The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Sixth Lecture

[ 1 ] Today, it is of the utmost importance that the deeper connections within the social order of humanity be truly understood. The times have led to a situation where, in many respects, people have been content with what I would like to call a “superficial view”—views that have been formed on the surface of existence and that have then led people to believe one thing is right, or rather, for one person to believe something is right and another to believe it is wrong, yet these views of right and wrong are ultimately useless. They are of no use for the simple reason that, although one can form thoughts that lie on the surface, nothing sensible can ever come of putting such thoughts into practice. Reality does not tolerate superficial views as easily as the human mind does. Yet therein lies a cancerous affliction of our time. And another cancerous affliction is that people are unwilling to muster the self-reflection that would tell them at the right moment: These things all stem from our most personal interests; we must not, for example, dress them up in social terms; we must not say, when we want to do something in our personal interest, that this is a branch of some social activity. In this regard, one experiences all sorts of things. Many aspects of what has existed for years have become more pronounced today: that time and again, what is intended here from this place is transformed into the personal interests of individual circles, and then it is claimed that this is some kind of consequence, a result of what is intended from here. I say this to draw attention to the fact that today there ought to be the goodwill to look more deeply into things and move beyond superficial views.

[ 2 ] Nowhere is it more necessary to move beyond superficial views than in the field of education, and nowhere is the willingness to do so more lacking than precisely in this field. For in this field of education, if we are to think truly in social terms, it is necessary—I would say—to turn our attention even to the most elementary matters. You may have already seen this in the two previous lectures related to education; but today, in particular, I would like you to bear this in mind as a thread that should run through the entire lecture.

[ 3 ] What do people—even small children—experience today, starting from the very earliest grades? When a small child is taken to school, almost everything else determines what happens there—except for the needs and impulses of the developing human being. And as the child moves up from one grade to the next, it gets worse and worse. Even at an age when such things are not at all appropriate, the following, for example, occurs: The young person goes to school for the first class of the morning. In this first class, perhaps out of convenience for the teaching staff, let’s say, mathematics or arithmetic is scheduled. Then perhaps Latin follows, then perhaps another period of religious instruction. And then perhaps music or singing follows—or perhaps not even that, but rather geography. There is no better way to ruin the human mind from the ground up than by ensuring, in this manner, that the young person’s ability to concentrate is utterly destroyed. The very place where we must begin to socialize in the realm of education is, above all, the class schedule—that death trap for everything that constitutes true pedagogy. The class schedule, which then continues through all school levels, is what must be combated first and foremost today.

[ 4 ] If we are to even consider reforming our educational system, it is essential to ensure that, in the future, young people are able to remain focused on a single subject for as long as their stage of development requires concentrated attention to that subject. So, for example, we would have to carefully determine that, at a certain age, it is necessary to teach young people—let’s say—concepts in mathematics and physics. Then the worst possible approach—allocating one, three, or five weekly school hours to this—should not be chosen; rather, this process of mastering the subject must become a distinct phase in the young person’s development—that is, they must be able to concentrate on a single subject continuously for a certain period of their life, without being constantly distracted by other things. This means that, based on genuine pedagogical-psychological anthropology, one would have to be clear, for example, about the age at which a person should be taught arithmetic. At that age, the main emphasis should be placed on arithmetic; at that age, the entire day should be devoted to directing the main focus toward arithmetic. Of course, I do not mean that the young person should now spend from morning to night doing nothing but mathematics, but I mean it in the way I was once compelled to do it when I was tasked with educating an eleven-year-old child with a psychopathic condition. I tried to proceed in an economical manner: I arranged with all the people responsible for the child’s upbringing that, during the time when I wanted to focus the child’s soul particularly on a specific subject, I myself would be in charge of devising the entire schedule for the child’s other activities—that is, a certain amount of time could be spent playing the piano, a certain amount singing, and so on. The point is not to fill the soul with yet another set of academic subjects, but rather to structure the child’s entire development in such a way that the soul can concentrate on one thing of its own accord during a specific stage of life, and that—before moving on to something else—one truly ensures that a certain level of completion has been reached in a particular branch of human education. So let’s say: If we are to consider how much arithmetic to teach a person during a particular stage of life, then that stage must conclude with the young, developing child feeling: “Now I have achieved something in this area.” — Only then may one move on to another so-called subject.

[ 5 ] So you see: what now forms the basis of our education all the way up to the highest levels of higher education is, at the same time, the very source of the most fundamental flaws in our educational system. There can hardly be anything more absurd than when a college student goes to college—as I, for example, experienced in my day—and hears something like this:

From 7 to 8 a.m., practical philosophy,
from 8 to 9 a.m., history,
from 9 to 10 a.m., literary history,
from 10 to 11 a.m., constitutional law, and so on.

[ 6 ] Now, none of this is based on the intention—which it ought to be—of not creating confusion in the developing human being, but rather it is based solely on the intention of serving all the conveniences of the external school environment. This must be viewed entirely without prejudice.

[ 7 ] This is the most important task facing us today. Yet it is a task that, given today’s prevailing ways of thinking, one can hardly believe most people are inclined to take seriously. This is precisely what is meant when people say time and again: Today is not the time for small reckonings, but for great ones. People often believe that speaking in grand terms serves the time of great reckonings. But it is served only when one approaches great transformations with inner courage, and when one does not lose the courage to stand up to everything that opposes such great transformations.

[ 8 ] Another matter is what is today considered almost indispensable in the broadest circles, and which is of particular importance for the lower grades: namely, what is known as state school supervision. There can be nothing more ruinous to the truly appropriate development of spiritual life than such official or semi-official school supervision. What the spiritual life in the school system requires—and anyone who looks deeply into these matters would know this—what is necessary for a truly flourishing development, demands attention to every single moment that arises from the living teaching process itself. This can never and must never be judged by any external school supervision. A person who has once been entrusted—through all the necessary precautions—with the self-administration of spiritual life, to educate or teach people in any capacity, must not, as long as they remain in their post, be interfered with by anyone regarding their methodology or the like. This is something many people still do not understand today; but with this lack of understanding, they simultaneously fail to grasp one of the fundamental conditions of all truly maturing spiritual life. From this, they can see just how radically we must intervene in all that people today take for granted—indeed, the very intensification of which they even demand. For there is hardly any—let’s say—even a social program that arises from party thinking and does not include some points regarding official or semi-official school supervision. This is not a reproach directed at anyone in particular, nor is it a reproach directed at any party; rather, it is simply a pointing out of what has resulted precisely from the distorted spiritual life that has gradually emerged.

[ 9 ] One can study these distortions in intellectual life in particular when considering higher education. How, in fact, has our higher education system developed? This was still clearly observable even in the second half of the nineteenth century. After all, all those people who, particularly within German intellectual life, have somehow achieved something of broader significance, grew up at a time when the modern system had not yet destroyed the foundation of genuine intellectual development. Goethe had already complained at length about the obstacles placed in his path during his school education. We should first consider how different the passages in Goethe’s *Poetry and Truth* about Professor Ludwig and others would seem if Goethe had been forced, at the age of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty, into the rigid academic system of today. These matters must certainly be examined today.

[ 10 ] What, exactly, has been eradicated—gradually eradicated? You see, when the high school—which today is, of course, a specter in the face of the demands of the times—was the sole institution preparing students for higher education, when it still took the form of the old monastic high school, which, of course, wasn’t all that bad for its time, it still retained a last remnant of what one might characterize as follows: A person absorbs something that brings them to the standpoint of a general worldview. The so-called “philosophical propaedeutics” featured in the high school curriculum. It was, however, taught only in the last two grades. For the most part, what was supposed to be covered in the second grade was taught in the first, and what was supposed to be covered in the first was taught in the second. Still, at least there was something there: it was a remnant of what had been provided for in the older universities—namely, that the first years a person spends at the university gave everyone the opportunity to absorb something of a general worldview, to absorb something that could, in the first place, give them the qualification to embark on a specific professional course of study. For in reality, no one can be of any use in a specialized professional program who has not, through a propaedeutic, preparatory course of study, gained the ability to form a sensible and perceptive judgment on general human matters. Today, it is considered superfluous to teach people, in a genuine way, certain logical and psychological concepts. No one can benefit from studying any branch of higher intellectual life at all who has not passed through such logical and psychological concepts, who has not, in a sense, first acquired the inner justification for doing so through them. Modern cultural and intellectual life has completely eradicated all these things. It no longer wishes to look at human beings at all; this modern cultural and intellectual life seeks to train spiritual life based on impulses entirely foreign to it.

[ 11 ] But this has led to a situation where what lies at the heart of our general intellectual life no longer bears the hallmarks of a unified culture. It has fragmented us, and so far it has not been able to cope with what we will have to face. Anyone with experience in this field knows how countless eulogies have extolled the so-called “specialization” of recent times. It has been emphasized that our cultural life has expanded to such an extent that a person can fruitfully master only a single specialized branch. In doing so, they have pointed to something that, from one perspective, I would say, is self-evident. But at the same time, out of a sense of complacency, they have indulged in this self-evident truth with genuine relish. For all one needs to do now is to isolate oneself within some specialty, and it is precisely through this isolation within a specialty that one has become a cultured person particularly justified for the present age. Of course, anyone who cares deeply about culture cannot hope—nor can they wish—that specialization should turn into an all-encompassing dilettantism; but what must be strived for is that the entire educational system, the entire school system, be organized for the individual in such a way that he—I would say—always has the possibility, at a deeper level of his consciousness, to draw meaningful connections from his specialty to culture as a whole. This can only happen if every institution of higher education is given a foundation of general humanistic education. Those who are part of the old guard today will object: “Well, what are we supposed to do with specialized education then?”—One really ought to examine just how efficiently one could then approach specialized education once the specializations begin, if one can work with generally educated people, with people who truly possess something human within them. Today, unfortunately, due to our perverse cultural conditions, we have reached a point where one can be the most highly developed person in one’s specialty and yet be utterly ignorant regarding all the great questions of humanity, understanding nothing of them. Today we are faced with the strange phenomenon that someone who has only attended elementary school—or perhaps hasn’t even completed it properly—but has been buffeted by life, has more to say about general human conditions than someone who has gone through a university education and become an excellent expert in their field.

[ 12 ] We must fight against this phenomenon today if we are even to consider sending deep into the heart those impulses that alone can lead to improvement—impulses that do not merely result in taking superficial measures, as people want; measures that do not go where reality demands we go if anything is actually to be accomplished. Of course, we have already driven this evil so far today that we no longer have the right kind of people to form the foundation of our universities, that we find ourselves in the dreadful situation of having no teachers at all for a general human education. For we have brought it to the point where our universities in particular—I would say, the very outermost tendrils of culture—have fallen asleep. One can witness how, at our universities, a particular subject is simply read aloud from a professor’s lecture notes at the scheduled time; the student listens to the material and then buys some lecture notes to drill himself in writing for the exam. This is, in fact, a fairly common occurrence. But what does that really mean? It means, in reality, that the young man has completely wasted the time he spent listening there; for what really happened is simply that he drilled the lecture notes into his memory. If he had simply done that, he would have actually done everything that is essential to the matter. In other words, the professor standing up on the podium and reading from his lecture notes is a completely unnecessary act; it is absolutely superfluous.

[ 13 ] Now, it will be easy to say: So here we have a Botokuden who demands the abolition of the colleges! No, that is not the case. I certainly do not demand the abolition of lectures; I am merely pointing out that lectures today are delivered without taking into account the cultural-historical fact that, once the art of printing was invented, what is merely read aloud actually penetrates the mind more effectively when it is read in a properly written book. But I also point out that the best one can gain from a well-written book can hardly amount to a tenth of what truly emanates from the teacher’s immediate personality—to the extent that a spiritual connection is formed between the teacher and the student. But this can only happen in an independent, self-governing spiritual life, where individuality can unfold fully, where traditions—as is the case at universities or other institutions of higher learning—do not reign for centuries, but where the individual has the opportunity to be himself down to the very smallest detail. Then it is precisely from oral instruction that something will emerge of which one can say: We have cast off everything that seeks to enter humanity through the art of printing, through the art of illustration, and so on. But it is precisely by casting these things aside that we have gained the opportunity to develop entirely new teaching abilities that still lie dormant within humanity today. These matters also belong—and indeed, they belong first and foremost—to the social issues of the present. For only when one has a heart and a mind for these things will one also be able to penetrate into what is otherwise necessary today.

[ 14 ] Let’s take a look at what this misguided higher education means for the general social situation. Yesterday, I even had to point out in my public lecture that, fundamentally, we have no reflection of real social conditions—neither in the national economy of the bourgeoisie nor in that of the proletariat—because we simply lacked the strength to develop a true social science. What has emerged among the bourgeoisie in place of social science? Something of which they are very proud, something they never tire of praising over and over again: modern sociology. Well, this modern sociology is the most nonsensical cultural product that could possibly have come into being. For this sociology violates all the most elementary requirements that a social science ought to have. This sociology seeks its greatness in the fact that it disregards everything that could lead to social will or social impulse; that it merely records the so-called sociological facts historically and statistically, so as to seemingly provide proof that human beings are a kind of social animal, that human beings live within society. This sociology has, albeit unconsciously, provided quite strong evidence of this; it has done so by bringing to light nothing but the most trite sociological judgments—that is, those that are general, commonplace, and trivial. Nowhere, however, is there a will to discover the laws of society in the way they must flow into human social will. Consequently, the power of intellectual life in this area is completely paralyzed. We must calmly admit that in all non-proletarian strata today, there is absolutely no social will whatsoever. Social will is completely absent because, precisely where it should have been cultivated—in higher education—sociology has taken the place of social science; impotent sociology has taken the place of social science, which is pulsing with will and inspires people.

[ 15 ] These things extend deep into the heart of cultural life. They must be sought out there; otherwise, one will never come into contact with them at all. Just imagine how differently people would approach life if what was expressed here in a previous reflection were to be fulfilled. Instead of having people’s gaze diverted away from the most ancient cultural epochs—which took shape under entirely different social conditions—they should, precisely at the age when the feeling soul comes into being with its subtle vibrations, from the age of fourteen or fifteen onward, be directly introduced to the very, very immediate present life. They should learn what goes on in the fields, they should learn what goes on in the trades, and they should become familiar with the various commercial relationships. A person would have to take all of this in. And just imagine how differently they would then step out into life, how they would be an independent person, and how they would not allow themselves to be forced to accept what is often praised today as the highest achievement of culture, but which is nothing other than the most desolate manifestation of decadence.

[ 16 ] Only on the foundation of a self-governing intellectual life, for example, can true art flourish. And true art is a matter for the people; true art is, in the most eminent sense, a social phenomenon. Anyone who studies Greek, Romanesque, and Gothic architectural styles in the way it is often done today knows, in essence, very little about what is actually at stake. Only the person who understands how the entire social structure of the era in which these styles prevailed was reflected in the forms, lines, and figurative elements within them—and how art resonated within human souls—truly knows what lies at the heart of the Greek, Romanesque, and Gothic architectural styles. What people did in their daily lives—down to the movement of their fingers—was a resonance of what they saw when they contemplated these things, which offered them the opportunity to take in the truly real essence, so to speak, of an architectural style. Today we need to establish a union between art and life, but this can flourish only on the foundation of a free spiritual life. Oh, what a pity, my dear friends, that our children are led into classrooms that are truly barbaric environments for young minds! Imagine every classroom—not decorated in an artistic way, as is often thought today, but imagine it designed by an artist in such a way that this artist has harmonized the individual forms with what the eye should focus on while learning the multiplication tables.

[ 17 ] Thoughts that are meant to have a social impact cannot do so unless, as these thoughts take shape, the soul absorbs—as a side current of intellectual life—that which comes from an environment truly in tune with life. But this also requires—let us say—a completely different life course for the artist than is afforded to him today during his formative years. After all, today it is precisely those who feel the artistic impulse within themselves who will have no opportunity at all to come close to life. If they feel within themselves, let’s say, the impulse to become a painter, then life urges them to start painting some sort of daub as early as possible, because they believe it is essential to create something that provides inner satisfaction. Of course it matters; but the question is whether the impulse for this inner satisfaction has first found its way out into life, so that one experiences the greatest inner satisfaction when one first asks life: “What is to be created?”—and when one always feels the obligation, the conscientious obligation, not to take anything from life that one does not give back to it. The fact that today, let’s say, painters produce landscapes for people who don’t really understand much about them—this does not promote art, but rather throws art into the abyss. We have this kind of unnecessary, luxurious art alongside a barbaric design of our living environment. Let us just imagine for a moment that the state of affairs my book on the social question strives to bring about were to come to pass—where, for the simple reason that every means of production can only have a cost until it is finished, it is freely incorporated into the fabric of society upon completion. Let us imagine how every individual, selfish interest would disappear, how the tendency to create for all of humanity would spring up quite naturally, instinctively, and intuitively in everyone who creates, and how they would seek this opportunity to create for all of humanity—instead of what is the case for many today, namely, that they create for the capitalists, according to the latter’s unnecessary desires. That, after all, is the primary task: to socialize in such a way that not all intellectual life falls by the wayside in the process of socialization.

[ 18 ] On this point, our ruling, leading circles do not even have the very first impulse to see what is right. Today, these circles are up in arms over the Spartacists, Bolsheviks, and so on. Yes, the Spartacists and the Bolsheviks did not create themselves. Who created them? Our ruling and leading circles! For they felt no inner impulse to establish a genuine popular culture. There would be no Bolshevism and no Spartacism if the ruling circles had done their duty. Not to mention that Spartacism and Bolshevism are not at all what the people in the ruling circles imagine them to be today, in order to present horror stories to the world and justify their guns. Just as an aside.

[ 19 ] Today, a clear and unbiased period of self-reflection is particularly necessary among the leadership and governing circles. There is very, very little inclination toward this.

[ 20 ] You see, the potential for spiritual betterment—humanity’s development has truly not yet torn that away from the soul; it would still be there; it would be present, even to a special degree, within the German people. But this German people has, for a long, long time, consistently neglected to develop within itself the germinal forces of its own thoughts, its own feelings, and its own impulses. And from the very first grade of school, impulses have been instilled that turn the German people—with their magnificent potential—into a machine of authority; into a machine that blindly follows authority. There is a connection between everything that appears so terribly before our eyes today and this flawed education—an education that does not make people free and independent because it itself is not free and independent. This education feels all the more comfortable the more it can be tied to the state, so that it can continue to feel at ease when, in countless assemblies, the resolution is passed: “We have full confidence in the government, which is now doing what is necessary in Versailles to cut our throats.” In countless meetings, resolutions are passed: “We stand firmly behind this government.” Whereas in reality, there is hardly a single person in this government who belongs there, and the first requirements would be to admit openly and freely: Everything that is happening there is merely the continuation of that calamity that unfolded in the German provinces during the fateful year of 1914. The failures of our educational system pour into these matters. And these failures of our educational system have robbed people of any ability to maintain a sense of proportion regarding the events of life.

[ 21 ] Just as I have described to you today—that, on the one hand, a sensible school system focused on concentration rather than on the pernicious schedule would instill in people independent intellectual power and rationality—so too would a true permeation of our society, beginning with education through social art, bring about a proper culture of the will. For no one can will unless they have cultivated their will through genuine artistic education. Recognizing this mystery of the connection between art and life—and especially with the human element of the will—is one of the very first requirements of future psychological pedagogy, and all future pedagogy must be psychological. As things stand now—with all psychology driven out of people’s minds—the architects of this psychology can hardly be anyone other than the artists, who still have a little psychology in their veins, while psychology has otherwise vanished from our education. Not even a single atom of it remains in scientific education. Such an approach to life would be possible if one truly worked for all and all for one, because then the forces of production would be applied in such a way that there would be time for such education. For much of the nonsense spoken today would not need to be spoken at all if people were to speak seriously and often, if what could be of any benefit to intellectual life were fulfilled—namely, the interplay of manual and intellectual labor—which must surely be the goal for the future. Then, throughout the world, if everyone—well, it won’t be everyone, but a certain approximation to the ideal can be achieved—were to perform their share of manual labor, no one would need to spend more than three to four hours a day on manual labor. At least a rough calculation yields this result. Anything beyond three to four hours of manual labor is not brought about by the necessities inherent in human development; rather—and this can be stated today without emotion or agitation as a completely objective fact—it is brought about by the countless idlers and pensioners walking among us. But it is absolutely necessary to face these realities honestly and sincerely. For correcting these conditions does not depend solely on making minor changes here and there, but rather on organizing our education and public pedagogy in such a way that people, through education and the school system, develop a sense of proportion in life.

[ 22 ] The situation today is that our educational system produces people who lack even the slightest sense of proportion when it comes to the things happening around us. That is why all the news coming from Versailles, for example, is so nonsensical—because no one can judge what weight one thing or another carries, what motives drive one people or another to make their judgments, or what is a necessity for one people or another based on their fundamental human nature. That is why people do not understand when one speaks of such things. If even a spark of the essence of the threefold social organism could find its way into human understanding, one would see that what threatens us from the West is the inundation of all political and spiritual life by economic life; and how what is pressing upon us from the East—including from Russia—is humanity’s cry to rescue spiritual life from economic life. Two poles stand opposed to one another, the West and the East, and we in the middle have the task of looking toward the West and preventing its harmful influences from taking root among us; to look toward the East and to nurture within ourselves that which must be imposed upon us not over the course of centuries, but over the course of decades, because humanity must be given what it does not impose upon itself. We have the task, here in the heart of Europe, of nurturing that which can only be nurtured from within the three members of the social organism. If the culture of the East were to gain the upper hand today, the earth would be flooded with nebulous mysticism; the earth would be flooded with theosophy divorced from reality. If the West were to gain the upper hand, the earth would be flooded—and tyrannized—by mere material life. This is the task before us: to avert these two terrible threats to humanity through a sensible threefold organization of the social organism—by making economic life and spiritual life autonomous and depriving the state of the ability to push these matters so far that our downfall comes crashing down upon us from both the West and the East.

[ 23 ] An objective look toward the West reveals above all else today just how vigilant we must be regarding everything that emanates from the Romance-speaking peoples. For nothing could be more dangerous for us than to succumb to the illusion that, from very deep, deep roots, France above all is working toward our downfall. If we prevent France from doing so, then we can easily overcome the threat posed to us by England. But this requires discernment, a sense of proportion. Above all, it requires the realization that, perhaps with few exceptions, all those who—from Germany—I don’t know how to put this so as not to offend anyone—are negotiating Germany’s fate in Versailles today are being used merely as instruments in these negotiations. These are things that must be seen today without embellishment, my dear friends—that is, without making any concessions, even in one’s inner judgment. But if one recognizes this today, then through such insight one gains the initial impetus needed especially for public education; one sees what previous public education has brought to the surface in the people who are shaping human destinies today.

[ 24 ] It is, of course, easier to attach the most trivial judgments to what is actually meant here than to look at the various spheres of human life based on the suggestions that are offered, so that the right course of action can be taken in these different spheres. Some time ago, when I spoke at our building in Dornach about the threefold structure of the social organism, some time passed, and afterward a very peculiar plan emerged. As a grotesque example of how people are educated today, I might perhaps cite this plan. There is the building; some people are employed at the building, while others—who have nothing to do and live in the surrounding area—are connected to it. The threefold structure of the social organism had been discussed. Now, in some minds, the idea arose—which today, I would say, is taken for granted—that one must start somewhere. And so they wanted to begin socializing somewhere by singling out a small area in the most desolate, sectarian manner, allowing the wildest plants of selfishness to sprout there, and then claiming that they had, after all, begun socializing somewhere. So first, those who were grouped around the building were to engage in socialization, to bring the threefold social organism to life. Plans were drawn up for how the people of Dornach would bring the threefold social organism to life. One could do nothing but ask the people: What does that actually mean? Suppose you take this matter seriously: Then the first thing would be the independence of economic life. Yes, then, of course, you would first and foremost have to acquire cows and milk them and do everything that might seemingly create an economic oasis. And then, because other people would have to be connected to this economic oasis from the outside, they could become the most beautiful parasites of the economy, for any such sectarian isolation is nothing other than economic parasitism. In a closed economic sphere, one can only pursue social egoism; if you exclude something, you live at the expense of others. It is, in fact, the most ruthless form of capitalism. And legal life: well, I’d like to see—if you were to establish a court, and if someone were to commit a crime and you were to pass judgment on him—I’d like to see what the Swiss state would say if you had this threefold social order! And spiritual life: ever since we’ve had an anthroposophical movement, we’ve strived—against all opposition—for nothing less than independence in every respect, especially in spiritual life. We’ve been doing this for as long as we’ve existed, and you don’t even realize that this has already been undertaken. There is so little understanding of this that people think even this still needs to be “established.”

[ 25 ] It doesn’t matter that someone today might say: “Yes, you have to start somewhere.” — By “starting,” they usually mean nothing more than a reckless capitalist individualism, and this must, of course, begin with the capitalist establishment of such a colony. This is a world away from what is meant by truly social ideas. But this is not meant as a criticism of the individual; for I am the last person to underestimate the difficulties the individual faces when trying to grapple with the great challenges of our time. But there is something else I would like to impress upon you: do not lull yourselves into illusions, but if you do indeed wish to pursue capitalist individualization, then admit it to yourselves. Given today’s circumstances, you are compelled to continue pursuing capitalist individualism for the sake of your well-being. Please admit the truth to yourselves, for truth is what all social life must ultimately spring from. Truth should not even be denied in one’s statements. Nor should one ever present a falsehood to humanity, even in the formulation of sentences.

[ 26 ] Today, the cry is going around the country: “Free education.” — Well, what does that even mean? Shouldn’t the cry going around the country be: “How can we organize society so that everyone has the opportunity to make their fair contribution to the school system?” Free education is nothing more than a social lie, because either it is used to hide the fact that, on the one hand, one must first funnel surplus value into the pockets of a small clique so that they can establish a school system through which they control the people, or it is used to throw sand in everyone’s eyes so that they certainly do not realize that among the pennies they take out of their wallets, there must also be those used to maintain the schools. We must be so conscientious in the way we formulate our sentences that we strive for the truth.

[ 27 ] The task is a great one, but everyone should keep in mind the magnitude of the task. What has been held up as an ideal in anthroposophy within a small movement for decades—that, my dear friends, cannot of course be fulfilled by everyone: one person must take into account their job, another their wife, another their husband, and yet another the upbringing of their children. Everyone must admit this to themselves without reservation, so that they can gain an overview of just how little they are living up to what is at stake. For the anthroposophical ideal is such that it requires the full commitment of the whole human being. Many are simply unable to do that today. But they should not delude themselves with the illusion—the fog—that they have already done enough; rather, they should admit the truth about themselves. On the other hand, however, they must be deeply convinced that today it is a matter of make or break, especially when it comes to fostering a spiritual life that is truly in keeping with our culture. And no one can arrive at correct views regarding what is necessary for spiritual life—and thus for social life—unless they dare to courageously admit to themselves: Radicalism must extend all the way to changing the nefarious school schedule, right down to the smallest details; for it is from these small details that snowballs develop, which then grow into avalanches—the very forces that are now causing such great damage to culture.

[ 28 ] Please keep that in mind. We'll talk more about it next time.