The Rudolf Steiner Archive

2. What is the meaning of the modern proletarian’s work?

[ 1 ] Do not think that I intend to take the floor this evening for the purpose of speaking about understanding among the various classes of today’s population in the sense that the ruling classes—or rather, the classes that have ruled until now—so often speak of reconciliation and understanding at present. Tonight I would like to speak to you about a very different kind of understanding—the understanding demanded by the social realities that are making themselves heard today and by the great historical forces currently at work in the course of human development. I would like to speak about what seems to me to be particularly demanded of the proletarian movement in the face of these—one might say—world-transforming historical forces.

[ 2 ] To speak of a different kind of understanding is almost forbidden by modern life itself—that life which certain quarters refer to as “modern civilization.” What voices have we heard over the course of the last few decades within this modern civilization! Let us recall how the ruling classes to date have perceived this modern civilization—one might say, right up to the terrible catastrophe of war that has loomed over humanity in recent years as a horror. How often has it been said how far we humans have come in our creative endeavors and in production! How we have managed to ensure that a thought can be sent far across the earth in a short time, how connections have been established between the most distant countries, how spiritual life in all its forms has gained immense scope. Well, I could go on singing this song of praise—not as I wish to sing it, but as it has been sung by this ruling class in praise of modern civilization—for a long time yet. But let us now look at things from the other side. What actually made this modern civilization—about which so many songs of praise have been sung—possible? It was possible solely because it was, so to speak, undermined by those who, from the very core of their humanity, could not agree with what the bearers of this modern civilization were doing. And so, alongside all that one might call a kind of “culture of luxury,” one could hear the voices coming from the other side, voices that essentially always resonated with the words: “Things cannot go on like this!” As wonderful as your civilization may be to you, it cannot possibly exist without the vast majority of the world’s population being excluded from having any direct share in it. They must feel excluded from this civilization; they must, so to speak, watch from the outside, yet at the same time do all the work for this civilization!

[ 3 ] Has the other side, in any way, shown understanding in recent decades for the reasons and underlying causes that gave rise to such a reputation? It’s hard to say. In general, certain people today speak in a most peculiar way. Over the past few days, I have witnessed some of what has been taking place here in Bern at the League of Nations conference. One could hear all sorts of fine speeches there—that is, speeches that the gentlemen considered very fine. But anyone capable of looking a little deeper into what is being expressed through the world-changing events sweeping across Europe today could, in what was said there, above all, that they were talking past—and thinking past—the most crucial issue of our time, the one that is increasingly preoccupying a large portion of humanity. They were talking past and thinking past the very heart of the social question! This conference showed extraordinarily little understanding of this issue, and it brought to mind something else—namely, the weeks of spring and early summer of 1914. At that time, one could hear quite a few strange speeches from the circles that had been in power up to that point and their leaders. One could cite many similar speeches, such as the one delivered by a leading statesman in a Central European country before a parliament in 1914, in which he said: “Thanks to the energetic efforts of the European cabinets, we can hope that peace among the great powers of Europe will be secured for the foreseeable future.” - Such statements were still being made, in all sorts of variations, in May and June 1914.

[ 4 ] And then? Then came what killed millions of people, what crippled millions of people. That was so well foreseen—and yet it prevailed alongside the very thing to which such hymns of praise were sung as the hallmark of modern civilization!

[ 5 ] I myself, if I may make this personal remark, had to speak differently at that time than these statesmen did. Speaking before an assembly in Vienna in the spring of 1914, I had to say: Anyone who looks at the life of contemporary European humanity sees in it something like a creeping cancer that is bound to break out. - Well, one can leave it to the judgment of humanity today to decide who was the better prophet: the one who spoke of a cancer that broke out so terribly in the so-called World War, or those who believed that, thanks to the efforts of the cabinets, a prolonged peace was in sight. Just as those gentlemen at the time failed to recognize what was gathering like a dark cloud on the political horizon of Europe, so today certain people fail to recognize what is of the utmost importance: the social forces and powers entering the life of the nations of the world. Since this is the case, there is indeed very little prospect, at first, of bringing about an understanding through reason, so to speak. But, as I have already said, an understanding from the other side can be sought. And this understanding seems to me to arise when one takes the following starting point:

[ 6 ] Up until our time, the proletarian population was, in essence, in a completely different situation than it will be from now on. Anyone who has not merely reflected on the proletarian movement from a certain theoretical standpoint, but who has experienced this proletarian movement to the extent of living it, knows that… what the modern proletariat experienced was a profound and forceful critique of what the institutions and maxims of the previously ruling classes had wrought over the course of centuries—three to four centuries. For everything they had believed they had to impose on humanity, what the modern proletarian experienced was a living, world-historical critique. And, fundamentally speaking, what was taking place within the proletariat was a great, powerful critique. While the ruling classes of the past remained within their bourgeois culture—which they sang such praises of—while they could hear in their lecture halls what served their state, while they witnessed in their theaters the illusory world of their affairs, while they were still engaged in many other activities they perceived as part of such a salutary modern civilization, the proletarian masses gathered together in the hours they could spare from the heavy, arduous labor of the day to reflect on the serious questions of human development, the serious questions of world history. After all, modern technological development—and the capitalist development associated with it—had torn the modern proletarian away from all other human connections, such as those provided by the old crafts; it had placed him at the machine, harnessed him to the capitalist world order, and thus excluded him, in his immediate experience, from what the ruling, leading circles were engaged in. Thus, the proletarian’s inner gaze—his spiritual gaze—turned toward the general, and from a certain point of view, the highest interests of humanity. And what was driven forward in the proletarian assemblies was precisely that which inevitably resounded again and again in the cry: “Things cannot go on like this!”

[ 7 ] But even in what was unfolding there lay a powerful, magnificent critique of the policies and economic management of the ruling circles up to that point. This has now entered a new stage. And to truly follow this transition into a new stage with close attention—that seems to me to be one of the most essential social tasks today.

[ 8 ] How did the modern proletarian perceive the social order that had taken shape over the past three to four centuries, since the time when modern capitalism and modern technology also entered the course of human development? How did the modern proletarian perceive all that which he was forced to view as an outsider—all that which, to the extent he could make use of it, he actually wanted to embrace with his whole heart, so that he might have something for his soul as well? The old ruling circles spoke to him of various powers and forces at work in the historical development of humanity; they spoke to him of all manner of moral world orders and the like. But he, the modern proletarian, who turned his gaze upward toward what these ruling classes were doing, felt little of the power or the inner originality of such moral world orders; he sensed that the actions, thoughts, and feelings of the ruling and leading circles are essentially shaped by how they are able to live by virtue of their economic forms and their economic order, through which they are able to establish their civilization as a kind of superstructure upon the misery and oppression of the vast masses of humanity who were forced to work for them.

[ 9 ] And so what emerged among the modern proletariat was what, in light of reality and these newer ideas about human development, was the truth. The modern proletarian sensed a truth about what others, in a certain sense, were fantasizing about in a false way; they spoke of a moral, divine world order through which human beings are brought into mutual social relationships on earth. The proletarian perceived this as a profound lie. And he sensed that the truth in all of this is, in fact, that people live as best they can by exploiting economic life for their own convenience and benefit. And so arose—and one must now say, as the true legacy of what bourgeois science was—the materialist conception of history, the conception that did not allow for the actually effective forces in the historical development of humanity to be anything other than economic forces. And this became the belief that everything that constitutes human religion, human science, and human spirituality rises like a kind of “superstructure” above the economic forces, and that beneath it, as the sole reality upon which the superstructure at most exerts a reciprocal influence, the economic forces reign. The modern proletariat was right in its opposition to what bourgeois social order had made of social life—a mere economic enterprise—it was right in its opposition to that.

[ 10 ] A second idea, which sprang from the intellectual power of Karl Marx and spread into the proletarian assemblies, into the souls of the proletariat—this is not the question of the spirit, as I have just characterized it in the materialist conception of history; rather, it is the question of law. This culminates in a single word that you all know, but which had an electrifying effect within modern proletarian movements and evoked understanding in the innermost feelings of modern proletarian souls when it was presented to them by Marx and his successors: it is the word “surplus value.” And behind much of what has been said about this concept of surplus value—which the modern proletarian actually perceives as the most important question for humanity—lies the question that is posed more or less consciously or unconsciously, more or less merely felt or formulated with the intellect, but which has been deeply felt. What, after all, is the meaning of my work within the modern social order? And one must say: What Karl Marx offered in various ways as an answer is brilliant. — But today we live in a time when we must go even further than Marx himself did, especially if one understands Marx correctly—not in the direction of opportunistic politicians, but in an entirely different direction, as we shall see shortly.

[ 11 ] When the modern proletarian raised the question of the meaning of his work—a question that became, for him, one of his place within modern society and of his human dignity—he was repeatedly confronted with the problem that his work is, in a sense, absorbed by the capitalist economic process. He experienced that his labor had become something it can only appear to be: a commodity. The modern proletarian, whose only “possession” is his labor power—which he must continually reacquire—found that he must also bring his labor power to market and subject it to the rules of supply and demand, just as objective commodities—separate from human beings—are treated in the commodity market.

[ 12 ] Now, what is peculiar about human life is that things can occur in it that are real, yet are not truths—they are “life lies.” And one such “life lie” is the notion that human labor power can ever become a commodity at all. For human labor power can never be subject to any comparisons—any price comparisons—with commodities. It is, in principle, something fundamentally different from commodities. It is therefore a “life lie” when that which can never become a commodity is nevertheless turned into one. Even if this is not expressed in such clear terms, it is nonetheless something that is perceived as—I would say—the crux of the proletarian question in modern times. Because human labor power has become a commodity, the legal relationship that should exist between the employer and the worker regarding work has turned into a buyer-seller relationship. And modern bourgeois economists do indeed speak as if, within economic life, one could exchange commodities for commodities on the one hand, and commodities for labor on the other.

[ 13 ] The existence of a so-called employment contract in the modern sense of the word does not change the situation; for the relationship between employer and worker can only be governed by a legal contract in the sense that we shall see later. Human labor could only be liberated from its commodity character—and it must be liberated—if the only contract possible between the employee and the employer were not one concerning the work performed, but one concerning the distribution of jointly produced goods or services that truly serves the healthy organism. This is the demand underlying the Marxist theory of surplus value. This is also the path that requires us to move beyond mere Marxist thought. And we must ask: How does the wage relationship come to an end? How does a contract for the distribution of commodities replace the employment contract?

[ 14 ] With this, however, we have touched upon the second thing that repeatedly stirred the soul of the modern proletarian and was hurled at the ruling circles as a powerful critique.

[ 15 ] And the third was the conviction that everything that takes place in modern life—and that has led to the conditions into which we have now found ourselves—does not consist of harmony or of the coordinated efforts of modern people arising from a shared sense of purpose, but rather of a struggle between groups of people, in which one group initially holds the advantage; that is, the class struggle of the modern proletariat against the ruling classes.

[ 16 ] Truly, these three points—the materialist conception of history, the theory of surplus value and labor power, and the theory of class struggle—were studied with more contemporary vigor than anything that has been written within bourgeois society in recent times. For it was recognized that the state to which human development has progressed in recent centuries is merely a result of economic systems. Any other interpretation is, in essence, a great lie told to humanity,

[ 17 ] And so the entire intellectual life, which had become a kind of cultural luxury for the ruling class, turned into an “ideology” for the modern proletariat—a word one heard over and over again. It became a mere web of thoughts, sensations, and feelings that manifest themselves like smoke billowing out of the true reality of economic life.

[ 18 ] But one does not understand the matter if one views it only in this way. One understands the matter correctly only if one knows that, in contrast to this desolating ideology—this soul-destroying ideology, which is essentially a legacy of the thinking of the previously ruling class—the modern proletarian soul which has had time to reflect on human dignity and on what it truly means to become human—even while working at the machine and trapped within the capitalist economic process—a genuine longing for a true spiritual life has awakened—not for a luxury of the spirit, not for excess. Even today, one often hears in bourgeois circles that the modern proletarian question, viewed from this or that angle, is essentially a question of bread. Certainly, it is a question of bread; but the fact that it is a question of bread truly need not be discussed in an assembly where proletarian understanding prevails. For the issue is not that one should think in a similar way to, say, a bourgeois sociologist and educator who is currently traveling extensively in various regions and who, among other things, recently coined the phrase: “One need only truly experience modern poverty once, and one will inevitably come to yearn for the humanization of human society.” - Behind such words, from that quarter, there is usually nothing more than the question: How can one continue in the delusion of the old way of life of the ruling circles, and how can one best throw crumbs to those who are not supposed to share in this life of the ruling class? How can one address the issue of labor while maintaining the existing social order? — This is not merely a question of bread. If it is a question of bread, then the primary issue is how the struggle for bread is waged and what inner motivations drive it.

[ 19 ] This is connected to historical forces far deeper than those whom such people, when speaking of history, can even begin to imagine. And today, the three questions I characterized earlier have entered a new stage in that they contain much that cannot yet be clearly articulated, but which is perceived by those who have an ear for the workings of historical forces, for the sounds that herald the great upheavals of world history. Today, the proletarian movement is no longer mere criticism; today, it is what the forces of world history themselves demand—to move to action, that is, to raise the great question: What must happen? - And here it seems to me that what I characterized earlier is undergoing a transformation—a transformation such that, in contrast to purely material life as it has taken shape thus far, another form of life is to develop, one that will allow even the oppressed segment of humanity to lead an existence that is truly dignified, including in the spiritual sense. That is the first point—the question of spiritual life: How can we transform the ideology of luxury, the spiritual life of excess, into what, arising from the innermost nature of the human being, a person must truly experience as a dignified existence?

[ 20 ] The other development that has taken place—alongside this intellectual aspect—in the realm of legal life is precisely that which has turned the proletarian’s labor power into a commodity. This could only have come about because, in the social order emerging under capitalism and modern technology, the law became a privilege in many respects. How can the right—within whose framework the proletarian’s labor power is stripped of its character as a mere commodity—take the place of privilege?

[ 21 ] And the third question is: How can what has developed as class struggle continue to evolve in other forms? The proletarian has keenly felt that what must happen in life can only take shape through this mutual struggle. But he perceives the struggles that have taken place in the course of recent history as ones that must be overcome. And so, at the present stage of development, the question of the necessity of class struggles will now transform into the question: How do we overcome class struggles? - The question of surplus value—which, within the social order as it has taken shape over the past centuries, has been relegated to the realm of privileges—this question of surplus value gives rise to another: How can one find, in human society in the true sense of the word, a legal order that satisfies all people?

[ 22 ] With regard to the first question—the intellectual aspect of the social question—one need only consider how deep the chasm is between the classes that have ruled until now and those on the other side who are striving for a new world order and social order. And here one must say that what fills the modern proletarian as an intellectual life has, in essence, been inherited from the bourgeois class, which was able to cultivate science, art, and so on. - But this intellectual life has had a different effect within the proletariat, for the proletarian was in a different position with regard to what he inherited in terms of science and the like than he was with regard to what emerged as modern intellectual life among those who belonged to the bourgeoisie and the ruling circles. One could be a very committed adherent of modern intellectual life oneself; one could feel very enlightened; yet, as a member of the ruling class, one stood within a social order that was by no means organized according to this modern intellectual life. One could be a natural scientist like Vogt, a popularizer of the natural sciences like Büchner; one could believe oneself to be thoroughly enlightened—that might have been good for the mind, for intellectual conviction; but it was not suited to understanding the human being’s place in real life. For the way these people conducted their lives could only be justified by the fact that the social order stemmed from entirely different forces—religious ones, outdated moral worldviews—in any case, from forces other than those that had presented themselves to these ruling, leading classes as scientifically validated forces. Consequently, the modern scientific spirit—to which the proletariat had simply cultivated itself through the culture of recent times—had a very different effect on the proletarian soul.

[ 23 ] I would like to recall a brief scene that illustrated this particularly vividly: the different way in which modern intellectual life affected the proletarian, who was compelled to grasp this modern intellectual life not merely with his mind, but with his whole being, in terms of his entire place within humanity.

[ 24 ] Many years ago, I once stood on the same podium in Spandau with Rosa Luxemburg, whose life has now come to such a tragic end. She spoke at that time about science and the workers, and as a teacher at the workers’ educational school, I had a few things to add to her remarks on the same topic. This topic—“Science and the Workers”—prompted her to articulate precisely what is so characteristic of the intellectual life of the modern proletariat. She said there: The feelings—despite intellectual convictions—of the modern ruling class of humanity are still rooted in the belief that human beings descend from angelic beings who were originally good; and based on this origin, the ruling classes emotionally and intuitively justify the distinctions of rank and class that have emerged in the course of development. But the modern proletarian is driven in a completely different way to take bourgeois science seriously. He must take it seriously when he is taught that human beings were not originally angelic beings, but rather climbed around in trees like animals and behaved in a most indecent manner. Looking back on this origin of humankind from the perspective of the modern worldview does not justify differences in lifestyle, social status, and class in the same sense that others believe it does; rather, it establishes an entirely different idea of the equality of all people.

[ 25 ] You see, that is the difference! The proletarian was compelled to take what others accepted as a superficial conviction—one that did not run very deep, no matter how enlightened they might be—he was compelled to embrace it with his whole being, to take the matter with the utmost seriousness. But because of this, it took root in the soul in a completely different way. One simply has to become aware of such things, and then one will recognize in what sense the modern social question is, above all, a question of spiritual life and points toward the development of a spiritual life that satisfies all people.

[ 26 ] Then, when one delves into the causes of all that I have been able to describe today—I would say, only haltingly—because, if one were to describe it in truly great detail, it would require too much elaboration; so, when one investigates the causes and then asks oneself: What kind of development must we strive for? —then one can say the following: Today, the question is truly not whether materialistic culture is the real foundation of spiritual life, but rather how we can arrive at a spiritual life that can truly satisfy the human soul—the soul of all people. Today, the issue can no longer be a critical interpretation of what “surplus value” is—as the manifestation of human labor power within the capitalist world order—but rather the question arises: How do we liberate human labor power from its character as a commodity, and how do we ensure that “surplus value” ceases to be a privilege and becomes a right? And if there must be struggles within the human social order, must they be class struggles? Must they be the very struggles that have gradually emerged over the course of recent centuries?

[ 27 ] Today we are at a stage of development where criticism alone is no longer decisive, but where the decisive question is: What is to be done?—For those who delve into the foundations of life, this gives rise to what I would call a very radical answer. It may seem less radical to some than it actually is, but a radical answer does emerge. Since proletarian thought is, in many respects, merely the legacy of bourgeois thought, and since proletarian habits of thought are the legacy of bourgeois habits of thought, the first questions to be considered are: How can the ills of capitalism be eliminated? How can the oppressive nature of the transformation of human labor power into a commodity be eliminated? How can the class struggle be overcome in a humane manner?

[ 28 ] Today, these questions must be posed from a much deeper perspective. And today, historical facts themselves place great demands on the habits of thought and on the ideas of the proletarian. For it is up to him to rise to the challenge of the times and to ask himself: How do we move beyond the unhealthy foundations of today’s material historical life? How do we move beyond the devastation that the cycle of surplus value production has wrought in life and in the legal system? How do we move beyond the devastation of modern class struggles? The three most important modern social questions are transforming from the negative toward the positive.

[ 29 ] If one examines the causes of current living conditions, one finds that, in fact, there is a tendency to continue what the bourgeois world order has brought about. Many people today ask themselves: How can we overcome capitalism? How can we overcome private ownership of the means of production?—And they then turn to the age-old order of human social institutions, such as cooperatives and the like; that is, they come to regard common ownership of the means of production as an ideal.

[ 30 ] This is understandable, and indeed, these matters are not to be discussed here out of any bourgeois prejudice, but solely from the following perspective: Is it possible to achieve what the modern proletarian wants by the means that many socialist thinkers today believe will lead to that end? Is it possible—by drawing on the framework of the old state and incorporating into that old state what constitutes an economic order, albeit in a different form—to thereby bring about liberation from the oppression that the past has brought about?

[ 31 ] Let us turn our attention to the modern state. It came into being because, at a time—in the 16th and 17th centuries—when modern technology and modern capitalism were also developing, the ruling classes, who were then forced to draw the proletariat more and more into the world of machinery, found that their interests were best served within the framework of the state. And so they began, in those sectors where it suited them, to incorporate economic life into the state. And especially as modern achievements emerged, large parts of economic life—such as the postal, telegraph, and railroad systems—were incorporated into the state economy, which had been handed down from time immemorial. At that time, intellectual life, too, was integrated into the modern state structure!

[ 32 ] And more and more, this fusion of economic life, the legal life of the state, and intellectual life took place. This fusion not only led to all the unnatural conditions associated with the oppressive atmosphere of modern times, but ultimately also led to the devastating effects of the catastrophe of the World War.

[ 33 ] Anyone who reflects today on the facts of history will not ask: What should states do? — but, on the contrary, may be compelled to ask: What should states refrain from doing? —For what they do and the consequences of their actions, we have indeed witnessed in the killing of ten million people and in what left eighteen million people crippled.

[ 34 ] And so the question perhaps does force its way into the soul: What should states refrain from doing?—That is what I can only hint at here, but it is a question that can truly be asked at present, based on the deep foundations of a genuine social science. When one looks at certain political and social conditions—as they have, I might say, typically developed, but also as they have typically led to their well-deserved end—one need only look, for example, at Austria, which in the 1860s turned toward a unified constitutional system within the Austrian Imperial Council.

[ 35 ] What had taken shape back then—I spent three decades of my life in Austria, got to know the circumstances thoroughly, and came to understand what was developing at that time in the Austrian state as constitutional life—truly fit the hodgepodge of different nations like a glove. And for anyone who can truly follow historical facts, it is clear that precisely what was established back then in Austrian constitutional life—what had already become Austrian policy in the 1860s and 1870s—contains the seeds of the outcome to which the present years have led.

[ 36 ] Why? Well, at that time, an Austrian Imperial Council was established. Initially, the following curiae were elected to this Austrian Imperial Council: the Economic Curia, the Curia of Large Landowners, the Curia of Markets, Cities, and Industrial Centers, and the Curia of Rural Communities. They were there to represent their economic interests in the national parliament. And they created rights; they crafted laws based on their economic life. The only rights that emerged were those that were a transformation of economic interests. But when it comes to the law, one is not dealing with the same things as one deals with in the realm of economic life. In the realm of economic life, one deals with human needs, with the production, circulation, and consumption of goods. In the realm of legal life, however, one deals with what concerns human beings—as human beings alone, and as such equal to all other human beings—apart from all other interests. Judgments must be made on entirely different grounds when the question is posed: “What is lawful?”—as opposed to: “What must happen in order to introduce a particular product into the cycle of economic life?”—The unnatural coupling of economic affairs with the legal sphere—that is what gnawed at the so-called Austrian state like a cancer.

[ 37 ] These things could be illustrated with many examples from modern states. It is not a matter of merely studying these things, but of finding the right perspective from which to gain insight into true reality—into that which lives and weaves—not into what people imagine to be politically or economically correct.

[ 38 ] And again, consider the German Reichstag, of blessed memory—that democratic parliament with universal suffrage, in which there could be representation of special interests, such as the Farmers’ League, but also representation of a purely intellectual community, such as the Center Party! There we see something welded—fused—into purely political life that belongs solely to spiritual life. And to what unnatural conditions has this led! Once again, one could cite many examples in addition to this one. If one wishes to understand the life of modern humanity, then one must be able to approach it radically from this perspective. One must truly have the courage to look such things squarely in the face; then one will come upon something that modern people are not yet willing to admit—I would even say that people of all political parties are unwilling to admit it. But the sole impulse for the healing of our social organism can be nothing other than the recognition that, from now on, there must no longer be a fusion or coupling of the three spheres of life—spiritual life, legal life, and economic life—but rather that each of these spheres has its own laws of life, and that each of these spheres must therefore shape its own social structure from its own sources.

[ 39 ] In economic life, only the interests of the production, consumption, and circulation of goods can prevail. The fundamental laws of this economic life must be the guiding principle for administration and legislation. In the realm of legal life, what must prevail is that which springs directly from the human sense of justice—that in which all people are truly equal as human beings. In the realm of intellectual life, what must prevail is that which can flow from natural human talent through full and free initiative.

[ 40 ] Modern social democracy has made inroads—I would say from an entirely different perspective, though that is beyond the scope of our discussion here today—in a single area, by adopting the principle that religion must be a private matter. - This principle must be extended to all branches of intellectual life. All intellectual life must be a private matter in relation to the constitutional state and to the cycle of economic life. Only that intellectual life which relies on its own strengths, only that intellectual life which continually proves its reality out of its own impulse—that will not be an intellectual luxury, that will not be an intellectual excess; that will be an intellectual life that must be equally desired by all people. When considering medieval spiritual life—for example, science in relation to religion and theology—people have often made the statement: Philosophy, the wisdom of the world, trails in the wake of theology. - Well, it has also been believed that this has changed in more recent times. It has indeed changed, but how has it changed? The secular sciences have become servants of secular powers, of states, and of economic cycles. And they have certainly not become any better as a result. And why haven’t they become any better? When one sees that, fundamentally, there is a single, unified current—a single, unified force—flowing from the highest branches of spiritual life all the way down to the exploitation of human individual abilities, as driven by capital and capitalism, then one gets to the root of the question that arises here. Anyone who fails to distinguish the functions and activities of capital in the modern social order from the rest of spiritual life fails to grasp the root of the matter. Work based on capital is possible only in a society characterized by a healthy, emancipated spiritual life, from which can also grow the development of those abilities that are founded on capital.

[ 41 ] What has happened in recent times does not always have to come to light in such a grotesque manner as it once did, when a modern, very distinguished researcher—a physiologist—sought to characterize what the Berlin Academy of Sciences, that is, the learned gentlemen of this Berlin Academy of Sciences, actually were: He called them—these learned gentlemen—“the scientific auxiliary force of the Hohenzollerns.” You see, things had changed somewhat. Science was no longer the servant of theology; but whether it has now risen to a higher dignity by becoming the school servant of the state is another matter.

[ 42 ] I would have to speak at great length if I were to present to you, in all its parts, the well-founded and well-reasoned truth that only the reversal of the trend that has emerged in recent times—namely, the separation of spiritual life in all its branches from public life—can lead to the restoration of our social organism. How different will the lowliest teacher feel if, in all that he has to represent, he knows himself to be dependent only on administration and legislation founded upon spiritual life itself, rather than having to carry out the maxims and impulses of political life! A teaching class was supposed to develop in the past. A servant class has developed precisely in this area. And this class of servants in this sphere truly corresponds, in the sphere of economic life, to what has developed there as well. In antiquity, it was called the “nourishing class.” In more recent times, the “exploiting class” and the “exploited class” have developed. But these developments proceeded entirely in parallel. One is not possible without the other.

[ 43 ] Everything that pertains to the personal relationship between human beings—and this personal relationship also encompasses the agreements between employees and employers—can only be administered by that part of the social organism which is organized autonomously on the basis of intellectual life. Everything related to the law—and the employment relationship is, above all, related to the law—must remain the domain of the political sphere, of the constitutional state. But that which is related to the production, circulation, and consumption of goods must become a separate component of the social order, in which only the laws of life governing this organism are at work.

[ 44 ] Thus, by engaging with the fundamentals of these matters, one does, however, arrive at the radical view—one that some may find uncomfortable—that, for the recovery of our social conditions, three independent social organizations must develop side by side, which will interact in the proper way precisely because they do not have a unified centralization but are centralized within themselves: a parliament that administers intellectual affairs, an administration that serves only these intellectual affairs; a parliament and an administration of the constitutional state—the political state in the narrower sense; a parliament and an independent administration of the economic cycle in its own right; in a sense, like sovereign states existing side by side. Through their coexistence, they will be able to realize what the modern proletarian soul desires, but which cannot be achieved through a mere centralist nationalization of the social order.

[ 45 ] Take economic life, for example. Today, the situation is such that, on the one hand, it is tied to natural resources. These natural resources can be improved through soil improvement and similar measures, and working conditions can then become more favorable through the improvement of working conditions; but there is a limit that cannot be crossed. At such a limit, one must also stand on the other side. Just as economic life is tied to nature, which lies outside it, so must the rule of law stand on the other side. From within this rule of law, rights and laws are defined in such a way that they are determined separately from economic life. Just as a judge must adjudicate independently of his family or personal relationships when he judges according to the law—since in doing so he exercises his human will from a different source than in everyday life—so too, even if the same people are involved—for it is indeed the same people who govern across all three spheres of social organization— they will, when judging from within the modern constitutional state, nevertheless judge according to entirely different principles. For example—to cite just one point—it is precisely from what constitutes human demands on life that the measure of work a person can perform and the time during which a person can work will result. All of this must be independent of the price formation that prevails in economic life. And just as nature, on the one hand, imposes price formation on economic life, so, on the other hand, free and independent humanity—acting out of a sense of justice—must always give priority to labor. And the political state, which stands outside of economic life, must integrate labor into economic life. Then labor will determine prices; then labor will not be forced into the character of a commodity; then labor will contribute to the formation of prices and will not be dependent on the pricing of commodities. Just as nature acts upon economic life from the outside, so must the law—which is embodied in human labor power—act from the outside.

[ 46 ] It may be—for this is a valid objection—that the prosperity of a social organism depends in a certain way on labor asserting its rights first; but this dependence is a healthy one, and it will lead to a healthy improvement in the same way that, for example, land improvement through technical means does, when it is necessary, expedient, or proves possible. But the labor force will never be able to determine prices in the way that it must, in accordance with human dignity, if economic life is placed within the framework of the modern state as if it were a large cooperative. Economic life must be set apart and left to its own devices. Legal life, political life, and security must be separated and made self-reliant. There, people must speak from the most democratic foundation about matters that affect all people. Then this will have the proper effect on economic life and on what must result from it. This can never happen through any kind of cooperative or state institution of the cooperative itself. We will see that, if things remain as they are—just as the current oppressors have developed from other, historical foundations—the new oppressors will develop in the same way, unless genuine democratic foundations are established outside of economic life.

[ 47 ] Just as the legal system of the state must be separate from economic life, so too must the entire spiritual life—from the lowest level of schooling all the way up to higher education. Then what develops out of this spiritual life will be able to serve as a truly spiritually guided administration of the other two branches of life. Then it will be possible for what emerges as profit in economic life to be truly returned to the general public, from which it was taken. Then it will be possible for something similar to take hold with regard to material goods, as is currently the case only for the most precious spiritual goods. For in truth, the spiritual goods of modern society are, after all, the most precious of all. The fact is: with regard to these spiritual goods, what is produced is made available to the general public at least thirty years after the author’s death, becomes public domain, and can be managed by anyone. People today truly will not tolerate this when it comes to material goods

[ 48 ] In social life, property is not what this or that social economist so often dreams of in a peculiar way; it can only be understood in this way in the context of social life: Property is the exclusive right to dispose of a thing; property in the productive sense—in the sense of land—is a right. And this right can only be transformed from a privilege into a right that corresponds to the legal consciousness of all people if judgment is formed on a foundation where only the law is the determining factor, if it becomes possible for what has resulted as profit to be transferred by the constitutional state to the disposal of the intellectual organization, so that the intellectual organization must identify the appropriate individual abilities for that which is no longer used for production—that is, for the service of humanity—but becomes mere profit. In this way, it will become possible to continually bring new individual abilities to the benefit of humanity.

[ 49 ] But for there to truly be a power that directs—in the proper way, not toward bureaucracy but toward the free administration of people’s individual intellectual abilities—that which must be taken as property from one side, it is necessary for the constitutional state to oversee that property—that is, the right of ownership—and for it not to become the owner itself, but rather to be able to transfer free ownership to the intellectual circle from which it can best be administered. From this you can see that, based on such underlying principles, one does indeed arrive today at radical views that will astonish even you; but for my part, I am convinced that the facts of world history today demand such things of people. I am convinced that what the modern proletarian wants cannot be achieved in any other way than by extending his hand toward the separation of Powers. That is the only possible “foreign policy” today. And, curiously enough, every single territory can implement this on its own. If Germany were to embrace this today—as I recently articulated in an “Appeal to the Germans and to the Civilized World”—which garnered many signatures—and if the Germans were to embrace this tripartite division today, then perhaps they could negotiate with others in a different way than they can today, when they stand as a completely defeated unitary state—defeated precisely because of its former centralization—and are, in essence, powerless.

[ 50 ] I do not mean to take sides here, but merely to say that what I am setting forth can serve as the very foundation not only for all domestic policy but also for a true foreign policy, precisely because every single country, every single people, can implement it on its own. Indeed, when one considers the overwhelming facts of today, one is led to the conviction that it is no longer merely a matter of making a few changes to the status quo based on old ideas, but that it is necessary to establish new ideas and new realities as the foundation. In recent years, one has indeed heard quite often: “There have never been such momentous and terrifying events as those of the last four and a half years in all of human history.” One hears this more frequently today. But what the response to this assertion ought to be—that is something one does not hear so often today, namely: Never before have people had such a pressing need to rethink and relearn as they do today, when the social question points to where the greatest need for relearning lies—it points to that which is most often overlooked in both speech and thought.

[ 51 ] Today it is clear that it is people who must take action. One cannot simply come up with ready-made programs! What I have developed here is not a program; it is not a social theory. What I have developed here is a theory of humanity grounded in reality. I do not presume to be able to draw up a program for all the conditions that are to arise; the individual cannot do that on his own. For just as the individual cannot, on his own, create language—which is a social phenomenon—but rather language is formed through human coexistence, so too must all social life develop through human coexistence.

[ 52 ] To achieve this, however, people must first be in the right relationship with one another. [. . .] The same person can be a member of the economic parliament, the democratic parliament, and the intellectual parliament all at once; he will simply have to determine how to form his judgment based on the objectivity of the circumstances, drawing from the various sources.

[ 53 ] How people will organize their legal, economic, and intellectual lives when they are in the right relationship with one another—what people will say about social matters—that is what we should seek to understand; we must not put forward an abstract, theoretical program about what is right in all cases! Bringing people into such a relationship that they interact with one another in the right way—one might think—is something the modern proletariat in particular would understand, for the simple reason that the modern proletariat has seen how the various interests—legal, economic, and intellectual—interact with one another. Thus, they are brought into such mutual interaction that, drawing on their own strengths, they create a dignified existence for each individual and a viable organism for the whole. Even if it is radical, I believe nothing other than that good will and insight are necessary to bring this social program—which is not a program in the conventional sense (one must call it that simply because there are no other words)—to life. The social question will thereby, however, appear as what it really is. There are certain people who believe that we will solve the social question that has arisen if we do this or that, [...]. No, the social question has arisen because people have reached a certain stage of development. And now it is here, and it will always be here, and it will always have to be resolved anew. And if people are not willing to embrace ever-new solutions, then these forces will ultimately fall into such disharmony that it will inevitably lead to increasingly revolutionary upheavals of social order. Revolutions must be defeated step by step on a small scale; then they will not occur on a large scale. But if one does not overcome what enters life day by day as legitimate revolutionary forces, then—yes, then—one need not be surprised when that which one refuses to acknowledge erupts in major upheavals. In a certain sense, one must rather regard this as something understandable.

[ 54 ] I believe, then, that it is precisely within the proletariat that an understanding could develop of the social question—as it arises from this threefold division of the social organism—in a truly comprehensive way. And I am convinced that, once some understanding develops, the proletarian will finally grasp how he is, in the true sense of the word, the genuine modern human being. He, who has been torn away from the old laws, placed before the dreary machine, and harnessed to the soulless economic process—he has the opportunity, alongside this dehumanizing, destructive force, to reflect on what is truly human, on that which makes human life truly worthy of humanity; he has the opportunity to reflect on this from its fundamental foundations and to view human beings as purely human beings. Therefore, one may also believe that when what is hidden within modern proletarian class consciousness—what lies behind it—develops: the consciousness of human dignity—“a dignified existence must be granted to all human beings” —then, with the resolution of the proletarian question, with the liberation of the proletariat, the resolution of a great question of world history concerning all of humanity will be achieved. Then the proletarian will not only redeem himself; the proletarian will become the redeemer of all humanity within humanity. Then, with the proletarian liberation, all of humanity—that which within humanity is worthy of liberation—will be able to be liberated.