The Rudolf Steiner Archive

3. Proletarian Demands and Their Future Practical Implementation

[ 1 ] Do not think that I wish to take the floor today to speak to you about understanding among the various classes of people in our time, as is so often done these days by certain quarters, where it is said that it is necessary to talk about understanding. I would like to speak of a completely different kind of understanding, as we shall see shortly. To speak of that kind of understanding is out of the question when one considers how this way of life has developed over the course of the last few decades—perhaps even longer, and right up to the present day—and how it has now manifested itself in stark realities that are, admittedly, quite alarming to some people who, until recently, could not have imagined such realities. What good would it do, anyway, to speak of understanding of this kind in the face of what one hears from those quarters where such understanding is so frequently longed for today?

[ 2 ] Just a few days ago, one could once again hear all sorts of things from such a side, in Bern, at the so-called League of Nations Conference. What was put forward there regarding the desirable—and, as people believe, possible—international order of the near future truly brought to mind the speeches of certain statesmen, speeches that were delivered, always in the same vein, in the spring and early summer of 1914. Let us quote a few words from one such speech by a former statesman of the powers that later went to war. They went something like this—he said this to his Reichstag—: “Thanks to the efforts of the cabinets of the European great powers, we may assume that European peace will be secured for a long time to come.” —In May 1914! That was the peace that had been spoken of, that then came to pass, and that claimed at least ten million lives and left eighteen million people maimed! This is how people perceived what was lying dormant at the time.

[ 3 ] I myself—if I may make this personal remark—had to say the following in the spring of 1914, in light of what was clearly on the horizon for anyone who was not blind and deaf to reality, during a gathering I was able to hold in Vienna: We are suffering from a creeping cancer in the social organism of the present, which is bound to erupt as a powerful ulcer in the very near future. — That is how one could speak back then.

[ 4 ] Well, I think the facts have shown that those who spoke of a creeping cancer in the social order of that time were more correct than those statesmen of the day, who spoke in order to lull people into a false sense of security and create illusions. And so, once again, a great many people are talking about what is to come in international relations among nations. And they are missing the point—both in their words and in their thinking—regarding what is and will be of the utmost importance and significance, and what is already being heralded today by facts that speak loudly; they are missing the point regarding the actual, true social demands of the present.

[ 5 ] How did certain quarters portray the life of so-called modern civilization up until the years of terror that began in 1914? Time and again, one heard how tremendously humanity had advanced, how—compared to earlier times—it was now possible to travel rapidly across vast distances of the earth to conduct business, how thought flew across the earth at lightning speed, how science and art—what certain circles call science and art—were spreading, and so on. One paean after another was sung in praise of this modern civilization. And the last four and a half years? What has become of this modern civilization in Europe during that time? How could this have happened? It could only have come to pass because this modern civilization, for which such songs of praise were sung, rested on a foundation that had been undermined—not, however, by anything hostile to humanity as such, but by the most justified demands, in a wide variety of directions, of a large portion of the world’s current population. They did not perceive what this civilization has brought us as a life worthy of human dignity.

[ 6 ] But this civilization was only possible because it arose as a superstructure upon a foundation consisting of the fact that countless people did not lead a dignified existence. And what must be regarded as the worst of all is that a deep chasm had opened up in terms of understanding—a chasm between those who, on the one hand, sang its praises, and those who, on the other hand, had to raise their voices time and time again from the gatherings they wrested from their hard labor, crying out: “Things cannot go on like this!”

[ 7 ] There was little inclination among the leading circles toward a genuine understanding, the kind that should have been sought for decades—perhaps even for more than half a century. For the past half century, the proletarian movement has been growing more and more. And it is growing to such an extent that one can say: Until now, the life of the proletarian population stood as a powerful critique in world history of what the hitherto ruling and leading classes had wrought in world history and in the development of humanity. Today, the facts speak this language of criticism, which has so often been held up against these ruling classes. How often have the hitherto ruling classes interpreted what resounded against them as the cry: “Things cannot go on like this”—how did they respond to it? One need only—and I would like to cite examples—not even go as far as, for instance, a prominent figure who stood out from the ruling classes of the immediate past, such as the German Emperor, who, referring to the proletarian masses insofar as they expressed themselves as socialists, said: “These animals, who are undermining the foundations of the German Empire, must be exterminated.” Or on another occasion he said—these are his own words: “These people are the enemies of the divine world order.”—Not merely are they the enemies of other people, but the enemies of the divine world order.—As I said, one need not have gone quite that far; but people did harbor strange mental images. For example, in the German Empire, for certain reasons—which I do not wish to subject to criticism here—the Social Democrats had voted in favor of war credits; at least the overwhelming majority of Social Democrats had voted in favor of war credits, and had also—again for reasons I do not wish to discuss—fulfilled their military duty, and had generally behaved in a certain way toward the so-called World War. Do not think that the opinion held by people in bourgeois intellectual circles—who, upon seeing how patriotically the Social Democrats behaved, sincerely believed —and this is a fact—that in the future, soldiers would actually be nothing but men who would obediently allow themselves to be used for the very purposes for which they would have been quite gladly used, particularly in the former Empire, had things turned out differently—very, very differently—than they did. For they would have been very gladly used to approve tax measures in the Reichstag of blessed memory.

[ 8 ] Well, even on some socialist sides, no one could have imagined the glaring realities that have now come to pass. Even on the socialist side, it has been emphasized time and again: After this world war, the government will not be able to treat the proletarian population as it did before; it will have to take their will into account. Well, the facts have turned out quite differently, haven’t they? This government—or at least a large part of it—cannot today take the will of the proletarian population into much consideration.

[ 9 ] If one looks at both sides, one sees on the one hand what the Austrian socialist Pernerstorfer characterized as the attitude of certain bourgeois circles during the World War, saying: These millions, insofar as they belonged to the belligerent states, would gladly make peace with social democracy; but they would want a peace on terms roughly equivalent to offering lifelong friendship to someone, only for that person to hang himself afterward. - But if we look at the other side, there was no possibility of eliciting much understanding there either. I can certainly speak from personal experience here, for I worked for years as a teacher at the Workers’ Educational School founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht, helping to shape what had developed as a worldview in the souls of the proletariat. Anyone who knows what took shape in the proletarian soul also knows what proletarian demands lay at the heart of what resounded time and again in those very meetings—meetings for which the proletarian sacrificed not only his working hours but often his physical health as well. This took shape time and again in three forms. Admittedly, many did not speak with a full and broad understanding of what was revealed in these three things, but there was a deep sense in the souls of the proletariat of what was woven into these three demands—even if they did not seem to be expressed as demands. The first took the form of the words: “materialist conception of history”; the second took the form of the word—the word “surplus value,” which meant so much to the proletarian; and the third was what the proletarian had meant for decades—even when speaking from his own understanding and perspective—by “class struggle,” which hinted at how, in recent times, the proletarian had become, within the class struggle, what one might call the class-conscious proletarian.

[ 10 ] What exactly did these three words mean? At first glance, it seems quite theoretical, quite academic, to say that one adheres to a materialist conception of history; but today we want to speak in practical, everyday terms rather than theoretically. What did the proletarian actually mean—and still means—when he speaks of a materialist conception of history in relation to his worldview? Ever since that time—since modern capitalism developed in tandem with modern technology in the course of recent history—he had heard the same old refrain from the ruling circles. But of what is claimed today to be stirred in the human soul by this old song, the proletarian noticed very little when he looked at the ruling and leading circles. For the people in those ruling and leading circles said: Human beings live within a certain social order from generation to generation. Humanity lives just as historical life unfolds; and it lives according to laws that correspond to a divine world order. People called it a moral world order; perhaps, if they wanted to be enlightened, they also called it the ideas that govern the historical life of humanity.

[ 11 ] The proletarian looked at those circles that spoke as if their lives were determined by spiritual and moral forces that permeate and shape the world. But he, for his part, had nothing of these moral forces; he saw even less of a divine world order manifesting itself in reality. People spoke of a divine world order, but they did not see it—this divine world order. Above all, he did not see it in people’s actions or in the way people treated one another. After all—a process that had been developing for centuries—he had been drawn into the capitalist economic order, into the soulless, desolating capitalist economic order. It had emerged alongside modern technology, which had drawn countless people away from that old craftsmanship said to have been a “gold mine”—it was, in a certain sense, a gold mine—but what the modern proletarian experienced at the machine in the factory was certainly no gold mine. For him, this social order was embodied in his standing at the machine, in his being ensnared within the capitalist economic system. And as this newer technical and capitalist way of life emerged, he saw how the ruling and leading circles had restructured what they had inherited from a certain social organism of old—the modern state—to serve their own interests. Above all, he saw how the ruling and leading circles, drawing on what they had gained through the modern economic order and the modern state, appointed their so-called intellectual leaders—their teachers, lawyers, doctors, and so on. And, as I said, he noticed little of the fact that a divine, moral world order prevailed within this spiritual leadership. Rather, because he was accustomed to observing humanity’s dependence on the economic order, he noticed how these ruling circles, too, were entirely dependent on the economic order. Capitalism, modern technology, the system of exploitation—he saw that these were what placed the intellectual leaders in the positions they occupied. As this modern intellectual life emerged in the modern state, it had often been said from certain circles within this intellectual life: “Ah, that distant Middle Ages, when philosophy, worldly wisdom—and by that they meant science in general—was, in a certain sense, the handmaiden of theology.” What was less emphasized from this perspective, however, was that in more recent times, science had truly not become something that was a free science standing on its own, but rather that it was a faithful servant of the modern state system. Nor was it necessary to go quite as far as a famous modern physiologist who once said of a learned body, the Berlin Academy of Sciences: the scholars belonging to this Berlin Academy of Sciences are the intellectual guard of the House of Hohenzollern. As I said, one need not go that far; but one could, for example, have observed—and everything did indeed reach a certain peak during the World War—one could have observed some curious things during that World War. Certainly, in the case of mathematicians and chemists, one cannot immediately prove how they obey orders from above; after all, their science does not shine quite as brightly and is less conspicuously connected to what pulses through life. History, on the other hand, is more closely connected to what pulses through life. Anyone who examines what has been produced as history—particularly by those who served and wielded power in this field as civil servants—could well form a more impartial judgment than many others, if, for example, they considered everything that was said during this World War and even before—truly long before—about the historical significance of the Hohenzollerns. Truly, the history of the Hohenzollerns will look different when it is written in the future! One can already say that what these gentlemen produced in this field was a faithful reflection of what those in power actually wanted; it was truly not a free intellectual life—it was nothing more than an intellectual superstructure built upon the economic order of the past centuries, and particularly of more recent times. But is it any wonder that the proletarian, observing all these conditions, said to himself: Oh, forget it—all moral world order, all ideas in history! What does divine world order have to say? Every human being is dependent on the economic foundations. Depending on what these economic foundations are, that is how he develops his thoughts, that is how he expresses his feelings, and that is ultimately how he thinks even with regard to his religious mental images: it’s all an ideological superstructure! The truly real thing is the economic order!

[ 12 ] As I said, one can understand that which arose as an impression from immediate life in the soul of the proletarian. After all, this proletarian was compelled—the ruling class itself had to call upon him to acquire a certain level of education, since it could no longer make use of the old uneducated masses and illiteracy in its economic order—this proletarian was compelled, within the education he wished to acquire and for which he yearned, to accept what had emerged as science, as the entire body of scientific thought about the world in modern times.

[ 13 ] But this proletarian was also compelled to do something else besides simply assimilating science in the same way that the ruling classes assimilated this newer science, which emerged simultaneously with modern technology and capitalism. I would like to cite, again and again, an example that I recently brought up here to illustrate this point. I have just been speaking about this very area. One could be as daring a naturalist as Karl Vogt—the “fat” Vogt—one could be a popularizer of the natural sciences like Büchner; one could, in the manner of both, consider oneself quite a free thinker, quite enlightened; one could say to oneself: away with all those old prejudices. But at the same time, what this modern scientific mindset had brought about in these classes had a completely different effect than it did on the soul of the modern proletarian. The ruling, leading circles spoke of humans descending from animal beings. I do not wish to discuss here whether this doctrine is nonsense or in any way justified; people simply spoke this way—I merely wish to state the facts. But this doctrine was conceived by the ruling classes in such a way that it entered only into people’s minds. One could attain a kind of intellectual transcendence. But in social life, in the social order in which one lived, laws prevailed that were truly not derived from the fundamental view that all humans were equally descended from some kind of animal. And people found it convenient not to organize the social order—not even to truly conceive of it—in accordance with this modern scientific view.

[ 14 ] As I said—and I am mentioning this fact once again here in this city—I once stood on a shared podium with Rosa Luxemburg, whose life recently came to a tragic end. At that time, she and I spoke to a large gathering of workers near Berlin about science and the working class. In her particularly compelling manner, with her calm and composed demeanor, she spoke at that time primarily from the spirit of modern science; but she was speaking to modern proletarians. She addressed these modern proletarians something like this: Just take a look at science today. It is said that human beings do not originate from some kind of primal spiritual state, for, as she said—and I am quoting her words almost verbatim—human beings were originally quite uncivilized creatures who climbed trees, and we are all descended from such creatures. So, of course—she then said—there is no reason to establish hierarchical distinctions among people, as today’s social order does. —Yes, you see, one could be an enlightened person and belong to the circle of the ruling, leading class; one could hold firm convictions, but what was said in this way had a different effect on the modern proletarian. The modern proletarian approached this—one must say—bourgeois science with great, indeed enormous, trust, for he believed that it contained the absolute truth. And because he had been summoned to the machine, to the factory, into the capitalist economic order; because he had been torn away from everything that came before; because he no longer had any inherited customs or traditions; and because he could not remain in an entirely new way of life—he was compelled to accept what this bourgeois science offered him as addressed to the whole person and to ask himself: Is the world really as it appears in the eyes of this modern science?

[ 15 ] This is the main thrust of the modern proletarian’s intellectual life. This is what compels him, time and again, to feel deep in his soul that things cannot go on this way. And behind this lies one of the demands.

[ 16 ] The second of these demands—one could hear it time and time again, not merely if one belonged to the ruling circles and thus thought about the proletariat in a certain way, but if, living among the proletariat, one was able to think and speak with the proletariat—one could feel and sense it again and again. Anyone who lived within these circles knows that, through the concept of “surplus value” and everything associated with it, Karl Marx and his successors introduced something into the working class in a theoretical sense that had a electrifying effect. For there was something in this modern working class that, based on the living conditions of recent times, understood—deeply and painfully understood—what surplus value is.

[ 17 ] This is the point where one must say: We stand today at a turning point in historical development. What was alive within the modern proletariat was a critique of what the ruling circles have thus far brought about in the historical development of humanity. Today, the modern proletariat is called upon to act. This action will only be possible if, precisely on this point—which follows on from the concept of surplus value—we have the courage, wherever we wish to make progress in human life itself, to go beyond what Karl Marx meant when he spoke of surplus value and related concepts.

[ 18 ] What was it, then, that—in connection with this surplus value—evoked such a deep, visceral understanding in the soul of the modern proletarian? It was that which struck at the very nerve center of the entire modern economic system. What is the economy? The economy upon which we all depend for our material livelihood? What are commodities, production, circulation, and consumption? Into this cycle of economic life—in which only commodities were supposed to circulate—has entered, in a certain form since ancient times and separating itself from other forms, that which can only be characterized by saying: Within the modern capitalist economic order, the labor power of the modern proletarian continues to exist in the same way as a commodity. It is bought; it is exchanged for other commodities just like a commodity. — This is what the modern proletarian experiences. Whatever may have happened in small ways to divert his attention, so to speak, from this fundamental fact, we are deeply entrenched in a context in which proletarian labor is nothing more than a commodity. Here, the modern proletarian feels far more than what we have actually been compelled to express in theoretical terms—even in socialist science—up to now; here, the modern proletarian feels the utter inhumanity of his existence. He sees in his existence nothing but the continuation of the old slave existence, of the medieval system of serfdom. The slave is sold as a whole human being; the modern proletarian, because he possesses nothing himself, must bring his labor power to the labor market, where it is purchased from him. But can one bring one’s labor power to the labor market without bringing oneself along with it? Are we not so closely bound to it as human beings that, as human beings, we suffer the fate that our own labor power suffers? That is what matters: We must strive not merely for a different form of remuneration—which is nothing more than the purchase of labor power as a commodity—but for the removal of labor power’s commodity character from modern economic life. This is precisely the question posed, more or less explicitly, by the modern proletariat: How can it be that a person—even if they have nothing else to contribute to the social organism but their labor power—can lead a dignified existence? What does it actually mean that their labor power—which cannot in any way be compared to any commodity—is no longer a commodity? What is this, really? It is the great lie of life: that which can never truly become a commodity—labor power—is turned into a commodity in modern life. This is an experimental lie, a factual lie thrust into reality; it must be transformed into truth—this is how one could radically articulate the demand on this point.

[ 19 ] And the third is what the modern proletarian sees: it is struggle. He looks at modern economic life; deep in his soul, he senses that in economic life, anything wholesome can only flourish out of a sense of community. How, for example, would this sense of community manifest itself in a specific case? Well, in a specific case one might say: the entrepreneur, the employer, and the worker all produce together. The common ground, the sense of community, would therefore have to consist in their sharing the same interest in the social organism. Instead, the entrepreneur buys the worker’s labor power as if it were a commodity, even though they produce the goods together. He gives the worker nothing more from the product than the purchase price for this commodity. The employment contract does nothing to remedy this, no matter how it may be more or less sugarcoated. As long as this employment contract is concluded regarding the use of the proletarian’s labor, this contract must always turn labor power into a commodity. The only possible solution is that the contract between what is today called the worker and what is today called the entrepreneur need not—and must not—be concluded regarding labor, but must instead be concluded regarding the division of the product between the worker and the supervisor of the work. There is no other form of justice in this area. There is no other true expression of what is called the “public spirit” in this area. But what does the modern proletarian see instead of such a public spirit? Well, he sees class struggle. He sees his class—which produces through physical labor—in conflict with the class of entrepreneurs, and he sees surplus value flowing into the class of entrepreneurs without having any share in the “fates” that this surplus value undergoes within the social organism.

[ 20 ] The proletarian is certainly not so foolish as to believe that there is no need to produce surplus value. If people were to consume everything they produce through manual labor, there would be no schools, no intellectual culture whatsoever, and no state could exist; there would be no taxes, and so on; for everything that constitutes these things—which even the proletarian surely knows are necessary for the development of humanity—flows from surplus value. But the proletarian wants something else. And those who view the modern proletarian question merely as a question of bread obscure the facts. Certainly, it is a question of bread; but what matters is how this question of bread is felt. Today, the modern proletarian feels it from entirely different underlying motives—from the sense of a life unworthy of a human being. That is what matters. And instead of a sense of community, he feels the class struggle between himself and those with whom he produces together for the social organism.

[ 21 ] So what, then, is the actual experience of this modern proletarian in modern life? By raising this question—as is appropriate—one already arrives at the practical measures through which the proletarian demands of recent times can be met in the future. One might say: Indeed, up to now it has, in a certain sense, proved to be a truth—a truth of the past few centuries—that spiritual life is merely a kind of superstructure, an ideology, like smoke rising from what is merely the economic system. Yet, deep down, the proletarian feels a longing for a genuine spiritual life—a spiritual life that exists to fulfill every human existence. Even if he says that all spiritual life stems from the economic order, subconsciously he wants precisely a spiritual life that does not stem from the economic order; he wants a free, self-sufficient spiritual life; he wants a true spiritual life. That is one thing.

[ 22 ] The second point is this: He looks to the modern state. What does he see in this modern state? He sees class struggle in this modern state, and he feels that where class struggle prevails, something is lacking that arises from every human consciousness as a necessary requirement of life. In a social order in which class struggle can prevail, privilege prevails; for where would the struggle of the ruling classes against the propertyless classes come from, if not from privilege? But privilege must not prevail—so says the soul—justice must prevail. That is the second demand. It is the one that can be expressed something like this: The modern proletarian sees in the modern state the embodiment of class struggle. Yet on the very ground where class struggle prevails, he demands justice. And he sees, within the framework of the modern economic order, the development of that which turns his labor power into a commodity. He sees himself caught up in this economic process. Certainly, theoretically, the proletariat has so far established as a scientific fact that everything depends on economic life. Yet deep in his soul, a longing stirs: I want to become independent of the economic life that now prevails; I want a life entirely different from the one that depends on this economic life.

[ 23 ] If we view the major, highly significant facts of the present—which are causing concern in Europe and will continue to do so—from this perspective, if we examine them, they speak to us as follows: A spiritual life has emerged from the purely material interests of the ruling, leading circles. This is not what provides all people with a dignified existence. What the ruling circles have made of the modern state through the development of technology and capitalism has given rise to a community based on privilege, not on justice. And class struggle must cease; the rule of law must take its place. In economic life, it has turned out that labor power has been harnessed to the circulation of commodities; human labor power is brought to the commodity market. Human labor power must be removed from the purely economic cycle. This is what is expressed in the current facts of world history. How did all this come about?

[ 24 ] Well, one need only consider a few facts—which could easily be multiplied a hundredfold—from the perspective of a specific question. It may surprise you that I am speaking here precisely from the perspective I am now suggesting. Yet we stand today at a decisive turning point in the social movement. Recently, one has often heard—expressed more or less wittily—the phrase that is certainly not, by any means, merely a phrase: What brought about this catastrophe of the World War had never existed before, as far back as humanity’s historical memory extends. This has been repeated time and again. But one hears less emphasis placed on the following realization: Well, if that is the case—if people have managed, in a relatively short time, to kill ten million people and maim eighteen million, if this incomparable event has occurred—why do people not perhaps deign to ask themselves: “In order to make such things impossible, must we not turn to new ways of thinking—ways of thinking that are just as impossible in relation to our previous habits of thought as this world war is in relation to the previous experiences of human history?” Please excuse me if, in one way or another, I express the ideas I have in mind here somewhat radically. Let us look at individual facts which, as I said, could be multiplied a hundredfold. A rather characteristic example of how a state lived under the conditions of the past era is Austria. I am particularly qualified to speak on this subject, for I have spent three decades—half of my life so far—in Austria. It is precisely through the example of the Austrian state that one can study what it is that can—indeed, must—destroy a social organism in our time. When, in the 1860s, efforts began to develop a so-called bourgeois constitutional system out of the old Austrian patriarchy and despotism, representatives were elected to the Austrian Imperial Council from four electoral colleges: first, the college of large landowners; second, the college of the Chamber of Commerce; third, the college of cities, market towns, and industrial centers; fourth, the Curia of Rural Communities. The latter were not even elected directly, but indirectly, because the rural communities were not considered entirely trustworthy. The representatives of these four curiae now sat in the Austrian Imperial Council and made laws, established rights. But what does that mean? It means they were purely economic representatives—representatives of pure economic life in parliament—and they made laws. What must come of this? The interests of economic life must simply be transformed into laws, into rights—rights over labor, rights over property. As strange as it may seem, many bourgeois economic discourses were also held on the subject of property: for property is a right—ownership of the means of production, ownership of land—is a legal relationship. For everything else you might define as property has no significance in the economic process. What matters is solely what constitutes property: the right to make exclusive use of a thing, to the exclusion of others. Having the right of disposal over it—that is what constitutes the economic foundation. In the state as it has existed thus far, we have been dealing not with a right but with a privilege.

[ 25 ] Here we have one example that could be multiplied endlessly. Where this was not determined by an election law under the old order, it could develop on its own. That association, which called itself the Farmers’ Association, was, for example, a purely economic advocacy group in the German Reichstag. Let’s take another example. In the German Reichstag, there was also the so-called “Center,” a purely religious community. There, spiritual life was brought into the realm of law. Thus, spiritual interests found expression in the legal sphere. All of this is connected to what the modern state has gradually become as a result of the interests of the circles that had previously held power. When the modern era dawned with its technology and capitalism, people found this state—as it had developed out of the Middle Ages—already in place as a framework. Initially, they incorporated spiritual life into this state, training theologians—the kind the state wanted—as well as lawyers, doctors, and especially scholars; all of these were trained. The entire intellectual life was harnessed to the state. People were almost hypnotized by the idea: since the state serves our interests, let us have teaching conducted within it accordingly; let us administer intellectual life in a way that suits our interests, in a way that can emerge from the state itself.

[ 26 ] On the other hand, it was believed that one was serving progress and acting in the spirit of the modern era by first incorporating certain economic sectors—the postal service, the telegraph system, and the railroad system—into this modern state. That is the tendency: to merge everything into the modern state. That is a bourgeois tendency. Socialism, too, is essentially nothing other than the legacy of the bourgeoisie, which it inherited by, in turn, reviving the ideas of the old cooperative system—and thereby adopting the capitalist economic order, which, based on its own demands, must rightly be overcome. But the fact that it now, in turn, seeks to use the framework of the state to transform the social organism into one large cooperative—that is the bourgeois legacy. A cure—a true recovery of the social organism—can only come about if one understands how the ills under which we live arose precisely because three spheres that have nothing to do with one another were fused together, and because the modern state had to take on everything, as the question “What should the state do?” was asked more and more frequently. —What it can do—we have seen it in the devastation and ruin of Europe that have occurred over the past four and a half years! Today, we should rather ask: What should the state actually refrain from doing? What is better if it does not do it?—This is the question we must now address. If you consider the entire range of debates as we have conducted them thus far, you will not be surprised when I tell you that, on the basis of the most conscientious examination of social life—and indeed with equally sound scholarship, which simply cannot be presented in all its details in the course of a single lecture— one arrives at the conclusion that the most urgent practical demand today—precisely for the satisfaction of proletarian needs—is this: to reverse course with regard to nationalization, with regard to the fusion of three things that are entirely distinct from one another in life.

[ 27 ] To help us understand each other better, let me remind you of those three fundamental ideas of modern times that emerged at the end of the 18th century from humanity’s deepest needs, from the French Revolution, as a motto of the modern era: liberty, equality, and fraternity. - Well, it was by no means the foolish people of the 19th century—and right up to our own time—who have shown time and again that these three ideas are incompatible with one another, that freedom is incompatible with equality, and so on. Nevertheless, anyone who can sense this perceives these ideas themselves as healthy stages of human life, even if they contradict one another. And why do they contradict each other? They contradict each other only because they have been raised as demands—increasingly so—within a framework that can never be a single, centralized entity in and of itself, but which must split into three mutually independent, coexisting components. In the future, if the social organism is to function healthily, it must divide itself first into a spiritual organism, where all spiritual life has its own laws and its own administration, where—starting with the lowliest teacher—the individual does not heed the dictates of a state, is not constrained by the Powers of economic life, but lives solely within an organization founded upon spiritual laws themselves, where he knows himself to be fully immersed in a spiritual world, in a purely spiritual world. The point was not that we should be increasingly constrained within a bureaucratic system; for spiritual life can develop only when the heart and mind open themselves to individual initiative, to that which lies in the personal, individual abilities of the human being. If these abilities are nurtured within a free spiritual life, then a spiritual life will develop that can offer every human being a dignified existence. For then what develops as spiritual life will not be based on economic coercion or state coercion, but will spring solely from the impulses that underlie free humanity. Those who produce spiritually will speak to all people, and the spiritual organization will have the sole interest of nurturing spiritual individualities. Individual human abilities form a unity—a unity in elementary schools, secondary schools, and universities; a unity in art and science. Yet these more purely spiritual branches, in turn, work in unity with those individual abilities that flow into capital within the social organism.

[ 28 ] Capitalism can be placed on a sound foundation only by becoming the vehicle for a free intellectual life. That alone would make it possible to fulfill the demand that is commonly expressed today as the socialization of the means of production. For only a free intellectual life can foster social understanding, and only within a free intellectual life is it possible to continually channel into the public sphere that which is brought about with the help of the means of production and land. This, first of all, with regard to the free intellectual life.

[ 29 ] Within a healthy social organism, the rule of law—the actual political state—must also develop as an independent organization. Its role, for example, involves regulating the administration of leadership structures. Above all, however, it is concerned with regulating human labor, which must be elevated—not through abstract laws, but by people themselves—out of the mere economic process.

[ 30 ] How must the economic process unfold? On the one hand, the economic process depends on what lies at its boundaries—on the natural foundation, on the raw materials available in a region, on the soil’s yields, and so on. To a certain extent, one can improve soil productivity through technology; but there is a limit here—a limit that is set for prosperity, a limit on which prices depend. That is one limit. In a healthy social organism, there must be a second limit. This second limit is the legal and political organism, which develops independently alongside the economic organism. In the political organism, what operates is that in which all people are equal, what democratically concerns every person, and where every person must communicate with every other person. This is the ground on which the extent and nature of human labor must be determined based on the interests of humanity as a whole. Only then—once the scope and nature of human labor have been determined on the legal ground independent of the economic ground—does this labor flow into the economic process, and only then does human labor power determine prices. Then no one dictates the price of labor; rather, it determines its own price just as the land, with its yields and so on, determines its own price. This will be the great economic law of the future: that economic life is constrained between two limits, so that the extent and price of human labor are not determined by economic forces alone.

[ 31 ] And the third independent sphere will be economic life itself. Due to time constraints, I can only hint at how significant this transformation of economic life is. I’d like to give a concrete example so that you can see that I’m not presenting you with convoluted theories here, but rather what can be gleaned from practical life and applied to practical life. One need only mention a single word, and through that word and the ideas it evokes, every person is immediately immersed in economic life—albeit in different ways—one need only mention the word “money.” But you see, most people are familiar with money; some know it from the abundant amounts they possess, others from the meager amounts they have; but they believe they understand it. But as for what money actually is within the social organism—I won’t just say that ordinary people have no real idea, but even our learned economists today have very little understanding of what money actually is. Some are of the opinion that money is based on the metal value of gold or silver that underlies it; others are of the opinion that it is merely a token, depending on which the state stamps more or less flimsy warrants for goods and so on. People speak of a metaphysical process of money and so on, as is the nature of all such things; after all, in academia there is always a need to choose rather scholarly words. But none of that matters; rather, even the most learned gentlemen today agree that there must be something behind money as a medium of exchange. That which must be there is the gold reserve, to which one must always return so that money has value.

[ 32 ] Now, of course, today—since England is the world power and insists on gold—the gold standard cannot be abolished overnight in international trade. But the question must be raised, particularly in light of the recovery of economic life: What is the truth behind the claim that money in circulation, regardless of its form, must always be traceable back to the amount of gold available in any given state—since, as they say, gold is a popular commodity, one whose value remains stable over time? - You can read about all these theories for yourself. People simply point to the excellent qualities that gold possesses, which allow it to be represented by money.

[ 33 ] Well, what, then, is it that money actually refers to—just as economists believe that money refers to gold? Here, greater scientific progress is necessary. An answer is needed—one that people today will not yet believe. I will discuss this in more detail in my forthcoming booklet on the social question. People still claim today that they do not believe this answer. Yet anyone who looks impartially at economic life will receive the answer when they ask: What is actually the real, tangible equivalent of the money in circulation?—they will receive the answer, however strange it may still sound to people today: Gold is merely a notional value, wherever it may be. —What truly corresponds to money is the sum of all means of production existing within a social territory, including land. Everything that is merely expressed through money relates to this. All the fine qualities that economists attribute to gold so that it can serve as currency—all these qualities are, in truth, attributable to the means of production. Therefore, the question must arise precisely from the circulation of commodities with the aid of money: How can that which—though in a state of constant transformation and constant reconfiguration—nonetheless serves as the ultimate value underpinning the entire national economy become a unified foundation of economic life, just as money itself, which is merely its representative? Everything that exists in the means of production—as common as money is by its very nature—must be equally common among the means of production. That is to say, their circulation must be such that no one can work on the means of production except through the cooperation of the entire social organism.

[ 34 ] Two things must be taken into account here. First, that the social organism would lose an infinite amount if individual abilities were excluded. People should work for the social organism through their individual abilities, as long as they possess them and as long as they wish to use them. But the moment they no longer work for the social organism, the means of production they manage must be transferred by the constitutional state to the collective of the social organism.

[ 35 ] I need only point to one aspect of our modern life, and the point is made. It is the aspect that modern people must regard as the most contemptible, the most insignificant, and the most trivial—precisely because it is treated as such in modern capitalism: that is, intellectual life. What one produces intellectually is certainly linked to individual ability; but thirty years after one’s death, it passes into the public domain and no longer belongs to the individual. —This most trivial, this most insignificant asset is treated this way today. A way is being sought to transfer what the individual produces into society. That is what this transfer is all about. This is also entirely just in the intellectual sphere. For what one possesses on the basis of one’s individual abilities is nevertheless owed to the social organism, and one must give back to the social organism what one has attained through one’s individual abilities.

[ 36 ] Thus, in the future, the rule of law must also ensure that what is produced with the aid of material means of production is transferred to the community at large. We need not consider how to socialize the means of production bureaucratically, as in the previous social order. Those who oppress have emerged from capitalism. Thus, in the future social order, the oppressors will be recruited from within the ranks of bureaucrats—from among those who today call themselves socialists—if we were only to work toward a cooperative socialization of the means of production. But a just realization of what the individual produces through his or her own abilities—a just transition—is the path toward socialization. That is what we must strive for. Then, if one thinks this through, one will realize: Many have said, based on an old economic system, state order, and intellectual framework: if we want to hold humanity together, we need things that support one another—the throne and the altar. Well, in more recent times, the throne is often a presidential chair, and the altar a Wertheim cash register. Yet the mindset behind both is often quite similar.

[ 37 ] The only question is whether things would really be much better if the throne and the altar were simply transformed into offices, machines, and factories, and if everything were reduced to mere bookkeeping instead of the current system of administration. The demands being made in the social sphere are deeply justified; yet we are living at a turning point in history. We need ideas that will thoroughly transform the old order. And just as intellectual life, economic life, and political life have converged under the influence of the bourgeois circles of recent times, so too should the modern proletarian understand that we must set out on the path back. After all, this modern proletarian has acquired an understanding of this structure by studying how the various spheres of the economy and life must interact with one another; he has studied the class struggle; he has truly come to know the economic spheres in their relationship to one another! He should understand that the unity of the social organism is not disrupted but, on the contrary, promoted—not by seeking a mere uniform centralization in which everything becomes muddled, but by separating the three branches—intellectual organization, legal or state organization, and economic organization—each with its own administration and its own set of laws.

[ 38 ] Don’t say it’s complicated—how sovereign states should interact with one another! It will all work out in a much more intense and harmonious way than it does now, when everything is in disarray and chaotic. If the modern proletarian, observing and feeling his own demands, strives for truly practical solutions to the questions of his life and for the fulfillment of his hopes, then he will turn to this structure, which may still sound foreign today. And I do not believe that there could ever be as much understanding in other circles for the newer historical developments as there is precisely in proletarian circles. Oh, I have seen this myself, having repeatedly made suggestions along these lines to people over the past four and a half years; I have told them: What is called for by this threefold social order is not an abstract program, not a figment of the imagination that arose overnight; it springs from life itself, and it is what will come to pass in the next ten, twenty, or thirty years, particularly in Europe. And it will come to pass, whether you want it to or not; you have only the choice of either accepting reason now and bringing some of it to fruition out of free will, or facing revolutions of the most monstrous kind. — Well, the revolutions are coming soon!

[ 39 ] That is why I believe that anyone who, due to external circumstances, has been placed in a situation that, at first glance, seems meaningless—a lifeless machine—and has been ensnared in desolating capitalism, I believe that person must have an understanding of ideas that differ from the old but are intimately related to the new, the emerging, the becoming. And I am convinced—and believe—that these ideas will gradually sink into the hearts and souls of the new man, the modern proletarian in particular; I am convinced: If the proletarian understands these demands and the possibility of their solution in the true sense, then—having become a class-conscious proletarian who works toward his own liberation—he will liberate his class and, in doing so, liberate humanity as a whole; then he will replace the class with something else: the threefold, healthy social organism. He will then become not merely the liberator of his class, but the liberator of all humanity—that is, of everything within humanity that, as truly human, deserves to be liberated and must be liberated.

[ 40 ] Discussion

[ 41 ] The organizer expresses, in heartfelt words, his astonishment that the labor movement is being met with understanding from a perspective entirely unknown to it until now. He expresses his gratitude not only for the lecture, but also for the intellectual work that preceded it.

[ 42 ] 1st Speaker (Dr. Schmidt): Agrees with Steiner’s objective, but asks how it can be achieved. He argues that the path has already been laid out by the socialist movement to date: the party, the labor unions, and the cooperative movement. The three spheres of life will remain interconnected in the future, just as they are today, but will be shaped by the leaders of the socialist movement. The first goal must be to change the economic order in the spirit of equality.

[ 43 ] 2nd Speaker: It will be easy to reach agreement on the content of the objective. A threefold social order is a utopia (reference to Fourier). The path toward it is predetermined by the historical trend of the times: the class struggle.

[ 44 ] 3. Speaker: The intellectual movement must also be taken into account. Every revolution has been paved the way by ideas.

[ 45 ] 4, Speaker: The experiences of war have confirmed the materialist conception of history. This contradicts the assertion that socialism adopts the bourgeois belief in the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat has no other purpose than to prepare for the abolition of the state. Intellectual freedom will only be possible in a community of freely producing people. Only the proletarian mass movement has a chance of success.

[ 46 ] Rudolf Steiner: What the esteemed speakers have said does not really offer much opportunity to address one point or another, for the simple reason that it is only natural that the objections raised stem from commonly held views. I would like to say that I fully anticipated everything that has been said, down to the smallest detail. I would just like to take up a little more of your time to address a few points that seem important to me.

[ 47 ] First of all, I would like to draw attention to the following. Whenever something like what I said tonight is said, one always hears a certain kind of objection, which goes something like this: “I don’t have a clear mental image of how these things would work out in reality.” And on the other hand, there is an almost insistent demand that one must not, under any circumstances, present a utopia. I do believe it will take some time before people realize that what I have presented this evening really stands in the same relationship to a utopia as black does to white: namely, it is the very opposite of a utopia. These things are somewhat interconnected. What I wanted to say really can’t be characterized any differently than how I’ve already told many people: This is part of the trend of development over the next ten, twenty, thirty years. And whether we like it or not, we’ll have to carry it out—either through reason or through revolutions. There is simply no choice but to carry it out, because time itself demands it. And the development of humanity has indeed at times followed certain paths—paths it has taken, only to seemingly retrace its steps—and of course this is not a true return to earlier states, but rather the path back is a path toward a completely new form. Isn’t that right? Of course, we know that trade union life, cooperative life, and political party life have achieved tremendous things in recent times, and that we owe a great deal to them. But on the other hand, one must say that in all the things that have been accomplished, there must still be something unsatisfactory, something not yet complete. We are not convinced today that new realities exist. But there is indeed something there that now finally calls for a different kind of orientation than we have had up to now! When it is said that I have overestimated the power of the idea—I haven’t even spoken of ideas at all! I have spoken of precisely the opposite of what one might call the power of the idea. What, then, have I actually put forward as a demand? I have presented a possible social organization. I have pointed out how people should relate to one another so that they may find the right path. A utopian actually always starts from the idea that the social order should be shaped in such-and-such a way. He essentially considers himself smarter than everyone else; people have to wait for him, and once he has spoken, there is nothing left to discuss. If he can’t make contact, he retreats to his attic and waits. It doesn’t even occur to me—not in the slightest—to wait for a millionaire, nor to believe in any way that I know better than anyone else about this or that matter.

[ 48 ] You see, there is a very general social phenomenon that a person cannot achieve on their own—that is human language itself. It has been said countless times: If a person lives on a deserted island, grows up alone, without hearing other people speak, then that person will never develop language. Language develops from a social phenomenon in human beings, through other people. This is true of all social impulses. We cannot achieve anything social except through people interacting with one another in the right way; that is why I had to develop an idea. It would never occur to me to believe that one can reform anything with an idea. I sought to answer the question: How will people develop if they relate to one another in the right way—if, on the one hand, they manage economic life, on the other, legal life, and on the third, spiritual life? In the economic sphere, one will primarily establish associations composed of producers and consumers, professional groups, and so on; when they live in a democratic constitutional state, ideas will arise from entirely different premises—the impulse toward the equality of all people in the face of reality. When they are part of the spiritual organization: How will they interact with one another there? You see, one need only look at reality. A judge may have aunts, uncles, grandfathers, grandchildren, and so on; he may be very fond of them, love them tenderly, and that is good. But if one of them steals, and he happens to be the judge presiding over the case, he will have to condemn them just as he would a complete stranger, drawing from that other source.

[ 49 ] I have often been told—especially by professors—that I want to divide humanity into three classes. I want the exact opposite! In the past, society was divided into the productive class, the teaching class, and the military class. But today’s teaching class teaches nothing. The productive class is nothing more than a class of force, and the military class—well, its task is to tell the propertyless what the property-owning classes want! Yes, you see, that is precisely what must be overcome: the estates, the classes, must be overcome precisely by structuring the organism as such, separate from human beings. The human being is, after all, the unifying factor. On the one hand, he will be part of the economic organism, and just as he is part of the economic organism, he can also be a member of the political state’s representative body; he can also belong to intellectual life. This is how unity is created. I want to liberate the human being precisely by structuring the social organism into three parts. Let us just understand what this is all about: it is the opposite of a utopia; it is a matter of real reality. It is a matter of calling upon people not to believe that some convoluted utopia is being devised, but to ask: How should people be organized so that, through their interaction, they find the right path of their own accord? This is the radical opposite of everything else. All others start from an idea; here, the starting point is the actual social organization of people, and here attention is truly drawn to the fact that all differences are erased by the fact that human beings themselves, as mere human beings, constitute the unified whole. And that is why I would be sorry if the very view that declares the opposite of all utopianism to be a utopia were to make an impression! That is actually the only conclusion I regret, because it failed to strike at the very heart of my arguments. That is what is important, and I would like to draw particular attention to it.

[ 50 ] So this is not a matter of overestimating the power of an idea. Here, no importance is attached to the power of utopia, but rather to what people say, think, feel, and aspire to become when they are integrated into the social organism in a way that is dignified. Precisely because we are thinking in concrete terms here, it is naturally difficult to point to specific details. It is possible to do so; but anyone who gets into the habit of thinking concretely knows that when people are truly allowed to judge—to judge from within themselves—they may even come to different conclusions about a specific case, and both conclusions can be correct. I would like to give the following example:

[ 51 ] You see, people will of course still have to make use of the means of production based on their individual abilities in the future; for whoever is capable of managing any kind of enterprise will not be in charge of production for their own sake, but because those who work for them enter into a free contract with them, recognizing that their work flourishes better when it is well managed. This is a principle that must absolutely be taken as a basis in the future—one that will arise quite naturally. Then one must say: Under the conditions outlined here, something new is actually emerging; there is no longer any ownership at all, but only administration. Then there will be only administration. For I have pointed out that material goods can be treated similarly to what is today regarded as the most sacred—intellectual property. That is to say, after a certain period of time—not “after death,” but rather when the enterprise is no longer operating productively with the means of production—the means of production will pass to a different management. The details are very complicated, but precisely because this is conceived in a realistic manner—and not in a utopian one—we can only point out the following: When people relate to one another in the right way, they will find the right balance. That is what matters.

[ 52 ] You see, after such decisive events have occurred—especially now that the World War has broken out—one might think that truly new ideas must emerge, but one cannot keep repeating: “We must stand firm on our demands!” That is precisely what has been proclaimed for decades. We won’t get anywhere by saying: “We want a society that develops freely; we want a free social society for humanity”—but how?—I have said that until now it was a kind of politics; now the matter is moving into the realm of reality. The esteemed speaker before me quite rightly pointed to Russia. That is entirely correct. The moment such decisive realities actually arise, we can no longer simply grope in the dark. Yes, that is precisely the point: that one can create a mental image of something quite specific. And that, I believe, is evident from what I have presented: it is not a program, but rather a direction. You can continue the current conditions from their present starting point wherever you wish, if you so desire. Just take, for example, a transformation of the former conditions, such as is taking place in Russia. At any time, in any field, once state administration has begun, you can counteract this spiritual life by first establishing free schools, and by establishing free cooperatives and so on in economic life. You can continue working at any point, whatever the starting point may be. One must not form a mental image of all of this in terms of Swiss conditions. Life is becoming increasingly international. In Germany today, something quite different is already necessary than, for example, a few years ago. One can continue working from any starting point; the only thing that matters is that one continues to build. And I am counting on this—whether in a cooperative, a labor union, or any political party—the possibility already exists here and there for something to emerge; wherever one is, one can structure things so that these three elements come to the fore in all areas. Then we will arrive at a truly appropriate organization—one required by a healthy social organism—and certainly not at a utopian or idealistic form of socialization.

[ 53 ] Avoiding any form of utopia—that is what we must strive for above all else—and eradicating any belief that one can accomplish anything with abstract ideas. In social life, one can only accomplish something with people who know what they want in the very specific situation in which they find themselves. This has nothing to do with the fact that there is currently a struggle between those who can still be called the propertyless and the property-owning. If they work in accordance with the direction I have outlined today—if the property-owning and the propertyless work in the right way—it will turn out in their favor. If the property-owning resist, they will soon have lost their property. But the point is that among the masses there is a living awareness of what is to come. And you see, in this regard, one might say that the situation with social impulses is even worse than with medical or technical matters. If someone knew nothing about bridge-building yet still wanted to build a bridge, it would collapse. If someone cures a patient—well, in most cases you can’t prove whether the patient died in spite of the treatment or perhaps even because of it; that’s where things get tricky. And when it comes to the social organism, that’s where things get the trickiest of all—you usually can’t tell what’s a cure and what’s quackery, which is why people usually end up talking in vague generalities. You see, I heard a speaker who also talked about social issues; he mainly wanted to prove that you don’t really need anything else—just Christ—and then everything in social life will be fine. Now, one should by no means think that a debate on this subject is about to begin. But I had the following experience in this regard. I was reminded of something I read back when I was a schoolboy—I believe almost forty-five years ago. It said: Christ was either a hypocrite or a fool, or he was what he called himself: the Son of the living God. - As I said, I am not criticizing either side; I am merely noting: Recently I was in Bern, and a gentleman gave a speech there following the League of Nations conference in which he said that the entire League of Nations is organized incorrectly—that it is organized incorrectly, I myself believe—but he said it is organized incorrectly if one does not address the following: Christ was either a fool, or a hypocrite, or he was the Son of the living God, as he described himself. — In short, everything that was in my schoolbook forty-five years ago, that is what this gentleman presented to his congregation of believers. And this, above all, is worth noting: the World War lies right in between! After having had two millennia to bring their ideas into the world, people have reached a point where, despite all that, the World War still broke out. Doesn’t all of this point to the fact that we must learn something precisely through the World War? Isn’t it better for society—and healing for the social organism—if, even in the realm of socialism, in the realm of socialist knowledge, something truly new is learned through the World War? Must we say that we will remain conservative and cling to the old ideas, which, after all, have been shipwrecked in many respects by the World War? This is what I particularly want to emphasize: It really could have been foreseen, and it is—I say this without any reservation—very important to me; I am very glad that things were said as they were said. But I would still like to emphasize that, indeed, by clinging to conservatism—by rigidly insisting on what has been said over the centuries and what has now been said for decades—through this rigid insistence, through this clinging to conservatism, much harm has been done in the world! May socialism, for heaven’s sake, not inflict harm upon itself through this conservative stagnation! For that harm would be very, very great—perhaps far greater than that which has already been inflicted.

[ 54 ] You may have gathered from what I said at the end of my lecture that one can count on the fact that it is precisely through socialism—and even more so through the proletariat—that the liberation of that which is to be liberated in human beings can take place. So this is not about an idea; it is not about overestimating an idea, and I have not said anything about socialism having to align itself with state-run enterprises and the like; rather, it is about solving a problem facing humanity!

[ 55 ] And because I believe that, for the individual, it is largely irrelevant what he demands for himself, he should demand things in common with other people. One cannot help but fail with socialist demands if one tries to make them as an individual. One must make them within the human community.

[ 56 ] So what I am calling for is not just any idea, not just any utopia, but rather what people will be able to say of their own accord once they are part of the social organism.