The Rudolf Steiner Archive

1. The True Foundations of a League of Nations Lie in the Economic, Legal, and Intellectual Forces of Nations

[ 1 ] Over the past four years, it has often been said that events as terrible for humanity as those that have just occurred have never happened in the entire span of human history. Less frequently, one hears the counterargument to this sentiment: that the horrors that have befallen humanity there must at least be counterposed attempts to reshape social life—attempts whose intellectual foundations differ just as fundamentally from what we are accustomed to thinking as the terrifying events of recent years differ from what we have experienced in the course of human development. Indeed, when such an attempt emerges to develop ideas that run counter to ingrained habits of thought, one usually hears such an attempt met today with the accusation: “Well, yet another utopia!”—But we have already had some experience in recent times with the mindset that underlies such an accusation even today. It was precisely those people who think like those who speak of “utopia” in the case mentioned above who, had anyone been able to describe the catastrophic events that have befallen us back in the spring of 1914, would have dismissed such a description as a daydream, as fantasy. These people call themselves pragmatists. What did they say back then, before the world-shattering catastrophe struck? Let’s look at a few examples. We need only turn our attention to some of the leading statesmen of Europe at that time, in the spring of 1914. One could almost quote them verbatim when saying: Such “practical” people, such scoffers at what they call “utopias,” spoke back then something like this: “The relations between the major European powers—thanks to the efforts of their cabinets—provide a certain guarantee that world peace cannot be shaken for the foreseeable future.” - Such statements are not fabrications; they can be found in the parliamentary records, where they appear in a wide variety of forms.

[ 2 ] But those who, at that time, could not allow the mindset of such people to dictate the inner state of their souls—those who instead tried to maintain an unbiased view of events—may well have spoken as the person who, in April 1914, had to speak before an assembly in Vienna, and who is speaking to you today. At that time, my intellectual conscience and my powers of observation compelled me to say: With regard to the development of our social and international relations, we find ourselves in a situation that can only be described as a carcinoma, as a cancer in the life of nations, which is bound to erupt in a terrible manner within the shortest possible time. - Perhaps the powers of events will then compel people to regard as utopians not so much those who speak from this state of mind, but rather the others, whose words so accurately reflect the course of events, as I have just indicated to you. Today, once again, one hears the pragmatists—who set about implementing many things they label as utopias—say: “We cannot immediately scale the highest peaks of a new order in human society; we must move forward step by step. Certainly, some ideas—such people say—are indeed beautiful, and perhaps we will arrive at such things someday in centuries to come; but today, it is incumbent upon us to take precisely the next steps.”

[ 3 ] Now, it is certainly a matter of course that one must first take the very next steps, but one will have a hard time climbing a mountain if, even as one takes the next step, one has no mental image of which direction to head in—if one has no mental image at all in which direction the summit actually lies. And anyone who does not think in the vein of these critics of utopia—but perhaps thinks in a realistic sense—may today have to start from a different comparison regarding what lies hidden in the bud and could also erupt in a terrible way. They may not have to start with that cancer that broke out in the catastrophe of war in recent years. But they will have to point out that many people now think like those who live in a house that has cracks and fissures threatening to cause it to collapse—yet they cannot bring themselves to take action to rebuild the house; instead, they engage in all sorts of discussions about how to connect the individual rooms they inhabit with doors, so that through these doors they might more easily help one another. - The help that can be provided through these doors will be of little use once the cracks have grown to a certain size!

[ 4 ] Thinking such things seems, it appears, to be part of the course of events, which today speak more plainly and clearly than people are often inclined to hear.

[ 5 ] Now, this catastrophe of the World War, arising from the horrors that had to be endured, has given rise to a sentiment that has gradually crystallized into views such as those that now, once again, underlie the significant gathering being held here in Bern as a League of Nations conference. The call for a League of Nations has emerged from the harrowing events of recent years. However, it must be said that it might yet seem justified to approach the essence of this call for a League of Nations with a different perspective than some do today. For perhaps it is more important not merely to ask: What could be done for this League of Nations? What measures could be taken to ensure that it comes into being in the best possible way—as one has a mental image of it? Rather, one might perhaps raise the very question: What foundations exist in the life of nations for the establishment of such a League of Nations? For only by looking at the forces present in the life of nations can one perhaps discern from these forces to what extent one is in a position to achieve something fruitful with such a League of Nations. And does it not seem necessary—I would say—to shift the question somewhat in this direction, since the important concept of this League of Nations, which is particularly clear to the world, arose together with an idea whose realization is no longer even a possibility today? In 1917, a thought emerged in a speech by Wilson before the U.S. Senate which, in connection with another idea, went something like this: What one could strive for with this League of Nations had a certain prerequisite, namely, that the events of the war should not result, on either side, in what one must, in the decisive sense, call victory or defeat. - Wilson envisioned an outcome that was not one of victory or defeat for either side. And from this line of thought regarding such an outcome, he derived the sentiments that drove him toward this League of Nations.

[ 6 ] Certainly, there was a reality to that idea; but the reality that was envisioned back then can no longer be considered relevant today; for today, a decisive victory on one side is a decisive defeat on the other. Yes, perhaps for this very reason, for example, the question of the League of Nations must be posed in an entirely different way.

[ 7 ] It is particularly close to my heart—since I myself am raising the question of the League of Nations and dare to discuss it before people today—to pose this question in a very special way. As a member of the nation that has suffered a decisive defeat, it is not possible today to pose the question as if its answer could arise solely from a free agreement among those nations that might wish to unite in such a League of Nations—and to which, according to their innermost feelings, the Central European nations certainly also belong. The events in Paris essentially preclude such a framing of the question for Germans today, and we should not harbor any illusions about this. But I do not wish to pose the question in that way either. My aim is to find a way of framing the question and to formulate a corresponding answer in which even those who may be excluded from participating in this League of Nations for the foreseeable future can have a say. That is to say, the question will have to be posed as follows: Regardless of whatever temporary agreements may be reached, what can each individual nation, drawing on its own resources—whether it has suffered victory or defeat—contribute toward a true League of Nations capable of bringing humanity what it so ardently desires?

[ 8 ] However, since a League of Nations will undoubtedly have to deal with international affairs, it must, above all, focus on the most important international issues that will, under all circumstances, concern all nations in the near future.

[ 9 ] When addressing such circumstances today, one naturally looks in two directions, as is customary in our time. On the one hand, one looks to the state, and on the other, to economic life. Those people today who have any aspirations regarding human coexistence first turn to the state in connection with the guiding principles of these aspirations, asking: What should the state do in this or that matter where change has become a pressing issue? - Or, to put it another way, people today look—as I might say—with hypnotized gazes toward economic life; for economic conditions seem to be the only ones that give rise to today’s conflicts—at least the greatest conflicts of the present.

[ 10 ] In these considerations, which proceed from these two perspectives, one aspect is usually overlooked at first. Even when people claim they want to take current circumstances into account—and, above all, focus on the human being—in reality they rarely do so. Here, I would like to make a point of not shying away from examining what one finds when one focuses, on the one hand, on the state and, on the other, on economic life. But above all, I do not wish to neglect posing a question in the most forceful manner, starting from the perspective of the human being as such: What must states do to unite into a league of nations? That is, after all, the question that is asked first and foremost. And all sorts of—please do not think that I wish to criticize or condemn—all sorts of quite good things will come about in the near future if one poses this question in this way, by attempting to find, within the structure of states and their individual customs, something that transcends the individual states, so to speak—such as a world federation or a world parliament. —- However, today I would like to set against the question, “What should the states do?”—the other question: “What should the states refrain from doing for the sake of humanity?”—In many respects, we have indeed learned through the terrible events of recent years what the states have accomplished through their actions; they have, in fact, led humanity into this terrible catastrophe. We cannot deny it: it is the states that have led humanity into this terrible catastrophe!

[ 11 ] Wouldn’t it make sense, then, to consider whether a person, upon realizing that his actions are causing all sorts of harm, should always ask himself: How can I do things differently? - Might it not be more useful to say: perhaps I should leave what I have done poorly to someone else to handle? - You see, that might steer the question in an entirely different direction.

[ 12 ] Perhaps one must turn to the most important international issues after all if one wishes to gain fruitful insights into that which can be said to introduce cracks and fissures into the house—composed of various states—in which present-day humanity dwells. Perhaps one must ask: Where do these cracks and fissures come from? How is it that the states have driven people into this terrible catastrophe of war?

[ 13 ] Two things have certainly become international in recent times; among many others, they are: capitalism and the human labor force. Undoubtedly, we had a “League of Nations” or something similar to it: the alliance based on international capital. And another “League of Nations” was also in the making, and it is making its presence felt today: it is the one founded on the international nature of human labor. And one will have to draw upon these two things if one wishes to arrive at the fruitful seeds of such a League of Nations that can truly be built upon the affairs of humankind as such.

[ 14 ] With regard to capital, we are seeing that a large number of people view the way it has been managed over time—and what has led to so-called capitalism—as precisely what is most contrary to the interests of a large portion of humanity, and that, furthermore, many aspects inherent in it have led us into such terrible events. And a call is being raised from many quarters—expressed as opposition to this capitalism—a radical call that the entire social order built upon capitalism must be changed, that the private-sector management of capitalism must give way to what we have come to call “socialization.” This, combined with a certain perception of human labor, is what shapes international life today. It must be repeated again and again: however little it may be clearly expressed in the consciously articulated thoughts of the world’s proletarian population, it lives unconsciously in the depths of a crowd numbering in the millions—that in the course of capitalist development, human labor in particular has taken on a character that it must not continue to possess.

[ 15 ] Let us first turn our attention to these two directions. Capital—the capitalist management of economic life—must, if one wishes to understand it clearly, be decisively separated from that with which it is associated today. Two things are associated today with what is called capitalism: one points to something that is inseparable from capitalism; the other is something that must be distanced from it. Today, economic enterprises based on capital and private ownership of capital are conflated into a single concept. But the question must be asked: Are these two things separable from one another? For the private management of economic enterprises—which is built upon the greater or lesser intensity of individual human abilities—this private management, which requires a means of action, namely capital, cannot be abolished. Anyone who makes an unbiased effort to ask under what conditions the social organism is viable will always come to the conclusion that this social organism is not viable if it is deprived of its most important source—namely, that which flows into it through the individual abilities that one person or another can acquire to varying degrees. Whatever works in the direction of capital must also work in the direction of individual human abilities. This indicates that, in the state of the future, the necessary contribution to social life that comes from individual human abilities cannot in any way be separated from its means, namely capital.

[ 16 ] Private ownership of capital, however, is something else entirely—it is ownership of private capital. This ownership of private capital serves a different social function than the management, through individual human abilities, of the enterprises for which capital is necessary. By acquiring private capital—however that may come about—a person gains a certain power over other people. This power, which will mostly be economic in nature, can be regulated in no other way than by linking it to the legal relationships of the social organism. What truly provides the social organism with productive forces is the work that individual abilities perform through capital. What harms the social organism, however, is when people who, due to their individual abilities, cannot perform such work themselves nevertheless remain in permanent possession of capital due to certain circumstances. For such people possess economic power. What does it mean to “have capital”?—To have capital means to make a number of people work according to one’s intentions; it means to have power over the labor of a number of people.

[ 17 ] Recovery can only be achieved if everything in the social organism that must be produced through the use of capital is not separated from the human personality and the individual abilities that underlie it. But it is precisely because capital is owned by people who do not apply their individual abilities to the use of that capital—precisely because of this—that, time and again, the productive effects of capital are detached within the social organism from what capital generally is, a separation that can have very, very harmful consequences for human social coexistence. This means that, at this present, historic moment in human history, we are faced with the necessity of separating the ownership of capital from the management of capital. That is one issue. Let us leave it at that for now. We will see shortly what possible solution might emerge for this issue.

[ 18 ] The second is the question of the social significance of human labor. One can appreciate this social significance of human labor power by tracing what has stirred the souls of the proletarian population over the past decade, by seeing how profoundly what Karl Marx and those who followed in his footsteps said about human labor power resonated within those souls. What Karl Marx said in his theory of surplus value struck a fiery chord in the souls of the proletariat! Why? Because there were feelings within them that linked this question of human labor power to the deepest questions of human dignity and of a life worthy of human beings in general. Marx had to express in such words what he had to say about the social significance of human labor power—namely, that under the modern capitalist economic order, human labor power had not yet been liberated from its character as a commodity. Commodities circulate in the economic process; but in the modern economic process, it is not only commodities that circulate; it is not only commodities that follow the dictates of supply and demand—human labor power also enters the commodity market, which in this case must be called the labor market, and is paid for just as commodities are otherwise paid for. Those who must bring their labor power to the market feel, despite the existence of the modern employment contract, that their human dignity is degraded when they see their labor power turned into a commodity. For this modern employment contract is concluded on the premise that the employer—in this case, the business owner—purchases the worker’s labor power in exchange for compensation that is deemed necessary by the economic market. In short: labor power is turned into a commodity.

[ 19 ] However, this question can only be resolved by not stopping at what Karl Marx said. Today, it will be a matter of life and death for what is to be achieved—whether on the part of the proletarian population or on the part of the bourgeois ruling and leading circles—to bring about liberation precisely on this point by learning to go beyond, in the right way, what Karl Marx was able to teach the proletarian population in this area. Even today, among those who believe their social aspirations are entirely aligned with those of the proletariat, there is always, time and again, an underlying assumption: that those who are otherwise propertyless, who possess nothing but their labor power, must rely on wages; that is, they must turn their labor power into a commodity. “What is the best way to turn labor power into a commodity?”—this is how the question is typically framed—“How can it be made most profitable?”—One will never resolve this question in a way that does not give rise to new social upheavals unless one poses the opposite question: “How can human labor power be stripped of its character as a commodity altogether?” How is a social organization possible in which human labor power is no longer a commodity?—The reality of work, after all, amounts to the following in the strictest sense. Through the joint—let us now call it work—through the joint work of the manual laborer and the intellectual leader, a product is created. The question is this: How can this joint production of a product for the commodity market be brought into a satisfactory relationship with what we today call the employee and what we today call the employer?

[ 20 ] These are, after all, the two most significant questions that can and must be raised today regarding the entire spectrum of international life: What is the significance of the use of capital in human social life? And, conversely, what is the significance of the contribution of human labor to this social life?

[ 21 ] The worker today—let us consider his situation—may, even if he does not say so outright, even if Marx did not learn to think this through to its logical conclusion, feel that: Together with the entrepreneur, I produce my product. What is produced at the workplace comes from both of us. That is the only question at hand: what division exists between what we today call the entrepreneur and the person who is today a skilled craftsman? And such a division must exist—one that can be satisfactory to both sides in the immediate, concrete case.

[ 22 ] What, exactly, is the relationship between employer and employee today? I do not wish to resort to inflammatory rhetoric. But let us examine this entire relationship soberly—soberly, as it is formulated—albeit not even in clear terms—by today’s proletarian, and as it lies deeply and intensely embedded in the subconscious feelings of these proletarians. Since the worker, due to the economic power of the employer, is not in a position to enter into a contract regarding what they jointly produce as a commodity, or what the joint proceeds of that commodity are, or how much is allocated to one and the other—since he is only in a position to enter into an employment contract— the worker falls into a state of mind that gives him the feeling that, fundamentally speaking, no labor power can ever be compared to any commodity. And yet today people speak of exchanging commodities for commodities—or rather, for their representative, money—in the economic process. And it is also said that commodities—or their representative, money—are exchanged for human labor. Thus, workers today feel that, although they work alongside the entrepreneur to produce commodities, they are in fact being shortchanged because they do not receive the share to which they are entitled.

[ 23 ] This already points to the fact that individual human abilities, which must make use of capital, are actually operating on an uneven playing field. For what these individual human abilities accomplish—by managing capital through human mental or physical power—is perceived by a large portion of humanity as exploitation, as a kind of fraud. Whether this perception is justified or not is not something we wish to investigate at this moment; but that is how it is perceived. And in this perception, it forms the basis for the glaring realities of the present.

[ 24 ] This, however, points to the fact that people’s individual abilities must be rooted in something that, in a distorted way, is—or at least can be—incorporated into the social organism today. This exploitation of human individual abilities is linked today, in the modern capitalist economic system, to the appropriation of the means of production; it is thereby linked to the appropriation of a certain economic power, an economic supremacy. But that which can be expressed as power, that which can be expressed in this supremacy of one person over another, is nothing other than what constitutes a legal relationship in human life.

[ 25 ] Anyone who takes the time to consider how, in a remarkable way, a legal relationship intertwines with the application of individual human abilities may—as has happened to the one speaking to you here—find themselves compelled to turn their gaze to something rooted more deeply in the very nature of the social organism than the things people so often seek today. It stands to reason, given such premises, to ask: How is law—and how is the application of individual human abilities, which must continually be productive anew, which must continually spring forth anew from their original source within the human being—how is the utilization of individual abilities grounded in the social organism?

[ 26 ] Anyone who has retained an unbiased view of human life will gradually come to realize that within a social organism, three entirely distinct, primordial sources of human life can be distinguished. These three primordial sources of human life flow together quite naturally within the social organism; they interact. But the manner in which they interact can only be fathomed if one is able to look at the reality of the human being as such, who must be a unity, a unified being within the social triad.

[ 27 ] In the social organism, these individual human abilities are present to begin with. And we can trace their scope from humanity’s highest intellectual achievements in art, in science, in religious life, all the way down to that form of application of individual human abilities which is rooted more or less in the soul or in the body, to that application of individual human abilities which must be employed in the most ordinary, materialistic processes based on a capitalist foundation, and into the economic process that is usually disparagingly referred to as the “material realm.” A unified current can be traced from other intellectual achievements all the way down to this point. Within this realm, everything then depends on the appropriate, fruitful application of whatever must continually be drawn anew from the primordial sources of human nature if it is to flow in the right way into the healthy social organism.

[ 28 ] In a healthy social organism, everything based on justice functions quite differently. For this justice is something that takes place between people simply because people are, in general, human beings. We must have the opportunity to develop our individual abilities in social life. The better we develop them, the better it is for the social organism as a whole. The more freedom we have to bring out and utilize our individual abilities, the better it is for the social organism. In real life, however, this stands in stark contrast to the reality faced by anyone who does not start from theories or dogmas, but is able to observe true life—everything that must play out as justice between people. There is nothing else to consider but that in which all people stand equal before one another.

[ 29 ] And a third factor at play in human social coexistence—which, in turn, is entirely different from the other two: individual human abilities, which stem from the inequalities of human nature, and law, which stems from a sense of justice—is the human need that arises from the natural foundations of physical and mental life, and which must be satisfied within the cycle of economic life through production, circulation, and consumption.

[ 30 ] This threefold structure of the social organism did not arise from some abstract line of thought; it simply exists. And the question can only be: How can this threefold structure be regulated in the appropriate way so that the result is not a sick social organism, but a healthy one? In this regard—and of course I can only cite findings in these remarks—an unbiased observation of the social organism leads one to say: It is precisely the failure to recognize this radical difference between the three sources of social life in the course of recent historical development that has led to the debate in which we are already engaged today, and in which we will become increasingly involved. In recent times, these three currents of human interaction have been improperly conflated.

[ 31 ] How did it all begin? When, in more recent times, economic life—I might say—captured people’s attention as if under a spell, it was seen as a step forward for humanity to merge certain economic sectors—particularly the telegraph system, railroads, and so on—that is, those sectors of the economy that seemed best suited to be integrated with the state, upon which, just as upon economic life, the human gaze was fixed as if hypnotized. And what, in essence, does today’s socialist thinker do? He merely takes up the legacy of bourgeois thought in this regard. He wants not merely certain individual economic sectors that appear suitable to be nationalized or socialized. He wants to socialize either all property or all production. He merely wishes to draw the ultimate conclusion from what has already been done.

[ 32 ] Now, one could cite many examples. One need only point out, in the realm of foreign policy, the role played—among the fateful causes of war that have been brewing for years—by what I must describe with a single word: “the Baghdad Railway.” Hundreds upon hundreds of such examples could be cited. What do such things mean? They mean the intertwining of economic interests with the pure interests of the state. The result is that, ultimately, those who administer public life are compelled to use the powers at their disposal to serve economic interests. And in this way, the political interests of states are drawn into the conflicts of economic interests. The entire structure of states in recent times has demonstrated this intermingling of economic life with political life.

[ 33 ] Anyone who was able to view Central European life from this perspective—as the person speaking to you today was able to do in Austria—knows that much of what has now wiped the Austrian state from the face of the earth was brought about by the very thing people think about the least. When, in the 1860s, Austria considered establishing a constitutional system, that system was based on the fact that the configuration of the state was actually derived solely from economic life. For the Austrian Imperial Council, the electoral system was structured so that four electoral colleges cast votes: those of the large landowners, the chambers of commerce, the cities, market towns, and industrial centers, and the rural communities—all of them economic communities. Whatever was elected from these economic communities constituted the law in Austria. What emerged as law from purely economic interests could, of course, not reconcile with something arising from humanity’s spiritual and individual foundations: the national interests of the so-called Austrian state. And so things became intertwined in such a way that… what those elected by the four economic electoral colleges sought to establish as law—based on their economic interests within a sham state—was made into law. This, in turn, became conflated with what people, particularly in recent times, are so fond of conflating—it became conflated with the spiritual interests and aspirations of humanity, with everything that can be called the entire scope of spiritual life.

[ 34 ] Just as economic life has been integrated into modern political life, so too has the entirety of intellectual life been integrated into that political life. Indeed, this was seen as precisely what was in the spirit of modern human progress. The ideal became to gradually make all spiritual life a part of political state life. How much of it remains free today? Individual branches of art and individual branches of science, pursued by those who do not wish to be employed by the state, and the like. Even today, there is still no understanding that intellectual life can only properly integrate itself into the social organism if it is completely emancipated from all other aspects of life and left to its own devices—if it can establish its own administration and structure. While in recent times there has been an ever-increasing drive to nationalize the entire school system, it is precisely in the developmental forces of modern humanity that the potential lies to bring about a complete reversal in this area. Just imagine for a moment: If the lowest-ranking teacher is not a servant of the state, but rather if the lowest-ranking teacher knows how to place himself within a freely organized spiritual life, knows how to place himself within a spiritual organism, how differently he can then integrate what he is capable of accomplishing and integrate it precisely into the unity of the human social organism—how different this would be from a situation where the state dictates to him what he must or must not do, and what he must teach the developing human being!

[ 35 ] Those who pass judgment on these matters may believe—perhaps based on various negative experiences that have occurred—that people who, for example, are responsible for science, on which so much depends, are appointed according to certain considerations. But science itself and its teachings are free. Such laws are found in a wide variety of countries. And many people assert that this is indeed the case. Anyone who truly understands these matters knows that these transgressions occur not only in regard to appointments, not only in regard to the administration of intellectual offices, but also in the work itself. A free spiritual life—one that can powerfully engage with its own reality within a healthy social organism—must also be able to develop freely and independently of state and economic life, as a self-contained entity.

[ 36 ] I am familiar with the cheap objections that might be raised: “If schools are once again freed from state coercion, if everyone can send their children to school out of a desire for intellectual development, then we will return to illiteracy.” People who speak this way are applying old ways of thinking to modern circumstances. We will soon see how these modern circumstances bring about results quite different from what these people with their old ways of thinking assume. It must be stated at the outset, however, that the real truth can only thrive within the social organism if the necessary structure is in place and encompasses the following: the spiritual organism, which is built upon the individual physical and mental capacities of human beings—what we might also call spiritual life in its full scope; the legal organism, which encompasses the realm of the political state proper; and the cycle of economic processes, in which the production, circulation, and consumption of goods are carried out.

[ 37 ] One should not believe that this will destroy the unity of life. On the contrary, each of these parts of a healthy social organism will regain its health precisely because it draws its strength from within itself and each part can provide the others with the appropriate support. And so, those who seek to restore our social conditions must strive for the autonomy of these three components—which have been fused together by confused thinking and confused action over the past century—that is, the autonomy of these three components: intellectual life, legal life, and the life that encompasses the cycle of the economic process.

[ 38 ] The state cannot act as an economic manager. Economic life must necessarily be based on its own conditions and founded on its own principles. In economic life, this has also emerged to a certain extent in cooperative and labor union activities. But these cooperative and labor union activities have repeatedly been improperly intertwined with legal relationships. What is necessary in economic life is the system of associations—that is, the coming together of certain groups of people according to the needs of consumption and the production required to meet those needs, the coming together of people based on professional interests, and the management of what circulates within these groups in accordance with corresponding human needs, as can only result from an expert assessment of economic life itself.

[ 39 ] The effects of human labor and the effects of capital now come into play in this life. I can only briefly outline how these effects take shape. The use of human labor in the social organism consists in the relationship between the manual laborer and some intellectual leader who must make use of capital by managing some economic enterprise or, indeed, anything that benefits the social organism. This relationship can only be a legal one. The relationship between the worker and the entrepreneur must be based on law. It must be founded on a basis other than that of economic life itself. This will bring about a situation radically different from what we have today. But in the face of today’s radical realities, we must also arrive at radical judgments. Economic life today is, on the one hand, dependent on natural resources. Human beings must approach these with expert judgment. To a certain extent, they can make one piece of land or another fertile through their diligence and technology, but only within certain limits. They are, to a large extent, dependent on these natural resources. Just as economic life depends, on the one hand, on natural resources, so too must it depend on what must be established on the basis of the rule of law, through the cooperation of all people, regardless of the type of work they perform. Whether they are intellectual or manual workers, they enter into a relationship within the framework of the rule of law in which the equality of all people is taken into account. And these matters are determined—not in an associative manner, as must be the case in economic life, but in a purely democratic manner, in a way that ensures equal treatment for all people before the law in the political sphere of the state. Here, provisions are established regarding the utilization of human labor and the relationship between workers and managers. Only a maximum or minimum workday and the type of work a person can perform can be established. What is established—and this must be taken into account—will have a retroactive effect on the nation’s prosperity. If any branch of production should fail to thrive because it demands too much work that is legally impossible, then such work should not be performed; then a remedy must be found by other means. Economic life must reach its limits on both sides: on the one hand, the limits of its scientific foundation; on the other hand, the limits of the law. In short, we move from one link in the social organism to the next—the political state—in which, to the greatest extent possible, everything legal and everything related to the law is regulated.

[ 40 ] And we then come to the third element, which in turn must regulate itself and establish its own laws based on its own circumstances and needs: this is the organization of the spiritual realm. Spiritual life must be based, on the one hand, on human free initiative, so that human beings are able to offer their individual powers to humanity within a free spiritual life. On the other hand, there must be free understanding and free reception of these spiritual powers. How can this be? It can only be achieved by ensuring that—all the way down to that aspect of spiritual life expressed in the utilization of capital, including the spiritual life that is free in school life and in all branches of the spirit—that spiritual life is administered solely and exclusively by the spiritual organization. How is this possible? It is possible only if that form of socialization truly takes place—one that cannot be achieved by turning human society into a uniform cooperative in which perhaps only economic interests prevail, and everything is to be organized according to economic interests. If the spiritual organism is structured in a healthy manner, free from the other two branches—the state and economic organisms—that have been mentioned, and if one is in a position to manage, from within that spiritual organism, the administration pertaining to the use of capital and the entire economic life, that is to say: if all the positions necessary in economic life are filled through the administration of the spiritual organization, and if people, with their individual abilities, are placed into economic life by the spiritual organization, then—and only then—can one achieve a healthy, fruitful socialization. For only in this way is one able to separate the ownership of private capital from the administration of that capital for the benefit of the healthy social organism.

[ 41 ] What will happen then? Well, all sorts of things will happen. I will cite just a few examples. It goes without saying that, in the course of economic activity, people acquire private capital and property. But just as one cannot directly separate the utilization of this private capital from the utilization of individual abilities as long as those individual abilities remain active, so too will it be necessary, once their activity ceases, to separate private property from the individual. For all private property is, after all, acquired through the forces at work in society, and it must in turn flow back into the social organism from which it was taken. This means that there will have to be a law arising from the legal system—for ownership is a right, the right to make exclusive use of a certain object or thing— there must be a law stipulating that whatever has been acquired as private property from economic life—albeit through the free disposal of the person who acquired it—must, after a certain period of time, revert to the spiritual organism, which in turn must seek out another individual capable of utilizing it in an appropriate manner.

[ 42 ] Something similar will happen with all property that exists today, as well as with certain intellectual works that are produced, which, after all, belong to all of humanity thirty years after one’s death. One cannot claim to have any greater right to any other property than to this intellectual property. No matter how long one may be permitted to retain what has been acquired, the time will inevitably come—whether for inherited property or property acquired in other ways—when, through the free disposition of the private owner, that which came into his possession through individual labor will be returned to the intellectual organism. In addition, another development will take place: those who acquire private property through economic activity will be able to freely choose, based on their own judgment, those whom they consider individually capable of carrying out a particular endeavor. However, the power of the constitutional state—the true political state—will prevent a significant portion of private property from devolving into pure rent, whereby someone is able, without contributing individual abilities to the economic process of society as a whole, to use private labor and the labor of others for their own benefit. It is possible—and it is made possible by these three elements—that human productivity will always remain linked to the individual abilities of human beings, to which it must properly be linked.

[ 43 ] This threefold structure of the social organism still seems like a radical idea today. And yet, anyone who is not willing to come to terms with this idea, anyone who is not willing to take the first step in this direction toward the summit we must climb in the social order, anyone who does not realize that the most immediate, most everyday, and most immediate practical actions must be developed with knowledge of this direction—such a person will not be acting in the spirit of human development, but rather against it. Today we are faced with realities that have called upon people’s primal feelings. We must counter these with the primal ideas of the human social order. And one such primal idea is this threefold social order.

[ 44 ] This idea will now, at first, even by those who do not consider it a mere utopia—but who might perhaps bring themselves to regard it as something quite practical—will even by them be regarded only as something that pertains to the internal affairs of states.

[ 45 ] And now one might ask: What does this have to do with the League of Nations? — This is precisely what can also be the most genuine foreign policy! For if one works toward answering the question: What should the state refrain from doing?—then this line of reasoning yields the answer: It should refrain from interfering in the functions of intellectual life and in the functions of economic life. It should confine itself to the realm that is purely political, the realm that is purely legal. As a result, however, the necessary consequence will also arise in non-political life: throughout the entire world, the economic interests of one region will come into direct contact—through negotiation, exchange, and interaction—with the economic interests of another region, and the same will hold true for legal and intellectual relations. If intellectual conditions in a given region are liberated, then no cause whatsoever will ever arise from that intellectual sphere that could lead to any kind of warlike event. This can be observed even on the smallest scale. Intellectual interests can only become involved in warlike conflicts through the intervention of state life.

[ 46 ] Here, too, one can really only judge based on experience; but even small experiences can speak volumes. If one has an eye for such things, one could observe—as in Hungary, for example, during the times when Hungarian state life had not yet interfered in every aspect of life in the German-speaking regions—that in the numerous German-speaking areas, people who had German children sent them to German-language schools, while the Magyars living in German-speaking areas sent their children to Magyar schools, and vice versa: Germans living in areas with Magyar schools sent their children to areas where there were German schools. This exchange of children was carried out freely.

[ 47 ] It was a free exchange of the intellectual wealth of languages, just as one can cultivate other forms of intellectual wealth through free exchange, from country to country, from city to city. For Hungary, this free exchange of the intellectual wealth of languages meant profound peace in all areas where it was cultivated. This free exchange was imbued with the inner impulse of the people. When the state intervened, things changed. What was happening in internal political life was, in the course of modern times, constantly occurring in external political life as well. Anyone with an eye for such matters could see how deeply peaceful the German intellectuals actually were at heart. The mood of these German intellectuals would never have given rise to a warlike spirit! But the relationship they had with the state is what gave rise to that impression regarding the state. This is meant to be neither an objection nor anything else, but simply an understanding of the facts.

[ 48 ] The economic life of a threefold social organism will be able to unfold fully within the international economic order precisely because economic conditions are not shaped by state structures, but by people who emerge from territories in which there is not one parliament, but three parliaments— a spiritual parliament, an economic parliament, and a state parliament—in which there is not one administration, but three administrations working together. Only from such territories will people be able to emerge who can then play the proper role in an intergovernmental organization. And what matters is not the state or the economy, but the human being—the whole, complete human being.

[ 49 ] The role of intellectual leaders will be different when it takes shape out of an emancipated intellectual organization—different from the theatrical posturing that takes place, for example, between the Central Powers and America in the exchange of professors, which could develop only out of that which was linked to the state in an intellectually inappropriate manner. All these relationships will also be placed on a sound foundation in the international sphere once that sound foundation has first been established within the individual social territories. From these individual social territories will then emerge the kind of person who can contribute in the right way to international life as well.

[ 50 ] That seems to me to be the answer that can be given in such a way that it not only takes into account the harmony among the various nations, but also allows for each nation’s contribution to the true future ideals of the League of Nations. A German, too, can speak in this way; for even if the Central European countries or Germany were excluded from the next League of Nations, they could work in such a way that, by restoring their own territories to health, they would lay the groundwork for a healthy League of Nations in the future; they could make their own contribution to this.

[ 51 ] That is a question each person must answer for themselves. It is also an answer that every state can develop as its own foreign policy. For just as the states that enter into any peace negotiations—for example, with the German Empire—choose their own peace delegates, what ultimately emerges from the chaotic former German Empire cannot be prevented: to select delegates specifically from the three components—the economic, the political, and the spiritual organisms—who can then appropriately represent the healthy social organism to the outside world. That is genuine, feasible, and truly real politics.

[ 52 ] I have presented these ideas to people on many occasions in recent years; I have also, as some of you may have seen, summarized them in an appeal that is now appearing in the newspapers, signed by a number of people that gives me great satisfaction—among whom are those about whom there can be no doubt that they have the right to weigh in on these matters—and I have often had to hear: such a division would, after all, bring back the old order—which runs counter to the sentiments of a large part of modern humanity—as if humanity were once again being divided into the old three estates: the productive estate, the military estate, and the scholarly estate. The opposite is true! Nothing differs so greatly from these old estates—the productive, the military, and the clerical—as what is intended here; for it is not human beings who are divided into classes or estates, as in earlier times, but rather that which is separate from the human being, in which the human being lives: the social organism is being structured. And it is precisely the human being—as a whole, complete, self-contained being—who, within this structure that has been separated from him, will be able to develop all the more fully as a human being. This liberated human being—he alone will be able to lay the foundation for the thoughts, feelings, and acts of will that must play a role in the modern League of Nations.

[ 53 ] When reflecting on these matters, one does not want to become one-sided. And it’s easy to become one-sided if one bases one’s views solely on one’s own feelings. Therefore, I would like to refer to someone else now, in conclusion, after having presented so radically what I have outlined as necessary for the recovery of the social organism, and after having sought to distinguish it from what has developed thus far and what has led to this terrible catastrophe. I would like to refer to another person, a man to whom I often turn when I am seeking a distinguished intellectual observer of the developments that have arisen within human evolution up to the present: Herman Grimm. He once says, in a passage that emerged from his reflections on the modern social development of humanity, he once says: When one looks at Europe today, one sees, on the one hand, how people have come into connections with one another that were unimaginable in earlier times; but at the same time, one sees intruding into what is called modern civilization that which is expressed in our warlike armament—so he says as a German—in our own militarism and in the armament of other states, which can only lead to one day attacking one another. And when one considers what might come of this—the words sound truly prophetic; they were written in the 1890s, Herman Grimm had already died in 1901—if one looks at this, Herman Grimm says, it seems as though a future consisting entirely of human conflicts might unfold, so that one would almost prefer to set a date for the general suicide of humanity, so that it need not experience the horrors that follow from these circumstances.

[ 54 ] Since then, people have witnessed many things that result from these circumstances. What they have witnessed could well lead to ideas that are no longer regarded as utopian—especially when one considers how some of what has actually come into being must appear utopian to practitioners, given what they until recently believed to be impossible.

[ 55 ] This is what should prompt people today not only to change their actions, but also to change their thoughts—to rethink their perspectives. In the future, we will not only need different institutions; ultimately, we will need new ideas and new people who can only emerge from a new structure of the social organism. International alliances—after all, we have essentially experienced them before! Whether what is being strived for has firmer ground and offers a more secure footing than the old conditions can only be determined by truly going back to the fundamental conditions of human social coexistence. Did we not also see something like an international way of life develop in the way people used to marry among members of the most diverse royal houses? There would be nothing wrong with that, of course, if the royal houses had developed in a promising way! Something could then have emerged in the spirit of this “international alliance” that would have been very useful even under the monarchical principle! — We have experienced other international alliances, such as the very real international alliance of capital. We have experienced international social democracy. We have witnessed various forms of internationalism. That which was built on the internationalism of familial instincts has crumbled. As for the economic powers of unspiritual capitalism, it is clear to the impartial observer: it will crumble. But even what international socialism aims for is, at its core, a longing for power. This power will have to give way to the rule of law in the future, for whatever a person can seize through their pursuit of power in social life can only benefit humanity if it is integrated into the rule of law and scrutinized by it.

[ 56 ] And so, perhaps, in the face of various international developments, the feeling may arise in people today that a truly effective League of Nations must be founded on something other than these old conditions. It must be founded on entirely new human ideas, entirely new human impulses—and not on royal bloodlines, nor on the power of capital or labor. It must be founded on justice, on the truly liberated, whole human being. For only this truly liberated, whole human being, attuned to international sentiment, will also have a proper understanding of what can then shine upon them as the light of international law.

[ 57 ] Discussion

[ 58 ] 1st Speaker: Stated that the solution proposed by Dr. Steiner had not become clear to him. Nor, he said, was it possible to dismiss socialism as a grand spiritual concept in the way Dr. Steiner had done, for, after all, a new form of justice does not arise simply by wiping away the healthy core of socialism. The idea of the threefold social order may seem to be a solution, but it is an arbitrary one. In this speaker’s view, land reform is something inherent in the spirit of the times. Finally, reference was made to the ongoing spread of socialism as evidence that it is not a contrived system but corresponds to reality.

[ 59 ] Rudolf Steiner: It is, of course, difficult to discuss whether what was hinted at in a lecture that was, after all, not exactly short must make sense to every single person in an absolute sense or not; that is, after all, a matter of individual perspective, and every listener will naturally have their own opinion on the matter. I therefore do not wish to address this question specifically. I would simply like to make a few very brief remarks on the other thoughts expressed by the esteemed speaker who preceded me, particularly regarding the fundamental principles. Anyone who has followed my train of thought today—which may seem radical and therefore unprovable—to some extent may have been able to see, from the way the matter was framed, that what I expressed did not arise from a mere whim one fine morning, nor did it spring from other whims, but rather that these ideas are precisely built upon what, as far as I am concerned, has been proven from other sources. After all, it is not necessary to prove to you all over again what socialism, for example, has already proven! I expressed a thought—namely, that the theoretical concept of surplus value and its relationship to human labor power is particularly illuminating to the minds of the proletariat. I then expressed the thought that this perspective, however, must be taken one step further. In doing so, however, I believe I have also shown that I have no intention whatsoever of dismissing what the esteemed speaker before me has just alluded to: modern socialism. Anyone who listened to me more closely may also be able to say that I made sufficient allusions in my lecture precisely with regard to the significance of modern socialism.

[ 60 ] I could not interpret what I had said in any other way than in the spirit of the example mentioned. I meant that if one does not embrace modern socialism, then one lives like the residents of a house that is in danger of collapsing—people who cannot bring themselves to build a new one, but instead discuss how to connect all the rooms to one another so that they can help each other through these doors.

[ 61 ] With a little goodwill, this made it possible to see how much importance I actually attach to modern socialism. And it wasn’t really that difficult to deduce from this the idea—which, of course, could be elaborated further in forty or fifty lectures—that we simply cannot make do with what modern socialism already offers. I would like to point out one more thing in this regard. Of course, I will again have to be brief, since some might say that I am not giving my esteemed audience anything to take home with them. I would just like to say: I have the utmost respect for what Marxism—and everything built upon it—has produced, particularly in modern proletarian thought. For many years, I myself was a teacher at a workers’ educational school founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht, and I helped, so to speak, to instill socialist ideas within the working class. And perhaps I may point out that it would not be entirely incorrect for me to say: I believe that, after all, a number of prominent older editors at German socialist newspapers—and even speakers who, in Germany today, carry considerable weight—may well be my former students. So I am not only familiar with modern socialism as such—as one could already have seen from the way I have presented my views—but I am also aware of the significance that this socialism holds in the life of the modern proletariat. When one has been involved in this for years—I might even say, for decades—one doesn’t exactly need to wait for some brilliant, special idea to develop a system, simply because one wants to have one; rather, one simply builds on what is already there. And anyone who takes the time to examine these matters can see from what has been built that the existing framework is precisely what is being respected.

[ 62 ] But there is one thing we must not lose sight of. Certainly, thoughts—as such, when confined to the realm of theory—are essentially nothing more than symptoms of what is happening in real life. Therefore, do not think that I now intend to offer suggestions as to how the modern labor movement—or anything else, for that matter—is driven solely by the impetus of ideas; on the contrary, I wish to express that the ideas that come to the surface—and here I am certainly not thinking solely of economic forces—are merely symptomatic expressions of deeper, inner forces. I believe, in general, that in the future we are moving toward a symptomatological, rather than a causal, view of history, as is popular today.

[ 63 ] But now we must consider how certain thoughts—all of which are to be regarded as symptoms of certain underlying facts—manifest themselves. Today, you are familiar with very radical forms of socialism. Do not imagine how this might arise in the subconscious of some people who misinterpret it—which perhaps the previous speaker did not even mean— do not think that I am as alarmed by what is emerging in the present—even though I must view it with the gravity I indicated in my lecture—as some people in the ruling circles are. I am already able to view the consequences of social thinking and social development—which are emerging today, for example—with a certain degree of objectivity. I would like to point out something here that might seem significant to you. You see, Lenin and Trotsky are, after all, socialists as well. And I would say: let no one allow themselves to be intimidated by what is now being reported from Eastern Europe, and attributes it all to the “wicked Bolsheviks”—but rather, those who know that everything people today are inclined to attribute to the Russian socialists is, for the most part, still attributable to tsarism and what preceded it—may perhaps take a somewhat more objective view of what is happening! And anyone who looks at things objectively will then, above all, have to admit to themselves: In a certain sense, Lenin himself is a kind of ultimate consequence of Marx, even in how he views himself. And Lenin draws attention to two things in particular regarding Marx. First, he points out that the modern social movement must strive, through the dictatorship of the proletariat, to proletarianize the state itself. But the state is only—I must briefly point this out—appropriated by the dictatorship of the proletariat because it thereby draws its ultimate conclusions. Social democracy draws the ultimate conclusions from what is latent within the state: namely, the state kills itself; it dissolves.

[ 64 ] Well, the various downsides of this socialist state must come to light. Lenin, for example, is under no illusions about this. That is also better than succumbing to illusions, as so many people do. But he is working toward shaping a state that carries within it the seeds of its own destruction, a state that will disintegrate. Only then will the truly new stage arrive, where labor is not paid equally, but where the motto applies: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. - And at that very moment when this occurs—“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”—which must be not only a socialist ideal but a universal one—at that very moment, Lenin, much like Marx before him, makes a peculiar remark that reveals a much deeper insight than is usually apparent. He remarks: This social order, which can only come about if everyone is placed within the social order according to their needs and abilities, cannot, of course, be achieved with people as they are today; this requires an entirely new breed of human beings, one that has yet to emerge.

[ 65 ] Yes, you see, anyone who does not want to—and cannot—wait for a “new breed of humanity,” because otherwise the time might come when it would be better to carry out the general suicide I have spoken of, will turn their thoughts to the present life and will try to gain an understanding from this present life of what the mistakes were. And in this regard, I do believe that it might already be apparent from my—admittedly brief and sketchy—train of thought, in which I pointed to the question: What should the state do, and what should it not do? I tried to suggest how the very entanglement of economic life with the state, and the entanglement of intellectual life with the state, has given rise to the ills of the social order—and the examples I have cited could be multiplied a hundredfold.

[ 66 ] Isn't it quite obvious, then, that we need to consider how to remedy this damage? This can be remedied by not continuing the fusion, but rather by reversing what has just occurred.

[ 67 ] You might, of course, call it naive, but I do believe that my lecture today made it clear just how deeply what I have discussed cuts into the very foundations of modern life. To what extent this is the case, however, must be left to the judgment of each individual. The ideas that are currently being put into practice and accepted are, in fact, not new; and nothing new can be built upon these ideas.

[ 68 ] I presented the idea of the threefold social order—especially during the difficult war years—to many people who would have been in a position to put it into practice. I have also found understanding in some circles. Yet even today, no bridge has been built from that understanding through the mind to the courageous will—to the will to actually do something. That bridge has not been built.

[ 69 ] Just recently, I had a strange experience that might help you see how what I have said is, in fact, deeply rooted in real life—and is not merely a dismissal, but rather an embrace, or more accurately, a continuation of socialist thought: I spoke—which isn’t exactly easy these days—before a workers’ assembly that had simply been invited off the street. There—as I have often experienced during my work in Berlin—it was precisely the socialist leaders who objected to my remarks in various ways. And after many objections had been raised, a Russian woman stood up who—I’m just telling you this!—said, among other things: “Perhaps we have heard many things today to which one might object in this or that way, but it would be impossible today to simply remain stuck in the old ways of thinking, or even in the old socialist ideas; rather, it is necessary to move forward toward new ideas.”

[ 70 ] We will not achieve a true, thorough rebuilding of the house, but only new doors and so on—which will be of no help at all if the whole thing collapses, unless we truly embrace new ideas. And that is why I have said to some people during these difficult times that many of the misfortunes that have occurred over the past few years could have been avoided if many people had thought the way the Russian woman I spoke of did. I am convinced that people would have understood if, at the time, the Central European negotiators had made the ideas I am presenting here—at least one of which was very well known to them—the substance of foreign policy and the substance of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. If these ideas had been articulated to the outside world, they would have been understood.

[ 71 ] Of course, it is not possible to explain such things in all their details during a lecture; but one gets the feeling that real life—rooted simply in reality—must be present in the human soul. I certainly do not consider myself so clever as to know better than others what needs to happen in the details!

[ 72 ] Precisely because I am not a “program” person—because I do not offer programs or utopias, but rather because I am someone who wants reality to be grasped as reality—I have no interest whatsoever in seeing all my suggestions carried out down to the last detail. If, at any point, people begin to work in the spirit of what I have said today, then let not a single stone remain upon another of the content I have conveyed; something entirely different may emerge, but it will still be something that is justified in the face of real life.

[ 73 ] With programs—whether socialist or otherwise—the aim is always to ensure that the specific ideas that have been conceived are carried out as outlined in the program; the point here is to address reality at a single point. Then what emerges from it may turn out to be something entirely different! And so what I have said only appears to be so incomprehensible because the matter is not to be understood in the same way as other programs. One might say: today it is easy not only to introduce a program consisting of a few ideas, but even to prove it. But it is difficult to appeal to human souls—and to appeal to them as I have sought to do, namely, by directing these souls back to themselves and providing them with inspiration. Then they may perhaps think something entirely different. But fundamentally, what is most essential today is for people to know: one must start from a reality; then the rest will follow on its own.

[ 74 ] Therefore, there is certainly no need to look down on anything, as the land reformers seek to do. In a conversation I once had with Damaschke in Berlin many years ago, I pointed out to him that while his ideas certainly have great potential, they cannot fully intervene in real life or thoroughly understand it because the soil is not elastic. It is not, after all; and for that reason, I told him, it is not possible to implement them directly in reality.

[ 75 ] Well, there is no other way to cope with this than by taking a close look at the trend of the times, which arises from the fact that people have reached a dead end due to the confusion between legal life, economic life, and spiritual life. This leads to a conclusion that is by no means difficult to prove: namely, that we should not continue to confuse these spheres, but rather set out on the path back!

[ 76 ] What I said is intended to further the discussion on how socialization should actually take place, and how we can reach a point where, justifiably, human labor may not be used to exert power over another. And as I said: As imperfect as this must remain—since it cannot be dealt with exhaustively in a single lecture—I nevertheless believe that it is necessary today to approach these matters with a little good will; for the facts speak all too loudly! And even in light of developments in the socialist sphere that might appear quite different from what they were four years ago, the facts speak all too strongly today. I will soon elaborate on all of this comprehensively and in full detail in a pamphlet, because I consider this to be of the utmost necessity at the present time; this pamphlet will then provide detailed proof of what has so far been merely hinted at.

[ 77 ] I believe there’s one thing we mustn’t lose sight of today. I had a special experience yesterday. When I was a little boy, I always learned the following from my religion textbooks: I learned that one must realize that Christ must either be a fool or a hypocrite, or else he must be what he claimed to be. And it says in those religion textbooks: “And since he can be considered neither a fool nor a hypocrite, he must be the Son of the living God.”—I heard that very same answer given yesterday here in Bern as the solution to social issues! I read it in my schoolbooks more than fifty years ago, and today I hear it repeated once again—as the correct solution to the social question. Between the time I read it in my religion textbooks at school and this almost word-for-word repetition—which could be heard over and over again during those difficult times—I would say: literally, exactly—between those two points in time, however, lies the experience that humanity should have gained through the great catastrophe we have lived through. We should learn something from this great catastrophe! Above all, I believe we should have become more open to understanding ideas that may seem somewhat sketchy today, but which—through the way they point to things—perhaps show that they at least attempt to delve into the depths of reality.

[ 78 ] 2nd Speaker (Baron von Wrangell): Sees the threefold social order proposed by Dr. Steiner as the correct solution. How this idea can be put into practice, he believes, is another matter. The fundamental flaw of socialism, he argues, lies in the fact that it leads to an overvaluation of the state.

[ 79 ] 3rd and 4th speakers: Essentially objected that putting the idea of the threefold social order into practice would unnecessarily complicate matters, which argued against this solution. The threefold social order would lead to fragmentation, whereas human life should form a unity.

[ 80 ] Rudolf Steiner: Well, I think I might have to say something very briefly after all. I can understand quite well what the esteemed speaker before me is trying to say; but I have the feeling that he doesn’t quite understand himself! I mean, he should assess the entire situation we find ourselves in from a somewhat broader perspective. We human beings really do not have the sole task of making our lives comfortable. There is much more to life than simply making it comfortable! And I believe that a large part of the harm we suffer today stems precisely from the fact that a large part of humanity strives only to make life comfortable—in their own way. But what really matters, it seems to me, is something else.

[ 81 ] You see, I would not bother you with any idea about a threefold division if these three parts were not already inherent in the reality of the social organism. The fact that this threefold division is bound to come about is something that does not depend on us; we cannot change it; it happens of its own accord. I really did—and I must come back to this again—have the opportunity during this difficult time to speak with many people whom I believed should be doing something from the positions that are so authoritative today—it was already two and a half years ago, when there was still a possibility to do something—and I said to many of them: Look, what is being said here is not a simple matter. It has emerged from decades of observation of what is set to unfold across Europe over the next ten, twenty, or thirty years. For anyone who observes the course of events—and there is no other way to understand social threefolding than by recognizing the possibilities for future development within the entirety of the present—will see that, whether we like it or not, this threefolding is taking place. In earlier times, it arose instinctively; in more recent times, however, there has been an increasing blurring and merging of the three parts. Now these three parts want to separate again in the manner appropriate to them and attain their independence. - And I have said to many, using strong words: Look, the one who is at the helm now could still do many things in this direction through reason; people have a choice—Goethe himself said, with reference to revolution: “Either evolution or revolution”—they have the choice to either act through reason now, or they will experience revolutions and cataclysms. Not only those who have been at the helm until now will experience these cataclysms, but also those who merely wish to cling to the dogmas of socialism will experience them. The point is that this threefold structure of the social organism is bringing itself into being. And you can see for yourselves: That which is natural always manifests itself, under certain extraordinary circumstances, in certain one-sided aspects of development; these three members increasingly seek to become independent. And they become independent in an unnatural way if they are not granted their natural independence, if they are confused, if they are thrown together; they develop in a way that holds humanity back. The spiritual power, the spiritual organization—whether it takes the form of a papal state, a state church, or whatever—develops and becomes independent; and even if it cannot encompass the entirety of spiritual life, it nevertheless seeks to seize as much of it as it can. The other aspect—legal life—is claimed by the state, which in turn subjugates to itself that which seeks to become independent. Whatever seeks to realize itself in an unnatural way in political life is precisely what is today known as the much-maligned militarism. For you see, during the war in particular, many sound opinions were expressed regarding this militarism and its one-sided relationship to state life. But if one examines these views thoroughly with common sense, one also realizes that militarism is nothing other than the one-sided realization of that which one refuses to grant its natural autonomy—namely, political life itself. And Clausewitz said: “War is the continuation of politics by other means”; in Clausewitz’s work, this is presented in a certain context; there, one can still address these matters, unlike in recent years, when one heard many such one-sided statements. One could also say: Marital strife and divorce are the continuation of marriage by other means! We have heard far too many such one-sided statements in recent years; that is simply throwing everything into disarray. But what everything rests upon—if one wishes to develop fruitful perspectives in life that will then translate into real institutions—is viewing these relationships in a healthy light. And so these things truly want to take on a life of their own, to develop independently. In recent times, the economic organism has brought about such a massive inundation of the entire public life that today many people already see nothing at all but an economic organism. And then they see in whatever else might be there merely an administration of the economic organism.

[ 82 ] That is what can serve as proof. But above all, if I have achieved nothing more than inspiring some people, that is entirely enough for me. I don’t want anything more! For I do not believe at all that one can say anything definitive about what should happen socially. I would still like to add the following: As you know, there are two Bolsheviks today: one is Lenin, the other is Trotsky. I know of a third, who admittedly does not live in the present; very few people think of him when they speak of the Bolsheviks—that is Johann Gottlieb Fichte! Read his The Closed Commercial State, and you will find, from a theoretical standpoint, exactly what you can read in Lenin and Trotsky! Why? Because Fichte weaves a system of government out of his own soul! From the forces that can take you to the highest heights in philosophy, he develops a system of government—a political, or rather, a social system. Why did this happen? Because it is simply impossible to derive a view of what is socially fruitful from the individual alone! This can only be discovered through interaction between people. Just as language cannot develop if a person lives alone on an island, but can only develop as a social phenomenon—through the proper coexistence of people—so too, what is social in the first place cannot be derived by spinning it out of a single individual! One cannot devise a program on one’s own. One can, however, reflect on what kind of social order people must be placed in so that they relate to one another so naturally that they discover for themselves what the proper social order is.

[ 83 ] The social question will not disappear from the agenda! It is here and must continue to be resolved to an ever-greater extent. But the task at hand is to answer the question: How should people relate to one another within the threefold social organism? Then you will, to a greater or lesser extent, find the solution. People must relate to one another within the social organism in such a way that solutions arise from their coexistence. To carry out this preparatory work—that is precisely the task of truly social thinking—the preparatory work that shows how people can solve social issues in real social life.

[ 84 ] As I said before, I don’t think I’m smart enough to draw up a social program. But I pointed out that if people live according to this natural threefold division, and if they truly bring into being in the world the institutions within this natural threefold division that correspond to their impulses, then social order arises through human beings—through this interaction of people that is appropriate to a healthy social organism! That’s where we can contribute! We can’t do it the way the modern Marxists say: First we’ll create a big mess, then comes the dictatorship of the proletariat, and then things will work themselves out. - No, at the very least it is necessary that this groundwork be laid, that we ask ourselves: How must people be positioned within the social organism so that, through their cooperation, what the facts—which are truly speaking out loud to us today—demand of us will come to pass?