The Rudolf Steiner Archive

First Lecture

[ 1 ] In addition to what was said to you here exactly one year ago, something else has undoubtedly come to light for all of you—something conveyed by a very compelling teacher: namely, the facts—as the ultimate great teacher—that speak so forcefully and clearly, which have unfolded since we last gathered here. Indeed, these facts have spoken all the more clearly to all of you, inasmuch as for many they conveyed something different from what had long stood as a belief reaching into the future. It is truly a long journey—in substance, even if seemingly short in time—from the first days of August 1914, when, amid various hopes and even more illusions, Germany set out—initially with an army that was not even on a war footing, that had not yet received mobilization orders, and carried out the so-called “Liège coup”—as people, under the influence of various illusions, had grown accustomed to parroting whatever certain quarters commanded them to think— it is a long way from there to those days last fall when the danger loomed that, within a few days, the army stationed beyond the German borders would be cut off from all food supplies from the homeland, which then led to the events with which you are, at least in broad terms, familiar. It is a long way in terms of substance, even if, in terms of time, it spans only a few years. And on top of all this, for those with a deeper insight, there must have been the disappointment that, in addition to the external military surrender, Germany’s intellectual surrender was also brought about by the man to whom many people—especially in the autumn days of 1918—had looked as their last hope. In that fall of 1918, events had occurred that were very, very well suited to correcting everything that, in recent years, could indeed be hinted at between the lines in many respects, but which was completely impossible to state openly within the borders of the former German Empire, as you all know.

[ 2 ] Well, my dear friends, we are now, so to speak, facing—and this must be said especially today and specifically to you, in the sense that has often been hinted at here—a test of what has developed within our ranks, and what I would like to call, using an expression that may sound strange, “our anthroposophical conviction.” What I have emphasized again and again, especially over the course of the last few years, is that our anthroposophical conviction must not be limited to taking something in merely to experience, so to speak, an inner, mystical sense of well-being—that is what the loud and clear facts of the present teach us so forcefully. Indeed, quite a few in our ranks have limited themselves to taking in from anthroposophy whatever can answer certain inner questions of the soul—which is, of course, legitimate in itself— but it is truly not without reason that it has been emphasized again and again in recent years that our anthroposophical conviction must lead us to a better understanding of practical, immediate, real life—which, for the discerning, is permeated by the spirit—than can be achieved without the foundations of this anthroposophical conviction. It is not without reason that those who have been able to imbue themselves with anthroposophical conviction have been called upon to think through the great problems of humanity. Now we face a test, so to speak—a test of whether what we have been able to take in, what we have often accepted merely as the gratification of a higher form of soul egoism, will truly be able to penetrate our intellect, our mind, and our heart, so that we may be ready to meet the challenges now being presented to humanity to an ever-increasing degree. For much of what is now coming to the fore has only just begun. With regard to many things, we are only at the beginning. And it is necessary that we learn from the facts. Just consider for a moment how the whole of life has come to a head within the context of these facts. Consider how those who often regarded themselves as the most practical of people—who viewed spiritual science as a terrible fantasy—how precisely these practical people have proved ill-equipped to face what has descended upon humanity with elemental, with immense power. Today we must recall how those figures to whom the earthly destiny of humanity was entrusted spoke immediately before the onset of the great catastrophe of the World War. I believe I drew attention here years ago to the manner in which they spoke at that time. Today I simply want to remind you of how, in decisive sessions of the German Reichstag in the spring of 1914, the minister responsible for foreign policy at the time was able to say: “The general political détente has made gratifying progress in recent times.” — As he was able to say in the same speech: “Our friendly relations with Russia are on the right track; the St. Petersburg cabinet pays no heed to the press hype, and we will be able to continue our friendly neighborly relations in the near future.” — In the same speech, he was able to say: “Promising negotiations have been initiated with England, which will likely be concluded in the near future in the interest of world peace; indeed, the two governments—he meant the English and the German—are in such a position that relations will become ever closer and closer.”

[ 3 ] This was said by those who were destined to guide the fate of humanity. It was said at the very time when I was compelled to summarize—in my lecture in Vienna in the spring of 1914—what I had emphasized time and again, with the words: “The trends in life prevailing at present will grow ever stronger until they ultimately destroy themselves. Anyone who spiritually penetrates social life sees everywhere how terribly the seeds of social ulcers are sprouting. This is the great cultural concern that arises for those who see through existence. This is the terrible reality that has such a depressing effect and that—even if one were to suppress all enthusiasm for understanding the processes of life through the means of a science that recognizes the spirit—would compel one to speak of the remedies that can be employed against it, so much so that one would want to cry out these words to the world, as it were. If the social organism continues to develop as it has done so far, then damage to culture will arise that is to this organism what cancerous growths are to the human natural organism.”

[ 4 ] That is how people spoke back then when they were regarded as dreamers by the so-called practical people. The general easing of tensions, of which Mr. von Jagow spoke back then before the enlightened assembly of the German Reichstag—before those who were supposed to pass judgment but who listened calmly to everything and believed it—has progressed to the point where, in the years that followed, at least ten to twelve million people were beaten to death and three times as many were maimed. I say this because it must be stated today that what matters is to properly assess the situation of humanity at the right time; that what matters is to gain insight into the situation of humanity through a way of thinking entirely different from that to which the ruling circles have become accustomed; that what matters is understand today, ever more clearly and deeply, what has flowed from the old worldview. Such old thinking is of no use whatsoever, not even for practical life, because practical life increasingly gave rise to the most impossible ideas, which were bound to lead to catastrophes. What matters is not to dwell on institutions, but to realize that humanity must re-educate itself with regard to its deepest thoughts.

[ 5 ] That was one reason why there has been such insistent talk of the need to renew our entire worldview, for all of humanity to turn to the sources of reality, which lie solely in spiritual life. For in the end, it all comes down to realizing that we do not merely need institutions that have been changed in one way or another in this or that area; rather, ultimately, it all comes down to realizing that, above all else, we need something entirely different for the future—for the very near future: We need minds in which something entirely different pulsates than in those minds that have developed under the influence of the discredited worldview. Above all, we need a reorganization, a rebuilding of thought within human minds. This is what we have sought to work toward over the past two decades, because this work had become necessary. We need minds that are organized differently from those that have plunged humanity into misfortune. As long as this is not fully recognized, as long as it is not recognized that the light—which can come only from spiritual science—must illuminate these darkened minds, as long as that is the case—whether one thinks conservatively, radically, or in any other way—as long as that is the case, no improvement can come. No salvation will come to humanity through petty means stemming from old ways of thinking. Above all, new ideas are necessary—new ideas that can arise only on the basis of what has been discussed here in these rooms for years as the greatest challenges for the present and the near future.

[ 6 ] You are first of all familiar with what arose out of the necessities of the time, namely the so-called “Appeal to the German People and to the Cultural World,” in which was publicly articulated for the first time what I have endeavored to express in more restricted circles over the past few years—years in which these words found no echo, years in which only the thunder of cannons was to be heard, not the voices of the spirit. You know that this appeal first and foremost calls for, in a positive sense, what lies within the very impulses of human development for our time. For anyone who has insight into the driving forces of humanity considers the greatest calamity to be the abstract, so-called eternal ideals—those that do not arise from real spiritual life but merely from the reflections of human concepts and ideas, which are not reality but possess only a reflected reality within themselves. One must be particularly attentive to this, especially in the present. Even today, there will be many people who believe they are saying something significant when they speak of how humanity can be made happy for all eternity, or of what conditions must be brought about as ideal states for humanity. Such ideas of eternity and such ideal states of humanity are not conceived by those who draw their insights from real spiritual life. As I have always explained here, development has proceeded in such a way that one specific epoch has always followed another, and above all, each major epoch of the post-Atlantean era has had its own concrete ideal—just as our own time and the near future do. What matters is not how a millennial kingdom is to be brought about in a chiliastic manner, but rather what the spiritual world intends to bring about within a brief span of time—a span that can only be grasped if one truly engages with spiritual science. And our time urgently calls for precisely what has been asserted as the central theme of this appeal: The threefold structure of the social organism. The social organism can only become healthy by adopting this threefold structure, which you have read about in the appeal and which you will find described in my pamphlet *The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life for the Present and the Future*. The current cycle of human history requires this threefold structure.

[ 7 ] You see, it would have been quite a different matter if, in the middle or even in the fall of 1917, this threefold division had been asserted by a significant power—either Germany or Austria—as a manifestation of Central Europe’s impulses in response to Woodrow Wilson’s so-called Fourteen Points, which were drafted from an American perspective. At that time, that would have been a historical necessity. I said to Kühlmann at the time: You have the choice—either to accept reason now and listen to what is emerging in the development of humanity as something that is meant to happen—for what is at stake in these conflicts is not just any program, as so many have today, but is something that has been discerned from the development of humanity and that will most certainly be realized in the next fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years—but which, above all, must be realized within Central Europe—today you have the choice: either to accept reason, to realize through reason what is seeking to be realized, or to head toward revolutions and cataclysms. —Instead of accepting reason, we got the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the so-called Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Just imagine what it would have been like—and this can be said without exaggeration—if, in the face of the so-called Fourteen Points at that time, the voice of the spirit had resounded amid the thunder of the cannons. All of Eastern Europe would have understood—as anyone familiar with the forces in Eastern Europe knows—the need to replace tsarism with the threefold social order. Then what actually should have come to pass would have come to pass. Those who were sympathetic to the cause at the time advised, at most, that it should be printed as a pamphlet. Now imagine what nonsense that would have been back then. Among the many things that went unread at the time, this, too, would naturally have remained mere literature. Times change. Today, when everything must originate from the broad masses; today, with the days of October and November 1918 lying between then and now; today, the right course is to address the general public with these matters. These are humanity’s greatest pests—those who always believe that if a matter is correct, insofar as it relates to practical life, it must be equally correct at all times. No, our thinking must not become as lazy as the people who hold this view believe. Things must be judged at different times from entirely different perspectives.

[ 8 ] One must, however, look a little deeper into the development of humanity if one wishes to appreciate the full, comprehensive, and far-reaching practice of what underlies this very threefold division. This threefold division—and I must emphasize this again and again—is not something that can simply occur to one. It is something that the spirit of the times and the present absolutely demands of human beings; it is what the spirit of the times seeks to bring about; it is what the spirit of the times—please, when you hear what follows, you will also understand this sentence that I can now preface—it is what the spirit of the times is actually bringing about. And it is precisely this—that humanity thinks differently and, above all, acts differently from the way the spirit of the times thinks and acts—that gives rise to chaos. In fact, what is described in this threefold division has been coming to fruition since the 1870s; it is only that people have behaved differently and have thereby fallen into terrible contradictions with what is actually being realized. As you know, this concerns above all the threefold division of the social organism into a spiritual part, a properly state or political part, and an economic part. I would like to emphasize first of all: The validity of this fundamental view can be demonstrated through simple common sense, just as everything that is gained through spiritual science can be understood through common sense—as I have always emphasized. However, I do not believe that one can arrive at this in the right way—please do not forget that I said “in the right way”—based on contemporary thinking. There are, of course, people who have arrived at similar conclusions, but the point is to arrive at this on a truly practical basis, on a basis that takes into account what is striving to become reality in our time and is, in fact, becoming reality.

[ 9 ] So let us consider today—I would say tentatively and by way of introduction—a few things that can give us an idea of how a thorough examination of time speaks to this threefold division. You see, as what we now call the capitalist economic order and the modern technological order have emerged over humanity in recent times—for about four centuries—a new way of thinking, a new worldview, has also emerged. If what is called “history” in school were not a fable convenue, it would be evident from history itself just how thoroughly the habits of thought throughout the entire civilized world have changed from the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries into the centuries that followed. A superficial observation, of course, assumes that all of this develops slowly, whereas in historical development, major upheavals take place. Such a radical shift underlies what has been developing over the past three to four centuries in all of humanity’s intellectual habits and ways of thinking.

[ 10 ] Above all, I would like to draw your attention to a phenomenon that has unfolded before our eyes—and by that I mean the eyes of the soul—but which, when it comes down to it, has hardly been appreciated in any depth. People have simply allowed this phenomenon to unfold. The phenomenon is this: what a minor role the so-called intellectual figures have actually played in the life of humanity—especially the German people—and how little general schooling, right up to the university level, has contributed to ensuring that what has developed in individual intellectual personalities over the past few centuries has been incorporated into the general cultural heritage. Take the case I have often mentioned here—the case of Goethe. Yes, Goethe was the bearer of a great, comprehensive worldview. Tremendous events took place for the development of humanity in the years from 1749, when Goethe was born, to 1832, when he died. An immense wealth of spiritual impulses lies within this Goethe. But when we consider the impact that Goethe’s worldview—Goetheanism—has had on the German people, we are presented with a terribly sad picture. Even those who believe they know something about Goethe know absolutely nothing of the innermost impulses of his spiritual being. And one could say the same—perhaps to an even greater degree—about many others. It must be said that, ever since technology and capitalism have spread, spiritual life—which had asserted itself in individual personalities precisely in relation to what is purely and universally human—has developed, one cannot put it any other way, like a parasite, like something parasitic, on the rest of the cultural body. It was there, but it was, in essence, there for nothing. As if to confirm that intellectual life, insofar as it concerns Goethe, for example, was for nothing—how it was rejected, how it was not embraced, but merely flirted with theatrically, for show—we see that ultimately the Goethe Society, which sees itself as the official representative of Goetheanism, asked—out of an impulse that had gradually become more and more commonplace: “Who would be the best person to elect as president of our Goethe Society?” — And the question was not: “Who understands Goetheanism best?” but rather: “Who could curtsy the best when the Goethe Society had to make an appearance at some court or other?” A former finance minister was then elected as the first president of the Goethe Society in Weimar, a man whose intellectual path had never led him to Goethe. What might have hinted at the hollowness of the whole affair was that the man’s first name was Kreuzwendedich. Kreuzwendedich von Rheinbaben had been elected president of the Goethe Society at that time as if by some irony of fate. These are seemingly insignificant facts, but the very fact that they can be regarded as insignificant—when in truth they are symptoms of the deepest feelings—is what is so terrifying. Anyone who does not recognize these facts as important symptoms revealing the innermost thoughts and feelings is, in essence, declaring their agreement with everything that has led humanity into this terrible calamity.

[ 11 ] Compare this parasitism of intellectual life—this disconnect between what was produced at the pinnacle of human achievement and the general life of the people—with earlier eras. It is simply inconceivable in earlier eras. Just think of the impact the Buddha had on the general life of the people—to take one example—in later India. Compare the Buddha’s popularity with that of Goethe. Perhaps you will say: Well, there are so many other intellectual heroes besides Goethe; the Buddha was just one of them. — Anyone who raises this objection shows that they understand nothing of the fundamental conditions for the development of humanity. For the great misfortune is that, due to natural circumstances, there has been a terrible overproduction of such intellectual figures, such intellectual personalities. As a result, those who are immersed in everyday life and have to work simply do not know how to find their way. Isn’t that right? It’s not just Goethe, but also Herder, Schelling, and Schlegel; and not only them—now one is also supposed to read Geibel and Wildenbruch. And then there are all sorts of other fields: what on earth is one supposed to engage with, what is supposed to constitute general cultural value! And when one considers the international situation as well!

[ 12 ] Yes, what lies at the root of this is something very profound, something extraordinarily significant. Between those who appear side by side in literary histories, there is nevertheless a great difference. But over the course of the last few centuries, people have simply lost their respect for intellectual life on a grand scale. This becomes apparent in specific instances. One must be able to view the development of humanity symptomatically; then, from the symptoms alone, one can discern what is actually pulsating beneath the surface! I once spoke in a small circle in the early 1890s with several people who were also members of high school teacher examination boards. A particularly respected examiner on the high school teacher examination board spoke within this small circle at the time, and we discussed how disheartening it actually is that in today’s high schools so terribly little is done to generally elevate intellectual impulses, that so terribly little actually reaches the young people and the boys —girls were later included as well, but this did nothing to improve the situation—who are intellectually conditioned in these institutions from the ages of ten to eighteen. Then the examiner in question said: “Yes, when we see how we’re unleashing these camels on the young people we’re supposed to examine, when we realize that we have to send these camels out as teachers of the youth, then one cannot hope that anything good will come of it.” — You see, that’s a symptom. Such people, who in recent years have been responsible precisely for the intellectual life of the less educated masses and the ruling classes, had so little respect that they took it for granted to examine high school teachers and unleash them like camels on the youth. They’re convinced that those who scored the highest on the exams are the biggest camels. Yes, but people’s thinking—their habits of thought—are, after all, what everything depends on, despite all opinions to the contrary. Ultimately, as things add up, we see that the true happiness and misfortune of humanity depend on these habits of thought, which ultimately accumulate into such global catastrophes as we have experienced in recent years. One must pay attention to the small details, for they are symptoms of what reigns in the subconscious realms and what remains unconsidered at a time when people rightly point to technological development, capitalism, and so on.

[ 13 ] This is how things have been handled with regard to intellectual life, and essentially, a “luxury” intellectual life has emerged—one that people in the most diverse fields could really only perceive as a luxury. But they love this luxury. One could point to this luxury—which has taken the place of the spirit—in many fields. Let’s take one example: landscape painting, as it developed over the last century. Do you believe that, apart from the few people who have been trained to appreciate it, the broad masses of humanity can truly have an open heart and mind for this landscape painting? Do you believe, for example, that the proletarian—who has been ensnared by the capitalist economic order and industrial operations into a truly desolate wasteland of a life—that he, when you throw him all sorts of scraps that fall by the wayside in public lectures and courses, in community centers, at events where you show him pictures—do you believe he could truly engage with them from within? Yes, landscape painting—believe me: someone who isn’t conditioned to it will say, “Yes, why do they paint that? It’s much more beautiful out there, after all. Why do they actually paint that?”—You can condition him, when you hold public courses as a remedy or palliative measure, to believe that it’s effective; but the subconscious doesn’t fall for it. The subconscious always says: Why are they painting that? Surely we don’t have to waste humanity’s energies on such nonsense. — It is these moods that ultimately give rise to what today pulsates forth in such resounding realities. That is precisely what matters. After all, haven’t we heard time and again over the past few decades about how wonderfully far we’ve come, how human thought races at lightning speed across the vastest distances, how comfortably we can travel, how spiritual culture is spreading, and so on. But all of that which was so highly praised was, after all, only possible because it was built upon a foundation comprising millions of people who could not participate in these things. None of them would have been able to travel by train, make phone calls, or send their thoughts across vast distances if countless people had not been unable to participate in this culture in any way—if this culture had not brought physical and emotional misery and hardship to millions upon millions of people.

[ 14 ] Yes, let’s take a look at a specific point in time—the mid-nineteenth century—because it was around this time that what is often called the “social question” actually began. The leading circles gradually emerged from a mood that can only be characterized by pointing to the parasitism of what was actually a good spiritual life. That good spiritual life had become parasitic because others had not embraced it. It was destined to penetrate into the true folk culture, but nothing was done to let it in; the tide had simply not yet turned. Indeed, during this time, the people in these leading, guiding circles had gradually come to find something for their souls. How often have I emphasized here the unnatural paths that this longing of many souls takes. Isn’t it true that one could see how people in well-heated rooms eventually became Theosophists—as the final stage of bourgeois ambition—and how they—though that was, of course, the final phase—spoke there of brotherhood, of love for humanity, of lofty ethical ideals, and so on. In what kind of rooms did that happen? In what kind of rooms did that happen? I am speaking of the mid-nineteenth century. Things have improved somewhat since then—though certainly not thanks to the leading circles—even if not by much. In what kind of rooms did that happen? In rooms heated with coal—rooms for which an English government inquiry had already established, as early as the 1840s, that nine-, eleven-, and thirteen-year-old children were working in the coal mines, children who never saw sunlight except on Sundays, simply because they were led down the shaft before sunrise and came back up after sunset. Yes, it was easy to speak of charity, of brotherhood, of universal love for humanity when one heated with coal extracted through such “brotherhood.” It was also easy to speak of raising people’s moral standards when one heated with coal extracted from these shafts, where—as the English inquiry again found—men and women had to work together all day, naked; pregnant women half-naked, men completely naked, because it is very hot in the shafts. I mention these things—which could be multiplied a hundredfold—to show you the picture at hand: the picture of the culture of the past centuries, namely the culture of luxury, a culture that, moreover, carried within it the stench of decay: at the bottom, the foundation without which this culture would not have been possible—millions upon millions of people who could not participate in this culture. The state of mind of the people who performed this sixteen-hour work in the coal mines was also noted at the time during the inquiry. But what, then, was the defining characteristic of the last half-century? The defining characteristic was thoughtlessness. Above all, thoughtlessness. And thoughtlessness is precisely what we must focus on above all else if we are to work toward improvement. Instead of so easily saying, “Dear stove, fulfill your duty to warm the room”—we should rather stoke the fire with wood and let the preaching be. That is what has always been done in priestly circles and in circles of atheists: preaching. And what has been neglected is thinking—thinking about reality. That is what matters. That is, above all, what can convince people today that a radical change must take place, particularly in spiritual life.

[ 15 ] Intellectual life cannot flourish unless it must prove its own reality anew every day. But intellectual life will be able to prove itself only if it is left to its own devices. From the lowest level of education all the way up to the highest, from the specific branch of science to free artistic creation: it must exist within itself, for itself—it must exist spiritually within itself—because it can rely on nothing other than that which lives by its own strength. Anyone who understands spiritual life knows what harm has been wrought over the last four centuries by the modern form of government—by the state spreading its wings over this spiritual life, so that everything that constitutes spiritual life was gradually to be nationalized, with the exception of a few branches that still remain and which are also threatened with extinction. For if things had continued in the same vein as in recent times, even the last branches of free spiritual life would have been nationalized. But people’s ways of thinking today have not yet progressed far enough for them to realize that, precisely in light of the terrible enslavement of spiritual life by political state life, we must turn back, that this spiritual life must be liberated. People’s goals still point toward the suppression of the freedom of spiritual life and the nationalization of spiritual life, even though so many states have demonstrated the actual effects of the state’s encroachment on spiritual life.

[ 16 ] Even today, it is still very difficult to dispel the illusion of state life from people’s minds. I was recently in Bern, where the so-called “League of Nations Conference” was taking place. People were talking about all sorts of things, much in the style of earlier times, just as Mr. von Jagow spoke in May 1914 about the things to come. Just as what actually happened back then differed from what was expressed by the phrase “the general easing of tensions is making progress,” so too will what is to come differ from what was said in Bern. These gentlemen have no grounding in reality whatsoever. There was talk of people who give speeches and write in German newspapers about everything that should be done to bring about this League of Nations—how a parliament should be formed that, like the parliaments of the individual states before it, would now encompass the entire community of states. The gentleman in question could not resist adding: A “super-parliament” must be created, a “superstate.” — I said at the time, in a lecture I gave around the same time, that it would be more appropriate to consider what the states should refrain from doing rather than what they should do, so as not to further exacerbate the very conditions that led to the global catastrophe. People only ask: What should be done in the spirit of the old state? — They have not learned from that period to ask: What should the states refrain from doing? — Above all, they should refrain from interfering in spiritual and economic life. One should not think of establishing super-parliaments and superstates, given that the sub-parliaments and sub-states have had so little effect. Today, the question cannot be: “What should the states do?” but rather: “What should the states refrain from doing?” This is appropriate for the present age. But one must have the courage, in terms of thinking, to look unreservedly into these matters.

[ 17 ] One will never be able to grasp the connection between this spiritual life and what is now taking place in the other branches of the social organism unless one has first filled one’s mind by taking in the ideas contained in spiritual science. Why, then, is spiritual science such an abomination to many people today? Well, precisely because it demands that one think differently than people do. But the facts have shown that the way of thinking in which humanity is stuck simply leads nowhere. People find it so difficult to come to terms with this that they have to change their way of thinking. They are unable to look at the facts.

[ 18 ] Threefold social order: People today find it difficult to understand because they have simply refused to see what really happened. In reality, human development has already realized a large part of the threefold order in events that are hidden from human view; it is simply that people have not adapted to this reality. Let me give you an example: If we go back to the 1960s, we find that within Germany, the iron industry was such that at that time approximately 799,000 metric tons of raw materials had to be processed into iron: these 799,000 metric tons of raw materials were extracted by just over 20,000 workers. By the end of the 1980s, due to the boom in the iron industry and the immense demands placed on it—on the one hand by increased rail traffic and, on the other, by massive war armaments (which later escalated to immeasurable proportions)— by the end of the 1880s, the iron industry had already grown to such an extent that it was no longer 799,000 metric tons of pig iron that were being processed, but rather 4,500,000 metric tons of pig iron were now required. Now you might ask: How many workers were then needed to extract this pig iron? I said: Just over 20,000 workers were needed to produce 799,000 metric tons. Then it was 4,500,000 metric tons. By the end of the 1880s, only about 21,300 people were needed for that. So please, let these numbers speak to you; don’t let them speak the way statisticians do, but take these numbers to heart: A little over 20,000 people, roughly, produced 799,000 metric tons in the early 1960s. About 21,000 people—just a few more—produced 4,500,000 metric tons of pig iron by the end of the 1980s. How is that possible? You have to ask: How is that possible? It became possible only through incredibly sophisticated technical improvements—only because of the most extensive, virtually immeasurable technical advancements that made it possible for a single man to produce so much more pig iron. So for all the progress that has taken place in this branch of industry—and one could say the same for twenty-five to thirty primary, leading branches of industry—for everything that has taken place in such a branch of industry, such improvements have occurred.

[ 19 ] What does that mean, then? What does it mean when almost the same number of people produce so much more simply through technical improvements? Do you think this has no consequences? Of course it has consequences: since the population has not increased significantly, the fact that the same number of people are producing the same thing in such much larger quantities revolutionizes the entire rest of the economy that is connected to it. Just imagine what this means for the third branch of the threefold, three-part organism. None of the legal relationships, none of the spiritual relationships need to change; only the economic relationship has changed. For everything that has changed is reflected in the price of iron and everything related to it. This means nothing less than that, independently of spiritual development and legal development—for you need no other law if you do not look at the whole—economic life broke away and was transformed without human intervention. Things took their course; it was only that people paid no heed to it. This may serve as proof to you that the threefold social order was taking shape in reality. True economic theory has advanced all on its own, but people have not kept pace; they used their intellect to avoid having to keep up, so they could remain in the old conditions. No matter how enthusiastic one may be about the great capacity that went into these improvements—and that is true—that is not what matters today. What matters today is that economic life has emancipated itself. In price formation and in everything connected with price formation and monetary policy, economic life has followed its own course. That is what matters. The three branches have, in essence, emancipated themselves from one another, and people have artificially fused them together and were compelled to fuse them ever more closely. This is what led us into the global catastrophe.

[ 20 ] Things lie beneath the surface of what people today want to believe. One must look deeply into the circumstances if one wants to assess reality. I wanted to highlight such an example so that you can see how absurd it is to portray the threefold order as nonsense. The threefold social order is derived from the most practical of circumstances, whereas those to whom the fate of humanity has been entrusted in recent decades have avoided adapting to practical circumstances. You can prove everywhere, using common sense, that this threefold social order is the only thing we must work toward if a healthy development of the social organism is to take place. That is of no use today if the individual thinks only of how necessary it is to maintain the status quo because this or that cannot be dispensed with.

[ 21 ] One encounters the strangest objections. One comes across some truly twisted ways of thinking. For example, I recently gave a lecture in Basel on the threefold social order. In the discussion that followed, a very intelligent man spoke up and said: Yes, many excellent things have been said about this threefold social order, and yet one cannot understand it, because justice is supposedly brought about only through the political state—that is, through one third of the social organism—but justice must also exist in economic life and in spiritual life. At the time, I had to respond with an analogy. I said: “Well, let’s suppose a family in the countryside consists of the husband and wife, a couple of children, farmhands, maidservants, and three cows. The whole family needs milk, just as all three members of the social organism need justice. But does that mean every member of the family has to produce milk? That is certainly not necessary; rather, they will all be well supplied with milk if the three cows produce it. The same is true of the threefold structure of the social organism. The point is precisely that all three members should truly have justice, but they will have it only if justice is truly produced by the state organism—the middle member—just as milk is produced by the cows. People’s thinking is so twisted that they believe they must impose the most sophisticated concepts onto even the simplest ideas.

[ 22 ] Certainly, the people who raise such objections are not stupid. One certainly cannot say that these people are stupid. I often consider the people who raise objections today to be very intelligent. I do not wish to deny people’s intelligence, but I would like to paraphrase a line from Shakespeare—“All men are honorable”—to say: They are all, all, all intelligent people. But what matters is not merely finding clever ideas, but finding the right ideas—finding what can actually be applied and put to use in reality. And sound thinking—thinking that can truly penetrate reality—is what matters, especially in the spiritual sciences. For you may have the most intricate thoughts regarding external physical events, and at most you can demonstrate—in the most elementary areas of pure mathematics and technology—when someone has made a mistake: If someone builds a railroad bridge incorrectly, the bridge might collapse when the third train crosses it. But you cannot prove, for example—let’s say from the perspective of medical science—when so many people recover and so many people die, what part medical science played in that. There, the matter is not so clear. And with regard to the social organism—yes, there the matter is even less clear. There, quack methods can spread in the most rampant way.

[ 23 ] One was already tempted to think: What we used to dismiss as old superstition has actually taken root in modern times, albeit in different areas. You are all familiar with the passage in the second part of *Faust* where the medieval idea of the homunculus is revived. Today, many people believe that attempting to construct a homunculus is superstition. — But it is also superstition to bring this about through mere intellectual judgments. They do not realize, however, that they have merely transplanted this superstition into a different realm. What exists today as social theories seeks to produce the social homunculus; it seeks to artificially assemble something out of mere intellectual reasoning. This threefold order aims precisely at the opposite. It does not aim to establish an artificial program, but rather to seek how people must come together within the threefold order in order to find, from within themselves, what is at stake. It is directed precisely toward reality—the reality in which human beings themselves are situated within the social organism. Because it is so different from what people have become accustomed to thinking of as “homunculus ideas” in recent decades, this is why the concept is still so difficult to grasp today. That is why people find it incomprehensible, even though it actually contains hardly any sentences that are incomprehensible or not quite easy to understand. The point is that people have forgotten how to think in a straightforward way; they are satisfied everywhere when they think in a roundabout way. Because they are only satisfied when they are either supposed to think in a roundabout way, or when they can think what they are told to think by some authority.

[ 24 ] On the other hand, we must not overlook the fact that what underlies this threefold division actually brings together many of the ideas that arise one-sidedly here and there. One cannot say that fruitful social ideas have not also emerged in numerous minds; however, they are mostly one-sided. I must therefore say: I usually agree with the people who take issue with me, but they do not agree with me. What they advocate is correct from their one-sided point of view, but that does not lead us forward, because one-sided viewpoints lead us into some kind of implementation that, in turn, causes harm on the other side. The point today is that we approach things in a comprehensive way. That we do not, for example, ask: What should we do with the money? — This question, as well as the question of currency, will be resolved on the basis of an independent economic life. That is what matters: understanding things based on reality. We do not need programs spun out of the mind in minute detail; we need impulses that relate to reality. Wherever we then take action, we will already be addressing practical matters. Only those who are theorists—while imagining themselves to be practitioners—are of such a nature that they want specific programs for real life in every area. Such programs are not what is at stake here. There is something fundamental in what underlies this appeal and the book just completed. It is directed, first and foremost, toward that which can exist solely in the real impulses of social life.

[ 25 ] To make myself even clearer on this point, I’ll use an analogy. It has often been said: If a single person were to develop from infancy onward on a desert island, he would never learn to speak. One can only learn to speak within human society. — This is true, since language is a social phenomenon; society is necessary for a person to be able to speak. But in a different sense, this is also true in the most comprehensive way for social impulses. Social life can develop for a person only within the social organism. A single human being can never truly formulate a social program, for inner, individual life exists for something entirely different than formulating social programs. One can only say: People must stand in such and such a way; they must be oriented in such and such a way in the realm of spiritual life, in such and such a way in the political realm, and in such and such a way with regard to economic life. Then what is necessary will emerge. That is what matters. For if a person uses his or her individuality to develop a social program today—in the age of the consciousness soul, where everything is built on individuality—what will come of it? Let me give you an example: You speak today of the Bolsheviks, of Lenin and Trotsky. Well, I’ll mention a third figure who, alongside them, is a thoroughgoing Bolshevik—only people don’t realize it: Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Johann Gottlieb Fichte, whom we recognize as a truly ideal, magnificent thinker. Read *The Closed Commercial State*. What Fichte develops there as a program differs so little from the Bolshevik program that you could quite easily attribute Fichte’s *The Closed Commercial State* to Trotsky. Where does this come from? It comes from the fact that today the individual human being is made into a social ideal, and that is exactly what Fichte did as well. Fichte simply lived in an era when it was inconceivable to even consider the realization of this “Closed Commercial State.” Only the catastrophe of war could have brought it about. When the individual seeks to create a comprehensive social program out of his own being, this is the result. Fichte is proof of this. It does not become a social program, any more than an individual on an island can learn to speak. Therefore, the fundamental point is to find the orientation, the structure, of the social organism. It is not a matter of drawing up programs, but of finding the way in which people must live together in order to discover what social impulses might be. This is grounded in reality—it addresses society as a whole, not the individual.

[ 26 ] How often have I been told, time and time again, over the past few weeks: “Yes, so-and-so is drawing up certain programs that regulate every single aspect of social life.” — But that’s not the point; people have always done that. Just look at how many utopias there are. But this is not supposed to be a utopia; it is supposed to be something that is truly rooted in practical life. And for that, it is essential to have a sense of what I have already cited as an analogy here. I have often said: Anyone who fails to see the spiritual impulses in external reality strikes me as someone who has a semicircular piece of iron. Someone tells him: “That’s a magnet; it attracts other pieces of iron.” — But he says: “Oh, come on, that’s not a magnet; you just use it to shoe horses.” — That’s true, too. The two are not different in the sense that one is right and the other is wrong; but the deeper truth lies with the one who knows that it is a magnet and that it is a waste to use the iron as a horseshoe. So it is with external reality as well. Those who speak of materiality are right, but it is the spirit alone that constitutes full reality. The point now is to return to this spirit, but it truly must not remain merely a phrase.

[ 27 ] All sorts of preachers are now roaming the world. They do things the same way as those who spoke of charity and brotherhood in hall of mirrors or in well-heated rooms. As I have already said: “Stove, fulfill your duty as a stove”—that is what they say. So preachers go about the world saying: Misfortune has befallen humanity because of materialism. People must turn back to the spirit. — Yes, one has even witnessed this call being criticized for containing too little spirit and for devoting itself too much to material life. What matters is not that we speak of the spirit, but that we know how to bring the spirit to life. It is not the one who merely keeps saying, “Spirit, spirit, spirit,” who truly stands on the ground of spiritual knowledge, but the one who absorbs the spirit within themselves in such a way that the spirit is truly able to solve the problems of life. That is what matters.

[ 28 ] One could do without exhorting people to turn back to the spirit. What is important is that we make an effort today to make the spirit active and alive within ourselves. But people have gradually forgotten how to do this, precisely because the state has become something to them—yes, but what exactly? In *Faust* it is written—admittedly as a lesson for young girls—and the philosophers have merely misunderstood it, seeking great depth in it: Does not the All-Encompassing One, the All-Sustaining One, sustain you, me, and Himself? But this is how people gradually came to speak of the state, especially during wartime. The All-Encompassing One, the Sustainer of All—does He not sustain me, you, and Himself? In the subconscious of the people who imparted such teachings, the “me” was naturally emphasized. For they placed great importance on the fact that they had a somewhat dignified, though in their own way not very inwardly active, relationship to the Spirit. What kind of relationship did people have with the spirit? They strove to ensure that, by a certain age and in accordance with state regulations, their offspring would be trained as theologians, lawyers, or other professionals. Then they were to grow into the state, do everything the state demanded, and be particularly well-suited for it. But where was the inner activity, the full engagement with the world process—which is the very essence of spiritual science? It lay in the fact that people said: I want to receive my salary from the state until a certain age, but then have my secure pension—that is, work for the state for as long as the state prescribes; then the state shall provide for a pension until the end of my life. And then, after the end of life—for which no active relationship was established, but rather a passive one—the church was to provide for the soul’s eternal bliss. Well, as a passive person, one was indeed quite well provided for: first placed in the bosom of the state, raised according to its will, then working for it, then provided for by it until death, and then the church ensured eternal bliss without one’s having to embrace the impulse of the eternal within oneself. One could not lead a more glorious life. A life in which one contributed nothing oneself—that had increasingly become the ideal for people at the end of the nineteenth century, or even at the beginning of the twentieth century. But it was only possible to think this way on the basis of that foundation I spoke of: where people were not provided for at all until their death, but where, only recently, a very meager provision had begun through various insurance systems. That is why these people then began—since nothing worthwhile could any longer spring from the worldview of the ruling circles—to stop believing in that postmortem old-age and disability insurance provided by the Church with reference to eternal bliss.

[ 29 ] You see, that is where we need to start today. But, in keeping with reality, we can only begin if we are able to think practically about what is given in the threefold social order.