The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Twelfth Lecture

[ 1 ] Yesterday I outlined the four main points of the current socialist program. As you will recall, they are: First, the means of production must be socialized. Second, production must be based on need. Third: Labor and wage conditions must be regulated democratically. Fourth: All surplus value shall accrue to the community. — Yesterday we were already compelled to point out certain things that showed us that within those currents of thought and sentiment that have led to this four-part program, there are not merely facts entirely detached from human beings, as social-democratic thinking today derives from what we have come to know as the materialist conception of history and the doctrine of the economic class struggle. Spiritual forces and spiritual impulses play a role in the developments of today, which have established themselves specifically as the views and aspirations of the proletariat. And it will prove disastrous if one fails to gain sufficient insight into just how powerful the spiritual impulses are that influence the course of socialist thought and socialist will in modern times. One might say: The most striking feature of this socialist thought and socialist will is the absolute distrust of any role played by human morality or human ethics in the organization of the social organism. It simply lies at the very foundation of proletarian thought and will—like a sediment—not to believe that any moral impulses, or even merely spiritual impulses, on the part of the ruling classes could contribute in any way to the solution of the social problem.

[ 2 ] Let us not be misled by these things, especially not by the rhetoric that is sometimes heard even from socialists. Certainly, this rhetoric is particularly prevalent when criticism is voiced, when the mistakes of the ruling classes are discussed, in such a way that certain aspects of the ruling classes are morally condemned. But when the socialist proletariat fully and consciously reflects on what it hopes for in the present era, it says only this: Even if the ruling classes were to resolve, out of moral impulse, to strive for some improvement in the social condition of the proletariat, they would be utterly incapable of doing so. An improvement can only result from the real class struggle, from the struggle of economic interests and economic forces as such. — It is extremely important to fully grasp this. For whatever may still remain today as a remnant of faith and trust in the moral power of the ruling classes will also disappear.

[ 3 ] One must realize that, given the conditions of capitalism I spoke of yesterday, the so-called intelligentsia—the intellectual leaders of today’s humanity—have gradually, across the broadest spectrum, come to disbelieve in the power of moral or even spiritual impulses. Even bourgeois circles, deep down in their hearts, do not think much of the effective power of moral impulses. Certainly, they speak a great deal about such moral impulses, but in light of how these things actually play out, this talk often appears to be a more or less conscious or unconscious insincerity. For let us never forget one of the most fateful facts in the development of present-day humanity—a fact we have already touched upon from a wide variety of perspectives; we might characterize it something like this: Today, on the one hand, we have a certain confidence in a pure—one might say, morality-free, spirit-free—knowledge of external natural phenomena. Just consider how much the present age strives to shape scientific knowledge of nature in such a way that there is absolutely no connection between the ideas one forms about the natural world and the ideas one forms about the moral order of the world. A characteristic fact is indeed this: for example, the Roman Catholic Church, which has truly thoroughly learned people among its priests, points out that the learned people in its ranks should by no means mix anything relating to the spiritual or moral into what is called purely causal knowledge regarding external facts with anything relating to the spiritual or moral. At most, this may be done by way of analogy.

[ 4 ] And on the other hand, consider what is being written today by a wide variety of institutions and individuals regarded as authoritative on moral, ethical, and spiritual issues. Certainly, all manner of ethical impulses and ideals are enumerated—some more or less sanctimonious, others not; some melodramatic, others not; some seeking to evoke compassion, others intended to arouse revulsion. But see for yourself and actually pick up such writings: Ask yourself, what can one gain today from these contemporary books on ethics or spirituality in the face of the burning issues of the present—what are called social issues, social conundrums? Nothing, absolutely nothing! In a certain sense, ethical thinking has withdrawn from what is immediately and daily at work in social life. Time and again in books on ethics, you can find terms such as benevolence, love—love is particularly popular—, nobility, justice—justice is also particularly popular—and similar concepts. But the way these concepts are discussed there, they lack the power to have an effect on people. What approaches people in such abstract moral terms lacks moral impetus. Thus, on the one hand, there is rhetoric that leans toward the ethical and the moral but is incapable of truly moving people; and on the other hand, there is what does move people—the economic order—which no longer concerns itself with this merely rhetorical ethics at all, but seeks only to build upon the mere ideas of natural causality, and seeks to incorporate only this natural causality into the economic order of humanity.

[ 5 ] Where do you hear today—when people who have emerged from so-called intellectual circles want to speak about ethics—or where do you read today—when people want to write about ethics—something that truly speaks to people in such a way that ethical demands immediately become socio-economic ones? That would be the very essence of today: a direct path leading from ethics, religion, and spirituality to the most everyday economic, macroeconomic, and social issues. Knowing this path—this must not be neglected, lest even greater calamity befall humanity than has already befallen it in recent times. For with regard to these matters, the socialist-proletarian party of today—from its far-right wing through its center to its far-left wing—goes along with everything it has inherited from the capitalist bourgeoisie, as it has developed over the past few centuries. That is, after all, the peculiarity of this bourgeoisie: on the one hand, it has completely objectified and detached the process of capital formation—the economy—from human personal aspirations; and on the other hand, this bourgeoisie, regardless of whether it leans toward this or that traditional religious community or toward some newer sectarian movement—that this bourgeoisie, because it considers it refined and proper, seeks to keep its inner life separate from everyday life and thus loses all perspective on life—the very perspective that is so necessary for people today. I have met members of this Anthroposophical Society who, for example, asked a question like this: “Well, should we admit into the Society someone who works in a brewery—that is, who contributes to people drinking beer?”—I do not wish to speak here either for or against drinking beer; the people’s starting point was precisely that they were against drinking beer. In such a case, one can only say: “Well, you see, you’re judging only as far as your nose reaches; for, isn’t it true, your judgment based on smell extends just far enough to distinguish between a member and a non-member who holds a relatively insignificant position in a brewery.” But I’m talking about facts. You own stocks; you also own all sorts of bank securities: Do you even know how much beer you’re brewing with your stocks, with your bank securities? You don’t care about that at all; you care only about what’s right under your nose.

[ 6 ] The point is not to criticize anyone for thinking one way or another, but rather to point out the inconsistency, the incoherence, and the confusion inherent in this way of thinking. For this is the greatest misfortune of our time: that people, out of convenience, remain—and wish to remain—in this disjointed, incoherent way of thinking, in this inner inconsistency, because they do not want to bridge the gap between ethics, religion, and spirituality on the one hand to the other hand—to the immediately real life that confronts humanity today in the form of social and economic demands and social enigmas.

[ 7 ] In this regard, there is indeed still much to be learned. Just recall how I have emphasized time and again that, when addressing social issues today, the most important consideration is the focus on spiritual matters. Educational issues—and questions of spiritual life in general—are the most crucial of all. In fact, if one looks more deeply into these matters, one can even say: As long as you allow spiritual life to be dependent on the political community—as long as you allow the spiritual community and spiritual life to be dependent on, or absorbed by, the mere political community—then no matter what you do, you will not succeed. What is at stake is that the school system be left to its own devices, that the handling of spiritual matters be left to its own devices. And humanity, when all is said and done, does not have very much time to do this, for it could very soon be too late. For time is only available as long as one can, amidst the wild raging of instincts, still reach the inner essence of human beings at all. Try today to preach to people who, in the social chaos of the present, have already developed their raging instincts; you will be laughed at. That is why one wants to appeal again and again to people’s hearts and souls, so that they may heed what is actually necessary. Just as the development toward capitalism over the past few centuries has driven the engagement with the spiritual—and thereby the engagement with the world as a whole—into complete obscurity, so too does anthroposophically oriented spiritual science seek to bring clarity to these matters.

[ 8 ] Let us consider the first point in the four-part socialist ideal: the transfer of means of production to common ownership, to social ownership. Indeed, what this actually entails depends precisely on spiritual questions—on a clear understanding of certain answers to spiritual questions. What, then, will spiritual science—if it is not merely regarded as a dry theory—actually bring to the human soul? This spiritual science will bring three things to the human soul: First, not merely a belief in some spiritual-divine entity, but a vision—albeit perhaps one mediated through concepts, yet one that is comprehensible to sound common sense—of the spiritual worlds. In contrast to the vague, often pantheistic, or deliberately indefinite talk about the spiritual world, anthroposophically oriented spiritual science provides insights into this spiritual world; it speaks of a very specific structure of spiritual beings, of a hierarchy of orders within the spiritual world, and provides insights into the spiritual world that are just as concrete as the insights into the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms within the physical world. These insights have been completely pushed aside by the developments of the last few centuries. Just consider how people today insist on faith without insight! This is the defining characteristic of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science: that it seeks to provide insight into the spiritual world.

[ 9 ] A second thing that this spiritual science offers to those who do not merely regard it as a sober, dry theory, but who allow it to capture their hearts and souls, is genuine, immeasurably profound respect for and appreciation of humanity. Can a spiritual view of life—one lived out as I have attempted to do, for example, in my *Outline of Esoteric Science*—lead to anything other than a genuine appreciation of humanity when it is embraced by the whole soul, not merely by the theoretical intellect? Consider that the entire cosmos is viewed insofar as the human being is situated within this cosmos. After all, when we speak not merely of the Earth’s evolution but even of the evolution of the Moon, the Sun, and Saturn, it is always the human being who is being considered. In this regard, compare anthroposophically oriented spiritual science with the conventional natural science of the present day. The latter leads to hypotheses such as the Kant-Laplacean one. It does not go very far back, compared to what is traced in the view of the Moon, Sun, and Saturn; it goes back only to a certain state of the Earth. Yet in that philosophical-scientific madness known as the Kant-Laplacean theory, humanity has long since been lost. Man is no longer present there; instead, there is a gray primordial nebula of which this insane theory—which is, however, regarded as scientific today—speaks. This loss of the human being even within the earthly realm itself is countered by the perspective of spiritual science, which seeks out the human being throughout the entire cosmos. Certainly, one can do this by merely applying intelligent thoughts to the matter, by pursuing it purely theoretically. But for those who do not pursue it merely theoretically, but for whom the pursuit of this matter is the innermost essence of their entire human being, such a view of the world gives rise to an appreciation of humanity that extends into immeasurable expanses—an appreciation of humanity as such.

[ 10 ] That modern view, which focuses solely on the outwardly sensory, lacks an appreciation of the human being as such. Spiritual science remains grounded in reality; for it, the outwardly sensory is merely an illusion. But if one stops at external reality, one has no corrective—no corrective such as spiritual science possesses—by considering the cosmic human being and thereby arriving at an appreciation of humanity, in contrast to what sensory perception sometimes asserts about human beings. This materialistic view cannot arrive at any appreciation of humanity; it would, after all, have to be untrue. It would, after all, have to unconditionally value the individual empirical human being, the everyday human being—that is, what it knows about this human being. Well, that’s hardly possible!

[ 11 ] Thus, spiritual science is, first of all, the path to spiritual insight as opposed to mere belief; it is also the path to genuine respect for humanity as opposed to the indifference toward human beings that necessarily follows from a purely materialistic worldview. And there is a third point. There are, of course, things and processes in the cosmos that exist outside of human beings. How does spiritual science view these things and processes outside of human beings? All in relation to human beings! After all, nothing is considered except in relation to human beings. The mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms—spiritual science views them in relation to human beings. This fosters a certain appreciation for what exists alongside human beings—or, one might also say, beneath human beings—in the outer physical world. Consider that sentiment—which is truly spiritual-scientific—that Christian Morgenstern drew from spiritual science and recast in poetic form: Human beings feel themselves to be at the pinnacle of the physical kingdoms of the Earth. Below them lie the animal, plant, and mineral kingdoms. But if this plant kingdom could reflect, in a sensorial way, upon the mineral kingdom, what would it say to itself? I bow to you in reverence, O mineral, for I owe my existence to you. If you did not provide me with the soil—even though you are lower in the hierarchical order of nature than I am—if you did not provide me with the soil, I could not exist. Likewise, the animal must bow in reverence to the plant and say: I thank you for my existence. — And so on upward. Every higher kingdom bows in reverence before the lower kingdom.

[ 12 ] In this way, spiritual science finds the means to view the other world in relation to the human being and to place it in its proper context. Spiritual science intervenes in three ways—when it is able to intervene—in spiritual life, but also in material life in the present: first, through spiritual insight; second, through respect for human beings; third, through the proper evaluation of all things in the world in relation to human beings. Unless these conditions are met, any call for the socialization of production enterprises remains a hollow demand. For as long as the three preconditions mentioned—regarding humanity’s relationship to the world, to other human beings, and to the spiritual realm—are not in place, it is impossible for the right impulses to prevail in community life, which is supposed to pursue any kind of socialist endeavor.

[ 13 ] Nor is it possible to implement the second point in any way: regulating production according to demand. After all, demand is not simply something that can be recorded statistically and used as a basis for regulating other factors. Demand in real life is constantly changing, constantly undergoing a metamorphosis. I ask you: could anyone determine just how great people’s need for electric railroads was in 1840? This need is conjured up by the cultural process itself and is transformed by that same process. If you seek to regulate production based on an existing need—if you refuse to allow production to take the initiative—you will cause that need to stagnate. You can establish the proper balance between demand and production only if you structure the social organism into three parts. Then, through living interaction, the balance between production and demand—as well as between the other impulses of the social organism—arises of its own accord. — Labor and wage conditions should be regulated democratically. Yes, the point is that democracy is of no use whatsoever unless it is based on the right regard for human beings—that regard which can truly be inscribed deeply into the human soul only through spiritual science. Democracy always contains the seeds of its own downfall unless it simultaneously contains the seeds of genuine regard for human beings.

[ 14 ] Surplus value—this is the fourth point—is to be handed over to the community. My dear friends, I would like to say: In a matter such as this, one catches precisely the utterly self-contradictory thinking of such a school of thought. What, after all, is surplus value? Surplus value is precisely what the Marxist proletariat condemns as impossible, as something to be abolished. A socialist order is to be established so that there will be no more surplus value. An essential feature of this socialist order is that there would be no more surplus value. But one of their ideal points is that this surplus value is to be handed over to the community! This does indeed appear among the specific points. Why does it appear? Yes, because surplus value will still exist, and because the fact that surplus value will exist casts a shadow over the program. But this is the shadow that falls squarely on the program. It, in turn, casts all its darkness back onto the entire theory.

[ 15 ] And so humanity today stumbles through a terrible darkness that can only be illuminated by overcoming the discomfort of to move from belief to direct perception, from the mere empirically given relationship of one human being to another to a genuine appreciation of humanity, and from the mere consumption of things and the like to that appreciation of non-human things in the world which is indeed possible when, through anthroposophical knowledge, one relates all things to the human being.

[ 16 ] The fate of spiritual scientific endeavors is so closely intertwined with the social enigmas of the present. And more than the need to spread the humanities in general, those who are serious about the humanities feel a deeper need in their hearts: to awaken in people a sense of how necessary it is—especially for the most important and legitimate needs of the present—to spread those ideas, feelings, and impulses of will that can come solely from the humanities. Well, we will, of course, continue to discuss these matters further.