aim is that of making profits, of increasing the capital. This is its characteristic trait, and this gives capital, as such, a high degree of independence.
When the process of production or the industrial process grows in the course of the years through the accumulation of capital, when this industrial process grows and forms the incentive of accumulating capital, then the chief element in this economic process really becomes separated from the individual human being from every personal element. If we wish to understand the social question, we must bear in mind above all the following standpoint: that the economic process becomes emancipated from the personal element, from the individual human being.
Unfortunately to-day only a small minority belonging to the cultivated classes really feels inclined to deal with such things; for if people were to occupy themselves with such matters they would see that the human being has, as it were, become separated from everything which constitutes the economic process. Tell me, where can we find to-day genuine pleasure in the production of goods, and with the exception of a few restricted circles, where do people find true enjoyment in the production of goods? The decisive element of past economic orders, that, for instance, a man felt the keenest pleasure in every key made by his own hands, and that he saw a point of honour in making it as perfect as possible—this belongs to the past. The human beings have become separated, as it were, from the economic process as such. Only in the artistic field or in that which is related to the sphere of art, we may still come across that element which once permeated craftsmanship.
Even in spiritual life, we cannot say that man is still connected with what he brings forth. Think of all the professors who are active in his or in that field; and ask yourselves whether they are really humanly connected with what they produce!
But these are facts which are intimately connected with the capitalistic economic order, which extends its influence over everything. The concluding remarks of yesterday's lecture will have shown this to you.
The fundamental character of the capitalistic economic order reveals that in regard to his personal aspirations, man is; as it were, cut off from the economic process which has become more and more objectivated. This has brought about a far-reaching result, which influences the whole socialistic conception of today, for it has given rise to the belief that it is necessary to establish this unnatural separation within the economic order of the present time, so that the human being himself is cut off from that which interests him. Where do we find people to-day who think that it is necessary to re-establish the connection between the human being and that which he produces?
We do not find them anywhere. On the contrary, people think that the economic process should be distanced as far as possible from man, should be separated from the human being. What is the result of this? All that is connected with the human personality; the needs of the human being as such, have to satisfied in other spheres. This is the consequence of that prejudice which is designated as the socialistic ideal.
Let us now consider what this socialistic ideal really means to-day among large circles:
There are four points which recapitulate everything that constitutes the socialistic ideal, as far as the structure of the social organism of humanity is concerned. In the first place, the socialistic ideal aims at appropriating all industrial concerns for the community, no matter whether this community is the State, the Commune, or a Syndicate. In other words, industrial concerns or means of production which are private property are to be eliminated, so that these concerns are run by a community.
The second aim of the socialistic ideal is that production be regulated according to the requirement, or the demand, that is to say, production should no longer be regulated by the free market, where offer and demand hold sway, but when there is a demand for some article in this or in that direction, a corresponding branch of production should be opened, with the provision that the State, the Commune or a Syndicate determine, as it were, that this article is needed and that the community accordingly opens an industrial concern for the production of this article.
The third point is the democratic regulation of the conditions of work and pay.
The fourth point is that profits belong to the community.
This constitutes more or less the four points of the socialistic ideal, which we have now set before you.
You see, millions and millions of people see in these four points the aim of their ambitions. In view of these facts, it is absolutely necessary to ask ourselves: How can we make people realise that these four so-called ideals are absolutely impossible within a real human community?
If thirty years ago there had been as much zeal for social questions as is the case to-day in countries where the old governments have been chased away (a genuine interest in social questions has not yet awakened in countries where. the old governments still exist); we might even say, if thirty years ago people had shown the same interest for social problems which they show for them to-day, matters might have taken another course of development, a better course of development. But unless people are near to drowning, no genuine interest can be awakened to-day for social questions. What the leading men of the so-called intelligent bourgeoisie have missed in this direction, during the past two or three decades, is immense. And they continue in this direction, they go on ignoring this, but in another sphere.
What is needed to-day, above everything else, is that people should realise that not only the individual human organism, but also the social organism, must now be understood in a spiritual-scientific manner. Meaningless abstractions must be abandoned. For a connection can be found with deeper human interests, with deeper human impulses, and these are beginning to work in the present epoch of human development.
The sleepiness of modern humanity is immense, and an awakening is urgently needed. Where spiritual science is at all noticed to-day, we frequently hoar the strange view that people who believe, do not need spiritual science, that it is not needed by those who are Christians in the good old meaning. We also hear the argument that faith is simple and spiritual science complicated, so why should simple faith be replaced by something so complicated. Yet this comfortable adherence to faith, this truly nefarious simple faith, the comfortable argument, “We don't need to think of such things, we don't need to investigate truth, for we have it through faith.” This is, in a deeper sense, responsible for the catastrophic events of the present. Again and again it must be emphasized that this easy way of thinking is the cause of the present catastrophe!
Great would be the misfortune if not enough people could be found whose hearts and minds are inclined to devote themselves to the investigation of truth, in earnest fruitful, inner thought-activity!
The time of mere belief in the spiritual world is past; it is no longer possible, at present, to be bone-lazy and to believe that we shall be saved by spiritual powers about whom we do not concern ourselves, confiding in the fact that they will do their best to save us: The essential point for the progress of human development is that we should not content ourselves with mere belief in God and in divine beings, but that we should allow God and the divine beings to be active within us, so that the forces of the spiritual world flow into our own deeds, into everything which we do in everyday life. From morning to night, our actions should be done in such a way that a divine-spiritual power is contained in them. This spiritual power will only permeate our actions if it is contained, above all, in our thoughts. The task of modern humanity is to take in God's essence not only as a content of faith, but as an active force. We should not only think of God, but we should think in such a way that God lives in our thoughts. This is the essential point! If we surrender to such an ideal, we shall surely develop the required interest in things for which the great majority of modern men unfortunately has shown no interest whatever during the past decades.
The chief point is to find the possibility to make people understand that a change is needed in the field of thought. The whole way of thinking must be transformed. It is high time for this. The intellectuals have neglected to work in this direction, and as a result, the most repulsive instincts of humanity are now awakening in the whole civilised world, at least in a great part of the civilised world. The most repulsive human instincts are waking up! Do you think that it will be easy to drive away these instincts, when they have reached a certain climax, a certain culminating point ? A long, longtime will elapse before they die of their own accord. These instincts in humanity can only be controlled or subdued through the influence of good teachings or by good example, for a certain length of time. This beast in man breaks through, because the nobler human instincts have been neglected. Here we have come to a point which 'renders it necessary that we should speak of the moral aspect of the social problem of the present time.
I have already explained to you that the increase of capital, the growth of capital, which I designated as characteristic trait of the capitalistic economic order, because it does not strive after achievements, but after gain and profit:, separates the human being from that which he produces. This separation of the human being from that which he produces, is an essential characteristic of the whole course of development of modern humanity.
In the surrounding world, we generally find that one phenomenon does not appear without another, and that different phenomena are connected in different ways. You cannot walk over a soft ground without impressing your footmarks upon it. This is an example which can be applied everywhere, in order to show that in the world of reality one thing is always connected with another. The m0dern world has been driven in the direction of capitalism and increase of capital. And this development of capitalism is on the other hand connected with the lack of interest which modern men have for the deepest impulses of the human soul. This lack interest in the deeper things of life characterizes modern humanity.
We have oh the one hand the emancipation of the human personality from .the economic process, and on the other hand the fact that the human personality which has thus been separated from the economic process has become withered and dry; the most intimate qualities of man's soul-spiritual being have grown dry and withered. Both these things are connected. Both factors have given rise to that terrible activity which exists in a modern metropolis, where capitalism has set up its thrones. We have there, on the one hand, the influence exercised by capitalism, and on the other, the lack of interest in the most intimate questions concerning man's innermost being.
In the external phenomena these things are to a great extent hidden and they only become manifest to a closer observation. Of course you may say: There are many people who are not involved in the modern capitalistic process. To be sure, there are but a few who are directly involved in it, but indirectly, the whole of modern humanity, particularly civilised modern humanity, is involved in the capitalistic process, through the fact that the existence of many people depends upon the capitalistic economic order. An artist who would, in the past, have worked for a prince or for the Pope, must now work for the capitalist. If you follow the threads which lead, as in the case of art, from different spheres of life into capitalism, you will see that capitalism stretches out its tentacles in every direction, particularly in the direction of spiritual life.
Of course, these things contain many unconscious elements, which do not immediately manifest themselves if we merely look upon the surface of life. Let me now characterize to some extent an unconscious or subconscious process, for the objectivation of the process of production and its emancipation from human aspirations, must in a certain way be explained and justified. People. always need justification for their actions, and when they wish to justify themselves, they do not bother about investigating the truth, for their chief aim is to justify themselves.
Let us take tin example. The Entente “won” the war—this victory had to be justified. Consequently the things which were said about the Entente were not said because they were true, but because the victory had to be. justified. It is the same in the case of individual men. Do most people care at all for a real investigation of truth? No, their chief interest is to justify the things which they do. And this is the aim of capitalism: it seeks above all to justify its existence. But it can only justify it by turning its attention to the most material economic process in its mirrored reflexion, the increase of capital. If the capitalistic economic order is to justify its existence in the physical world, it must, however, do away with every soul-spiritual interest. Soul-spiritual things must be reserved to a special sphere. Let clergymen preach as they like of things connected with faith—I may believe and others may believe, or I may not believe and others may not believe—clergymen talk of things pertaining to quite another world. But in the real world in which we live, things do not take their course in accordance with the sermons of clergymen; they follow the capitalistic course of development.
Extreme capitalism thus has on the one hand this terribly abstract moral-spiritual life, which seeks to separate itself entirely from all the external realities of existence. There is, however, another attitude in modern life which has exercised just as evil an influence: as materialistic capitalism, namely that attitude which induces people to say: “What do I care about Ahriman! Let Ahriman be Ahriman; I devote myself to the impulses of my innermost soul, I surrender to the spiritual world. I seek the spiritual world within my own being; my chief interest is the soul and its concerns. What do I care for Ahrimanic things, such as credit, money, income and property! What do I care for the difference between profit and assets, etc! I care for the things which concern my soul!” But even as man unites within himself body, soul and spirit, which are linked together during the life between birth and death, at the impulses which we may find through our soul's innermost structure are connected, in external physical life, with the impulses contained in the external economic order. Those who are merely devout, even devout in spiritual science, are just as much responsible for the catastrophes of the present time as the capitalists with their materialistic attitude and mentality; they are just as guilty as the capitalists, through the fact that they enclose spiritual-scientific truths within their own abstract limits and are not willing to permeate everyday reality with penetrating thoughts.
This fact has again and again induced me to tell you that the Anthroposophical spiritual movement should not be regarded as something which gives you the opportunity to listen to Sunday afternoon sermons, which caress the soul because they speak of an everlasting life, and so forth, but the Anthroposophical movement should be taken as a path which enables us to cope in a real, concrete way with the modern problems of life, the burning problems of the present. One of the first requirements is this: to understand from where we must set out, and that everything will be of no use whatever unless people find access to a really unprejudiced way of thinking.
Now, at the conclusion of my lecture, let me express something which I shall explain further tomorrow, from a practical. social aspect. What I shall tell you now, is apparently far away from socialistic thoughts, from thoughts concerning the socialistic question, but tomorrow you will see that apparently distant connections: are in reality closely related, so that we shall be able to throw light on the four points which I have designated as the parts of the socialistic ideal. People frequently say that opinions differ, that there are different convictions in life, for one believes this and the other that… Does it not seem as if one person may cherish this thought, and the other that idea, and that the ideas of both can be justified? Apparently it is so, but in reality this is not the case at all. Taking into consideration the circumstance that in a higher meaning every characterization of something is, as it were, a photograph from one aspect only, so that things can be viewed from many sides—by taking for granted that this must be considered, we nevertheless find that in the innermost-depth of their being all men have the same view concerning one and the same thing. We cannot find two people in the world (as stated, the above condition must be taken for granted) who do not have the same opinion. But why do they speak of different opinions? Because egoistic prejudices insert themselves between truth and that which people gather from their inner being; emotions and egoistic prejudices distort things and turn them into caricatures. People only differ in regard to their emotions, but not in regard to concepts and ideas. If a real concept has once been gained, we cannot think of it differently from others, who have also gained access to this concept. It is the greatest soul-frivolity to think that we are entitled to have subjective opinions. We do not have the right to cherish subjective opinions, but as human beings it is our duty to go beyond our subjective views to objective truths! In order to have a clear outlook in this point it is necessary to bear in mind all the sources of error which result from human emotions. A man may believe that he is fully convinced of something. Yet the reason why he believes that he is fully convinced of something may frequently be the fact that he is too lazy to penetrate into the idea. Indeed, my dear friends, it is necessary to indicate this inner moral side of human nature, if we wish to indicate that which the present time really needs
The present time is, above all, filled with pride and with emotions, even in regard to what is designated as objective science and it is not at all inclined to discover the judgment contained in, real ideas, in real concepts. But what will be our goal, if the burning social riddles which now confront us, are to be solved emotionally, out of human emotions?
You know that there are imaginations, inspirations and intuitions In reality, everything connected with economic, economic-juridical questions, should be grasped through imaginations, it is contained in imaginations. In the case of most people, these imaginations can only well up from unconscious depths, in the form of vague notions. But these are better than the constructed ideas which now come to the fore so eloquently and play a certain role. Everything contained what we may call spiritual life, the spiritual life which we have characterised as a part of the future social structure, is based upon inspirations. And ever thing which may exist apart from the human being, which must indeed be separated from him, that wherein all human beings must be equal, equal—so to speak—before the law—all that can only be based upon intuitions. This constitutes as it were the foundation of the political organism.
Imagination: Economic organism.
Inspiration; Spiritual organism.
Intuition: Political organism.
This is how inspiration, intuition and imagination must work together in order to shape the conditions of life. And we should bear in mind that this is so. For then we shall realise that in reality the social questions which do not only confront us to-day, but which burn like fire, can only be solved with the aid of spiritual-scientific methods. The essential point is that we should discard carelessness and laziness of thought, and really set out in the direction of that which connects the human soul with reality. This alone can lead as to the goal which we must reach in the present time. To-morrow we shall characterize and discuss the four parts of the so-called socialistic ideal from this standpoint.
Elfter Vortrag
Der Sozialismus ist der Meinung, daß dasjenige, was er sozialistische Wirtschaftsordnung nennt, eine unmittelbare und notwendige, ursachengemäße Fortsetzung sei dessen, was sich in der Wirtschaftsordnung innerhalb der letzten Jahrhunderte in der Entwickelung der Menschheit nach und nach ergeben hat. Gewissermaßen meint der, welcher heute der proletarisch-sozialistischen Lebensauffassung ist, daß die kapitalistische Wirtschaftsordnung von selbst übergehen müsse nach und nach in die sozialistische Wirtschaftsordnung, und dies aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil innerhalb dessen, was sich herausgebildet hat in den letzten Jahrhunderten durch den Kapitalismus, die sozialistische Wirtschaftsordnung gewissermaßen schon stecke. Manche sagen, um diesen Gedankengang, wie sie glauben, präzis charakterisieren zu können: Jede menschliche Ordnung, jede Lebensordnung enthält, wenn sie gewissermaßen in der Kulmination, auf dem Gipfel ihrer Entwickelung angelangt ist, dann schon den Keim für das Folgende.
Nun, äußerlich betrachtet, ich möchte sagen, statistisch betrachtet — und die Statistik lieben ja die sozialistischen Gelehrten ganz besonders — hat das, was ich eben auseinandergesetzt habe als sozialistische Ordnung, sehr viel für sich. Die moderne Technik hat nämlich auf gewissen Gebieten übergeführt - wir können summarisch den Vorgang in der folgenden Weise charakterisieren —, was früher ein überschaubarer, in der Obhut der menschlichen Individualität stehender Betrieb war, in den Großbetrieb. Man braucht nur auf die moderne Eisenindustrie als ein ganz hervorragendes Beispiel zu sehen, und man wird finden, daß diese moderne Eisenindustrie zusammenfassen mußte eine ganze Unsumme von Verrichtungen, die alle zuletzt dahin gipfeln, gewisse Produkte zu schaffen, die aber nur durch das Zusammenwirken komplizierter Vorgänge geschaffen werden können. Um solche Riesenbetriebe, wie sie das moderne Wirtschaftsleben herausgebildet hat, betreiben zu können, bedarf es großer Kapitalmassen, Kapitalanhäufungen, denen gegenüber das Wirtschaftsleben früherer Zeiten eine Lächerlichkeit gewesen wäre. In diesen Kapitalanhäufungen liegt nun aber auch für den einzelnen Besitzer oder für eine Gruppe von Besitzern solcher Riesenbetriebe die Möglichkeit, eine große Arbeiterschaft zu beschäftigen. Dadurch, daß die Betriebe sich ins Riesenhafte ausgedehnt haben, ist innerhalb der Betriebe zusammengebracht worden eine große Arbeiterschaft. Die Verkehrsverhältnisse haben außerdem noch dazu geführt, daß solche Riesenbetriebe nicht vereinzelt stehen können, weil sie die Konkurrenz nicht aushalten würden; daß sie in einer gewissen Weise sich zusammengeschlossen haben, wodurch noch größere Umfänge einer zusammengehörigen sozialen Gruppe von Unternehmern und Arbeitern geschaffen worden sind. So meint der sozialistische Gedanke der neueren Zeit, das Wirtschaftsleben selbst habe in einer gewissen Weise zur Sozialisierung geführt, und das, was nun die Begleiterscheinungen dieser Sozialisierung seien, das müsse notwendigerweise diesen ganzen Prozeß fortsetzen.
Die Fortsetzung würde darinnen bestehen, daß nun nicht mehr der einzelne Unternehmer in weitem Umfange eine Arbeitsgemeinschaft zusammenbrächte, sondern daß die Gemeinwesen, Staat, Kommune, Genossenschaften die Unternehmer selbst werden, so daß gewissermaßen nur der Sozialisierungsprozeß, der durch das moderne technisch-wirtschaftliche Leben schon eingetreten ist, in einer geregelten Weise fortgesetzt werde.
Nun wirkt im Grunde genommen der Gedanke, den ich soeben geäußert habe, mit einer ungeheuren suggestiven Kraft auf das moderne Proletariat. Dieses moderne Proletariat muß von dem, der die Verhältnisse wirklich restlos ins Auge fassen will, auch hinsichtlich seiner Seelenverfassung betrachtet werden. Und da zeigt sich wirklich, daß solche Gedanken eine außerordentlich starke suggestive Kraft auf das moderne Proletariat haben. Diese suggestive Kraft beruht darauf, daß sich in der "Tat der moderne Arbeiter ausgeliefert glaubt dem Unternehmertum, und daß er glaubt, dieser Auslieferung nur dadurch zu entkommen, daß er das, was der Unternehmer besorgt, selbst mitbesorgt.
Nun liegt es in der Natur der neueren Menschheit - und es wird dieses durch die verschiedensten Gründe bewirkt -, sich einseitigen Gedanken gerne hinzugeben. Heilung für mancherlei Verhältnisse wird nur dadurch kommen, daß man abläßt von diesem Hange, sich einseitigen Gedanken hinzugeben und daß man lernt, die Dinge allseitig zu betrachten. So die Entwickelung des modernen kapitalistisch-technischen Wirtschaftslebens mit seiner Kulmination nach der Sozialisierung betrachten, heißt eigentlich nichts anderes, als die modernen, naturwissenschaftlich tauglichen Gedankenformen auf das Wirtschaftsleben anwenden. Von einem andern Gesichtspunkte aus habe ich Ihnen diese Tatsache gestern auseinandergesetzt.
Nun aber, wenn man rein naturwissenschaftlich betrachtet, so wie die naturwissenschaftliche Gedankenform in der neueren Zeit geworden ist, dann bleiben aus einer solchen Betrachtungsweise gewisse Impulse notwendig fort. Natürlich, wenn man solche Dinge auseinandersetzt, muß man mancherlei sagen, das, wenn es mißverstanden wird, leicht anfechtbar ist. Sie wissen aber, welche Methoden notwendig sind gerade in der geisteswissenschaftlichen Betrachtung, und werden sich daher auch überzeugt halten davon, daß das Folgende auch nur eine Beleuchtung von einer Seite ist, aber eine Beleuchtung von einer Seite, die man braucht.
Die rein naturwissenschaftliche Betrachtungsweise, welche die Erscheinungen bloß nach dem Gesetz von Ursache und Wirkung betrachtet, ist im Grunde sowohl auf den gesunden als auch auf den kranken Organismus anwendbar. Sie können den gesunden Organismus physiologisch betrachten, und Sie werden, wenn Sie stehenbleiben wollen bei dem, was die moderne Naturwissenschaft besonders liebt, überall den Zusammenhang von Ursache und Wirkung konstatieren können. Sie können aber geradeso, wenn Sie bei dieser Abstraktion — Zusammenhang von Ursache und Wirkung — stehenbleiben, den kranken Organismus pathologisch betrachten. Auch in dem kranken Organismus hängt alles nach Ursache und Wirkung zusammen. Und legt man einseitig, abstrakt nur zugrunde eine nach Ursache und Wirkung orientierte Folge der Ereignisse, dann bleibt der Impuls, den man auf der einen Seite als gesunden, auf der andern Seite als kranken Impuls bezeichnen muß, notwendigerweise fort. Er fällt heraus aus der Betrachtungsweise. Das ist für die naturwissenschaftliche Betrachtungsweise mit Bezug auf die Aufgaben, welche die Naturwissenschaft zunächst in der neueren Zeit sucht, nicht weiter schlimm. Das wird aber schlimm, wenn man dieselbe Denkweise anwenden will auf die sozialen Vorgänge, denn da läßt sich nicht aus dem Werdeprozeß der Menschheit einfach der Unterschied zwischen dem Gesunden und dem Kranken ausschließen. Das läßt sich nicht tun. Und das ist es, was zunächst hauptsächlich betont werden muß, daß, so wie die Menschen heute vor den durch die Wirklichkeit so brennend gewordenen sozialen Fragen stehen, ihnen eben durchaus fehlt die Möglichkeit, ein Urteil zu gewinnen, ob irgend etwas ein gesunder oder kranker Prozeß ist, ob irgend etwas gefördert werden muß oder geheilt werden muß. Deshalb, könnte man sagen, liegt eine solche Tragik über der modernen Menschheit, weil gerade dieser Unterschied, den ich eben annähernd charakterisiert habe, fehlt.
Wenn man die moderne, seit drei oder vier Jahrhunderten gehende Entwickelung der Menschheit ins Auge faßt, wenn man namentlich verfolgt, wie sich das, was Kapitalismus genannt wird, entwickelt hat, dann muß man auch noch einen andern Gesichtspunkt als den der Zusammendrängung der Betriebe in Großbetriebe und ähnliches ins Auge fassen. Man muß zum Beispiel die Frage durchgreifend stellen: Wie steht eigentlich die kapitalistische Produktionsweise im gesamten Gesellschaftsprozeß der Menschheit drinnen? Man kann darüber eigentlich nur ein Urteil gewinnen, wenn man die moderne kapitalistische Produktionsweise mit Bezug auf einen gewissen Gesichtspunkt mit der Produktionsweise des ehemaligen Handwerkers vergleicht. Der ehemalige Handwerker, er fertigte seine Produkte, er lieferte seine Produkte an den Konsumenten, und durch die Bezahlung seiner Produkte war er in die Möglichkeit versetzt, seinerseits zu leben. Verfolgt man ein solches Handwerkerleben, verfolgt man überhaupt das Produktionsleben früherer Jahrhunderte, namentlich bis etwa zum Jahre 1300, so findet man, daß die Menschen sich haben bezahlen lassen oder Waren eingetauscht haben meinetwillen für das, was sie produziert haben. Für das, was sie produziert haben, verschaffen sie sich dasjenige, was zu ihrem Lebensunterhalte notwendig war. Das war in gewissem Sinne eine eingeschränkte Wirtschaft, aber es war eine Wirtschaft, welche eng gebunden war an die Persönlichkeit. Alle Hervorbringung war auch eng gebunden an persönliche Tüchtigkeit, an persönlichen Eifer, an die Ehre, die jemand darinnen sah, ein Produkt so gut als möglich zu machen und so weiter. Bedeutungsvolle moralische Impulse waren in der Zeit des einfachen Handwerkerlebens mit der wirtschaftlichen Ordnung verbunden.
Das alles ist anders geworden im Laufe der letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderte. Nachdem ein Übergang war vom 15. Jahrhundert bis etwa ins 16., 17. Jahrhundert hinein, ist die Sache in den letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderten anders geworden. Denn in diesen letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderten entwickelte sich eigentlich erst so recht das, was man kapitalistische Produktionsweise nennen kann. Wenn man nun dem nachgeht, was der sozialen Frage wirklich zugrunde liegt und nicht abstellt auf das, was die Leute glauben, so muß folgendes Merkmal ins Auge gefaßt werden: Das Wesentliche für den Kapitalisten, insofern er ein Glied der kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsordnung ist, besteht nicht darin, sich wie der Handwerker seinen Lebensstand zu verschaffen, sondern dafür zu sorgen, daß das Kapital Zuwachs erhält, daß es sich vermehrt. Dasjenige, um was das Kapital wächst, das ist der Profit. Also nicht das Arbeiten auf den Lebensstatus, sondern das Arbeiten auf den Profit hin, das ist das besonders Charakteristische der kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsordnung. Dadurch aber wird im hohen Maße das Kapital als solches verselbständigt. Nicht wahr, wenn eine gewisse Kapitalmasse sich im Laufe der Jahre durch den Produktionsprozeß vermehrt, wenn sie wächst, und wenn das geradezu der Zweck der Kapitalbildung ist, so wird ja von allem Persönlichen losgelöst dasjenige, was eigentlich die Hauptsache im Wirtschaftsprozeß ist. Und das ist der Gesichtspunkt, der bei der richtigen Beurteilung der modernen sozialen Frage vor allen Dingen in Betracht kommt, diese Loslösung des Wirtschaftsprozesses von dem Persönlichen.
Leider haben die wenigsten Menschen der heutigen gebildeten Stände wirklich Neigung, sich mit diesen Dingen zu befassen; wenn sie dies nämlich tun würden, könnten sie schon sehen, wie der moderne Mensch gewissermaßen getrennt ist von alldem, was den Wirtschaftsprozeß eigentlich ausmacht. Ich frage Sie: In welchem Grade ist denn heute außerhalb ganz eng umgrenzter Kreise Freude am Produkte, das man erzeugt, vorhanden? Was durchgreifend in der Wirtschaftsordnung früherer Epochen war, daß der Mensch zum Beispiel an jedem Schlüssel, den er hervorbrachte, seine große Freude hatte, seine Ehre dareinsetzen mußte, die Sache so gut als möglich zustande zu bringen, das ist vorbei. Der Mensch ist gewissermaßen abgetrennt von dem Wirtschaftsprozeß als solchem. Höchstens auf künstlerischem Gebiete und auf dem, was dem künstlerischen Gebiete verwandt ist, findet noch statt, was früher wie ein durchgreifendes moralisches Moment das Handwerk durchzogen hat. Man kann nicht einmal sagen, daß im geistigen Leben die Verbindung des Menschen mit seiner Leistung aufrechterhalten geblieben ist. Sehen Sie sich an all die Professoren, die in den oder jenen Fächern tätig sind, ob die Leute nun wirklich ganz menschlich verwachsen sind mit demjenigen, was sie hervorbringen!
Aber in umfassender Weise hängt das schon zusammen mit diesem Grundcharakter der kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsordnung, die ja schließlich in alles eingreift. Aus den gestrigen Schlußbemerkungen können Sie das entnehmen. Aus diesem Grundcharakter der kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsordnung geht es hervor, daß der Mensch gewissermaßen losgelöst ist in seinen persönlichen Aspirationen von dem objektiver und objektiver werdenden Wirtschaftsprozeß. Die Folge davon ist eine ganz weitgehende und färbt die ganze sozialistische Auffassung von heute. Es entsteht nämlich der Glaube, daß wirklich dieses ungesunde Abtrennen der menschlichen Produktion von dem Menschen selbst und dem, was ihn interessiert, gerade festgelegt werden müßte in einer neuen Wirtschaftsordnung. Wo denkt man heute daran, wiederum ein Band zu suchen zwischen dem Menschen und seinen Hervorbringungen? Im Gegenteil, man denkt daran, den Wirtschaftsprozeß so weit wie nur irgend möglich nach außen zu verlegen, vom Menschen abzusondern. Und die Folge davon würde sein, daß der Mensch auf andern Gebieten Befriedigung suchen müßte für dasjenige, was eigentlich mit seiner Persönlichkeit, was mit allen Interessen seines Wesens zusammenhängt. So wirkt dieses Vorurteil auf das, was man heute sozialistische Ideale nennt. Führen wir uns einmal vor Augen, worinnen das sozialistische Ideal für weite Kreise heute besteht.
Da haben wir vier Punkte, in denen wir zusammenfassen können alles dasjenige, was gewissermaßen sozialistisches Ideal mit Bezug auf die Struktur des menschlichen Gesellschaftsorganismus ist. Erstens strebt dieses sozialistische Ideal danach, daß alle Produktionsbetriebe Eigentum der Gemeinschaft werden, sei diese Gemeinschaft der Staat oder die Kommune oder Genossenschaften; daß, mit andern Worten, abgeschafft werde aller Privatbesitz an Produktionsmitteln, daß die Produktionsmittel alle Gemeineigentum werden, so daß alle Betriebe durch die Gemeinschaft auch geführt werden müssen.
Das zweite ist innerhalb des sozialistischen Ideals, daß die Produktion geregelt werde nach dem Bedarf, das heißt, daß die Produktion sich nicht regle frei nach Angebot und Nachfrage, daß nicht, wenn da oder dort ein Artikel verlangt wird, ein Produktionszweig für diesen Artikel eröffnet wird, sondern daß gewissermaßen staatlich oder “ kommunal oder genossenschaftlich festgestellt werde: Das benötigen die Leute, also errichtet die Gemeinschaft einen Produktionsbetrieb für diesen Artikel, der da benötigt wird. Ein drittes ist die demokratische Regelung der Arbeits- und Lohnverhältnisse, und ein viertes ist, daß jeder Mehrwert der Gemeinschaft zufällt. Damit haben wir ungefähr die vier Glieder des sozialistischen Ideals vor unsere Seele hingestellt. Ich wiederhole: Alle Produktionsbetriebe sollen Eigentum der Gemeinschaft werden, die Produktion soll geregelt werden nach dem Bedarf; die Arbeits- und Lohnverhältnisse sollen demokratisch geregelt werden; jeglicher Mehrwert, das heißt, jeglicher Profit soll an die Gemeinschaft abgeliefert werden.
In diesen vier Punkten liegt in der Tat für Millionen und Millionen von Menschen heute das, was sie anstreben. Und dem gegenüber besteht schon die absolute Notwendigkeit, zu fragen: Wie ist es möglich, den Menschen klarzumachen, daß diese vier sogenannten Ideale absolut unmöglich sind innerhalb der wirklichen menschlichen Gemeinschaft?
Nicht wahr, wenn die Menschen vor dreißig Jahren so viel Eifer gezeigt hätten für die soziale Frage, als heute notgedrungen einzelne Menschen in denjenigen Ländern zeigen, wo die alten Regierungen weggejagt worden sind - in den Ländern, wo die alten Regierungen nicht weggejagt worden sind, wird noch kein Interesse gezeigt -, man könnte sogar sagen, wenn die Menschen damals einen Teil jenes Interesses gezeigt hätten für die soziale Frage, das sie heute zeigen, so wäre die Sache schon gut gewesen, so wäre alles anders gekommen. Aber da, wo den Leuten noch nicht das Wasser in den Mund rinnt, ist es ja heute noch nicht möglich, ein wirklich durchgreifendes Interesse für die sozialen Rätsel zu wecken. Das, was in dieser Richtung das führende, sogenannte intelligente Bürgertum versäumt hat in den letzten zwei bis drei Jahrzehnten, das ist doch ungeheuerlich. Und es schickt sich an, dieselben Dinge weiter zu versäumen, nur auf einem andern Gebiete. Das, was heute vor allen Dingen notwendig ist, das ist, daß die Menschen begreifen lernen: so wie der einzelne Organismus geisteswissenschaftlich begriffen werden muß, so muß auch der soziale Organismus geisteswissenschaftlich begriffen werden. Man muß endlich auf diesem Gebiete hinauskommen über die wesenlosen Abstraktionen. Man kann schon anknüpfen da an tiefere menschliche Interessen, tiefere menschliche Impulse, die gerade jetzt in dieser Epoche der Menschheit hereinwirken in die menschliche Entwickelung.
Die gegenwärtige Schläfrigkeit der Menschheit ist eine ungeheure, und notwendig ist ein Aufwachen nach einer gewissen Richtung hin. Wie oft hört man heute das sonderbare Urteil da, wo man überhaupt Geisteswissenschaft berücksichtigt: Geisteswissenschaft sei ja nicht nötig für denjenigen Menschen, der glaube und im guten alten Sinne ein Christ sei, und übrigens sei der Glaube einfach und die Geisteswissenschaft kompliziert und es sei daher nicht einzusehen, warum man das Komplizierte für das Einfache umtauschen sollte. Aber dieses bequeme Kleben an dem Einfachen, dieses ruchlose bloße Glauben, dieses bequeme Pochen: Wir brauchen nicht daran zu denken, wir brauchen nicht nach Wahrheit zu forschen, uns gibt es der Glaube ein —, das trägt im tieferen Sinne des Wortes die Schuld an den katastrophalen Ereignissen, in denen wir leben. Und es muß immer wieder und wiederum betont werden, daß dieses die Schuld trägt. Wehe, wenn sich nicht genügend Menschen im Leben finden, die Herz und Sinn haben für eine völlige Hingabe an ernstes, innerlich arbeitsreiches Denken und Forschen nach den Wahrheiten! Denn die Zeiten sind vorüber, wo man an die geistige Welt bloß zu glauben brauchte, wo man hier im physischen Dasein auf der faulen Haut liegen durfte und glauben konnte, man werde erlöst werden von den Mächten, um die man sich nicht weiter kümmert, und die ihrerseits das ihrige beitragen werden zu der entsprechenden Erlösung. Dasjenige, worauf es ankommt im Fortgange der Menschheit, das ist, daß der Mensch nicht bloß an Gott und die Götter glaubt, sondern daß er den Gott und die Götter in seinem eigenen Wesen wirksam sein läßt, daß er einfließen läßt die Kräfte der geistigen Welt in das, was er selber tut, was er tut im alleralltäglichsten Leben. Was wir tun vom Morgen bis zum Abend, das muß so geschehen, daß göttlich-geistige Kraft in unseren Tun ist. Es wird in unserem Tun nur sein, wenn es vor allen Dingen in unserem Denken ist. Den Gott tätig, nicht bloß glaubensinhaltlich in uns aufnehmen, das ist es, was die Aufgabe der modernen Menschheit ist. Nicht bloß über Gott denken, sondern so denken, daß in unseren Gedanken der Gott lebt, darauf kommt es an. Gibt man sich einem solchen Ideale hin, dann wird man schon das nötige Interesse entwickeln für alles dasjenige, wofür nun leider in den letzten Jahrzehnten von dem weitaus größten Teile der modernen Menschheit kein Interesse entwickelt worden ist.
Worauf es ankommt, das ist, daß wir die Möglichkeit finden, den Menschen klarzumachen, daß eine Umkehr in der ganzen Gedankenwelt notwendig ist. Es ist höchste Zeit; denn nachdem von den sogenannten Intellektuellen versäumt worden ist, nach dieser Richtung zu wirken, erwachen jetzt die wüstesten Instinkte der Menschheit fast über die ganze zivilisierte Welt, wenigstens über einen großen Teil der zivilisierten Welt hin. Glauben Sie, daß, wenn diese Instinkte der Menschheit eine bestimmte Kulmination, einen bestimmten Höhepunkt erlangt haben, daß sie dann leicht zu bannen sind? Bis sie sich wiederum selbst verzehren, wird lange, lange Zeit vergehen. Nur bis zu einem gewissen Zeitpunkte hin wirkt Lehre, wirkt Vorbild zur Besänftigung, zur Zügelung der Instinkte der Menschheit. Das Tier in der Menschheit strebt nach der Oberfläche hin, weil versäumt worden ist, das Edlere in der Menschenwesenheit anzuregen. Und hier stehen wir an dem Punkt, wo über die moralische Seite der modernen sozialen Frage gesprochen werden muß. Ich sagte: Das, was ich das letzte Merkmal der kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsordnung genannt habe, Vermehrung des Kapitals als solches, das Wachsen des Kapitals, das hinstrebt nicht nach den Leistungen, sondern nach Profit -, das löst den Menschen los von seinem Produkte. Und in dieser Loslösung des Menschen von seinem Produkte liegt ein wesentliches Charakteristikon der ganzen modernen Entwickelung. Aber in der Welt ist es so, daß in der Regel nicht eine Erscheinung ohne die andere auftritt, sondern daß Erscheinungen in der verschiedensten Weise zusammengehören. Sie können nicht über einen weichen Erdboden gehen, ohne daß sich zu gleicher Zeit auf diesem Boden die Fußspuren eindrücken. Das ist ein Beispiel, das Sie überall anwenden können, um zu sehen, wie in der wirklichen Welt immer eins zu dem andern gehört. Was die moderne Welt zugetrieben hat der im modernen Kapitalismus liegenden Vermehrung des Kapitals, dem Wachsen des Kapitals, das hat eben auf der andern Seite — nicht einseitig logisch, aber wirklichkeitslogisch - verknüpft mit dem Aufkommen des Kapitalismus die Interesselosigkeit, die wir in der modernen Menschheit gerade für die tiefsten Impulse der menschlichen Seele finden. Auf der einen Seite das Herausschälen der menschlichen Persönlichkeit aus dem Wirtschaftsprozeß, auf der andern Seite die Austrocknung dieser Persönlichkeit, die sich aus dem Wirtschaftsprozeß herausgelöst hat, gerade für die intimsten Eigenschaften des geistig-seelischen Wesens des Menschen. Beide Dinge gehören zusammen. Beide Dinge haben jenes furchtbare Treiben der modernen Großstädte, in denen der Kapitalismus seine besonderen Sitze aufgeschlagen hat, hervorgebracht, wo auf der einen Seite der Kapitalismus wirkt, auf der andern Seite die Interesselosigkeit für die intimsten Fragen des menschlichen innersten Wesens herrscht.
Diese Dinge sind in der äußeren Erscheinung vielfach verhüllt, und nur einer genaueren Betrachtungsweise werden sie offenbar. Sie können natürlich sagen: Es gibt doch eine große Anzahl von Menschen, die durchaus nicht beteiligt sind an dem modernen kapitalistischen Prozeß. - Gewiß, es sind wenige, die daran beteiligt sind in direkter Weise, aber in indirekter Weise ist die ganze moderne Menschheit, namentlich auch die gebildete moderne Menschheit an dem kapitalistischen Prozesse beteiligt. Dadurch beteiligt, daß die Existenzen abhängen von der kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsordnung. Es sei einer ein Künstler: Wie er früher für den Fürsten produziert hat oder für den Papst, so produziert er heute für den Kapitalisten. Und wenn Sie solche Fäden, wie sie sich von der Kunst heute zum Kapitalismus schlingen, über die verschiedensten Gebiete des Lebens ziehen, dann werden Sie sehen, wie der Kapitalismus seine Fangarme nach allen Seiten ausgebreitet hat, insbesondere über das geistige Leben. Da wirkt allerdings sehr viel Unbewußtes in diesen Dingen drinnen, das, wenn man bloß die Oberfläche des Lebens ansieht, sich nicht gleich enthüllt.
Ich werde jetzt einen unbewußten oder unterbewußten Prozeß etwas charakterisieren müssen: Diese Verobjektivierung des Produktionsprozesses, dieses Loslösen des Produktionsprozesses von den menschlichen Aspirationen, wie sie sich vollziehen im modernen Kapitalismus, bedarf in gewissem Sinne der Rechtfertigung. Die Menschen brauchen ja immer eine Rechtfertigung für dasjenige, was sie tun, und es kommt ihnen nicht darauf an, wenn sie sich rechtfertigen wollen, die Wahrheit zu erforschen, sondern es kommt ihnen nur darauf an, etwas zu sagen, was sie rechtfertigt. Nehmen Sie ein naheliegendes Beispiel. Die Entente hat gesiegt; es handelt sich darum, diesen Sieg zu rechtfertigen. Daher sagt man dasjenige, was eben von der Entente heute gesagt wird, nicht, weil das die Wahrheit ist, sondern weil man den Sieg rechtfertigen muß. So ist es auch im einzelnen menschlichen Leben. Was liegt den meisten Menschen an der wirklichen Ergründung der Wahrheit! Es liegt ihnen an der Rechtfertigung desjenigen, was sie tun. Das ist es, was der Kapitalismus will: Vor allen Dingen rechtfertigen sein Dasein. Er kann es nur rechtfertigen, wenn er den alleräußersten materiellen Prozeß, den materiellsten wirtschaftlichen Prozeß in seinem Spiegelbilde, in der Vermehrung des Kapitals beobachtet. Dann aber muß, wenn gerechtfertigt sein soll in dieser physischen Welt die kapitalistische Wirtschaftsordnung, ausgeschaltet sein alles das, was geistig-seelische Angelegenheiten sind. Die müssen auf ein besonderes Gebiet kommen. Mag der Pfarrer auf seiner Kanzel über die Dinge des Glaubens sprechen, wie er will - ich kann es glauben, ein anderer kann es glauben, ich kann es lassen zu glauben, ein anderer kann es lassen zu glauben -, er redet von einer ganz andern Welt. In der Welt, in der man leben muß, da kann es nicht so zugehen, wie es der Pfarrer von der Kanzel sagt, selbstverständlich nicht, da muß es kapitalistisch zugehen.
So hat gerade der extreme Kapitalismus auf der einen Seite dieses furchtbar abstrakte moralisch-geistige Leben hervorgerufen, welches sich ganz abtrennen will von allen äußeren Wirklichkeiten des Daseins. Ebenso schlimm im modernen Leben wie auf der einen Seite der materielle Kapitalismus, hat auf der andern Seite gewirkt jene Gesinnung, die da sagt: Ach, was kümmere ich mich um Ahriman! Ahriman mag Ahriman bleiben, ich widme mich den Impulsen des Innersten meiner Seele, ich gebe mich der geistigen Welt hin, ich suche die geistige Welt so, wie ich sie in meinem Inneren finden kann; die Angelegenheiten der Seele interessieren mich. Was kümmert mich dieses ahrimanische Kredit-, Geld-, Vermögens- und Besitzwesen! Was kümmert mich der Unterschied zwischen Rente und Zins, zwischen Bruttoeinnahmen und Reingewinn und so weiter. Ich kümmere mich um die Angelegenheiten meiner Seele! — Aber, wie der Mensch eine Einheit ist nach Leib, Seele und Geist, und wie ihm zwischen Geburt und Tod Leib und Seele und Geist zusammengebunden sind, so sind im äußeren physischen Dasein verbunden diejenigen Impulse, die wir finden können durch das innerste Gefüge unserer Seele, und diejenigen Impulse, die in der äußeren Wirtschaftsordnung liegen. Und ebenso schuldig an dem modernen Katastrophalen, wie es auf der einen Seite die materialistischen Kapitalisten sind mit ihrer Denkund Gesinnungsweise, ebenso schuldig sind diejenigen, die auf der andern Seite nur fromm, nur geisteswissenschaftlich sein wollen, in ihrem Sinne dieses Geisteswissenschaftliche abstrakt einschränken und sich nicht einlassen auf die Durchdringung der alltäglichen Wirklichkeit mit einem eingreifenden Denken. Das ist es, was mich immer wieder und wiederum bewogen hat, zu Ihnen davon zu sprechen, daß Sie doch ja nicht diese anthroposophische Geistesbewegung als eine Gelegenheit nehmen sollen, bloße Sonntagnachmittagspredigten zu hören, die einem wohltun in der Seele, weil sie einem davon sprechen, daß das Leben ein Ewiges ist und so weiter, sondern daß Sie diese anthroposophische Bewegung nehmen als den Weg, die modernen Aufgaben des Daseins, die so brennend an uns herandringen, wirklich sinngemäß anzugreifen. Und eine der ersten Notwendigkeiten ist diese: zu verstehen, wo begonnen werden muß, und daß alles nichts hilft, wenn die Menschen nicht den Zugang gewinnen zu einem unbefangenen Denken.
Und hier möchte ich am Schlusse der heutigen Betrachtungen dasjenige aussprechen, an was dann morgen bei einer praktisch-sozialen Betrachtung weiter angeknüpft werden soll. Was ich aussprechen werde, wird scheinbar sehr weit abliegen von allem sozialistischen Denken oder Denken über die soziale Frage, aber Sie werden morgen sehen, wie nahe das liegt, was scheinbar fern liegt, und wie wir gerade durch diese Betrachtungen werden zurechtrücken können die vier Punkte, die ich Ihnen als die Glieder des sozialistischen Ideals angegeben habe. Die Menschen sagen im Leben so oft: Die Meinungen sind verschieden, Überzeugungen sind verschieden, der eine glaubt das, der andere glaubt jenes. — Sieht das nicht so aus, als ob, wenn wir uns unserem Denken hingeben, der eine sich diese, der andere sich jene Gedanken machen kann, und diese und jene Gedanken dann berechtigt sein können? Es sieht so aus, und ist doch durchaus nicht so. Unter Berücksichtigung des Umstandes, daß eine jede Charakteristik einer Sache im höheren Sinne immer gewissermaßen eine Photographie von der einen Seite ist, daß es also Beleuchtungen von den verschiedensten Seiten gibt - immer vorausgesetzt, daß dies berücksichtigt wird —, haben alle Menschen über ein und dieselbe Sache die gleiche Meinung in ihrem tiefsten Inneren. Es gibt nicht zwei Menschen in der Welt, die über ein und dieselbe Sache — wie gesagt, immer unter der gemachten Voraussetzung - nicht dieselbe Meinung haben. Das gibt es nicht. Warum reden denn die Menschen doch von verschiedenen Meinungen? Weil sich zwischen die Wahrheit und zwischen dasjenige, was der Mensch vernimmt in seinem Inneren, sein Emotionelles schiebt, sein egoistisches Vorurteil schiebt und ihm die Sache verzerrt, karikiert. Wahrhaftig verschieden sind die Menschen nur mit Bezug auf ihre Emotionen, nicht mit Bezug auf ihre Begriffe und Ideen. Hat man einmal den Zugang zu einem wirklichen Begriff gewonnen, so kann man über diesen Begriff nicht anderer Meinung sein als ein anderer Mensch, der ebenfalls den Zugang zu diesem Begriff gewonnen hat. Und es ist die größte Frivolität der Seele, zu glauben, daß man ein gewisses Recht auf subjektive Meinungen habe. Dieses Recht auf subjektive Meinungen hat man nicht, sondern man hat als Mensch die Verpflichtung, hinauszudringen über seine Subjektivität zu dem Objektiven. Um in diesem Punkte das Richtige zu sehen, ist allerdings sehr notwendig, daß man alle die Fehlerquellen berücksichtigt, die aus den menschlichen Emotionen folgen. Ein Mensch glaubt, er kann von irgendeiner Sache überzeugt sein. Oftmals ist der Grund, warum er glaubt, daß er von irgendeiner Sache überzeugt ist, kein anderer, als daß er zu faul ist, den Begriff wirklich ins Auge zu fassen. Ja, man muß schon auf diese innerlich moralische Seite der Menschennatur hinweisen, wenn man auf dasjenige hinweisen will, was der heutigen Zeit not tut.
Diese heutige Zeit ist ja vor allen Dingen voller Hochmut, voller Emotionen selbst in dem, was man objektive Wissenschaft nennt, und gar nicht geneigt, den Zugang zu suchen zu dem Urteil, das in wirklichen Ideen und in wirklichen Begriffen liegt. Wohin sollen wir aber kommen, wenn die brennenden sozialen Rätsel, die jetzt vor der Türe stehen, aus den Emotionen der Menschen heraus gelöst werden ? Sie wissen: Es gibt Imaginationen, es gibt Inspirationen, es gibt Intuitionen. In Wahrheit liegt alles dasjenige, was mit Bezug auf die ökonomischen, die wirtschaftlichen und wirtschaftsgesetzlichen Zusammenhänge ergründet werden muß, in Imaginationen; alles dasjenige, was im Wirtschaftsorganismus ergründet werden muß, das liegt in Imaginationen. Diese Imaginationen mögen ja bei den meisten Menschen nur aus dem Unbewußten herausdämmern in Ahnungen. Aber dann sind diese Ahnungen besser als die erstudierten Begriffe, die heute vielfach in der Menschheit figurieren. Alles, was in dem lebt, das man nennen kann das geistige Leben, was wir so charakterisiert haben, wie wir das geistige Leben als ein Glied der künftigen Gesellschaftsordnung charakterisiert haben, alles das beruht auf Inspirationen: geistiger Organismus. Und alles das, was nun wirklich losgelöst vom Menschen existieren darf, ja losgelöst vom Menschen existieren muß, das, worinnen die Menschen gleich sein müssen, gleich, wie man sagt, vor dem Gesetze, das kann nur auf Intuitionen beruhen. Darauf beruht also der, man könnte sagen, politische Organismus. Imagination: Wirtschaftsorganismus — Inspiration: Geistiger Organismus — Intuition: Politischer Organismus.
In dieser Weise müssen zusammenwirken wirklich Inspiration, Intuition, Imagination in der Gestaltung der Lebensverhältnisse. Da muß man nur einmal bedenken, daß dies so ist. Und dann wird man auch einsehen, wie im Grunde genommen nur aus geisteswissenschaftlichen Methoden heraus die sozialen Fragen, die heute vor der Türe nicht nur stehen, sondern brennen, in die Richtung ihrer Lösung gebracht werden können. Das ist es, worauf es ankommt: ablegen alle Lässigkeit, alle Bequemlichkeit im Denken, und wirklich losgehen auf dasjenige, was die Menschenseele mit der Wirklichkeit verbindet. Das kann letzten Endes doch nur dahin bringen, wohin wir kommen müssen in der Gegenwart. Von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus wollen wir dann morgen die vier Glieder des sogenannten sozialistischen Ideals einmal charakterisieren, kritisch besprechen.
Eleventh Lecture
Socialism believes that what it calls the socialist economic order is a direct and necessary, causal continuation of what has gradually emerged in the economic order over the last few centuries in the development of humanity. In a sense, those who today hold the proletarian-socialist view of life believe that the capitalist economic order must gradually transition into the socialist economic order of its own accord, for the simple reason that the socialist economic order is, in a sense, already inherent in what has emerged over the last few centuries through capitalism. Some say, in order to characterize this line of thought precisely, as they believe they can: Every human order, every order of life, when it has reached its culmination, the summit of its development, already contains the seed of what is to follow.
Now, viewed from the outside, I would say, statistically speaking — and socialist scholars are particularly fond of statistics — what I have just described as the socialist order has a lot going for it. For in certain areas, modern technology has transformed — we can summarise the process as follows — what used to be a manageable operation under the care of human individuality into large-scale industry. One need only look at the modern iron industry as an excellent example, and one will find that this modern iron industry has had to combine a whole host of tasks, all of which ultimately culminate in the creation of certain products that can only be created through the interaction of complicated processes. In order to operate such giant enterprises as modern economic life has produced, large masses of capital are required, accumulations of capital that would have been ridiculous in the economic life of earlier times. However, these accumulations of capital also give the individual owner or group of owners of such giant enterprises the opportunity to employ a large workforce. The fact that businesses have expanded to enormous proportions has brought together a large workforce within them. Transport conditions have also meant that such giant enterprises cannot exist in isolation because they would not be able to withstand competition; they have, in a sense, merged, creating even larger social groups of entrepreneurs and workers. Thus, the socialist idea of recent times holds that economic life itself has in a certain way led to socialization, and that what are now the accompanying phenomena of this socialization must necessarily continue this whole process.
The continuation would consist in the fact that it is no longer the individual entrepreneur who brings together a large working community, but that the community, the state, the municipality, and cooperatives become the entrepreneurs themselves, so that, in a sense, only the process of socialization that has already begun through modern technical and economic life is continued in a regulated manner.
Now, the idea I have just expressed has, in essence, an enormous suggestive power over the modern proletariat. Anyone who wants to take a truly comprehensive view of the situation must also consider the state of mind of the modern proletariat. And here it becomes clear that such ideas have an extraordinarily strong suggestive power over the modern proletariat. This suggestive power is based on the fact that in reality the modern worker feels at the mercy of entrepreneurship and believes that he can only escape this mercy by doing what the entrepreneur does himself.
Now it is in the nature of modern humanity – and this is caused by a variety of reasons – to indulge in one-sided thoughts. The cure for many conditions will come only when we abandon this tendency to indulge in one-sided thoughts and learn to look at things from all sides. Thus, to view the development of modern capitalist-technical economic life with its culmination in socialization means nothing other than applying modern, scientifically valid forms of thought to economic life. I explained this fact to you yesterday from a different point of view.
Now, however, if one considers the matter purely from a scientific point of view, as scientific thought has developed in recent times, then certain impulses are necessarily missing from such a view. Of course, when one discusses such things, one must say many things that, if misunderstood, are easily open to objection. But you know what methods are necessary in spiritual scientific observation, and you will therefore remain convinced that what follows is only an illumination from one side, but an illumination from a side that is needed.
The purely scientific approach, which considers phenomena solely according to the law of cause and effect, is basically applicable to both the healthy and the sick organism. You can look at the healthy organism physiologically, and if you want to stick to what modern science particularly loves, you will be able to establish the connection between cause and effect everywhere. But if you stick with this abstraction—the connection between cause and effect—you can just as easily look at the sick organism from a pathological point of view. In the sick organism, too, everything is connected by cause and effect. And if one takes as a basis, in a one-sided, abstract way, a sequence of events oriented toward cause and effect, then the impulse that must be called a healthy impulse on the one hand and a sick impulse on the other necessarily disappears. It falls out of the field of view. This is not a problem for the scientific approach with regard to the tasks that natural science has sought to fulfill in modern times. However, it becomes a problem when one wants to apply the same way of thinking to social processes, because there one cannot simply exclude the difference between the healthy and the sick from the process of human development. This cannot be done. And this is what must be emphasized first and foremost: that, as people today face social issues that have become so pressing due to reality, they simply lack the ability to judge whether something is a healthy or unhealthy process, whether something needs to be promoted or healed. That is why, one might say, such tragedy hangs over modern humanity, because it is precisely this difference, which I have just roughly characterized, that is missing.
If one considers the modern development of humanity over the last three or four centuries, if one traces in particular how what is called capitalism has developed, then one must also consider another point of view than that of the concentration of businesses into large enterprises and the like. One must, for example, ask the question thoroughly: What is the actual position of the capitalist mode of production in the overall social process of humanity? One can only arrive at a judgment on this question by comparing the modern capitalist mode of production with the mode of production of the former craftsman from a certain point of view. The former craftsman made his products, delivered them to the consumer, and through the payment for his products was enabled to live. If we trace the life of such a craftsman, if we trace the productive life of earlier centuries, particularly up to about 1300, we find that people were paid or exchanged goods for what they produced. In exchange for what they produced, they obtained what was necessary for their livelihood. In a certain sense, this was a limited economy, but it was an economy that was closely linked to the individual. All production was also closely linked to personal ability, personal zeal, the honor that someone saw in making a product as good as possible, and so on. In the days of simple craftsmanship, meaningful moral impulses were linked to the economic order.
All this has changed over the last three to four centuries. After a transition from the 15th century to around the 16th and 17th centuries, things have changed in the last three to four centuries. For it was in these last three to four centuries that what can be called the capitalist mode of production really developed. If we now examine what really underlies the social question and do not focus on what people believe, the following characteristic must be taken into account: The essential thing for the capitalist, insofar as he is a member of the capitalist economic order, is not to secure his livelihood like the craftsman, but to ensure that capital grows, that it increases. What makes capital grow is profit. So it is not working for one's livelihood, but working for profit that is the particular characteristic of the capitalist economic order. But this makes capital as such highly independent. If a certain amount of capital increases over the years through the production process, if it grows, and if that is the very purpose of capital formation, then everything that is actually the main thing in the economic process becomes detached from everything personal. And this is the point of view that must be taken into account above all else in the correct assessment of the modern social question: this separation of the economic process from the personal.
Unfortunately, very few people in today's educated classes have any real inclination to concern themselves with these matters; if they did, they would see how modern man is, in a sense, separated from everything that actually constitutes the economic process. I ask you: to what extent is there today, outside very narrow circles, any joy in the products one produces? What was thoroughly present in the economic order of earlier epochs, namely that people took great pleasure in every key they made, for example, and had to put their honor into making it as good as possible, is now gone. People are, in a sense, separated from the economic process as such. At most, in the artistic field and in fields related to the artistic field, there is still something of what used to be a pervasive moral element in craftsmanship. One cannot even say that in intellectual life the connection between man and his achievement has been maintained. Look at all the professors who are active in this or that subject, and see whether these people have really grown together as human beings with what they produce!
But in a comprehensive way, this is already connected with the fundamental character of the capitalist economic order, which ultimately intervenes in everything. You can see this from yesterday's concluding remarks. It follows from this fundamental character of the capitalist economic order that human beings are, in a sense, detached in their personal aspirations from the economic process, which is becoming increasingly objective. The consequence of this is very far-reaching and colors the entire socialist view of today. Namely, the belief arises that this unhealthy separation of human production from human beings themselves and from what interests them must be established in a new economic order. Where does anyone think today of seeking a bond between human beings and their creations? On the contrary, people think of shifting the economic process as far as possible to the outside, separating it from man. And the consequence of this would be that man would have to seek satisfaction in other areas for that which is actually connected with his personality, with all the interests of his being. This is how this prejudice affects what are today called socialist ideals. Let us consider what the socialist ideal consists of for broad circles today.
There are four points in which we can summarize everything that is, so to speak, the socialist ideal with regard to the structure of the human social organism. First, this socialist ideal strives for all means of production to become the property of the community, whether that community is the state, the municipality, or cooperatives; in other words, for all private ownership of the means of production to be abolished, for the means of production to become common property, so that all enterprises must also be managed by the community.
The second aspect of the socialist ideal is that production should be regulated according to need, that is, that production should not be regulated freely by supply and demand, that when an article is demanded here or there, a branch of production for that article should not be opened, but that it should be determined, as it were, by the state or by the community or by a cooperative: The people need it, so the community establishes a production facility for this article, which is needed there. A third is the democratic regulation of working and wage conditions, and a fourth is that any surplus value accrues to the community. With that, we have roughly laid out the four pillars of the socialist ideal before us. I repeat: all production facilities shall become the property of the community, production shall be regulated according to need, working and wage conditions shall be regulated democratically, and any surplus value, that is, any profit, shall be handed over to the community.
These four points indeed represent what millions and millions of people today are striving for. And in contrast to this, there is an absolute necessity to ask: How is it possible to make it clear to people that these four so-called ideals are absolutely impossible within the real human community?
Isn't it true that if people had shown as much enthusiasm for social issues thirty years ago as individual people are now forced to show in those countries where the old governments have been driven out—in countries where the old governments have not been driven out, no interest is yet being shown—one could even say that if people had shown some of that interest in social issues back then, they show today, things would already have been fine, everything would have turned out differently. But where people's mouths are not yet watering, it is still not possible today to arouse a really thorough interest in social issues. What the leading, so-called intelligent bourgeoisie has failed to do in this direction over the last two or three decades is outrageous. And it is preparing to fail again, only in a different area. What is necessary above all today is for people to learn to understand that just as the individual organism must be understood through spiritual science, so too must the social organism be understood through spiritual science. We must finally move beyond insubstantial abstractions in this field. We can already connect with deeper human interests, deeper human impulses that are currently influencing human development in this epoch of humanity.
The current lethargy of humanity is tremendous, and it is necessary to wake up and move in a certain direction. How often do we hear the strange judgment today, wherever spiritual science is taken into consideration: Spiritual science is not necessary for those who believe and are Christians in the good old sense, and besides, faith is simple and spiritual science is complicated, and therefore it is not understandable why one should exchange the complicated for the simple. But this comfortable clinging to the simple, this reckless blind faith, this convenient insistence that we do not need to think about it, we do not need to search for truth, faith gives us everything — this, in the deepest sense of the word, is to blame for the catastrophic events in which we live. And it must be emphasized again and again that this is to blame. Woe betide us if there are not enough people in life who have the heart and mind for complete devotion to serious, inwardly laborious thinking and searching for the truths! For the times are past when one only needed to believe in the spiritual world, when one could lie here in physical existence on one's lazy skin and believe that one would be redeemed by powers that one did not care about, and that these powers would contribute their part to the corresponding redemption. What matters in the progress of humanity is that human beings do not merely believe in God and the gods, but that they allow God and the gods to be active in their own being, that they allow the forces of the spiritual world to flow into what they themselves do, what they do in their everyday lives. What we do from morning to evening must be done in such a way that divine spiritual power is present in our actions. It will only be present in our actions if it is first and foremost present in our thoughts. To take God actively into ourselves, not merely as a matter of faith, is the task of modern humanity. It is not enough to think about God; we must think in such a way that God lives in our thoughts. If we devote ourselves to such an ideal, we will develop the necessary interest in everything that, unfortunately, the vast majority of modern humanity has not developed in recent decades.
What matters is that we find a way to make people understand that a reversal in the entire world of thought is necessary. It is high time, for after the so-called intellectuals have failed to work in this direction, the most savage instincts of humanity are now awakening throughout almost the entire civilized world, or at least in a large part of it. Do you believe that when these instincts of humanity have reached a certain culmination, a certain climax, that they will then be easy to banish? It will be a long, long time before they consume themselves again. Only up to a certain point do teaching and example have a calming effect, restraining the instincts of humanity. The animal in humanity strives for the surface because the nobler elements in human nature have been neglected. And here we are at the point where we must speak about the moral side of the modern social question. I said: What I have called the final characteristic of the capitalist economic order, the accumulation of capital as such, the growth of capital, which strives not for achievement but for profit, detaches man from his product. And in this detachment of man from his product lies an essential characteristic of the whole of modern development. But in the world, as a rule, one phenomenon does not occur without the other, but phenomena are connected in the most diverse ways. You cannot walk on soft ground without leaving footprints on it. This is an example that you can apply everywhere to see how, in the real world, one thing always belongs to another. What has driven the modern world—the accumulation of capital inherent in modern capitalism, the growth of capital—has, on the other hand, linked to the emergence of capitalism, not in a one-sided logical way, but in a way that is logical in reality, the lack of interest that we find in modern humanity, especially in the deepest impulses of the human soul. On the one hand, the human personality is being stripped away from the economic process; on the other hand, this personality, which has been detached from the economic process, is being drained of its most intimate qualities, those of the spiritual and emotional nature of human beings. Both things belong together. Both things have given rise to the terrible hustle and bustle of modern cities, where capitalism has established its special seats, where on the one hand capitalism is at work and on the other hand indifference to the most intimate questions of the innermost being of human beings reigns supreme.
These things are often concealed in their outward appearance and only become apparent upon closer inspection. You may of course say: There are a large number of people who are not involved in the modern capitalist process. Certainly, few are directly involved, but indirectly, all of modern humanity, especially educated modern humanity, is involved in the capitalist process. It is involved because its existence depends on the capitalist economic order. Take an artist, for example: just as he used to produce for the prince or the pope, he now produces for the capitalist. And if you trace the threads that wind their way from art today to capitalism across the most diverse areas of life, you will see how capitalism has spread its tentacles in all directions, especially over intellectual life. Admittedly, there is a great deal of unconsciousness at work in these things, which is not immediately apparent when one looks only at the surface of life.
I will now have to characterize an unconscious or subconscious process: this objectification of the production process, this detachment of the production process from human aspirations, as it takes place in modern capitalism, requires justification in a certain sense. People always need a justification for what they do, and when they want to justify themselves, they are not concerned with seeking the truth, but only with saying something that justifies them. Take an obvious example. The Entente has triumphed; the task is to justify this victory. That is why people say what is being said about the Entente today, not because it is the truth, but because they have to justify the victory. The same is true in individual human lives. What do most people care about the real exploration of truth? They care about justifying what they do. That is what capitalism wants: above all else, to justify its existence. It can only justify itself if it observes the most extreme material process, the most material economic process, in its mirror image, in the accumulation of capital. But then, if the capitalist economic order is to be justified in this physical world, everything that is spiritual and mental must be eliminated. They must be relegated to a special realm. The pastor may talk about matters of faith in his pulpit as he pleases—I may believe it, another may believe it, I may choose not to believe it, another may choose not to believe it—he is talking about a completely different world. In the world in which we have to live, things cannot be as the pastor says from the pulpit, of course not, things have to be capitalist.
Thus, extreme capitalism on the one hand has given rise to this terribly abstract moral and spiritual life, which wants to separate itself completely from all external realities of existence. Just as bad in modern life as material capitalism on the one hand is the attitude on the other hand that says: Oh, why should I care about Ahriman! Ahriman can remain Ahriman; I devote myself to the impulses of my innermost soul, I surrender myself to the spiritual world, I seek the spiritual world as I can find it within myself; the affairs of the soul interest me. What do I care about this Ahrimanic system of credit, money, wealth, and property! What do I care about the difference between pension and interest, between gross income and net profit, and so on? I concern myself with the affairs of my soul! — But just as human beings are a unity of body, soul, and spirit, and just as body, soul, and spirit are bound together between birth and death, so too are those impulses that we can find in the innermost structure of our soul and those impulses that lie in the outer economic order connected in our outer physical existence. And just as guilty of the modern catastrophe as the materialistic capitalists are with their way of thinking and their attitudes, are those who, on the other hand, want only to be pious, only spiritual scientists, who restrict this spiritual science in their own sense and do not allow themselves to be involved in penetrating everyday reality with an incisive mind. This is what has moved me again and again to speak to you about this, that you should not take this anthroposophical spiritual movement as an opportunity to listen to mere Sunday afternoon sermons that are soothing to the soul because they tell you that life is eternal and so on, but that you should take this anthroposophical movement as a way of really tackling the modern tasks of existence that are so urgently pressing upon us. And one of the first necessities is this: to understand where to begin, and that nothing will help if people do not gain access to unbiased thinking.
And here, at the end of today's reflections, I would like to express what will be taken up again tomorrow in a practical-social reflection. What I am about to say will seem very far removed from all socialist thinking or thinking about social issues, but tomorrow you will see how close what seems distant really is, and how it is precisely through these reflections that we will be able to put into perspective the four points that I have presented to you as the components of the socialist ideal. People often say in life: Opinions differ, convictions differ, one believes this, another believes that. Doesn't it seem as if, when we give ourselves over to our thoughts, one person can have these thoughts and another can have those thoughts, and that both sets of thoughts can then be justified? It looks that way, but it is not so at all. Taking into account the fact that every characteristic of a thing in the higher sense is always, in a sense, a photograph of one side, that there are therefore illuminations from the most diverse sides—always assuming that this is taken into account—all people have the same opinion about one and the same thing in their innermost being. There are no two people in the world who do not have the same opinion about the same thing — as I said, always assuming that this is the case. That does not exist. Why then do people talk about different opinions? Because between the truth and what a person perceives within themselves, their emotions come into play, their egoistic prejudices come into play and distort the matter, caricature it. People are truly different only in relation to their emotions, not in relation to their concepts and ideas. Once one has gained access to a real concept, one cannot disagree with another person who has also gained access to that concept. And it is the greatest frivolity of the soul to believe that one has a certain right to subjective opinions. One does not have this right to subjective opinions, but as a human being one has the obligation to go beyond one's subjectivity to the objective. In order to see what is right in this point, it is, however, very necessary to take into account all the sources of error that follow from human emotions. A person believes that he can be convinced of something. Often the reason why he believes that he is convinced of something is simply that he is too lazy to really grasp the concept. Yes, one must point to this inner moral side of human nature if one wants to point to what is needed in today's world.
The present age is, above all, full of arrogance, full of emotions even in what is called objective science, and not at all inclined to seek access to the judgment that lies in real ideas and real concepts. But where will we end up if the burning social problems that are now upon us are solved on the basis of people's emotions? You know that there is imagination, there is inspiration, there is intuition. In truth, everything that needs to be explored in relation to economic, business, and economic law contexts lies in imagination; everything that needs to be explored in the economic organism lies in imagination. For most people, these imaginations may only dawn from the unconscious in hunches. But then these premonitions are better than the concepts that have been studied and are now widely held by humanity. Everything that lives in what we call spiritual life, which we have characterized as a link in the future social order, is based on inspiration: the spiritual organism. And everything that can truly exist independently of human beings, indeed must exist independently of human beings, that in which human beings must be equal, equal, as one says, before the law, can only be based on intuition. This, then, is the basis of what one might call the political organism. Imagination: economic organism — inspiration: spiritual organism — intuition: political organism.
In this way, inspiration, intuition, and imagination must truly work together in shaping the conditions of life. One need only consider that this is so. And then one will also see how, in essence, only through spiritual scientific methods can the social questions that are not only at the doorstep today, but are burning, be brought in the direction of their solution. That is what matters: to abandon all laziness, all complacency in thinking, and really set out for what connects the human soul with reality. Ultimately, this can only lead us to where we must arrive in the present. From this point of view, we will then characterize and critically discuss the four elements of the so-called socialist ideal tomorrow.