The Spiritual Background of the Social Question
GA 190
14 April 1919, Dornach
Translator Unknown
Lecture VI
Today, first of all, I have the urge in my soul to say something to you with regard to what wills, out of the impulses and need of our time, to be spoken to mankind in general through my booklet about the Social Question which will be appearing in the near future. It will be called The Key Points of the Social Question in the Vital Necessities of the Present and the Future (GA 23). It will have become evident to you from the lectures which we have held here for many weeks that what I now have to say just with regard to the Social Question is, perhaps, not only a sort of secondary stream by the side of what is pulsing in our whole spiritual-scientific striving, but that, in fact, matters must be so considered that this spiritual-scientific striving develops, in a way peculiar to itself, understanding for the needs and demands of our time and of the near future. The basic character of our time can really only be radically helped as a result of spiritual impulses. Everything else could at best be a substitute. Even the external activity which has to take place will have to be of such a kind that—I will not say a particular form of Spiritual Science, but that a spiritual life, penetrating to the real Spirit, becomes possible within the Social Order.
This is necessary for the reason that, as a result of human development, the man of the present day is in a quite definite position, which I have described to you from the most diverse sides. Today I shall only refer once more to the fact that, basically speaking, all considerations have led us to realise how the man of the present day is, as a result of his organisation, in a certain state of disunion at the present point of time. You see, one can easily be inclined to look on man as a unity in his whole being. But he is not a unity. We know that he is a three-membered being. And these three members of the human entity stand in different relationships to the physical-, soul- and spiritual outer world, and to his own inner part, in the various epochs of the post-Atlantean period.
We can now consider the three-membered man in two different ways. (We will make this schematic and simply place the three members of man one above the other—see diagram). Whether we now give names to these three members according to their physical aspect and say: nerves-senses system, rhythmic or breathing-and-heart system, and metabolic system, or whether we give them names according to their spiritual aspect and say the Intuitive-spiritual, the Inspirational-psychic and the Imaginative-bodily, or whether we proceed with other words as I have represented in my book Theosophy regarding this three-membered man from the spiritual aspect, or whether we fix our attention on the physical projection of the three-membered man, to which I have drawn attention in my last book, Riddles of the Soul, from every point of view it appears to us that man is a three-membered being. But this three-membered being, man, is, if I may say so, on the other hand not at all so "simply three-membered". We can say: Man is, in a certain sense, a double being, a twofold being, and the boundary really goes midway through the rhythmic system, right through the breathing-and-heart system.

In our present phase of development, the inner part of man really only lives in the metabolic system and the lower part of the heart-lungs system, of the rhythmic system. There, man is inward in reality in today's age. On the other had, with regard to the upper part of the heart-breathing system and similarly with regard to the nerves-senses system, man is to a great extent external today. You will at once understand what I mean. Man perceives the external world through the senses: he then works it up by means of his understandings. He also breathes in the outer world by means of his lungs. From outside, man takes what comes from perceptions, from the working of his understanding, from breathing-in. But man is, as it were, a sort of dwelling-house with respect to what comes to him from outside (see diagram). The whole of external nature is really contained in this upper part of man: colours, tones, stars, clouds, the air even as far as the breathing process—and you yourselves are really only the dwelling-house for this external matter. In olden times, men have found something else which was related to this upper part: elementary spirits and also divine-spiritual beings of the higher Hierarchies. They have spoken of these nature-beings in their mythologies, which were wiser than the natural-scientific knowledge of today. Now they have fallen out of human perceptions.
Today, Man only perceives the sensible and works it up. Here, he is really carrying only the external world into himself. We are hardly sufficiently aware of how little of ourselves there really is in what we carry into ourselves as perceptions of the outer world, or even as what the memory retains of the outer world. If you go up this hill in the morning or at midday and see the Goetheanum, then go down and carry in yourself the picture of the Goetheanum and all that has happened, you apparently have something in you, but yet something which is only a mirror-image in you, for the Goetheanum is standing here on this hill. You are only its dwelling-place—with the upper part of Man which I have separated off (see diagram). And Man is so poor in spirit today because he no longer finds the Spirit in the external world.
Yes, my dear friends, there were times in the development of the Earth in which, after people had gone down again, what had been seen would have worked in those who had come up the hill here and thus had seen something such as the Goetheanum, not only as a fantasy, as an inner mystery but as a world of facts. From what they had seen people would have received—just as they carry down colours and forms now—those spiritual beings which had slipped out of every corner and which had taken part in what man did here. But this is over for men, just as though the elementary and spiritual beings had fled out of external nature. External nature is emptied of Spirit, and as a result so is this part of the human interior. And all that really is left for what is inward is the lower part of the chest, and the metabolic system with the limbs.
For the externalised man of today, this is what he calls his "inner part" if he does not really begin to interest himself in true spirituality. Man has arrived at the point where he speaks, it is true, of his "inner part", but, basically speaking, he means nothing beyond his metabolic system and, at most, the connection which the breathing and the rhythm of the heart enter into with the metabolic system. We should not be deceived about it, and should be clear with ourselves: when men declare that they are out of order in their "inner part", that they have inner difficulties, this is only a verbal expression for some lack of regularity in the metabolic system.
One man is cheerful, another ill-tempered owing to his "inner part", one is passionate, another full of humour. Basically speaking, all this is a result of the metabolic system and at most the reaction of the breathing and heart-circulation on the metabolic system. When one says that the soul is out of order in this or that person, it is, in reality, his stomach and intestines which are out of order. All that people call "soul-life" is, basically speaking, only a verbal expression for events in the metabolic system. Naturally, no one wants to confess, in accordance with reality: my stomach, my intestines, spleen or liver or such things are not in order within me, but we say: my soul has this or that difficulty. This sounds better, more elegant, to many people; they consider it to be less materialistic. To anyone who looks at things according to reality, it is merely more untruthful. For we stand today in that phase of development in which human nature already separates itself into these two members.
You may ask: by what means can this be corrected? There is only one help for the man of today, namely to get loose from himself, by means of an interest in the affairs of mankind, through real interest in what concerns all men today, and to turn the attention as little as possible to these irregularities of the metabolic system in the wider sense, which are, nevertheless, almost universally present today. If men could get loose from themselves through a far-reaching interest, which is to be reached only by taking Spiritual Science seriously—then alone can health pour itself out over the human race today.
Today, you see, one has really characteristic experiences. I was recently at the League of Nations Congress at Berne17-13 March 1919: see also The Real Foundation of a League of Nations. Troxler Press, Berne, where they spoke about all the things about which it is unnecessary to speak today, because they just lead to nothing, and where they did not speak about all that is most necessary today. But I do not at all wish to mention this as the main point. I should like to mention, as the main point, something about the manor of speaking which cropped up in what almost all the speakers said. In at least every third sentence uttered by these speakers is found the little word "I". "I am of the opinion", "I think", "It seems to me that this or that is necessary", "I am in favour of this or that"—you can hear this in almost every sentence. And the men were quite angry if one did not join in in the same strain! If one speaks more from an objective standpoint, if one puts one's sentences in such a way that one gives priority to the inner, objective contents of the matter, without personal opinion, they say that one is speaking authoritatively, that one is speaking arrogantly. But surely the highest arrogance is when one brings the word "I" into one's mouth every third sentence.
But people have certainly forgotten, today, to feel this arrogance. They find it more sensible if someone is always talking of himself, and they find it in the highest degree immodest and arrogant if someone tries to speak from an objective standpoint, for, you see, they have this dim feeling: he is asserting that he knows something beyond what is his personal opinion. And it is a great sin today if anyone asserts that he does know something beyond what is his personal opinion. And as to those personal opinions—!
To those who are versed in Spiritual Science I should frequently like to describe this kind of conference more accurately, just from its spiritual-scientific standpoint! One hears a speaker of the kind who utters the little word "I" with every third sentence—"I think", " I am of the opinion", "this is sympathetic to me", "I ask you to enter into this": when this speaker is speaking about the super-State, the super-parliament, the spiritual scientist says to himself: the man surely has something wrong with his liver, something is out of order in his liver and the metabolic system is speaking out of the man. A second speaker gets up and talks in a similar way. As he goes away, the spiritual scientist says to himself: probably he has a gall stone. The third is inclined to stomach trouble.
These things are important only in an age in which materialism is pulsating, where the free soul, independent of what is material, does not speak, where, in fact, it is the body which speaks. And very often indeed, today, it is the body which speaks. Really, people are only accustomed to make use of old words of their bodily indispositions. To one who looks into things in a spiritual-scientific way it would be preferable if, instead of talking about the Superman (naturally, I do not mean Nietzsche, but the others who have spoken about the "Superman" after Nietzsche's time) were to talk about the "sub-stomach". For in this way they would better catch the likeness of the reality which is, in fact, speaking out of them.
This is not pessimism, my dear friends: it is quite simply the world of present day facts. And in the present time men are impelled to become untruthful for the simple reason that they are ashamed to call the facts by the right name. There is even a longing in them to give themselves up to that "man" which is, in fact, only the physical man. In our time it is certainly the case that perhaps the only reason why we have no Molière to write a new Malade imaginaire is that we should need too many Molières, for today there is a genuine enthusiasm for being ill in people who have time to be ill. Such people as have no time for it do not, for the most part, turn their attention to those conditions which are sufficient causes for making others, who have time to be ill, feel that they are ill.
One must look for the destructive workings of materialism not only where people talk of materialism or where they talk materialistically: these working show themselves in numerous other examples as well. And sometimes even talk about the Spirit today as nothing else than the purest materialism, for this talk about the Spirit is, for very many people, nothing else than an anaesthetic for their otherwise cosy materiality. The will to activity is lacking in men today, the will to real inner activity. This is the reason why the bourgeoisie has remained in a state of ineffectiveness in face of the Social Question which has been rising up for 70 years. It is a monstrous materialism which has taken hold of men in the most diverse forms—and especially the circles on whom, in recent times, was set the task of turning to the Spiritual.
One must know this about the basic impulses of our time, about what is living in our time. Not to know it implies that one is giving oneself up to illusions. Spiritual Science is of such great importance for present day men because it takes them away from themselves, but it must be truly comprehended in this sense. An illusion can easily arise regarding Spiritual Science: a quality can assert itself, which is so thoroughly propagated at the present time just as a result of materialism—namely, superficiality. If people grasp in a superficial way what Spiritual Science wishes to arouse in the way of interests, they can be all the more hardened in themselves, can be all the more pressed into themselves. Then nothing else at all is of assistance than to return again and again to what does not in any way concern us personally, but what represents the content of our Spiritual Science and the things which are found in its content, to take them as objectively as possible and, when one speaks about the most subjective things, not to take them in a subjective way! Only think how important it is to resist, in this point, temptations which lie near.
When I recently depicted how Man is really capable of development from outside only up to the 28th year today, and how development comes to an end at that point of time when he is standing just before the mind-soul and the Ego but does not come to them, and thereby goes to meet a certain inner emptiness—this, then, is an important truth for the present time. It is important to know this: it is important to receive it into oneself as an inner experience. But it would be dangerous to think afterwards: am I, perhaps, one of those who have not developed to the mind-soul in the right way from the 28th year forward? Just the most subjective things, which refer to what is most important of all, should be taken up objectively: we should not look into whether we are among those in whom something can happen in this way: we should just be able to look away from ourselves in the most important human truths, and look at the age, at humanity, and not always think of ourselves in an egotistical way.
It is this which is characteristic of the time, which is coming forth from the deep impulses of our time and which makes it so difficult today to propagate ideas which refer to the very most important impulses of the development of the time. Man can develop no interest from this basic disposition which I have described. Their ideas remain sensations for them, do not sufficiently take hold of them, do not sufficiently spur them on to activity.
This must now be said at a time when a kind of transition has occurred for all people who are genuinely interesting themselves in our Spiritual Science. Until now you have had a spiritual-scientific literature which refers to the inner development of man and to knowledge about the Spiritual World, and which spoke to a man in such a way that he could take hold of the world, his relationship with the world, his relationship with other men, so far as it is soul-spiritual, from the most varied points of view. Now this Spiritual Science is running, with a branch—it is proceeding as the main body of Spiritual Science, for just this main body of Spiritual Science is the most necessary thing of all for really making all relationships healthy—into a stream which speaks of the Social Question, of the making healthy of the Social Organism, and which may no longer be taken inactively, no longer just passively, because otherwise it would miss its goal. And just now it will appear how many of us have made themselves ripe, during the many preceding years in which they were taking Spiritual Science into themselves, for a clear grasp of what is now to be understood as the Social Question. For what matters is a clear, unprejudiced, unsentimental grasp of what is to be uttered particularly in my forthcoming book The Basic Issues of the Social Question—it will be something on account of which we shall now have to undergo a certain trial.
Up to now, one could certainly be a good spiritual scientist if one studied Spiritual Science without troubling oneself about what was going on in life outside. And we have, you see, just two phenomena within out anthroposophical movement about which we really should reflect. We have the one phenomena that we have quite good anthroposophists who, though they know a great deal about cosmic development, the membering of Man, reincarnation, destiny and karma, nonetheless have no inkling of the reality of life, but who have sought something just in Anthroposophy, which has enabled them to hold themselves aloof from this reality of life. Those whom what I have just said specially concerns do not realise at all that it does concern them. For every one of them considers himself in naive fashion to be a practical man with regard to his life. This is the one phenomena which we have among us.
The other phenomena is sectarianism in some form or other. There is a deep inclination present, you see, to produce sectarianism just in movements which have to do with the Spiritual. It does not depend on whether this sectarianism is now developing from little cliques which appear with a sectarian character, even in very minor matters, or whether direct sectarianism is produced. For the main point is to realise that objectivity, an impersonal point of view, must permeate this anthroposophically-oriented spiritual-scientific movement which is here referred to.
This, you see, was always the difficult thing about our movement, that the personal was interchanged with what is objectively-factual, mostly without our being aware of it. When people gather into a clique which is larger of smaller, they are in full belief that they have a quite factual interest. Certainly they fully believe this, for they do not notice at all that they in reality they are generally doing what they wish for, just because this person stands near them spiritual-scientifically, because he is connected with them is such and such a way, because they wish to have just this or that relationship with him, or the like.
People are not aware of this. They live in the full belief that they are being objective. But just this sectarianism, this gathering in cliques, has brought forth the dreadful consequence that the promulgation of Spiritual Science, in whatever sphere it may be, is not judged today according to what it is but according to what a society, the Anthroposophical Society, is making and has made out of it. While I point to the most mischievous shortcomings and the most horrible "marsh-plants", of the type of an S------, it may not at all be overlooked, if one goes to the root of the matter, that this kind of "marsh-plant" has been coaxed on, raised up and cultivated by the cliquishness and sectarianism which have developed widely in the last 17 or 18 years in the anthroposophical movement. But what is going on in this anthroposophical movement very often projects itself into Anthroposophy because, you see, sins are committed by very many members against what is the most significant impulse of the time today, against individualism in the spiritual sphere. How frequently do we hear: we Anthroposophists, we Theosophists, want this or that! It is dreadful that we have as many as three basic principles!—We need no basic principles at all, for it is not these which matter: we need truths, not summarising-principles, and these truths are only for single human beings, for the individual. The Society—how often I have said it—should be something outward, but the thing itself does not concern the Society.
We must now be able to take this in a really and truly serious way. If what is now to flow into the world as a result of efforts with regard to the Social Question is to be borne along by sectarianism or clique-spirit or the various narrow-mindednesses which I have described today, quite terrible injury will be done to the matter! Here we must really develop to a more broad-minded way of thinking: we must seek for access into real, practical life. This is the main point.
Do take what I am saying about these things only in a friendly spirit. Do not take it as though I should like to say anything derogatory on the one side or the other. But now I really am compelled to utter a fundamental warning before this social side of our activities becomes the concern of all members, as it is to become—a warning not to mix into this social thinking any sectarianism, any pettiness, anything which has no wide horizon, which does not arise from clear thinking. But try, to an ever greater extent, to think from the experience and reality of life! I was, indeed, highly astonished when, a short time ago, the slogan (Devise) reached by ears, which I suppose must be uttered here from the one side or the other: one should carry practically into life the things which I am now putting forward as social ideas. What was meant was the carrying over of those practical ideas into the most unpractical measures that could be! We ought not to let that arise which has just led into the most terrible chaos and mischief in our time, the confusing of real with illusory practicality in life. What has been expressed there is so unpractical, has been thought out in so sectarian a way that I do not want to go into it further: it has to so small an extent the will really to step into practical life that I beg you before everything to look on what is going on in real life today, to know how to learn from what the various statements which I make have arisen.
For do you believe that it is a light-hearted theory when one says that labour-power has the character of a commodity? This may only be said if one has got to know it to an ever-greater extent as the most characteristic thing in life. Thus I should like, for example, to say the following—without anger, for these things are not to be taken in a personal way: I have been asked whether the three-membering—economic life, rights-life, spiritual life, could not be realised within our Society.
Certainly, one can utter something in this way with words, if one stands very well within our movement, if one feels for it quite honestly and deeply. But yet, if one say this, it is as though one had not at all grasped the basic nature of our movement. One has understood nothing at all about what I have said about the Social Question if one thinks that we can split our Society here into three, like a sect! For what are the three branches of the healthy Social Organism? First, take economic life. Do you, perhaps, wish to carry on some sort of communal economy in this Society—I do not know at all how it is to be externally realised—within the rest of the economic sphere outside? Do you wish, then, not to understand at all that one cannot cut oneself off in an egotistical way—even if it be in a group-egotistical way—and leave everything else out of consideration? You carry on economic life, in fact, together with the rest of the economy of the surrounding territory. You take, in fact, milk, cheese, vegetables, all that you need, from an economic body from which you cannot isolate yourselves. You cannot, in fact, reform the times by cutting yourselves adrift from the times. If someone wants to make a Society like this into an economic corporation, it appears to me just as though someone has a large family and says: I shall now begin threefolding in my family!
These ideas are too serious, too comprehensive. They ought not to be dragged into the petty-bourgeois field of various sectarianism which has always been there. They must be thought of in connection with the whole of mankind. They would, you see, cut themselves completely off from practical thinking about the economic circulation of the world if they wished to set up a group-economy for a sect. So much for economic life.
And rights-life! Just found the Rights-state within our Society! If you steal something, it will be entirely without importance if three people come together and pass judgement about this theft. The external court will certainly take you in charge and pass judgement. You just cannot draw yourself out of the external organisation with regard to the Rights-state.
Finally, consider spiritual life. Since there has been an Anthroposophical Society or since, with its anthroposophical content, it has belonged to the Theosophical Society, where has there been anything carried on here within this spiritual community which is dependent in even the smallest degree on any state- or political organisation? From the first day of this Society forward, our ideal has been fulfilled with regard to spiritual life, which, above all, is our task! Do you believe that it is only today that this is be achieved in this Anthroposophical Society? Is not everything fulfilled, just in this Anthroposophical Society, which is to be desired from the external spiritual organisation? Is it not the most practical ideal just with regard to this? Do you wish, now, to reform the Anthroposophical Society according to this aim? To be sure, you must have entirely failed to grasp what sort of a society you have been for so many years if it is only now that you wish to realise the Spiritual Third in this society!
Therefore, look upon just what we have been able to preserve by the skin of our teeth—freedom of spiritual investigation and teaching, at least in those people who long for no state-appointment for what they teach here—as a kind of starting-point for the rest. Just see what really is so, and do not let your thinking miss it. In my book about the Social Question it is stated again and again to be an inherited evil of the present age that the so-called practical people of today have let their thinking and speaking miss the things which matter. Is this evil also to establish itself in us, so that we no longer speak about the things which matter? It cannot be our task to carry free spiritual life into this place, but to carry out into the world what has always existed here as free spiritual life, to make it clear to men that all spiritual life must be of this kind.
What matters is, at least in the first place, to see the nearest reality. In this direction, what I have brought forward about the Social Question must, in the first place, be understood by Anthroposophists. Within the Anthroposophical Society at least, one should avoid propagating odd ideas with expressed intention of making practical what is represented here. Take seriously what has been gone through as a principal feature of the lectures of the last weeks—perhaps, indeed, of the last months: before everything, regard it quite seriously that the present time makes necessary a new adjustment of Man with regard to life, that it is not enough that we only take in now thoughts but that we should find the possibility to adjust ourselves in a new way in face of life, and that we should avoid everything which tends to isolation and to shutting ourselves off. Regard it seriously, before everything, that mankind has come to a real cul-de-sac in all three spheres with their so-called culture. How can this cul-de-sac show itself more clearly than in its chaotic, destructive effects in East- and Middle-Europe? The conditions in Russia do not arise only from the war. The war is only the culmination. What men have thought, perceived and felt for a long, long time, and what one was compelled to describe as a kind of social cancer2see Inner Being of Man and Life Between Death and a New Birth, cycle 32, Lecture 6, p.12 has brought this chaos to a head in East- and Middle-Europe.
But what is most lacking at the present time? Judgement is lacking most of all! In the present time, social enlightenment is most of all lacking! It is this which the bourgeoisie has neglected most of all—the right kind of social enlightenment. There is, you see, no social sense in men. Every man knows only himself! This is why judgement is so short-sighted. If one speaks like this today, that economic life is to be brought into the Anthroposophical Society, then this is how I should be able to represent something real to myself—if we were to buy a cow, take care of it and milk it, and thereby produce something and deal in the right way with what had been produced. Then this would not be any sectarianism within our Society, for an ordered economic life what matters before everything is to take measures to raise productivity, taking account of necessary needs.
Here a beginning was actually made, which only, in the first place, partly failed because of the personage by whom it was made. Remember, we made a beginning with our bread through Herr von R., producing bread not according to the principle of production but according to that of consumption, which can be the only really sound principle. We wished, first of all, to provide consumers, which should gave been possible through a Society. Then production would have been put in hand according to the number of these. This was a real, practical beginning. It has only failed because Herr von R. was or is a quite unpractical man. Thus this was a practical idea, but one which only had to do with the Anthroposophical Society so far as the Society represented, in the first place, a body of consumers. What matters is to turn one's glance to the thing, not to the Anthroposophical Society, certainly no to make this into an isolated sect.
With referenced to these external things which lie at the basis of production, and to many another thing, you will not come far if you do not grasp on a large scale the ideas which are in my book about the Social Question. For, in the last resort, economic practical experience is necessary for the reform of economic life; one must even know how to milk cows, and it is more important to understand the milking of cows than to put in hand some economic understanding in a little sect and then, nevertheless, to obtain milk from outside.
In our case, what matters would be to realize in just what the impulse of the present time must lie, what is the most important thing at the present time. You can engage in all the undertakings that you wish today. Go, if you can, to Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc. Put in hand there the best, most idealistic things; do what you wish! At the latest, all these undertakings will be bankrupt within ten years—that is how things are today. With the thoughts which men have today, you can put in hand the most idealistic undertakings; in ten years they will be bankrupt—of that you can be quite sure. It will not always be as quick as it was just now in Munich, where one workers' and soldiers' council was set aside by another, and this again by another yet more radical, and so on but everything which you put in hand today in the way of such undertakings, which appear very good and sound to you, will in their turn be overthrown so long as the same ideas remain in people's heads as have been there for centuries and are still wandering about there like ghosts.
Nothing more is to be done with these ideas! One must therefore certainly accustom oneself to think and learn the other way round, and to take in new ideas as a constituent part of the inner being of one's soul. You cannot at once, from one day to another, apply new ideas to undertakings, but you can work out in detail the ideas which are in my book, down to the most extreme specialization, because they are practical. You can try to put this or that in hand. But you will also need people, you see, for everything which you put in hand. And, so long as the old thoughts are haunting the heads of those people, your undertakings will soon become bankrupt or else will take on the earlier forms, so that everything will remain in the old manner. Therefore it is not the most important thing today to put this or that in hand. Naturally, you can put good things in hand for yourselves. I do not at all want to tempt you to put bad things in hand. But I am only drawing your attention to the fact that even if you put the best things in hand you will not change the times by doing so. In order really to work in any sphere in the new style, one can undertake something in the manner which I previously indicated to you with regard to bread, or one can do it in some such way as we are doing in the sphere of our literature.
How did we start? In the first place, I spoke to a very small circle in Berlin. Then the circles became ever larger. While they were becoming larger the need arose to have in books what was spoken. The readers were there before the books were printed. Follow up the theories about social ideas today; one of the fundamental evils of our social order consists of the continual crises and the danger of crises which arise as a result of sporadic overproduction, when people produce things without deliberation. It is worst of all in the book-trade. If you only knew what is produced in the book-trade in the way of books, editions of which are often produced of 500 copies, sometimes still more, of which not fifty copies are sold! You have employed the setter-up, you have employed the printer, you have used up paper, all for nothing! All this is thrown to the winds; a misuse of human labor-power has taken place! In the moment when you produce things without deliberation, you must be aware that you are using up human labor-power without the consumption being there to justify this using up of human labor-power, for this using-up of human labor-power is only justified by the existing need. Not the content, but the demand must be there. The spending of human labor power is only justified when one can foresee that the product of human labor is for the benefit of human beings.
Thus, in the single sphere into which we could step in a certain way as reformers, we have done so. We have even had to take refuge in under-production, not over-production. The world could by no means think otherwise than that the magazine Lucifer-Gnosis came to an end for want of readers, as other magazines have done. Just when it had to come to an end because other demands came upon me, the moment had to come when it would first have had half as many readers again as it had before, then twice as many, then three times as many. We have even had to resolve on underproduction, not overproduction. But thus crises were avoided in a sound way.
The book-trade lives in a continual crisis. If one makes statistics of books which are not bought, one sees that books are produced which are not bought today because care cannot be taken to see that they are bought. Many people have a certain insight into these things. I once spoke with Eduard von Hartmann in the eighties about the literature of the Theory of Knowledge. It was at the time when I wrote my booklet Truth and Science which is now out of print, of which no copy was printed uselessly, no copy went for waste-paper with a resulting waste of human labor-power. Eduard von Hartmann said to me: people have all their works on the Theory of Knowledge printed in editions of 500; we know that we have at the most sixty readers in Germany; in this case one should have them hectographed and send the books to the small number of readers who are really interested. It is known that works on Theory of Knowledge have had no more readers at that time.
Do not find fault with the fact that I have just spoken here about this purely economic question of anthroposophical literature. These things have nothing to do with the content of the books, you see, nothing to do with spiritual value. They can, however, illustrate what is really meant and what really matters at the present time—that first of all a sound association of consumers should be created and that production should not take place "into the blue". Not even Truth, my dear friends, should be produced from mere human predilection!
It is to this that the answer refers which I once gave to two Catholic priests in Colmar after a lecture on "The Bible and Knowledge", and which I recently touched on again. After the lecture, the two priests came to me and said: as regards to the content of the lecture they really had nothing special to object to, but they had a lot against the manner of speaking, for the way in which they spoke down from the pulpit was suitable for all men. The way in which I spoke was not suitable for all men, but only for educated people. I could only reply to them what matters in not what opinions you hold, and I hold, about the way in which one should speak to all men; no doubt we can have all sorts of interesting ideas about that, but what matters is not how one should speak but what the facts demand. And now I ask you do all the people go to you in the church? You cannot assert this. Thus I am speaking for those who remain outside and who yet also have a right to hear of Christ, and there area quite enough of them today.
These are facts which cannot be denied. But the old bourgeois education, which is wholly shut up in itself, does still deny it. It imagines something is right if done in this way: it must be so; it must be done like this. But, for life, it is not at all necessary that it be done in this way! What matters, for life, is that one observes: this is there and that is there, that one lets the facts which are there demand of one what one has to do. There are only apparently trivialities, for life today is continually sinning against these trivialities.
What is thus necessary before everything is another adjustment, and also the insight that we must see how this culture, which has been so praised, has carried death in itself, has dissolved itself. You must not believe that culture has been ruined as a result of the Radical-socialist movements of today. It has ruined itself. What the upper classes had in the way of culture has led itself into negation, is perishing by its own qualities. This upper class has simply not taken care that the lower, proletarian classes who are coming after them know anything rational about social arrangements, and thus it is astonished when they come to the fore in their social ignorance and bring really nothing about except chaos.
The position is quite serious, and it is out of this realization of the serious situation of the whole world today that the ideas flow which I have had to utter in my book about the Social Question. People will only understand this book aright if they grasp that one can put the best arrangements in hand today but that just nothing is to be done with the men who have the ideas of our time in their heads. Before everything, their heads must be filled with other ideas. What, then is the true, the real, the truly practical task? To spread enlightenment, my dear friends, before everything, to spread enlightenment and teach people to think differently! This is the task which is laid on every one of you, to bring enlightenment into people's heads, not to think of sundry reformations in details, but to give enlightenment about what is necessary in the most universal way. For, before everything, men must become different today; that is to say, the thoughts, the feelings in men's souls must become different. It is a question of carrying these ideas out there wherever one can. That is the practical thing, to put these ideas into practice. Something is achieved with every quarter of a man—pardon my speaking in such a way—when you win for these ideas. And it is achieved in the greatest degree if you win over people who have practical standing. In the matter of the signatures under the Manifesto, I recently said: it is really quite a cause for joy that there are writers' signatures under the Manifesto, but one bank director who really understands the Manifesto and works in its sense is of more value than ten writers who set their names under it.
Today, what matters is to take hold of life where it is to be taken hold of. And today this cannot be done except while one is spreading enlightenment before all else, is working in an enlightening way. For what people need as the most necessary thing of all is knowledge of the conditions for the life of the healthy Social Organism. If they do not learn to know the conditions for the life of the healthy Social Organism, they will continue to destroy the old Social Organism so long as destruction is possible. It is natural, you see, only up to a certain point. Everything which is done just now without these ideas is an exhaustion of the forces of the old order, a pulling down of the old order. This has begun in Russia and will go on further from there. What matters is to build up. But you can only build up today if people understand how the building-up must be done. For we are living in the age of the development of the consciousness-soul, that is to say in the age of conscious individualities, in the age when people must know what they are doing.
My book is written out of this spirit, and I should like it understood in this spirit. I should like you to lay it in your hearts in this spirit. It will simply serve the time; it will utter what must be uttered out of the spirit of the time. Cliques, sectarian trends within the body of our own Society, have taken care enough that, basically speaking, people presume all sorts of ghost-hunting and the like when there is talk about Anthroposophy. But one does not seek the Spirit here by always merely talking about the Spirit—one can leave that to other gentlemen—but the important thing is that the Spirit shall be in the position really to plunge down into practical life, to understand how practical life must be handled. Anyone has a poor kind of belief in the Spirit who wishes to grasp it only in a shadowy form which is floating above life. Therefore, to an ever greater extent, you must really avoid turning away from life, must to an ever greater extent seek really to understand life, to look into life; otherwise the same phenomena of which I have spoken will happen again and again. Examples can be given by hundreds and thousands. A lady came to me and said: a man has come to me to ask me to lend him money, but he is a brewer who brews beer for this money. I really cannot support this—a brewery! Now, you see, this is quite nice; in this narrow circle, the lady did not wish to support the brewery because she was an abstainer and not only wished to be an abstainer on her own account but wished also to make propaganda for temperance. I had to reply to her: "I suppose you have money in the bank, by which you live. Have you an inkling how many breweries the bank helps with your money? Have you an inkling of all that is done there? Do you believe that all this is in the sense of the idea which you have just followed with regard to the sum which you were asked to lend to the brewer? But are you not doing the same thing when your money, which you have deposited in the bank, is carried over into economic life?" For do you really believe that it means that you are turning yourself towards life if you do no more than judge this life in the narrowest circles, if you do not at all set about fixing your attention on the broad aspect of life?
But the important thing is this: our Anthroposophical Society is no field for experimenting, but it is to be the germ for everything good which is to come over mankind. With regard to the Social Question, what matters is above all that a wider stream of enlightenment about social necessities shall stream out from it. For you are certainly behaving practically, conforming with life, if you spread these things, but you must also really take trouble to spread them conformably with life, and not remain in a narrow interpretation. I hope that not one of you comes to the strange idea that we are dealing in the old national-economic ideas, by which people learn National-economy. For God's sake don't bring in anything pertaining to "export national-economics" here today, for this, you see, consists of ideas from the oldest lumber-room of all! Do not believe that you are learning to think in a national-economic way if, today, you take practicable concepts into yourselves in a scholastic way, as they are perhaps taught at universities. Do not make any programs which appear to put into practice what I have given in lectures but which, rather, mean nothing more than the terribly-grinning old bourgeois masks! Let us set ourselves on the solid ground of the great demands of our time; let us consider social life before everything in these demands of our time!
I could not but say this before you just now, when we are about to make a journey to Germany and many a task will come to meet me; and though we hope that our absence will this time be much less long than on other occasions, we are yet living in a time when one should really never make plans and projects covering a long time. One can only say people who have found one another as the members of the Anthroposophical Society have done remain together wherever they are, stand in the matter with steadfast courage and inner boldness and stick to their course, whatever the terrible billows of the present time may bring. For the most part, they will not bring anything easy. We shall most likely experience many a thing which will raise the question in us: how should things go further just among us? Stick to your course even when this happens; do what is your part in order to carry something further in the world, and you will be doing what is right.
I could only remain here at this time until this book was completed, for this book is to be of service to the time. Our friends will undertake it here, will take care of its distribution in Switzerland, and I hope for many a reason that I can be here again quite soon to take part in this work. Partly for a reason which is very much misunderstood just here in Switzerland. One can certainly hear from someone on the other side: "but what does the foreigner want just here in Switzerland? He should leave us in peace. Our democracy has lasted for 600 years; it is healthy, it is proof against what is going on outside among the crazy eastern and middle-European peoples."
I have now the conviction that the best could be done today where it could still be brought about from free-will. If such social ideas as are recorded in my book were to blossom in Russia today, this would come to pass because the most external need compelled it, and if the most external need compels it—the same in Middle-Europe, the same in Germany—then the right impulse is no longer there. The right impulse just for these ideas, which will bring social healing to mankind, would be present if they would come to pass out of freedom on a ground of which one can say the Bolshevists have not come to us, we still have something of the old conditions. Oh, if understanding for it were developed to bring forth these ideas from free-will, just on the ground here, before the water runs into the mouths of the people here as well, then Switzerland could be the blossoming land of Europe, for it is equipped for this by its geographical position! It is equipped with a gigantic mission in spite of its small size. But it will only be able to fulfill this mission if it brings to completion, from free-will, what neither the eastern nor the middle states can bring to fulfillment from free-will today—they would have had to take it in hand before now—and what the western states will not do because they have not sufficient disposition to do so. Here there are dispositions, the geographical presuppositions; everything is present here. All that is needed here is good-will towards free human resolve. To this belongs just activity of thinking. To this belongs thought-will.
Thought-will is what the mankind of today most lack. Thought-will develops very well, even geographically, among those men whom souls come because they wish to go into the mountains. (I drew your attention to this yesterday: souls no longer set very much value on race, they go to a geographical situation). Thought-will does not develop in regions such as that in which The Three Gypsies (poem by Lenau) was composed. This is a very beautiful poem, but it is composed in the plain. Man does not need a plain-disposition today; he certainly needs a mountain-disposition. Therefore, much could come out of the Swiss mountains; therefore one would like to have certain foundations here also, a point from which something could proceed. And therefore it seems important to me not to be silent just here but to speak as long as possible of the great needs of the time. And I call especially to our friends here in Switzerland to understand the demand for enlightenment, to take care that the demands of the time pass over into the consciousness just of those who live in this place. The more Swiss heads and Swiss hearts are won just for these social ideas, the better it will be for Europe and for the world. I say this quite particularly to the Swiss. You can, you see, my dear Swiss who are among us, make the foreign thing into a Swiss thing—then it is a Swiss thing! All these distinctions, really have only a passing value.
I could not but say this to you today, and I hope that you have understood me quite aright with regard to these things. I hope that the spirit which should fill and envelop this building may be further maintained as a result of the disposition of our members, and that we may at some time find ourselves together again here, held together by this spirit which, from the beginning forward, was such that it could now live itself out and which cannot be any different, for from the beginning forward it has willed to realize itself in what lies in the demands of our time.
With this I should like to take leave of you for the present. But this place here should have such a spiritual importance that if it should at any time be necessary and if the only way for me to come to work here would be to ride here on a wasted, half-dead nag, I should not shrink from even this. But tasks can come in other places which may delay my return. But in spite of everything, good-bye in our spirit, particularly in the spirit which I have slightly depicted in this last gathering and presented to your hearts.
Zwolfter Vortrag
Heute liegt mir vor allen Dingen auf der Seele, einiges zu Ihnen zu sprechen mit Rücksicht auf das, was aus den Impulsen unserer Zeit, aus der Not unserer Zeit heraus zur Menschheit überhaupt gesprochen sein will durch meine in den nächsten Tagen erscheinende Schrift über die soziale Frage. Die Schrift wird heißen: «Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage in den Lebensnotwendigkeiten der Gegenwart und Zukunft». ‚Aus den Betrachtungen der letzten Tage, die im Grunde genommen nur eine weitere Fortsetzung und ein Ausbau jener Betrachtungen waren, die wir hier seit vielen Wochen gepflogen haben, werden Sie ersehen haben, daß dasjenige, was von mir gesagt werden soll jetzt gerade mit Bezug auf die soziale Frage, nicht etwa nur wie eine Art Nebenströmung dasteht neben dem, was pulsiert in unserem ganzen geisteswissenschaftlichen Streben, sondern daß in der Tat die Sache so betrachtet werden muß, daß dieses geisteswissenschaftliche Streben gerade durch seine ihm eigene Art Verständnis entwickelt für die Bedürfnisse und Forderungen unserer Gegenwart und der nächsten Zukunft, und daß schon einmal der Grundcharakter gerade unserer Zeit darinnen liegt, daß der Not der Zeit radikal doch nur geholfen werden kann aus geistigen Impulsen heraus. Alles andere, was versucht würde — das habe ich ja von den verschiedensten Gesichtspunkten her betont —, würde doch höchstens ein Surrogat sein können. Auch das Äußere, was getan werden soll, es wird so geartet sein müssen, daß, ich will nicht sagen eine bestimmte Form der Geisteswissenschaft, aber daß ein Geistesleben, das hinaufdringt zum wirklichen Geist, innerhalb der sozialen Ordnung möglich werde.
Das ist aus dem Grunde notwendig, weil durch die Entwickelung der Menschheit der Mensch der Gegenwart in einer ganz bestimmten Lage ist. Diese Lage des Menschen der Gegenwart, ich habe sie Ihnen von den verschiedensten Seiten her charakterisiert. Ich will heute nur noch einmal darauf hinweisen, daß im Grunde genommen alle Betrachtungen uns dazu geführt haben, einzusehen, wie der Mensch der Gegenwart durch seine Organisation einfach im jetzigen Zeitpunkte in einem gewissen Zwiespalt drinnen ist. Man kann ja leicht den Menschen seiner ganzen Wesenheit nach als eine Einheit ansehen. Er ist aber keine Einheit. Wir wissen, daß er ein dreigliedriges Wesen ist. Aber diese drei Glieder der menschlichen Wesenheit, sie standen zu den verschiedenen Epochen der nachatlantischen Zeit in verschiedenem Verhältnisse zur ganzen Außenwelt, der physischen, seelischen und geistigen Außenwelt, und zu dem eigenen Inneren. Wir können nun den dreigliedrigen Menschen auf zwei Arten betrachten. Machen wir das schematisch, setzen wir einfach die drei Glieder des Menschen übereinander (siehe Zeichnung). Wie wir sie nun benennen, ob nach ihrem physischen Aspekt: Nerven-Sinnessystem, rhythmisches System, Gliedmaßen-Stoffwechselsystem, oder nach dem geistigen Aspekte: dem intuitiven Geistigen, dem inspirierten Seelischen, dem imaginativen Leiblichen, ob wir mit anderen Worten mehr so vorgehen, wie ich das von dem geistigen Aspekte her in meinem Buche «Theosophie» dargestellt habe, oder ob wir die physische Projektion dieses dreigliedrigen Menschen nehmen, wie ich auf sie aufmerksam gemacht habe in meinem letzten Buche «Von Seelenrätseln», von allen Gesichtspunkten aus zeigt sich uns, daß der Mensch ein dreigliedriges Wesen ist. Aber dieses dreigliedrige Wesen Mensch, das ist, wenn ich so sagen darf, gar nicht so einfach dreifach. Der Mensch ist einmal ein kompliziertes Wesen, und die Dreiheit in ihm ist auch gar nicht so einfach dreifach, sondern wir können sagen: der Mensch ist in gewissem Sinne ein Doppelwesen, ein zweifaches Wesen, und die Grenze geht eigentlich mitten durch das Rhythmussystem, durch das Atmungs- und Herzsystem.

Heute, in unserer gegenwärtigen Entwickelungsphase, ist die Sache so, daß eigentlich das Innere des Menschen so recht nur lebt im Stoffwechselsystem und in den unteren Gliedern des Lungen-Herzsystems, des rhythmischen Systems. Da ist eigentlich für die heutige Zeit der Mensch im wesentlichen innerlich. Dagegen mit Bezug auf den oberen Teil des Herz-Atmungssystems und mit Bezug auf das Nerven-Sinnessystem ist der Mensch heute auf eine starke Äußerlichkeit angewiesen. Sie werden gleich verstehen, was ich meine. Der Mensch nimmt durch seine Sinne die äußere Welt wahr. Er verarbeitet durch seinen Verstand die äußere Welt. Er atmet auch die äußere Welt durch seine Lunge ein. Das nimmt der Mensch von außen, was durch Wahrnehmungen, durch Verstandesbearbeitung, durch Einatmen kommt. Aber mit Bezug auf das, was da von außen in den Menschen kommt, ist der Mensch gewissermaßen doch nur eine Art von Wohnhaus. Eigentlich ist in diesem Teil des Menschen — dem oberen — die ganze äußere Natur drinnen: die Farben, die Töne von außen, die Sterne, die Wolken, die Luft sogar bis zum Atmungsprozeß; und Sie selbst sind eigentlich nur das Wohnhaus für dieses Äußerliche. In alten Zeiten haben die Menschen in diesem Äußerlichen noch etwas gefunden, was ihrem Inneren verwandt war: Elementargeister, auch göttlich-geistige Wesenheiten der höheren Hierarchien. Sie haben in ihren Mythologien, die weiser waren als die heutige naturwissenschaftliche Weisheit, von diesen Naturwesen gesprochen. Aber die sind aus dem menschlichen Wahrnehmen fort. Der Mensch nimmt heute nur das Sinnliche wahr und verarbeitet es. Da trägt er eigentlich nur die Außenwelt in sich. Man ist sehr häufig nicht genügend aufmerksam darauf, wie wenig in dem, was wir so in uns tragen als Wahrnehmung von der Außenwelt oder auch als dasjenige, was im Gedächtnis von der Außenwelt bleibt, wie wenig in dem eigentlich von uns ist. Wenn Sie des Morgens oder des Mittags über diesen Hügel heraufgehen und das Goetheanum sehen und wiederum hinuntergehen und das Bild des Goetheanums in sich tragen und all dasjenige, was Sie da gesehen haben, so haben Sie scheinbar etwas in sich, was aber in Ihnen nur ein Spiegelbild ist, denn das Goetheanum steht hier auf diesem Hügel. Alles das, was Sie gesehen haben, steht auch auf diesem Hügel. Sie sind nur mit dem Teil des Menschen, den ich hier abgegliedert habe, das Wohnhaus von dem. Und heute ist der Mensch so geistarm, weil er eben in diesem Äußeren nicht mehr den Geist finder.
Ja, es gab Zeiten in der Erdenentwickelung, wo auf die Menschen, die hier auf diesen Hügel heraufgegangen wären und so etwas erblickt hätten wie dieses Goetheanum, beim Hinuntergehen gewisse Dinge nicht wie eine Phantasie, nicht wie eine innere Mystik, sondern wie eine Tatsachenwelt gewirkt hätte. Wie etwas, was sie gesehen haben, wie etwa die Malerei oder dergleichen, würden sie mitgenommen haben in ihrer Seele, jene Geistwesen, die ihnen von allen Ecken herausgeschlüpft wären, und die mitgetan haben, indem die Menschen hier geschaffen haben. Aber das ist vorbei für die Menschen, so, wie wenn die elementarischen und die geistigen Wesen geflohen wären aus der äußeren Natur. Entgeistet ist die äußere Natur und damit auch dieser Teil des Menscheninneren. Und für das Innere bleibt eigentlich nur der untere Teil der Brust und der Stoffwechselleib mit den Gliedmaßen. Der ist für den heutigen veräußerlichten Menschen, für diese Periode der Menschheitsentwickelung dasjenige, was der Mensch, wenn er sich nicht wirklich anfängt für wahre Geistigkeit zu interessieren, was der Mensch sein Inneres nennt. Und hart an dem Punkte ist der Mensch angelangt, wo er zwar spricht von seinem Inneren, aber wo er mit diesem Inneren im Grunde genommen nichts anderes meint als seinen Stoffwechsel und höchstens die Korrespondenz, welche die Atmung und der Herzrhythmus mit seinem Stoffwechsel eingehen. Man täusche sich darüber nicht. Man sei sich darüber nur klar: die Menschen kommen heute und reden davon, daß sie mit ihrem Inneren nicht fertig werden, daß sie innere Schwierigkeiten haben. Das ist nur ein Wortausdruck für irgendeine Unregelmäßigkeit des Stoffwechsels. Der eine ist heiter, der andere ist mürrisch aus seinem Inneren heraus; der eine ist leidenschaftlich, der andere ist humorvoll. Es ist im Grunde genommen das alles ein Ergebnis des Stoffwechsels und höchstens des Rückschlages der Atmungs- und Herzzirkulation auf den Stoffwechsel. Viele Menschen sprechen heute von ihrem Inneren. Sie reden von den Bedürfnissen dieses Inneren. Sie reden davon, daß ihre Seele mit dem und jenem nicht fertig werde. In Wahrheit wird ihr Magen und werden ihre Gedärme nicht fertig. Und dieses, was sie vom seelischen Leben reden, ist im Grunde genommen nur ein Wortausdruck für dasjenige, was im Stoffwechsel vor sich geht. Und es ist so, daß die Menschen selbstverständlich nicht der Wahrheit gemäß zugeben würden: Mein Magen, meine Gedärme, Milz und Leber oder sonstige Dinge sind in mir nicht in Ordnung -, sondern sie sagen: Meine Seele hat diese oder jene Schwierigkeit. - Das klingt besser, vornehmer für manche Menschen, das halten sie für weniger materialistisch. Für denjenigen, der die Dinge der Wahrheit gemäß schaut, ist es nur verlogener. Denn wir stehen heute eben in derjenigen Entwickelungsphase, in der sich die menschliche Natur deutlich in diese zwei Glieder abgliedert.
Und wenn Sie fragen: Was gibt es da für eine Hilfe? - es gibt nur die eine Hilfe für die Menschen heute: loszukommen von sich selbst durch ein Interesse für die Angelegenheiten der Menschheit, durch wirkliches Interesse für dasjenige, was alle Menschen der heutigen Zeit angeht, und möglichst wenig Aufmerksamkeit für diese heute doch zumeist vorhandenen Unregelmäßigkeiten des Stoffwechsels im weiteren Sinne. Wenn die Menschen loskommen können von ihrem Reden über sich selber durch ein weitgehendes Interesse, was nur durch ein Ernstnehmen der Geisteswissenschaft zu erreichen ist, dann kann allein Heil sich ausgießen über das gegenwärtige menschliche Geschlecht.
Man macht ja mit einer solchen Sache wirklich heute charakteristische Erfahrungen. Ich war neulich bei jenem Völkerbundskongreß in Bern, wo von all den Dingen gesprochen wurde, von denen es heute unnötig ist, zu sprechen, weil es doch zu nichts führt, und wo von alldem nicht gesprochen wurde, was heute das Notwendigste ist. Aber das will ich gar nicht einmal als die Hauptsache erwähnen. Als die Hauptsache möchte ich erwähnen ein gewisses Formales, das fast bei allen Rednern zutage getreten ist. In jedem dritten Satze mindestens findet sich bei diesen Rednern das Wörtchen «ich»: Ich bin der Ansicht -, ich meine -, mir scheint, daß dies oder jenes notwendig ist -, ich liebe dies oder jenes -, das können Sie fast in jedem Satze hören. Und die Menschen werden geradezu wild, wenn man nicht einstimmt in diesen Ton! Redet man mehr aus der Objektivität heraus, stellt man seine Sätze so, daß man den inneren, objektiven Gehalt ins Auge faßt, und nicht seine Meinung gibt, nicht dasjenige gibt, was man liebt, dann sagen sie, man rede autoritär, man rede anmaßlich. Natürlich ist die höchste Anmaßung, wenn einer in jedem dritten Satze das Wörtchen «ich» im Munde führt. Aber die Leute haben verlernt, diese Anmaßung zu spüren. Sie finden gescheiter, wenn einer immer von sich redet, und sie finden das höchst unbescheiden und anmaßlich, wenn jemand versucht, aus der Objektivität heraus zu reden. Sie haben dann das dunkle Gefühl, er behaupte, etwas anderes zu wissen, als was seine «persönliche Meinung» ist. Und das ist heute eine große Sünde, wenn jemand behauptet, etwas anderes zu wissen, als was seine persönliche Meinung ist! Nun, diese persönlichen Meinungen -! Der geisteswissenschaftlich Bewanderte möchte oftmals solch eine Versammlung genauer charakterisieren, gerade von seinem geisteswissenschaftlichen Standpunkte aus. Er hört einen Redner von jener Sorte, die in jedem dritten Satze das Wörtchen «ich» äußert: /ch meine -, ich bin der Ansicht -, mir ist dies sympathisch -, ich bitte Sie, auf dieses einzugehen -, der redet dann von «Überstaat», «Überparlament», und geht ab. Der geisteswissenschaftlich Einsichtige sagt sich: Der Mann hat halt doch ein Leberleiden, es ist an der Leber irgend etwas nicht in Ordnung, und aus ihm redet der Stoffwechsel. Ein zweiter Redner tritt auf, redet formal in einer ähnlichen Weise; er geht ab. Der Mann hat wahrscheinlich Gallensteine. Der dritte neigt zu Magenverstimmungen!
Diese Dinge werden bedeutsam nur in einem Zeitalter, in dem der Materialismus pulsiert, wo die freie von der Materie unabhängige Seele nicht spricht, wo eigentlich der Leib spricht. Und heute spricht vielfach der Leib. Die Leute sind nur noch gewöhnt, für ihre leiblichen Indispositionen die alten Worte zu gebrauchen. Dem die Dinge geisteswissenschaftlich Durchschauenden wäre es lieber, wenn sie, statt vom Übermenschen zu reden — ich meine natürlich nicht Nietzsche, aber die anderen, die ja auch nach Nietzsche vom Übermenschen gesprochen haben -, vom Untermagen sprechen würden. Denn damit würden sie die Realität besser treffen, die eigentlich aus ihnen spricht.
Das ist nicht Pessimismus, meine lieben Freunde, das ist ganz einfach die Welt der gegenwärtigen Tatsachen. Und der Mensch wird in der heutigen Zeit gedrängt, unwahr zu werden, aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil er sich schämen würde, die Tatsachen aufzuzählen. Sogar eine Sehnsucht ist vorhanden, sich diesem Menschen hinzugeben, der eigentlich nur der physische Mensch ist. In unserer Zeit ist es ja schon einmal eine Wahrheit, daß wir vielleicht nur deshalb keinen Moliere haben, der den «Malade imaginaire» schrieb, weil wir zu viele Molires brauchten, denn es ist heute ein wahrer Enthusiasmus des Krankseins vorhanden bei jenen Menschen, die Zeit haben, krank zu sein vor allem. Diejenigen Menschen, die nicht Zeit haben, krank zu sein, wenden zumeist auf diejenigen Zustände gar nicht die Aufmerksamkeit, die bei anderen, die Zeit haben, krank zu sein, eine hinlängliche Veranlassung sind, sich krank zu fühlen. Die verheerenden Wirkungen des Materialismus muß man nicht nur dort suchen, wo vom Materialismus gesprochen wird, oder wo materialistisch gesprochen wird, diese verheerenden Wirkungen des Materialismus zeigen sich in zahlreichem Maße. Und manchmal ist die Rederei vom Geiste heute nichts anderes als der purste Materialismus, weil diese Rederei vom Geiste für sehr viele Menschen nichts anderes ist als ein Betäubungsmittel für ihre sonstige behäbige Materialität. Den Menschen heute fehlt der Wille zur Aktivität, zur wirklichen inneren Betätigung. Und alle äußere Betätigung muß heute von der inneren Betätigung kommen. Das ist ja der Grund, warum das Bürgertum so sehr in der Nullität geblieben ist gegenüber der seit siebzig Jahren heraufkommenden sozialen Frage. Es ist ein ungeheuerer Materialismus, welcher in den verschiedensten Formen die Menschen ergriffen hat, und namentlich diejenigen Kreise, die die Aufgabe hatten in der neuesten Zeit, sich dem Geistigen zuzuwenden. Dies muß man ja wissen über die Grundimpulse unserer Zeit, über dasjenige, was in unserer Zeit lebt. Alles andere wäre ein SichHingeben an Illusionen. Geisteswissenschaft ist deswegen für den gegenwärtigen Menschen von einer so großen Bedeutung, weil sie ihn wegbringt von sich. Aber sie muß auch wirklich so aufgefaßt werden. Es darf nicht eine andere Illusion eintreten gegenüber der Geisteswissenschaft. Es kann leicht eine Eigenschaft, die in der Gegenwart gerade durch den Materialismus so recht verbreitet ist, auf dem Gebiete der Geisteswissenschaft sich geltend machen, und das ist die Oberflächlichkeit. Da können die Menschen, wenn sie oberflächlich erfassen dasjenige, was an Interesse erwecken will die Geisteswissenschaft, sich erst recht in sich verhärten, da können sie erst recht in sich gedrängt werden. Da hilft eben nichts anderes, als immer wieder und wiederum zu dem zurückzukehren, was uns als Person gar nichts angeht, und was im Inhalte unserer Geisteswissenschaft sich findet, und die Dinge, die im Inhalte unserer Geisteswissenschaft sich finden, so objektiv als möglich zu nehmen; und wenn über die subjektivsten Dinge gesprochen wird, sie ja nicht subjektiv zu nehmen. Denken Sie nur, wie klar es eigentlich ist, in diesem Punkte den naheliegenden Versuchungen sich zu widersetzen.
Wenn ich neulich hier davon gesprochen habe, wie der Mensch heute eigentlich nur bis zum achtundzwanzigsten Jahre von außen entwickeInngsfähig iss, dann die Entwickelung abschließt; gerade aber ehr. vor der Verstandesseele und vor dem Ich, und an diese nicht herankommt, dadurch einer gewissen inneren Leerheit entgegengeht, so ist das für die heutige Zeit eine wichtige Wahrheit. Es ist wichtig, das zu wissen, es ist wichtig, das als ein inneres Erlebnis in sich aufzunehmen. ‚Aber es ist schädlich, hinterher zu denken: Bin ich vielleicht einer von dieser Art, der von seinem achtundzwanzigsten Jahre an nicht richtig sich zu seiner Verstandesseele entwickelt hat? Gerade die subjektivsten Dinge, die sich auf das Allerwichtigste beziehen, sollten objektiv aufgefaßt werden; wir sollten nicht hinsehen, ob wir es sind, denen so etwas passieren kann, wir sollten gerade bei den wichtigsten menschlichen Wahrheiten von uns absehen können und auf das Zeitalter sehen können, auf die Menschheit sehen können, nicht immer in egoistischer Weise an uns selber denken.
Das ist dasjenige, was die Zeit charakterisiert, was hervorgeht aus den tiefsten Impulsen unserer Zeit, und was so schwierig macht, heute Ideen zu verbreiten, die sich beziehen auf die allerallerwichtigsten Impulse der Zeitentwickelung. Die Menschen können gewissermaßen aus dieser Grundstimmung, die ich eben charakterisiert habe, kein Interesse entwickeln. Die Ideen, sie bleiben für sie Sensationen, sie ergreifen sie nicht genügend, spornen sie nicht genügend an zur Aktivitä
Das ist es, was insbesondere jetzt gesagt werden muß, wo für alle diejenigen, die sich für unsere Geisteswissenschaft wahrhaftig interessieren, eine Art Übergang da ist. Sie haben bis jetzt eine Literatur gehabt, die sich auf die innere Entwickelung des Menschen und auf das Wissen über die geistige Welt bezieht, und die da sprach zu dem Menschen so, daß er die Welt, sein Verhältnis zur Welt, sein Verhältnis zu anderen Menschen, soweit es seelisch-geistig ist, von den verschiedensten Gesichtspunkten aus anfassen konnte. Jetzt erzeugt diese Geisteswissenschaft eine gewisse Strömung — natürlich nur mit einer Verzweigung, sie geht als große Geisteswissenschaft weiter, denn gerade die große Geisteswissenschaft ist das Allernotwendigste auch für die Gesundung aller anderen Verhältnisse -, die redet über die soziale Frage, über die Gesundung des sozialen Organismus. Da läuft die Geisteswissenschaft in eine Strömung hinein, die nun gar nicht unaktiv, die gar nicht bloß passiv genommen werden darf, sonst verfehlt sie ihr Ziel, ihren Zweck. Und jetzt wird sich zeigen, wie viele von uns durch die vielen vorangegangenen Jahre, wo sie Geisteswissenschaft in sich aufgenommen haben, sich reif gemacht haben vor allen Dingen für ein klares Erfassen desjenigen, was jetzt als soziale Frage zu verstehen ist, denn auf ein klares, vorurteilsloses, unsentimentalisches Erfassen desjenigen, was ausgesprochen werden soll namentlich durch mein kommendes Buch über die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage, auf das wird es ankommen. Das wird dasjenige sein, worüber wir jetzt eine gewisse Probe werden zu bestehen haben.
Man konnte bisher ein guter Geisteswissenschafter schon sein, wenn man Geisteswissenschaft studierte, ohne daß man sich kümmerte um dasjenige, was draußen im Leben vorging. Und wir haben ja gerade zwei Erscheinungen innerhalb unserer anthroposophischen Bewegung, über die wir eigentlich nachdenken sollten: Wir haben einerseits ganz gute Anthroposophen, welche aber, trotzdem sie ungeheuer viel wissen über die kosmische Entwickelung, über die Gliederung des Menschen, über Reinkarnation und Schicksal und Karma, von praktischen Gesichtspunkten des Lebens, von der Wirklichkeit des Lebens keine Ahnung haben, die gerade in der Anthroposophie etwas gesucht haben, um sich von dieser Wirklichkeit des Lebens fernzuhalten. Ja, diejenigen, die das, was ich jetzt sage, besonders betrifft, die ahnen nicht einmal, daß es sie betrifft. Denn eigentlich hält sich naiv jeder für einen Lebenspraktiker. Das also ist die eine Erscheinung, die wir unter uns haben.
Die andere Erscheinung ist die Sektiererei in irgendeiner Form. Es ist ja eine tiefe Neigung vorhanden, gerade in solchen Bewegungen, die sich auf das Geistige beziehen, Sektiererei zu treiben. Ob diese Sektiererei nun sich heraus entwickelt aus kleinen Cliquen, die auch mit dem Charakter der Sektiererei, wenn auch in sehr inferioren Dingen, auftreten, oder ob direkt Sektiererei getrieben wird, darauf kommt es nicht an. Denn dasjenige, worauf es ankommt, ist, wirklich einzusehen, daß durch diese hier gemeinte, anthroposophisch orientierte geisteswissenschaftliche Bewegung Objektivität, Unpersönlichkeit gehen muß. Das war ja immer das Schwierige unserer Bewegung, daß das Persönliche, meistens ohne daß man es ahnte, verwechselt wurde mit dem Objektiv-Sachlichen. Die Leute sind in dem guten Glauben, wenn sie sich zu einer Clique zusammentun, die mehr oder weniger groß ist, daß sie ein ganz sachliches Interesse haben. Gewiß, sie sind in dem guten Glauben, denn sie merken gar nicht, daß sie eigentlich doch in der Hauptsache dasjenige treiben, was sie wollen, weil ihnen der gerade geisteswissenschaftlich nahesteht, der ihnen so oder so gegenübersteht, weil sie mit dem gerade das oder jenes Verhältnis haben wollen, und dergleichen. Das ahnen die Menschen nicht. Sie leben in dem guten Glauben, objektiv zu sein. Aber diese Sektiererei, dieses Cliquenwesen, das ist ja gerade dasjenige, was die schrecklichen Tatsachen gebracht hat, daß die Veröffentlichungen, die Kundgebungen der Geisteswissenschaft nach außen, auf welchem Gebiete sie sich auch geltend machen, nicht beurteilt werden nach dem, was sie durch sich selbst sind, sondern nach dem, was eine Gesellschaft, die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft aus ihnen macht und gemacht hat. Wenn man hinweist auf die ärgsten Schäden und die fürchterlichsten Sumpfpflanzen von der Art eines Seiling, so darf man doch nie, wenn man auf die Grundlagen der Sache geht, außer acht lassen, daß solche Sumpfpflanzen gehätschelt, gezüchtet, kultiviert worden sind von dem Cliquen- und Sektiererwesen, das sich sehr breit entwickelt hat in den verflossenen siebzehn, achtzehn Jahren der anthroposophischen Bewegung. Und was in dieser anthroPosophischen Bewegung vorgeht, das projiziert sich sehr vielfach auf die Anthroposophie, weil ja auch in sehr vielen Mitgliedern gesündigt wird gegen dasjenige, was heute bedeutsamster Zeitimpuls ist: der Individualismus auf geistigem Gebiete. Wie häufig hört man: Wir Anthroposophen, wir Theosophen wollen dies und jenes! Es ist schrecklich, daß wir überhaupt nur drei Grundsätze haben! — Wir brauchen gar keine Grundsätze, denn darauf kommt es nicht an; wir brauchen Wahrheiten, keine zusammenfassenden Grundsätze, und diese Wahrheiten sind nur für den einzelnen Menschen, für die Individualität. Die Gesellschaft, wie oft habe ich gesagt, sie soll etwas sein nach außen; aber die Sache selbst geht die Gesellschaft nichts an. Diese Dinge muß man doch nur wirklich einmal ernst nehmen können. Heute ist es gerade notwendig; denn wenn dasjenige, was nun gerade in die Welt kommen soll durch die Bestrebungen mit Bezug auf die soziale Frage, wenn das etwa auch getragen werden sollte von sektiererischem oder Cliquengeiste oder den verschiedenen Engherzigkeiten, die ich heute charakterisiert habe, dann würde gerade dieser Sache ganz furchtbar geschadet werden. Hier müssen wir wirklich zu einer größeren Denkweise uns entwickeln. Hier müssen wir wirklich den Eingang suchen in das real praktische Leben. Darauf kommt es an.
Nehmen Sie, wenn ich über diese Dinge etwas sage, es wirklich nur in freundschaftlichstem Sinne. Nehmen Sie es nicht so, als ob ich irgendwie nach der einen oder nach der anderen Seite hin etwas Abträgliches sagen möchte. Aber ich bin einmal genötigt zu warnen, gründlich zu warnen gerade vor der sozialen Seite unserer Sache, ich meine, bevor diese soziale Seite unserer Sache Angelegenheit aller Mitglieder wird, die es werden soll, wirklich werden soll, gerade vorher dringend zu warnen: das Sektiererische, das Kleinliche, dasjenige, was keine großen Horizonte hat, nicht aus klarem Denken entspringt, nur ja nicht in dieses soziale Denken hineinzumischen, nur ja nicht, sondern da immer mehr zu versuchen, aus der Lebenserfahrung und aus der Lebenswirklichkeit heraus zu denken. Ich war ja hoch erstaunt, als vor kurzem einmal so an meine Ohren heranklang die Devise, die von der einen oder anderen Seite doch hier wohl ausgegangen sein muß, man solle die Dinge, die ich jetzt als soziale Ideen vortrage, praktisch ins Leben einführen. Und gemeint war die Überführung dieser praktischen Ideen in das Allerunpraktischste, was es nur geben kann. Wir dürfen wirklich nicht das tun, was gerade in die furchtbarsten Wirrnisse und Schäden der Zeit hineingeführt hat: verwechseln wahre Lebenspraxis mit illusorischer Lebenspraxis. Dasjenige, was da geäußert worden ist, ist so unpraktisch, ist so sektiererisch gedacht, hat so sehr nicht den Willen, wirklich ins praktische Leben einzutreten, daß ich gar nicht weiter darauf eingehen will. Ich bitte Sie, vor allen Dingen auf das zu sehen, was heute im wirklichen Leben vorgeht, kennenzulernen, woraus eigentlich die verschiedenen Sätze entspringen, die ich sage. Glauben Sie denn, das sei eine leichtherzige Theorie, wenn man über die Arbeitskraft mit dem Charakter der Ware redet? Das ist etwas, was nur gesagt werden darf, wenn man es immer wiederum als das Charakteristischste im wirklichen Leben erkannt hat. Und so die anderen Sachen. Klares, scharfes Verstehen der Lebenswirklichkeit ist es, worauf es heute ankommt. Also wirklich sine ira, mit der Bitte, ja nicht diese Dinge persönlich zu nehmen, möchte ich zum Beispiel folgendes sagen. Ich bin gefragt worden, ob denn nicht innerhalb unserer Gesellschaft die Dreigliederung verwirklicht werden könnte: Wirtschaftsleben, Rechtsleben, geistiges Leben.
Man kann gewiß so etwas mit Worten aussprechen, wenn man sehr gut drinnensteht in unserer Bewegung, wenn man es ganz ehrlich und tief meint mit unserer Bewegung. Aber es ist doch so, als ob man den Grundnerv unserer Bewegung gar nicht erfaßt hätte, wenn man dieses sagt. Man hat gar nichts verstanden von dem, was ich über die soziale Frage gesprochen habe, wenn man denkt, unsere Gesellschaft hier könne man wie eine Sekte dreigliedern! Welches sind denn die drei Zweige des gesunden sozialen Organismus? Zunächst das Wirtschaftsleben. Ja, meine lieben Freunde, wollen Sie denn das Allerschlimmste machen, wirtschaftliche Sektiererei treiben, indem Sie in dieser Gesellschaft eine gemeinschaftliche Wirtschaft führen innerhalb der anderen Wirtschaft draußen? Wollen Sie denn gar nicht verstehen, daß man sich heute nicht in egoistischer, wenn auch gruppenegoistischer Weise abschließen kann und das andere alles unberücksichtigt lassen! Sie wirtschaften doch mit der anderen Wirtschaft des hiesigen Territoriums. Sie beziehen doch Ihre Milch, Käse, Gemüse, dasjenige, was Sie brauchen, von einem Wirtschaftskörper, von dem Sie sich doch nicht isolieren können! Sie können doch wahrhaftig die Zeit nicht reformieren dadurch, daß Sie sich aus dieser Zeit herauslösen. Mir kommt es vor, wenn jemand eine solche Gesellschaft wie diese, zu einem Wirtschaftskörper machen will, geradeso wie wenn einer eine große Familie hat und sagt: Ich beginne jetzt in meiner Familie die Dreigliederung,
Diese Ideen sind zu ernst, zu umfassend, sie dürfen nicht in das Kleinlich-Bourgeoise der verschiedenen Sektierereien, die es immer gegeben hat, hineingezerrt werden. Sie müssen im Zusammenhang mit der ganzen Menschheit gedacht werden. Das mit Bezug auf das Wirtschaftsleben. Sie würden sich ja ganz abschließen vom wirklichen praktischen Denken mit Bezug auf den Wirtschaftskreislauf der Welt, wenn Sie eine gruppenegoistische Wirtschaft für eine Sekte einrichten wollen.
Und das Rechtsleben: Gründen Sie einmal innerhalb unserer Gesellschaft den Rechtsstaat! Wenn Sie etwas stehlen, wird es ganz und gar bedeutungslos sein, wenn hier drei Leute zusammentreten und urteilen über dieses Stehlen. Es wird das äußere Gericht Sie schon in Anspruch nehmen und urteilen. In bezug auf den Rechtsstaat werden Sie sich aus der äußeren Organisation wahrhaftig nicht herausziehen können.
Und nun, meine lieben Freunde, in bezug auf das Geistesleben: Seit es eine Anthroposophische Gesellschaft gibt, beziehungsweise seit sie mit ihrem anthroposophischen Inhalt zur Theosophischen Gesellschaft gehört hat, wo war irgend etwas, was hier innerhalb dieser geistigen Gemeinschaft getrieben wird, im geringsten Grade abhängig von irgendeiner staatlichen oder politischen Organisation? Vom ersten Tage dieser Gesellschaft an war mit Bezug auf das Geistesleben, das vor allen Dingen unsere Aufgabe ist, unser Ideal erfüllt! Verstehen Sie nicht, daß von Anfang an dieses Ideal erfüllt ist mit Bezug auf dasjenige, was wir gerade sind? Glauben Sie, daß das heute erst gemacht werden sollte mit dieser Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft? Hat diese Anthroposophische Gesellschaft in irgendeinem Staate je eine Staatssubvention gehabt? Sind ihre Lehrer von einem Staate angestellt? Ist nicht alles erfüllt gerade in dieser Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, was nur zu erlangen ist von den äußeren Geistesorganisationen? Ist sie nicht in bezug darauf geradezu das praktischste Ideal? Wollen Sie jetzt kommen und diese Anthroposophische Gesellschaft nach dieser Richtung hin noch reformieren? Sie müssen ja gar nicht begriffen haben, in welcher Gesellschaft Sie seit so und so viel Jahren sind, wenn Sie jetzt erst das geistige Drittel hier in dieser Gesellschaft realisieren wollen.
Betrachten Sie also gerade das, was wir sein konnten, was man noch retten konnte an einem Zipfel, die Freiheit des geistigen Forschens und Lehrens wenigstens bei Menschen, die für das, was sie hier lehrten, keine Staatsanstellungen verlangen, betrachten Sie das doch wenigstens als eine Art von Ausgangspunkt für das andere. Sehen Sie doch, was wirklich ist, und denken Sie nicht daran vorbei. In meinem Buche «Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage» wird als ein Erbübel der gegenwärtigen Zeit immer wieder angeführt, daß eben die sogenannten Lebenspraktiker von heute vorbeidenken und vorbeisprechen an demjenigen, worauf es ankommt. Soll bei uns dieses Übel grassieren, daß vorbeigesprochen wird an demjenigen, worauf es ankommt? Nicht das kann unsere Aufgabe sein, hier das freie Geistesleben hereinzutragen, sondern das kann die Aufgabe sein, daß Sie dasjenige, was hier als freies Geistesleben immer existiert hat, daß Sie das in die andere Welt hinaustragen, den Menschen klarmachen, daß alles Geistesleben von dieser Art sein muß, von dieser Art von Verfassung sein muß.
Worauf es ankommt, das ist, wenigstens zunächst die nächste Wirklichkeit zu sehen. In dieser Richtung muß zunächst von den Anthroposophen verstanden werden, was von mir über die soziale Frage vorgebracht wird. Man soll wenigstens innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft vermeiden, schrullenhafte Ideen zu verbreiten unter der Devise, das praktisch machen zu wollen, was hier vertreten wird. Nehmen Sie ernst, was wie ein Grundzug durch die Vorträge der letzten Wochen, ja vielleicht der letzten Monate durchgegangen ist, nehmen Sie vor allem ganz und gar ernst, daß die Gegenwart eine Neueinstellung der Menschen mit Bezug auf das Leben notwendig macht, daß es nicht getan ist damit, daß wir nur neue Gedanken aufnehmen, sondern daß wir die Möglichkeit finden, uns in einer neuen Weise dem Leben gegenüber einzustellen, daß wir alles vermeiden, was nach Isolierung und Abschluß hindrängt. Nehmen Sie vor allen Dingen ernst, daß die Menschheit mit ihrer sogenannten Kultur auf allen drei Gebieten in eine wirkliche Sackgasse hineingeraten ist. Wie konnte sich diese Sackgasse deutlicher zeigen als in den chaotischen, verheerenden Wirkungen in Ost- und Mitteleuropa? Das ist ja das Ergebnis desjenigen, was die Menschen gewohnt gewesen sind, seit Jahrzehnten und Jahrhunderten her zu empfinden, zu denken, zu glauben. Nicht von dem Kriege allein rühren die Zustände in Rußland her, der war nur die Kulmination, sondern von dem, was die Menschen gedacht, empfunden, gefühlt, gewollt haben seit langer, langer Zeit, was man genötigt war, eben wie eine Art von sozialer Krebskrankheit zu schildern. Was fehlt denn am meisten in der Gegenwart? In der Gegenwart fehlt am meisten Urteil über die Wirklichkeit! In der Gegenwart fehlt am meisten richtige soziale Aufklärung! Das ist es, was das Bürgertum am meisten vernachlässigt hat: richtige soziale Aufklärung. Es ist ja in den Menschen kein sozialer Sinn. Jeder kennt ja nur sich selbst. Daher wird dann das Urteil so kurzsinnig. Wenn heute einer davon spricht, es solle das Wirtschaftsleben in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft eingeführt werden, so würde ich mir höchstens unter diesem Satze etwas Reales vorstellen können, wenn einer eine Kuh kaufte, und sie pflegte und sie melken würde, und dadurch etwas produzieren würde und dieses Produzierte in der richtigen Weise verwalten würde; dann wäre das keine Sektiererei innerhalb unserer Gesellschaft, denn im Wirtschaftsleben handelt es sich vor allen Dingen um diejenigen Maßnahmen, die die Produktivität erhöhen, die den notwendigen Bedürfnissen Rechnung tragen. Da ist ja auch einmal ein Anfang gemacht worden, der nur zum Teil durch die Persönlichkeit, mit der er gemacht wurde, mißglückt ist. Erinnern Sie sich doch, wir haben mit unserem Brote durch Herrn von R. einen Anfang gemacht, indem wir Brot produziert haben nicht nach dem Grundsatze des Produzierens, sondern nach dem Grundsatze des Konsumierens, was der einzige wirkliche gesunde Grundsatz sein kann. Wir haben zuerst Konsumenten schaffen wollen, was möglich gewesen wäre durch eine Gesellschaft. Dann wäre danach die Produktion einzurichten gewesen. Das war ein wirklicher praktischer Anfang. Er ist nur deshalb nicht’geglückt, weil Herr von R. ein ganz unpraktischer Mann war, oder ist. Aber die Idee hätte sich realisieren lassen, wenn Herr von R. ein praktischer Mann gewesen wäre. Das wäre so eine praktische Idee, die aber mit der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft nur das zu tun hat, daß die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft zunächst eine Summe von Konsumenten gebildet hat. Es handelt sich darum, den Blick auf die Sache zu lenken, nicht auf die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft, ja nicht diese zu einer abgeschlossenen Sekte zu machen.
Mit Bezug auf diese äußeren Dinge, die dem Produzieren zugrunde liegen, und mit Bezug auf manches andere, werden Sie nicht weit kommen, wenn Sie die Ideen, die in meinem Buche über die soziale Frage stehen, nicht im großen Stile auffassen. Denn schließlich, zur Reform des wirtschaftlichen Lebens gehört wirtschaftliche Praxis; sogar Kühe melken muß man verstehen, und es ist wichtiger, Kühe melken zu können, als in einer kleinen Sekte irgendeine Wirtschaft einzurichten und die Milch natürlich doch von außen zu beziehen. Worauf es aber ankommen würde bei uns, das ist, daß eingesehen würde, worin der ImPuls der Gegenwart gerade liegen muß, was das Wichtigste in der Gegenwart ist. Sie können heute Einrichtungen treffen, welche Sie wollen: Gehen Sie, wenn Sie können, nach Rußland, machen Sie dort, was Sie wollen, richten Sie die besten, idealsten Dinge ein, oder gehen Sie nach Deutschland, nach Österreich, nach Ungarn und so weiter, nach zehn Jahren sind alle diese Dinge verkracht, wenn sie sich nur zehn Jahre halten! So liegen die Dinge heute. Sie können mit den Gedanken, die die Menschen heute haben, die idealsten Einrichtungen machen, sie sind nach zehn Jahren verkracht, da können Sie ganz sicher sein. Es wird nicht immer so schnell gehen wie jetzt in München, wo die eine Räteregierung durch eine andere abgesetzt werden soll und die dann wieder durch eine noch radikalere und so weiter; aber all das, was Sie heute an solchen Einrichtungen treffen, die Ihnen sehr gesund und gut erscheinen, das wird wieder über den Haufen geworfen, wenn dieselben Ideen in den Menschenköpfen bleiben, die durch Jahrhunderte darin waren und die heute noch in ihnen spuken. Mit diesen Ideen ist nichts mehr anzufangen. Daher muß man sich schon dazu bequemen, umzudenken und umzulernen, muß schon wirklich als einen Bestandteil seines Seeleninneren die neuen Ideen aufnehmen. Das können Sie nicht von heute auf morgen. Sie können nicht von heute auf morgen gleich Einrichtungen treffen mit den neuen Ideen, Sie können aber diese Ideen, die in meinem Buche stehen, weil sie praktisch sind, bis zu den extremsten Spezialitäten herunter differenzieren. Sie können meinetwillen eine Meierei einrichten in dem Sinne, wie es in diesem Buche gemeint ist, aber wenn Sie nicht eine einzige Meierei bloß einrichten, wo Sie selbst Ihre Kühe melken drinnen, was ja nicht viel soziale Wirkung haben wird, die eine, einzige Meierei, wenn die anderen alle in dem alten Stile sind, wenn Sie nicht eine einzige einrichten, sondern wenn Sie verschiedene einrichten, so brauchen Sie ja doch Leute dazu. In deren Köpfen sind aber die alten Ideen. Diese Einrichtungen werden bald entweder verkrachen oder die alten Formen annehmen, und alles ist beim alten. Daraus sehen Sie, was heute das Wichtigste ist. Heute ist nicht das Wichtigste, dies oder jenes einzurichten. Sie können natürlich gute Einrichtungen treffen, ich will Sie gar nicht dazu verführen, schlechte Sachen einzurichten, aber ich mache Sie nur aufmerksam: Wenn Sie auch die beste Sache einrichten, so ändern Sie die Zeit nicht damit. Auf einzelnen Gebieten kann man das tun, wie ich es in bezug auf das Brot erwähnte, oder wie wir es mit unserer Literatur gemacht haben.
Wie haben wir angefangen? Ich habe zunächst vor einem sehr kleinen Kreise in Berlin gesprochen. Dann sind die Kreise immer größer und größer geworden. Indem die Kreise größer und größer wurden, entstand das Bedürfnis, dasjenige, was gesprochen wurde, in Büchern zu haben. Leser waren für die Bücher da, bevor die Bücher gedruckt wurden. Verfolgen Sie heute bei kundigeren Menschen die Theorien der sozialen Ideen: eines der Grundübel in unserer sozialen Ordnung sind die fortwährenden Krisen, die durch die sporadische Überproduktion entstehen, wenn so darauflos produziert wird. Das ist im Buchhandel am allerschlimmsten. Bedenken Sie, was alles im Buchhandel produziert wird an Büchern mit Auflagen von fünfhundert, manchmal noch mehr Exemplaren, von denen keine fünfzig Exemplare verkauft werden, und was für ein Unterschied ist zwischen einem Buch, von dem die ganze Auflage verkauft wird, und einem Buch, von dem vielleicht keine fünfzig Exemplare verkauft werden: Sie haben Setzer angestellt, Drucker angestellt, Papier verbraucht, alles für nichts! Das ist alles in den Wind gehangen, das ist alles Mißbrauch getrieben mit menschlicher Arbeitskraft. In dem Augenblicke, wo Sie drauflos produzieren, müssen Sie sich dessen bewußt sein, daß Sie menschliche Arbeitskraft mißbrauchen, wenn der Konsum nicht da ist, der den Verbrauch von menschlicher Arbeitskraft rechtfertigt, denn der Verbrauch von menschlicher Arbeitskraft ist nur durch das Bedürfnis gerechtfertigt, durch das vorhandene Bedürfnis gerechtfertigt. Nicht der Inhalt, sondern das Bedürfnis muß da sein; die Aufwendung von menschlicher Arbeitskraft ist nur gerechtfertigt, wenn man voraussehen kann, daß dasjenige, was die Menschen arbeiten, Menschen zugute kommt. Also auf dem einzigen Gebiete, wo wir in einer gewissen Weise reformierend auftreten konnten, haben wir es getan. Wir haben sogar unsere Zuflucht nehmen müssen nicht zur Überproduktion, sondern sogar zur Unterproduktion. Die Welt konnte gar nicht anders denken, als daß die Zeitschrift «Lucifer-Gnosis» eingegangen sei wie andere Zeitschriften: aus Mangel an Lesern. Gerade als sie eingehen mußte, weil andere Anforderungen an mich herantraten, war aber der Moment gekommen, wo sie zunächst anderthalbmal, dann zweimal, dann dreimal so viel Leser bekommen hätte, als sie vorher hatte. Wir haben uns sogar zur Unterproduktion entschließen müssen, nicht zur Überproduktion.
So werden in gesunder Weise Krisen vermieden. Der Buchhandel lebt in einer fortwährenden Krisis. Macht man Statistiken von Büchern, die nicht gekauft werden, so sieht man, daß Bücher produziert werden, die gar nicht gekauft werden können, weil gar nicht Sorge getragen werden kann dafür, daß sie gekauft werden. Manchmal haben die Leute eine gewisse Einsicht in die Dinge. Ich sprach einmal mit Eduard von Hartmann in den achtziger Jahren über erkenntnistheoretische Literatur. Es war in der Zeit, als ich mein Büchelchen «Wahrheit und Wissenschaft» geschrieben habe, das jetzt vergriffen ist, von dem kein Exemplar vergeblich gedruckt, kein Exemplar vermakuliert wurde und durch welches daher keine menschliche Arbeitskraft vergeudet wurde. Eduard von Hartmann sagte: Da lassen die Leute alle ihre erkenntnistheoretischen Werke drucken in fünfhundert Exemplaren; wir haben doch nachweislich in Deutschland höchstens sechzig Leser; da sollte man höchstens hektographieren lassen und die Werke an die paar Leser, die sich wirklich interessieren, versenden. Nachweislich haben ja erkenntnistheoretische Werke nicht mehr Leser in der damaligen Zeit gehabt.
Tadeln Sie nicht, daß ich diese rein wirtschaftliche Frage der anthroposophischen Literatur hier einmal besprochen habe. Diese Dinge haben ja nichts zu tun mit dem Inhalte, nichts zu tun mit dem geistigen Wert. Aber sie können immerhin illustrieren, was eigentlich gemeint ist, und worauf es notwendig in der Gegenwart ankommt: daß zuerst eine gesunde Konsum-Assoziation geschaffen und nicht ins Blinde und Blaue hinein produziert werde. Aus bloßer menschlicher Vorliebe heraus sollte nicht einmal Wahrheit produziert werden!
Darauf bezieht sich die Antwort, die ich einmal zwei katholischen Pfarrern in Kolmar nach einem Vortrag «Bibel und Weisheit» gegeben habe, und die ich neulich wieder erwähnte. Nach dem Vortrag kamen die beiden Pfarrer zu mir und sagten, gegen den Inhalt hätten sie eigentlich nichts besonderes einzuwenden, wohl aber gegen die Art zu reden, denn so wie sie sprächen von der Kanzel herunter, sei es für alle Menschen. So wie ich spräche, sei es nicht für alle Menschen, sondern nur für entsprechend gebildete. Ich konnte ihnen nur antworten: Auf das, was Sie meinen und was ich meine über die Art, wie man zu allen Menschen sprechen soll, kommt es nicht an; darüber können wir ja vielleicht allerlei interessante Vorstellungen haben, aber darauf kommt es nicht an, sondern darauf, was die Tatsachen fordern. Und da frage ich Sie: Gehen heute noch alle Leute zu Ihnen in die Kirche? Das können Sie nicht behaupten. Für die also, die draußen bleiben, und die doch auch ein Recht haben, vom Christus zu hören, für die rede ich, und das sind heute gerade genug.
Das sind Tatsachen. Dem widerspricht aber noch die alte bürgerliche Bildung, die ganz in sich verschlossen ist. Sie bildet sich ein: so ist etwas richtig, so muß es sein, so muß es gemacht werden. Aber so muß es gar nicht für das Leben gemacht werden! Für das Leben kommt alles darauf an, daß man beobachtet: Das ist da und das ist da, und daß man fordern läßt das, was man zu tun hat, durch das, was da ist. Dies sind nur scheinbar Trivialitäten, denn das Leben sündigt heute fortwährend gegen diese Trivialitäten.
Was also vor allen Dingen notwendig ist, das ist eine andere Einstellung. Auch die Einsicht, daß es notwendig ist zu sehen, wie diese Kultur, die so gelobt worden ist, den Tod in sich selber getragen hat, sich aufgelöst hat. Sie müssen nicht glauben, daß durch die heutigen radikal sozialistischen Bewegungen die Kultur verdorben worden ist. Die hat sich selbst verdorben! Das, was die Oberschicht an Kultur hatte, das hat sich selbst in die Nullität hineingeführt, das geht an sich selbst zugrunde. Diese Oberschicht hat nur nicht dafür gesorgt, daß die unteren proletarischen Schichten, die nachkommen, etwas Vernünftiges wissen über die sozialen Einrichtungen, und jetzt ist sie verwundert, wenn die in ihrer sozialen Unwissenheit herankommen und eigentlich nichts als ein Chaos herbeiführen. Die Lage ist eben ernst und aus dieser Erfassung des Ernstes der ganzen heutigen Welt fließen die Ideen, die ich in meinem Buche über die soziale Frage habe aussprechen müssen. Dieses Buch wird man nur richtig verstehen, wenn man begreift, daß man heute die besten Einrichtungen treffen kann, daß aber mit den Menschen, die die Ideen unserer Zeit im Kopfe haben, eben nichts zu machen ist. Vor allem müssen die Köpfe mit anderen Ideen erfüllt werden. Was ist also die wirkliche, reale, die wahrhaft praktische Aufgabe? Aufklärung verbreiten, meine lieben Freunde, vor allen Dingen Aufklärung verbreiten und die Menschen umdenken lehren! Das ist der Appell, der an jeden einzelnen von Ihnen geht, Aufklärung zu bringen in die Köpfe der Menschen, nicht an schrullenhafte Reformationen im einzelnen zu denken, sondern in universalistischer Weise aufklären über das, was not tut. Denn vor allen Dingen müssen heute die Menschen anders werden, das heißt, die Gedanken, die Empfindungen in den Seelen der Menschen müssen anders werden. Es handelt sich darum, diese Ideen dorthin zu tragen, wo man nur kann. Das ist das Praktische, das bedeutet: diese Ideen ins Praktische umsetzen. Mit jedem Viertelmenschen - verzeihen Sie, daß ich so spreche -, den Sie für diese Ideen gewinnen, ist etwas erreicht. Und am meisten ist erreicht, wenn Sie Leute, die in der Praxis stehen, gewinnen. Bei der Unterzeichnung des «Aufrufes» habe ich neulich gesagt: Es ist ja wirklich recht erfreulich, daß Schriftsteller unter diesem «Aufrufe» stehen, aber ein Bankdirektor, der den «Aufruf» wirklich versteht und in seinem Sinne wirkt, ist mehr wert als zehn Schriftsteller, die ihre Namen daruntersetzen. Es kommt heute darauf an, das Leben da anzufassen, wo es anzufassen ist. Und das geht heute nicht anders, als indem man vor allen Dingen Aufklärung verbreitet, aufklärend wirkt. Denn, was die Menschen am notwendigsten brauchen, das ist die Kenntnis von den Lebensbedingungen des gesunden Organismus. Wenn die Menschen nicht die Lebensbedingungen des gesunden sozialen Organismus erkennen lernen, so werden sie fortfahren, den alten sozialen Organismus zu zerstören, solange das Zerstören möglich ist. Es geht ja selbstverständlich nur bis zu einem gewissen Punkte. Alles, was jetzt gemacht wird ohne diese Ideen, ist Raubbau an der alten Ordnung, ist Abtragen der alten Ordnung. Dieses hat in Rußland begonnen und wird von da aus weitergehen. Worauf es ankommt, ist, aufzubauen. Aber aufbauen können Sie heute nur, wenn die Menschen verstehen, wie der Aufbau gemacht werden muß. Denn wir leben im Zeitalter der Bewußtseinsseelen-Entwickelung, das heißt im Zeitalter der bewußten Individualitäten, in dem Zeitalter, wo die Menschen wissen müssen, was sie tun.
Aus diesem Geiste heraus ist mein Buch geschrieben, in diesem Geiste möchte ich es verstanden wissen. In diesem Geiste möchte ich es Ihnen ans Herz legen. Es will einfach der Zeit dienen; es will das aussprechen, was aus dem Geiste der Zeit heraus ausgesprochen werden muß. Cliquen, sektiererische Richtungen innerhalb unseres eigenen Gesellschaftskörpers haben genügend dafür gesorgt, daß man im Grunde genommen, wenn von Anthroposophie die Rede ist, allerlei bloßen Geisterspuk und dergleichen vermutet. Aber der Geist wird hier nicht darin gesucht, daß man immer bloß vom Geiste spricht - das kann man den Herren Saitschick und Foerster überlassen -, sondern es kommt darauf an, daß der Geist in der Lage ist, wirklich in das praktische Leben unterzutauchen, zu verstehen, wie das praktische Leben gehandhabt werden muß. Der glaubt schlecht an den Geist, der ihn nur in einer schattenhaften Gestalt, die über dem Leben schwebt, erfassen will. Daher müssen Sie selbst immer mehr und mehr abkommen von der Abkehr vom Leben, müssen immer mehr und mehr suchen, das Leben wirklich zu verstehen, hinzuschauen auf das Leben; sonst werden immer wieder die gleichen Erscheinungen eintreten, von denen ich gesprochen habe. Die Beispiele können aber verhundert-, vertausendfacht werden. Eine Dame kommt zu mir und sagt: Es ist ein Mensch zu mir gekommen, dem ich Geld leihen soll, aber das ist ein Bierbrauer, der braut für dieses Geld Bier. Ich kann doch das nicht unterstützen, die Bierbrauerei! - Nun ja, das ist ganz schön, in diesem engen Kreis wollte die Dame nicht die Bierbrauerei unterstützen, weil sie abstinent war, und nicht nur für sich abstinent sein wollte, sondern auch für die Abstinenz Propaganda machen wollte. Ich mußte ihr antworten: Sie haben doch Geld auf der Bank, von dem Sie leben. Haben Sie eine Ahnung, wieviel Bierbrauereien die Bank mit Ihrem Gelde versorgt, haben Sie eine Ahnung, was da alles gemacht wird? Glauben Sie, daß das alles im Sinne der Idee ist, die Sie jetzt eben hinsichtlich der Summe, die Sie einem Bierbrauer leihen sollen, erfüllt? Aber sind Sie nicht ebenso dabei, wenn Ihr in der Bank deponiertes Geld in das Wirtschaftsleben übergeführt wird? - Glauben Sie denn wirklich, daß es dem Leben zugekehrt sein heißt, wenn man nichts weiter treibt, als im allerengsten Kreise dieses Leben beurteilen, wenn man sich gar nicht darauf einläßt, die Weiten des Lebens ins Auge zu fassen?
Darauf aber kommt es an: Unsere Anthroposophische Gesellschaft ist kein Experimentierfeld, sondern sie soll ein Kern sein für alles Gute, das über die Menschheit kommen soll. Mit Bezug auf die soziale Frage handelt es sich vor allen Dingen darum, daß von ihr ausströme ein weiter Strom von Aufklärung über soziale Notwendigkeiten. Dann handeln Sie schon praktisch, lebenskundig, wenn Sie diese Dinge verbreiten, aber Sie müssen sich wirklich auch bemühen, sie lebenskundig zu verbreiten, nicht im engen Sinne verbleiben. Ich hoffe, daß nicht einer von Ihnen auf die vertrackte Idee kommt, daß hier alte nationalökonomische Lehren tradiert werden, damit die Leute Nationalökonomie lernen. Um Gotteswillen nichts fachmännisch Nationalökonomisches heute hier hereintragen, denn das sind ja alles Ideen aus der allerältesten Rumpelkammer! Glauben Sie ja nicht, daß Sie nationalökonomisch oder volkswirtschaftlich denken lernen, wenn Sie heute die gangbaren Begriffe in schulmäßiger Weise, wie sie heute etwa an Universitäten gelehrt werden, in sich aufnehmen! Machen Sie ja keine Programme, die scheinbar das ins Praktische umsetzen, was von mir vorgetragen wird, die aber nichts weiter bedeuten, als die fürchterlich grinsenden, alten bürgerlichen Masken! Stellen wir uns auf den Boden der großen Forderungen unserer Zeit, betrachten wir das soziale Leben vor allen Dingen in diesen Forderungen unserer Zeit!
Es war mir ein Bedürfnis, dieses noch vor Ihnen auszusprechen, jetzt, wo wir vor einer Reise nach Deutschland stehen und mancherlei Aufgaben an mich herantreten werden; und trotzdem wir hoffen, daß unsere Abwesenheit diesmal weit weniger lang sein wird als sonst, so leben wir ja doch in einer Zeit, wo man eigentlich niemals Pläne und Projekte über längere Zeiten hinaus machen soll. Man kann nur sagen: Menschen, die sich so zusammengefunden haben, wie die Mitglieder der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft sich zusammengefunden haben, bleiben zusammen, wo sie auch sind, die stehen mit festem Mut und innerlicher Kühnheit bei der Sache und lassen sich nicht beirren, was auch die furchtbaren Wogen in der Gegenwart bringen mögen; Leichtes werden sie zumeist nicht bringen; manches wird von uns erfahren werden können, das die Frage in uns aufwerfen wird: wie sollen die Dinge gerade bei uns weitergehen? Lassen Sie sich auch dadurch nicht beirren, tun Sie, was an Ihnen ist, um irgend etwas weiterzubringen in der Welt, und Sie werden das Richtige tun.
Ich konnte diesmal eben nur so lange dableiben, bis dieses Buch fertiggestellt war; denn dieses Buch soll der Zeit dienen. Unsere Freunde werden es hier übernehmen, werden für die Verbreitung in der Schweiz sorgen, und ich hoffe, gerade bei dieser Arbeit auch recht bald wiederum hier sein zu können, aus mancherlei Gründen. Zum Teil aus einem Grunde, der recht sehr mißverstanden wird, gerade hier in der Schweiz. Man kann schon von der einen oder anderen Seite her hören: Was will denn der Fremde gerade hier in der Schweiz? Er soll uns in Ruhe lassen! Unsere Demokratie besteht sechshundert Jahre, die ist gesund, sie ist gefeit gegen das, was da draußen unter den verruchten östlichen und mitteleuropäischen Völkern vorgeht. Ich habe nun die Überzeugung, daß heute das Beste getan werden könnte da, wo es aus freiem Willen noch geschehen könnte. Wenn heute solche sozialen Ideen, wie sie in meinem Buche verzeichnet sind, in Rußland aufblühen würden, so geschähe es, weil die äußerste Not dazu zwingt; und wenn die äuRerste Not dazu drängt — ebenso in Mitteleuropa, ebenso in Deutschland -, so ist der rechte Impuls nicht mehr da. Der rechte Impuls gerade für diese Ideen, die der Menschheit soziales Heil bringen wollen, wäre da, wo sie aus Freiheit heraus geschehen würden auf einem Boden, von dem man sagen kann: zu uns sind nicht die Bolschewisten gekommen, wir haben noch etwas von den alten Zuständen. Oh, wenn gerade auf diesem Boden hier, bevor auch hier den Leuten das Wasser in den Mund rinnt, Verständnis entwickelt würde dafür, aus freiem Willen heraus diese Ideen zu entwickeln, dann würde die Schweiz das Blütenland Europas werden können; denn durch ihre geographische Lage ist sie dazu ausgerüstet! Sie ist ausgerüstet mit einer riesigen Mission, trotz ihrer Kleinheit. Aber diese Mission wird sie nur erfüllen können, wenn sie aus freiem Willen das vollbringt, was weder die Ost- und Mittelstaaten heute mehr aus freiem Willen vollbringen können — da hätten sie früher angreifen müssen —, und was die Weststaaten nicht tun werden, weil sie dazu nicht die genügende Anlage haben. Hier wären Anlagen, hier wäre geographische Voraussetzung, hier wäre alles vorhanden! Hier ist nur notwendig: der gute Wille zum freien menschlichen Entschluß. Dazu gehört eben gerade Aktivität des Denkens. Dazu gehört Denkwille. Denkwille ist das, was der heutigen Menschheit am meisten fehlt. Denkwille entwickelt sich auch geographisch sehr gut unter denjenigen Menschen — gestern machte ich darauf aufmerksam: auf die Rassen geben die Seelen nicht mehr viel, sie gehen nach der geographischen Lage -, zu denen die Seelen deshalb kommen, weil sie in die Gebirge hinein wollen. Denkwille entwickelt sich nicht in solchen Gegenden, in denen man «Die drei Zigeuner» dichtet. Das ist ein sehr schönes Gedicht, aber es ist gedichtet in der Ebene. Heute braucht der Mensch nicht Ebenengesinnung, heute braucht der Mensch schon Gebirgsgesinnung. Deshalb könnte aus den schweizerischen Bergen vieles herauskommen, deshalb möchte man hier auch gewisse Grundlagen, einen Ausgangspunkt für etwas haben. Und deshalb scheint es mir wichtig, gerade hier nicht zu schweigen, sondern von den großen Bedürfnissen der Zeit zu reden, solange man kann. Und unsere Freunde hier in der Schweiz rufe ich besonders auf, die Forderung nach der Aufklärung zu verstehen, dafür zu sorgen, daß die Forderungen der Zeit in das Bewußtsein gerade der hiesigen Bewohner übergehen. Je mehr Schweizerköpfe und Schweizerherzen gerade für diese sozialen Ideen gewonnen werden, desto besser wird es für Europa und die Welt sein. Das sage ich insbesondere auch zu den Schweizern. Sie können ja, meine lieben Schweizer unter uns, das Fremde zu einem Schweizerischen machen, dann ist es ein Schweizerisches! Alle diese Unterscheidungen haben ja doch nur einen ephemeren Wert.
Es war mir ein Bedürfnis, Ihnen dieses heute zu sagen, und ich hoffe, daß Sie mich gerade in bezug auf diese Dinge richtig verstanden haben. Ich hoffe, daß der Geist, der diesen Bau erfüllen und umhüllen soll, durch die Gesinnung unserer Mitglieder weiter erhalten bleibe und daß wir uns nach einiger Zeit hier wiederfinden, zusammengehalten durch diesen Geist, der von Anfang an so war, wie er sich jetzt ausleben soll, und der auch nicht anders werden kann; denn er hat von Anfang an das in sich verwirklichen wollen, was in den Forderungen unserer Zeit liegt.
Damit möchte ich für diesmal Abschied nehmen und auf Wiedersehen sagen für kommende Zeiten, die sich allerdings erhoffen lassen, aber man kann ja jetzt natürlich über solche Dinge, wie zum Beispiel Eisenbahnfahrten und so weiter, gar keine Urteile fällen. Sie wissen, es gibt schon recht weite Strecken, in denen der Personenverkehr sogar eingestellt ist. Also diese Dinge können kommen; aber hoffen wir, dass sie überwunden werden können. Dieser Ort hier soll doch eine solche geistige Wichtigkeit haben, daß, wenn es einmal notwendig werden sollte und noch möglich sein würde für mich, auf einem ganz abgezehrten, halbtoten Gaul hierherzureiten, um zu arbeiten, so würde ich auch nicht scheuen, auf einem abgezehrten, halbtoten Gaul hierherzureiten, um zu arbeiten hier. Wie gesagt, aber es können Aufgaben kommen, woanders, die die Zeit verzögern. Es können immerhin Verhältnisse eintreten, die die Zeit verzögern. Trotz alledem aber auf ein Wiedersehen in unserem Geiste, namentlich auch in dem Geiste, den ich heute noch bei diesem letzten diesmaligen Zusammensein ein wenig geschildert und Ihren Herzen dargestellt habe.
Twelfth Lecture
Today, it is my heartfelt desire to speak to you about a few things in light of what the impulses of our time, the needs of our time, demand be said to humanity in general through my writing on the social question, which will be published in the next few days. The writing will be entitled: “The Crucial Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life in the Present and Future.” From the reflections of the last few days, which were basically just a continuation and expansion of the reflections we have been cultivating here for many weeks, you will have seen that what I have to say now with regard to the social question is not just a kind of side issue alongside what pulsates in all our spiritual-scientific striving, but that in fact the matter must be viewed in such a way that this spiritual-scientific striving, precisely through its own nature, develops an understanding for the needs and demands of our present and the near future, and that the fundamental character of our time lies precisely in the fact that the needs of the time can only be radically helped by spiritual impulses. Anything else that might be attempted — as I have emphasized from various points of view — would at best be a surrogate. Even the external things that need to be done must be of such a nature that, I will not say a certain form of spiritual science, but that a spiritual life that rises up to the real spirit becomes possible within the social order.
This is necessary because, through the development of humanity, the human being of the present is in a very specific situation. I have characterized this situation of the human being of the present from various angles. Today I would just like to point out once again that, basically, all our considerations have led us to see how the human being of the present, simply by virtue of his organization, is at this moment in a certain conflict. It is easy to regard the human being in his whole being as a unity. But he is not a unity. We know that he is a threefold being. But these three members of the human being stood in different relationships to the whole external world, the physical, soul, and spiritual external world, and to their own inner world during the various epochs of the post-Atlantean time. We can now look at the threefold human being in two ways. Let us do this schematically by simply placing the three members of the human being one above the other (see drawing). How we name them, whether according to their physical aspect: nervous-sensory system, rhythmic system, limb-metabolic system, or according to their spiritual aspect: the intuitive spirit, the inspired soul, the imaginative body, or whether we proceed more as I have done from the spiritual aspect in my book “Theosophy,” , or whether we take the physical projection of this threefold human being, as I pointed out in my last book, “Von Seelenrätseln” (On Soul Riddles), from all points of view it appears to us that the human being is a threefold being. But this threefold being, the human being, is, if I may say so, not simply threefold. The human being is, first of all, a complex being, and the threefold nature within him is not simply threefold, but we can say that the human being is, in a certain sense, a double being, a twofold being, and the boundary actually runs right through the rhythmic system, through the respiratory and cardiac systems.

Today, in our present phase of development, the situation is such that the inner life of the human being actually lives only in the metabolic system and in the lower limbs of the lung-heart system, the rhythmic system. In today's world, the human being is essentially internal. In contrast, with regard to the upper part of the heart-respiratory system and with regard to the nervous-sensory system, human beings today are dependent on a strong external environment. You will understand what I mean in a moment. Human beings perceive the external world through their senses. They process the external world through their intellect. They also breathe in the external world through their lungs. Human beings take in from the outside what comes through perception, through the mind, through inhalation. But in relation to what comes into humans from outside, humans are, in a sense, only a kind of dwelling place. Actually, in this part of the human being — the upper part — the whole of external nature is contained: the colors, the sounds from outside, the stars, the clouds, the air, even down to the breathing process; and you yourselves are actually only the dwelling place for this external world. In ancient times, people found something in this external world that was related to their inner world: elemental spirits, divine-spiritual beings of the higher hierarchies. They spoke of these nature beings in their mythologies, which were wiser than today's scientific wisdom. But they have disappeared from human perception. Today, human beings perceive only the sensual and process it. In this way, they actually carry only the external world within themselves. We are very often not sufficiently aware of how little of what we carry within ourselves as perceptions of the external world or as what remains in our memory of the external world is actually ours. When you walk up this hill in the morning or at noon and see the Goetheanum, and then walk down again and carry the image of the Goetheanum within you, along with everything you have seen there, you seem to have something within you, but it is only a reflection, because the Goetheanum stands here on this hill. Everything you have seen is also on this hill. You are only the part of the human being that I have separated here, the dwelling place of the human being. And today, human beings are so spiritually impoverished because they no longer find the spirit in this outer world.
Yes, there were times in the evolution of the earth when people who came up here on this hill and saw something like this Goetheanum would have experienced certain things on their way down not as a fantasy, not as an inner mysticism, but as a world of facts. Like something they had seen, such as a painting or something similar, they would have taken with them in their souls those spirit beings that would have slipped out from all corners and participated in what the people had created here. But that is over for people, just as if the elemental and spiritual beings had fled from outer nature. The outer nature has been de-spiritualized, and with it this part of the human inner life. And for the inner life, all that remains is actually the lower part of the chest and the metabolic body with the limbs. For today's alienated human being, for this period of human development, this is what the human being calls his inner life, unless he really begins to take an interest in true spirituality. And human beings have reached the point where they talk about their inner life, but what they mean by this is basically nothing other than their metabolism and, at most, the correspondence between their breathing and heart rhythm and their metabolism. Let us not deceive ourselves about this. Let us be clear about it: people today come and talk about not being able to cope with their inner selves, about having inner difficulties. This is just a verbal expression for some irregularity in the metabolism. One person is cheerful, another is grumpy from within; one is passionate, another is humorous. Basically, all of this is a result of metabolism and, at most, the repercussions of respiration and heart circulation on metabolism. Many people today talk about their inner selves. They talk about the needs of this inner self. They talk about their souls not being able to cope with this or that. In reality, it is their stomachs and intestines that are not coping. And what they talk about as their soul life is basically just a verbal expression for what is going on in their metabolism. And of course, people would not admit the truth: My stomach, my intestines, my spleen, and my liver, or other things, are not working properly inside me. Instead, they say: My soul has this or that difficulty. That sounds better, more refined to some people; they consider it less materialistic. For those who see things as they really are, it is simply more dishonest. For we are now in that phase of development in which human nature is clearly divided into these two parts.
And if you ask: What help is there? There is only one help for people today: to get away from themselves through an interest in the affairs of humanity, through a genuine interest in what concerns all people today, and by paying as little attention as possible to these irregularities of metabolism in the broader sense, which are so prevalent today. If people can get away from talking about themselves through a broad interest, which can only be achieved by taking spiritual science seriously, then healing can pour out upon the present human race.
One really has characteristic experiences with such things today. I was recently at the League of Nations Congress in Bern, where all the things were discussed that are unnecessary to discuss today because they lead nowhere, and where nothing was said about what is most necessary today. But I do not even want to mention that as the main thing. What I would like to mention as the main point is a certain formality that was evident in almost all the speakers. In at least every third sentence, these speakers use the word “I”: I am of the opinion, I believe, it seems to me that this or that is necessary, I love this or that—you can hear this in almost every sentence. And people become downright wild if you don't join in this tone! If you speak more objectively, if you phrase your sentences in such a way that you focus on the inner, objective content and don't give your opinion, don't give what you love, then they say you are speaking authoritatively, presumptuously. Of course, the height of presumption is when someone uses the word “I” in every third sentence. But people have forgotten how to sense this presumption. They think it's smarter when someone always talks about themselves, and they find it extremely immodest and presumptuous when someone tries to speak objectively. They then have the vague feeling that he claims to know something other than his “personal opinion.” And today, it is a great sin for someone to claim to know something other than their personal opinion! Well, these personal opinions—! Those well versed in the humanities often want to characterize such a gathering more precisely, precisely from their humanities perspective. They hear a speaker of the kind who utters the word “I” in every third sentence: “I think,” “I am of the opinion,” “I find this appealing,” “I ask you to respond to this,” and then they talk about a “superstate” or a “superparliament” and walk off. Those with insight into the humanities say to themselves: “The man has liver problems; there is something wrong with his liver, and it is his metabolism talking.” A second speaker appears, speaks formally in a similar manner, and leaves. The man probably has gallstones. The third tends to have stomach upsets!
These things only become significant in an age in which materialism pulsates, where the free soul, independent of matter, does not speak, where it is actually the body that speaks. And today, the body speaks in many ways. People are simply accustomed to using the old words for their physical indispositions. Those who see things through spiritual science would prefer that, instead of talking about the superhuman—I don't mean Nietzsche, of course, but the others who also spoke of the superhuman after Nietzsche—they would talk about the lower stomach. For then they would better reflect the reality that actually speaks through them.
This is not pessimism, my dear friends, it is simply the world of contemporary facts. And in today's world, people are pressured to become untrue, for the simple reason that they would be ashamed to enumerate the facts. There is even a longing to surrender to this human being, who is actually only the physical human being. In our time, it is already a truth that perhaps the only reason we do not have a Molière who wrote “The Imaginary Invalid” is because we needed too many Molières, for today there is a real enthusiasm for being ill among those people who have time to be ill, above all. Those who do not have time to be ill usually do not pay any attention to the conditions that are sufficient cause for others who do have time to be ill to feel ill. The devastating effects of materialism are not only to be found where materialism is discussed or where materialistic language is used; these devastating effects of materialism are evident in many ways. And sometimes, talk about the spirit today is nothing more than pure materialism, because for many people, this talk about the spirit is nothing more than an anesthetic for their otherwise sedate materiality. People today lack the will to be active, to engage in real inner activity. And all external activity today must come from inner activity. That is the reason why the bourgeoisie has remained so null and void in the face of the social question that has been emerging for seventy years. It is an enormous materialism that has taken hold of people in the most diverse forms, and especially those circles that had the task in recent times of turning to the spiritual. This is what we need to know about the fundamental impulses of our time, about what is alive in our time. Anything else would be surrendering to illusions. Spiritual science is therefore of such great importance for contemporary human beings because it takes them away from themselves. But it must also be understood in this way. There must be no other illusion in relation to spiritual science. A characteristic that is so widespread in the present day, precisely because of materialism, can easily assert itself in the field of spiritual science, and that is superficiality. If people grasp superficially what spiritual science seeks to awaken in them, they can become even more hardened within themselves, they can become even more constrained within themselves. The only thing that helps is to return again and again to what does not concern us as individuals, to what is found in the content of our spiritual science, and to take the things found in the content of our spiritual science as objectively as possible; and when speaking about the most subjective things, not to take them subjectively. Just think how clear it actually is to resist the obvious temptations in this regard.
When I spoke here recently about how human beings today are only capable of external development until the age of twenty-eight, when their development is complete, but precisely before the intellectual soul and the I, and cannot reach them, thus encountering a certain inner emptiness, this is an important truth for the present time. It is important to know this, it is important to take this in as an inner experience. But it is harmful to think afterwards: Am I perhaps one of those who, from the age of twenty-eight, have not developed properly towards their intellectual soul? Precisely the most subjective things, which relate to the most important things, should be understood objectively; we should not look to see whether we are the ones to whom such things can happen, we should be able to look away from ourselves, especially when it comes to the most important human truths, and look at the age, look at humanity, not always think of ourselves in an egoistic way.
This is what characterizes our time, what emerges from the deepest impulses of our age, and what makes it so difficult today to spread ideas that relate to the most important impulses of the development of time. People are, in a sense, unable to develop any interest in this fundamental mood that I have just characterized. The ideas remain sensations for them; they do not grasp them sufficiently, they do not spur them on to activity.
This is what needs to be said especially now, when all those who are truly interested in our spiritual science are going through a kind of transition. Until now, you have had literature that refers to the inner development of the human being and to knowledge about the spiritual world, and which spoke to people in such a way that they could grasp the world, their relationship to the world, their relationship to other people, insofar as it is soul-spiritual, from the most diverse points of view. Now this spiritual science is creating a certain current — naturally with a branching off, it continues as a great spiritual science, for it is precisely the great spiritual science that is most necessary for the healing of all other conditions — which speaks about the social question, about the healing of the social organism. Here, spiritual science is entering a current that must not be regarded as inactive or merely passive, otherwise it will miss its goal, its purpose. And now it will become apparent how many of us, through the many years of absorbing spiritual science, have matured above all for a clear understanding of what what is now to be understood as the social question, for what will be important is a clear, unprejudiced, unsentimental understanding of what is to be said, namely in my forthcoming book on the core points of the social question. That will be the test we will now have to pass.
Until now, you could be a good humanities scholar if you studied the humanities without caring about what was going on out there in life. And we have two phenomena within our anthroposophical movement that we really should think about: On the one hand, we have very good anthroposophists who, despite their immense knowledge of cosmic evolution, the structure of the human being, reincarnation, fate, and karma, have no idea about the practical aspects of life or the reality of life. They have sought something in anthroposophy precisely in order to distance themselves from this reality of life. Yes, those whom I am referring to in particular do not even suspect that this applies to them. For everyone naively considers themselves to be a practitioner of life. That is one phenomenon we have among us.
The other phenomenon is sectarianism in some form. There is a deep tendency, especially in movements that relate to the spiritual, to engage in sectarianism. Whether this sectarianism develops out of small cliques that also exhibit sectarian characteristics, albeit in very inferior ways, or whether sectarianism is practiced directly, is irrelevant. For what matters is to truly understand that objectivity and impersonality must be lost through this anthroposophically oriented spiritual scientific movement. This has always been the difficult thing about our movement, that the personal, mostly without anyone realizing it, has been confused with the objective and factual. People are of the good faith that when they join a clique, large or small, they have a completely objective interest. Certainly, they are in good faith, because they do not realize that they are actually doing what they want, because it is close to their spiritual science, because they have this or that relationship with it, and so on. People do not suspect this. They live in the good faith of being objective. But this sectarianism, this clique mentality, is precisely what has led to the terrible fact that the publications and public statements of spiritual science, whatever field they may concern, are not judged by what they are in themselves, but by what a society, the Anthroposophical Society, makes of them and has made of them. When one points to the worst damage and the most terrible weeds of the Seiling type, one must never, when going to the root of the matter, forget that such weeds have been pampered, bred, and cultivated by the clique and sectarianism that has developed so widely in the past seventeen eighteen years of the anthroposophical movement. And what goes on in this anthroposophical movement is projected in many ways onto anthroposophy, because many members sin against what is the most significant impulse of our time: individualism in the spiritual realm. How often do we hear: We anthroposophists, we theosophists want this and that! It is terrible that we have only three principles! — We do not need any principles at all, because they are not important; we need truths, not summarizing principles, and these truths are only for the individual human being, for the individuality. Society, as I have said so often, should be something outwardly; but the matter itself is none of society's business. One must be able to take these things seriously at least once. Today it is particularly necessary; for if what is now coming into the world through the efforts relating to the social question is to be supported by sectarian or clique spirit or the various narrow-mindednesses I have characterized today, then this very thing would be terribly harmed. Here we really must develop a broader way of thinking. Here we really must seek entry into real practical life. That is what matters.
When I say something about these things, please take it only in the friendliest sense. Do not take it as if I want to say something detrimental to one side or the other. But I feel compelled to warn, to warn thoroughly, precisely about the social side of our cause. I mean, before this social side of our cause becomes the concern of all members, which it should become, which it really should become, I feel compelled to warn urgently: the sectarian, the petty, that which has no broad horizons, that which does not spring from clear thinking, must not be allowed to interfere with this social thinking, must not be allowed to interfere, but rather we must try more and more to think from the experience of life and from the reality of life. I was highly astonished when I recently heard the motto, which must have originated from one side or the other here, that the things I am now presenting as social ideas should be put into practice. And what was meant was the transfer of these practical ideas into the most impractical thing imaginable. We really must not do what has led to the terrible confusion and damage of our time: confuse true practical living with illusory practical living. What has been said here is so impractical, so sectarian in its thinking, so lacking in any desire to really enter practical life, that I do not even want to go into it further. I ask you, above all, to look at what is happening in real life today, to get to know where the various statements I am making actually come from. Do you think it is a light-hearted theory to talk about labor power with the character of a commodity? This is something that can only be said if one has recognized it again and again as the most characteristic feature of real life. And so it is with other things. What matters today is a clear, sharp understanding of the reality of life. So, really sine ira, with the request that you not take these things personally, I would like to say the following, for example. I have been asked whether the threefold social order could be realized within our society: economic life, legal life, spiritual life.
One can certainly say such things if one is very well versed in our movement, if one is completely honest and deeply committed to our movement. But it is as if one has not grasped the fundamental spirit of our movement when one says this. One has understood nothing of what I have said about the social question if one thinks that our society here can be divided into three parts like a sect! What are the three branches of a healthy social organism? First of all, economic life. Yes, my dear friends, do you want to do the worst thing possible, engage in economic sectarianism, by running a communal economy within this society alongside the other economy outside? Don't you understand that today you cannot shut yourselves off in a selfish, even if group-egoistic, manner and ignore everything else? You do business with the other economy of the local territory. You get your milk, cheese, vegetables, everything you need, from an economic entity from which you cannot isolate yourselves! You cannot truly reform the times by removing yourself from them. It seems to me that if someone wants to turn a society like this into an economic entity, it is just like someone who has a large family and says: I am now going to introduce the threefold social order into my family.
These ideas are too serious, too comprehensive; they must not be dragged into the petty bourgeoisie of the various sectarian groups that have always existed. They must be thought of in relation to the whole of humanity. That is with regard to economic life. You would completely cut yourself off from real practical thinking about the world's economic cycle if you wanted to set up a group-egoistic economy for a sect.
And legal life: try establishing the rule of law within our society! If you steal something, it will be completely meaningless if three people get together and pass judgment on this theft. The external court will already take you to task and pass judgment. With regard to the rule of law, you will truly not be able to withdraw from the external organization.
And now, my dear friends, with regard to spiritual life: since the Anthroposophical Society came into existence, or rather since it became part of the Theosophical Society with its anthroposophical content, where has there been anything done within this spiritual community that is in the slightest degree dependent on any state or political organization? From the very first day of this society, our ideal has been fulfilled with regard to spiritual life, which is our primary task! Do you not understand that this ideal has been fulfilled from the very beginning with regard to what we are? Do you believe that this should only be done today with this Anthroposophical Society? Has this Anthroposophical Society ever received a state subsidy in any country? Are its teachers employed by a state? Is not everything that can be achieved by external spiritual organizations fulfilled in this Anthroposophical Society? Is it not, in this respect, the most practical ideal? Do you now want to come and reform this Anthroposophical Society in this direction? You must not have understood what kind of society you have been in for so many years if you now want to realize the spiritual third here in this society.
Consider what we could have been, what could still be saved in a corner, the freedom of spiritual research and teaching, at least among people who do not demand state positions for what they teach here. Consider this at least as a kind of starting point for something else. See what is really there and do not think beyond it. In my book The Crucial Point of the Social Question, one of the fundamental evils of the present age is repeatedly cited as being that today's so-called practical people think and speak past what is really important. Is this evil rampant among us, that we speak past what is really important? It cannot be our task to bring free spiritual life here, but rather it can be our task to carry what has always existed here as free spiritual life out into the other world, to make it clear to people that all spiritual life must be of this kind, must be of this constitution.
What matters is, at least initially, to see the immediate reality. In this direction, anthroposophists must first understand what I am saying about the social question. At least within the Anthroposophical Society, one should avoid spreading eccentric ideas under the motto of wanting to put into practice what is represented here. Take seriously what has been a fundamental theme running through the lectures of the last few weeks, perhaps even the last few months. Above all, take very seriously that the present situation requires a new attitude on the part of human beings toward life, that it is not enough simply to take up new ideas, but that we must find a way to relate to life in a new way, avoiding everything that pushes us toward isolation and closure. Above all, take seriously the fact that humanity, with its so-called culture, has reached a real impasse in all three areas. How could this impasse be more clearly demonstrated than in the chaotic, devastating effects in Eastern and Central Europe? This is the result of what people have been accustomed to feeling, thinking, and believing for decades and centuries. The conditions in Russia are not caused by the war alone, which was only the culmination, but by what people have thought, felt, and wanted for a long, long time, which one is compelled to describe as a kind of social cancer. What is most lacking in the present? What is most lacking in the present is judgment about reality! What is most lacking in the present is proper social education! That is what the bourgeoisie has neglected most: proper social education. There is no social sense in people. Everyone knows only themselves. That is why judgment becomes so short-sighted. When someone today talks about introducing economic life into the Anthroposophical Society, I could at most imagine something real under this sentence if someone bought a cow, cared for it, milked it, and thereby produced something and managed this production in the right way; then that would not be sectarianism within our society, because economic life is primarily about those measures that increase productivity and take necessary needs into account. A start has been made, which has only been partially unsuccessful due to the personality of the person who made it. Remember, we made a start with our bread through Mr. von R. by producing bread not according to the principle of production, but according to the principle of consumption, which is the only real healthy principle. We first wanted to create consumers, which would have been possible through a society. Then production would have had to be organized accordingly. That was a real practical beginning. It only failed because Mr. von R. was, or is, a completely impractical man. But the idea could have been realized if Mr. von R. had been a practical man. That would be such a practical idea, but it has only to do with the Anthroposophical Society in that the Anthroposophical Society initially formed a sum of consumers. It is a matter of directing attention to the thing itself, not to the Anthroposophical Society, and certainly not of turning it into a closed sect.
With regard to these external things that underlie production, and with regard to many other things, you will not get very far if you do not take the ideas in my book on the social question in a broad sense. After all, reforming economic life requires economic practice; even milking cows must be understood, and it is more important to be able to milk cows than to set up some kind of economy in a small sect and, of course, obtain the milk from outside. What is important for us, however, is to understand what the impulse of the present must be, what is most important in the present. You can make whatever arrangements you want today: go to Russia if you can, do whatever you want there, set up the best, most ideal things, or go to Germany, Austria, Hungary, and so on, but in ten years all these things will be ruined, if they even last ten years! That is how things are today. You can create the most ideal institutions with the ideas that people have today, but they will be ruined in ten years, you can be quite sure of that. It will not always happen as quickly as it is now in Munich, where one council government is to be replaced by another, and then by an even more radical one, and so on; but everything you encounter today in such institutions, which seem very healthy and good to you, will be thrown out again if the same ideas remain in people's heads, ideas that have been there for centuries and still haunt them today. Nothing more can be done with these ideas. Therefore, one must be willing to rethink and relearn, one must truly accept the new ideas as part of one's inner soul. You cannot do that overnight. You cannot immediately encounter institutions with the new ideas, but you can differentiate these ideas, which are in my book because they are practical, down to the most extreme specialties. For all I care, you can set up a dairy farm in the sense intended in this book, but if you don't set up a single dairy farm where you milk your own cows, which won't have much social impact, the one and only dairy farm, if all the others are still operating in the old style, if you don't set up a single one, but if you set up several, you will still need people to work there. But their minds are still stuck in the old ways. These establishments will soon either go bankrupt or take on the old forms, and everything will remain as it was. From this you can see what is most important today. Today, the most important thing is not to set up this or that. Of course, you can make good arrangements; I do not want to tempt you to set up bad things, but I am only pointing out to you that Even if you set up the best thing, you will not change the times. You can do that in individual areas, as I mentioned in relation to bread, or as we did with our literature.
How did we start? I first spoke to a very small circle in Berlin. Then the circles grew larger and larger. As the circles grew larger and larger, the need arose to have what was said in books. Readers were there for the books before the books were printed. Follow the theories of social ideas among knowledgeable people today: one of the fundamental evils in our social order is the perpetual crises caused by sporadic overproduction when production is carried out in this way. This is worst of all in the book trade. Consider all the books produced in the book trade with print runs of five hundred, sometimes even more, of which not even fifty copies are sold, and what difference there is between a book of which the entire print run is sold and a book of which perhaps not even fifty copies are sold: you have employed typesetters, printers, used paper, all for nothing! It's all gone to waste, it's all abuse of human labor. The moment you start producing, you have to be aware that you are abusing human labor if there is no consumption to justify the use of human labor, because the use of human labor is only justified by need, by existing need. It is not the content that must be there, but the need; the expenditure of human labor is only justified if it can be foreseen that what people work for will benefit people. So in the only area where we could act in a reforming manner, we did so. We even had to resort not to overproduction, but to underproduction. The world could not help thinking that the magazine “Lucifer-Gnosis” had gone under like other magazines: due to a lack of readers. Just when it had to go under because other demands were made of me, the moment had come when it would have gained first one and a half times, then twice, then three times as many readers as it had before. We even had to decide to underproduce, not overproduce.
This is a healthy way to avoid crises. The book trade is in a state of perpetual crisis. If you compile statistics on books that are not bought, you will see that books are being produced that cannot be bought because no effort is made to ensure that they are bought. Sometimes people have a certain insight into things. I once spoke with Eduard von Hartmann in the 1980s about epistemological literature. It was at the time when I wrote my little book “Truth and Science,” which is now out of print, of which no copy was printed in vain, no copy was pulped, and through which no human labor was wasted. Eduard von Hartmann said: People have all their epistemological works printed in five hundred copies; we have proven that there are at most sixty readers in Germany; one should at most have them hectographed and send them to the few readers who are really interested. It is a proven fact that epistemological works did not have more readers at that time.
Do not reproach me for discussing this purely economic question of anthroposophical literature here. These things have nothing to do with the content, nothing to do with the spiritual value. But they can at least illustrate what is actually meant and what is necessary in the present: that a healthy consumer association must first be created and that production should not be carried out blindly and haphazardly. Truth should not even be produced out of mere human preference!
This is what I once said to two Catholic priests in Colmar after a lecture on “The Bible and Wisdom,” which I mentioned again recently. After the lecture, the two priests came up to me and said that they had no particular objection to the content, but rather to the way I spoke, because when they spoke from the pulpit, it was for all people. The way I spoke was not for all people, but only for those who were appropriately educated. I could only answer them: What you mean and what I mean about the way one should speak to all people is not important; we may have all kinds of interesting ideas about that, but what matters is not that, but what the facts demand. And so I ask you: Do all people still go to your church today? You cannot claim that. So I speak for those who remain outside, and who nevertheless also have a right to hear about Christ, and today there are just enough of them.
These are facts. But this is still contradicted by the old bourgeois education, which is completely closed in on itself. It imagines that something is right, that it must be so, that it must be done that way. But that is not how things have to be done in life! In life, everything depends on observing: this is there and that is there, and letting what needs to be done be determined by what is there. These are only seemingly trivialities, for life today continually sins against these trivialities.
What is necessary above all else, then, is a different attitude. It is also necessary to realize that this culture, which has been so highly praised, has carried death within itself and has disintegrated. You must not believe that today's radical socialist movements have corrupted culture. Culture has corrupted itself! The culture that the upper class had has led itself into nothingness; it is destroying itself. This upper class simply failed to ensure that the lower proletarian classes that followed knew anything sensible about social institutions, and now it is surprised when they approach it in their social ignorance and actually bring about nothing but chaos. The situation is serious, and it is from this understanding of the seriousness of the whole world today that the ideas I have had to express in my book on the social question flow. This book can only be properly understood if one realizes that the best institutions can be established today, but that nothing can be done with the people who have the ideas of our time in their heads. Above all, their heads must be filled with different ideas. So what is the real, practical task at hand? Spread enlightenment, my dear friends, above all spread enlightenment and teach people to think differently! That is the appeal to each and every one of you: to bring enlightenment to people's minds, not to think about eccentric reforms in individual cases, but to enlighten people in a universal way about what is necessary. For above all, people today must change, that is, the thoughts and feelings in people's souls must change. It is a matter of carrying these ideas wherever you can. That is the practical thing, that is, putting these ideas into practice. With every quarter of a person—forgive me for saying so—whom you win over to these ideas, something is achieved. And the most is achieved when you win over people who are involved in practical work. When signing the “Appeal” recently, I said: It is really very gratifying that writers have signed this “Appeal,” but a bank director who truly understands the “Appeal” and acts in its spirit is worth more than ten writers who put their names to it. What matters today is to tackle life where it needs to be tackled. And today, there is no other way to do this than by spreading enlightenment and educating people. Because what people need most is knowledge about the living conditions of a healthy organism. If people do not learn to recognize the conditions necessary for a healthy social organism, they will continue to destroy the old social organism as long as destruction is possible. Of course, this can only go so far. Everything that is being done now without these ideas is the exploitation of the old order, the dismantling of the old order. This has begun in Russia and will continue from there. What matters is to build. But today you can only build if people understand how building must be done. For we live in the age of the development of the consciousness soul, that is, in the age of conscious individualities, in the age when people must know what they are doing.
My book is written in this spirit, and it is in this spirit that I would like it to be understood. It is in this spirit that I would like to recommend it to you. It simply wants to serve the times; it wants to express what must be expressed from the spirit of the times. Cliques and sectarian tendencies within our own social body have done enough to ensure that, when people talk about anthroposophy, they basically suspect all kinds of mere ghost stories and the like. But the spirit is not to be sought here in merely talking about the spirit — that can be left to Messrs. Saitschick and Foerster — but what matters is that the spirit is able to really immerse itself in practical life, to understand how practical life must be handled. Those who want to grasp the spirit only in a shadowy form hovering above life have little faith in it. Therefore, you yourselves must increasingly turn away from renouncing life, must increasingly seek to truly understand life, to look at life; otherwise, the same phenomena I have spoken of will occur again and again. The examples could be multiplied a hundredfold, a thousandfold. A lady comes to me and says: A man has come to me asking to borrow money, but he is a brewer who brews beer for this money. I can't support that, the beer brewing! Well, that's all very well, in this narrow circle the lady didn't want to support the beer brewery because she was teetotal, and not only wanted to be teetotal herself, but also wanted to promote teetotalism. I had to answer her: “But you have money in the bank that you live on. Do you have any idea how many breweries the bank supports with your money, do you have any idea what goes into that? Do you think that's in line with the idea you have about the amount you're supposed to lend to a brewer?” But aren't you just as much a part of it when the money you deposit in the bank is transferred into economic life? Do you really believe that it is turning toward life when one does nothing more than judge this life in the narrowest circle, when one does not even allow oneself to contemplate the vastness of life?
But this is what matters: our Anthroposophical Society is not a testing ground, but should be a nucleus for all that is good for humanity. With regard to the social question, it is above all important that a broad stream of enlightenment about social necessities flows from it. Then you are already acting practically and knowledgeably when you spread these things, but you must really strive to spread them knowledgeably, not remain in a narrow sense. I hope that none of you will get the crazy idea that old national economic teachings are being handed down here so that people can learn national economics. For heaven's sake, don't bring any expert economic theory into this today, because those are all ideas from the dustiest attic! Don't believe that you will learn to think in economic or national economic terms by absorbing the current terminology in a school-like manner, as it is taught today at universities! Don't make any plans that appear to put what I am saying into practice, but which mean nothing more than the terribly grinning old bourgeois masks! Let us stand on the ground of the great demands of our time, let us consider social life above all in these demands of our time!
I felt the need to say this to you now, as we are about to travel to Germany and I will be faced with various tasks; and although we hope that our absence will be much shorter than usual, we do live in a time when one should never make plans or projects for the longer term. One can only say: People who have come together as the members of the Anthroposophical Society have done remain together wherever they are, they stand firm with courage and inner boldness and do not allow themselves to be deterred by whatever terrible waves the present may bring; they will not usually bring light things; we will experience many things that will raise the question in us: How should things continue, especially here? Do not let yourselves be deterred by this, but do what you can to advance something in the world, and you will be doing the right thing.
This time I could only stay until this book was finished, for this book is meant to serve the times. Our friends here will take over and ensure its distribution in Switzerland, and I hope to be able to return here very soon, for a variety of reasons. Partly for a reason that is very misunderstood, especially here in Switzerland. One hears comments from various quarters: What does this foreigner want here in Switzerland? He should leave us alone! Our democracy has existed for six hundred years, it is healthy, it is immune to what is going on out there among the wicked Eastern and Central European peoples. I am now convinced that the best can be done today where it can still be done of one's own free will. If social ideas such as those described in my book were to flourish in Russia today, it would be because extreme necessity forced them to do so; and if extreme necessity were to force them to do so—in Central Europe, in Germany—the right impulse would no longer be there. The right impulse for these ideas, which seek to bring social salvation to humanity, would be found where they arise out of freedom, on soil where one can say: the Bolsheviks did not come to us, we still have something of the old conditions. Oh, if only here, on this very soil, before the people here too start salivating, an understanding could develop for developing these ideas of their own free will, then Switzerland could become the flower of Europe; for its geographical location equips it for this! It is equipped with a huge mission, despite its small size. But it will only be able to fulfill this mission if it accomplishes of its own free will what neither the Eastern nor the Central European states can accomplish of their own free will today—they should have taken action earlier—and what the Western states will not do because they do not have the necessary predisposition. Here, the predisposition exists, here the geographical conditions exist, here everything is available! All that is necessary here is the good will to make a free human decision. This requires active thinking. It requires the will to think. The will to think is what today's humanity lacks most. The will to think also develops very well geographically among those people — I pointed this out yesterday: souls no longer attach much importance to races, they go according to geographical location — to whom souls come because they want to go into the mountains. The will to think does not develop in regions where people write poems such as “The Three Gypsies.” That is a very beautiful poem, but it was written in the plains. Today, people do not need a plains mentality; today, people need a mountain mentality. That is why much could come out of the Swiss mountains, why one would like to have certain foundations here, a starting point for something. And that is why I think it is important not to remain silent here, but to talk about the great needs of the time for as long as we can. And I call on our friends here in Switzerland in particular to understand the demand for enlightenment, to ensure that the demands of the time are brought to the attention of the local population. The more Swiss minds and hearts can be won over to these social ideas, the better it will be for Europe and the world. I say this especially to the Swiss. You, my dear Swiss friends among us, can make the foreign Swiss, and then it is Swiss! All these distinctions are only of ephemeral value.
I felt the need to say this to you today, and I hope that you have understood me correctly, especially with regard to these matters. I hope that the spirit that is to fill and envelop this building will be preserved through the attitudes of our members and that we will find ourselves here again after some time, held together by this spirit, which has been the same from the beginning as it is now and cannot be otherwise; for from the beginning it has sought to realize what is required of us in our time.
With that, I would like to take my leave for now and say goodbye for the time to come, which we can certainly hope for, but of course it is impossible to make any predictions about things such as train travel and so on. As you know, there are already quite long distances where passenger transport has even been suspended. So these things may happen, but let us hope that they can be overcome. This place should have such spiritual importance that, if it should ever become necessary and still possible for me to ride here on a completely emaciated, half-dead horse in order to work, I would not shy away from riding here on a completely emaciated, half-dead horse in order to work here. As I said, however, tasks may arise elsewhere that delay the time. Circumstances may arise that delay the time. Despite all this, however, I look forward to seeing you again in spirit, especially in the spirit that I have described a little today during this last gathering and presented to your hearts.