The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Meeting of the Workers' Committees of Stuttgart's Large Enterprises

Introductory Remarks by Rudolf Steiner

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! In light of what the Chairman has just said, I imagine that our evening today might best proceed with the distinguished attendees asking specific questions. This is the best way for us to achieve our purpose, which has just been explained to you. So it might be best if I say just a few words to begin with, to provide you with a brief introduction to the discussion that will follow—which, I believe, should be the main focus today.

[ 2 ] As the Chair has assumed, you will have taken note of the proposals I have had to make—based on a lifetime of experience—for a truly practical path to socialization, proposals that have only now come to fruition in light of the stark realities of the present. I would like to briefly characterize a few points, repeating myself, so to speak.

[ 3 ] The point is that in the future we must strive radically—and this can be achieved much more quickly than many believe—for what I have called the threefold structure of the social organism in an “Appeal” and in my book. This threefold structure would lead to the existence in the future of an independent spiritual organism that would govern itself and whose task would be to nurture the natural foundation of the human being—that is, his or her individual abilities—just as one must otherwise nurture natural resources in economic life. The second would be the organization that is to take the place of the present-day state: the actual legal organization. Its primary task would be to regulate, above all else, everything necessary to transform the current conditions of possession and ownership—which are, after all, of paramount importance for genuine socialization—into a desirable future state. On the one hand, then, there would first be—though, of course, an immeasurable number of factors will come into play over time—that which would take the place of the state. One would thus have to transform the current conditions of power, possession, and ownership into conditions based on the law, in which all people are equal. And on the other hand, within this intermediate link of the social organism—which replaces the state—everything encompassed by the entire field of labor law would be regulated.

[ 4 ] I see labor law as being at risk whenever it is to be regulated within the cycle of economic life itself. The harms that occur primarily within today’s economic system are usually misjudged. I have gone to great lengths to form an accurate picture not from what has been written about these matters—for in truth, very little can be gleaned from that—but rather directly from life itself. I would like to discuss these matters only briefly today so that we can move on to specific questions. I have explained this in detail in my book: As long as the belief prevails that working hours, as well as the scope and nature of work, should be regulated within the economic system itself, workers will not be able to obtain their due rights. The worker must already have his labor rights fully established before he can even begin to engage with his supervisor in any meaningful way. Only then is he in a position to replace today’s sham contracts—the wage contract, or whatever one wishes to call it—with a genuine contract; for the wage contract is not a free contract because the worker lacks the labor rights that would first enable him to enter into a truly free contract. Under this economic order, the worker cannot obtain justice; this can only be achieved by separating all legal relationships from economic life and transferring them to whatever is to take the place of the state.

[ 5 ] Third, an independent economic entity could be considered. In such a system, labor law would no longer be subject to any dependence on economic cycles, price formation, or the like; rather, all economic consequences—namely, all economic price formations—would arise not as causes but as effects of what is already established in workers’ rights, or rather, in labor law itself. Labor law will be to economic life something like natural conditions themselves. Through this alone, you create a sound foundation for the socialization of the economic cycle.

[ 6 ] You see, this view is truly neither ideological nor utopian, but one that has emerged for me from my deep involvement—which is almost as old, or just as old, as my life itself—in the proletarian movement. Of course, one then looks back at the world to see how everything that constitutes the social movement has actually developed. The social movement is certainly not a recent phenomenon. It is something—even in the form in which it exists today—that is quite old. At first, one might think that to understand the current social movement, one need only go back to the Communist Manifesto. But anyone who wants to truly grasp things today—now that we stand at such a momentous turning point, facing not a minor reckoning but a major one—that is, to grasp them, not merely to understand them—must actually trace economic life and the mental images people have formed about it back to earlier times.

[ 7 ] For you see, it is truly significant that, for example, in 1826, a man like Thünen—at a time when most people in Europe had not even considered anything resembling a social issue—had already, in a certain sense, predicted what would later occur as a consequence of our global catastrophe. Thünen was, after all, a man who managed his own farm, but not according to conventional practices; rather, he did so with clear judgment and an understanding of economic life grounded in reality. As early as 1826, Thünen said: “If people do not resolve to do what is necessary in social terms, then Europe is heading toward terrible devastation and barbarism.” — So people already knew this, but there were only a few who spoke out this way. This was said in 1826.

[ 8 ] Now, throughout the 19th century, honest, sincere people have repeatedly grappled with what is called the “social question,” and I would like to emphasize once again—this was not decisive for me, but it is nonetheless something that sheds light on the matter—that anyone who objectively addresses what has emerged on the part of some as the demand for socialism—as was discussed in more detail yesterday—could only conclude: Socialism must eventually come. Socialism is a necessity. It must come; it will come. One would then also have to admit that what people who are sincere about socialism put forward is significant. And, isn’t it true that once you’ve waded through all the nonsense spouted by the economists who believed they had to refute Marx, you can say: Karl Marx’s most important assertions cannot be refuted; they are utterly impossible to refute. But if one then turns to the other side—not, of course, to the mercenaries and servants of the capitalists, but to those who possessed social understanding—one finds among them, time and again, those who, based on the realities of practical life, raised objections to socialism that were certainly thought-provoking. It is not without interest that in the very same year the Communist Manifesto was published, a book appeared by Bruno Hildebrand, a man of integrity who put forward weighty arguments against socialism. And precisely when one stands honestly on the ground of socialism, certain curious thoughts occur to one upon reading such things. I do not wish to dwell on what this or that person from bourgeois circles has said—it is mostly nonsense, after all—but when one has something like Bruno Hildebrand’s argument before one, one cannot help but say to oneself: On the one hand, there is nothing to object to regarding socialism; it must come to pass. However, the reservations held by people like Hildebrand are extremely difficult to refute. For Hildebrand does not base his objections on an aversion to socialism; rather, in light of socialism as he knew it in 1848—and the same would apply to Hildebrand today, at least up until 1914—he merely expressed his reservations. He had a mental image of socialism being introduced in the old style, in which the bourgeoisie would not somehow fall by the wayside, but rather those who wanted socialism would ultimately achieve nothing. In a certain sense, people like Hildebrand already foresaw what might happen if precisely those individuals from within the socialist party rose to power—individuals from whose ranks what the vast majority of the proletariat actually wants could not emerge.

[ 9 ] You see, there are, of course, all sorts of different shades of opinion on this. And if one approaches this with complete honesty, one must admit: Yes, this is indeed a shortcoming of our current human thinking—that we are unable to find something that isn’t merely contrived, for socialist programs, despite whatever may be said, are in many cases merely contrived. Today we need something that isn’t contrived.

[ 10 ] Now, what I have just told you sheds a kind of light on what I have come to understand from practical experience. When I consider the development of socialist thought in the 19th century, and also take into account Hildebrand as well as the revisionist ideas of the 19th century, I arrive at the following conclusion: If one seeks to implement socialism in such a way that one continues to operate under the spell of the unitary state—that is, by merely extending the unitary state further into the economic sphere—then all the harms that Hildebrand foresaw will befall the broad masses in particular. This means we need a form of socialism that is realized in such a way that these things do not occur. Therefore, the social organism—the economic organism—must not contain anything that gives rise to such concerns. And so I said to myself: This is precisely where the threefold social order applies, for by separating the spiritual life on the one hand and the legal life on the other, an economic organism is created that can no longer give rise to such concerns, because a generous socialization can be carried out within the threefold social order. You will see this in all specific questions, especially when we then address the most concrete issues.

[ 11 ] Let’s take the issue of works councils as an example of a question that is becoming relevant today—one that I hope we will discuss in more detail later. You see, my proposals are rooted in reality and are therefore not a finished program, but rather something that should be undertaken and that should develop gradually—not slowly, but perhaps even quickly, step by step, as circumstances will necessitate. It is through what I have attempted to present as a threefold impulse for genuine socialization that the possibility of truly moving forward arises.

[ 12 ] The issue of works councils—which I hope will be discussed in detail later—is indeed a reality today, and we can practically build on every aspect of that reality to bring about what is outlined in my book. For example, those who think in the old socialist style imagine these works councils—as I have been told—primarily as something that is more or less established by law; in other words, they view works councils as a state institution. Now, I am once again of the opinion that if they are introduced in this way, they will most certainly be a fifth wheel on the wagon. The only way to create works councils is to let them emerge from economic life itself.

[ 13 ] I put it this way the other day: Let the works councils come into being, and don’t interfere with their formation through laws governing them! They should be in place first; they should first emerge within the individual companies, but—especially during the transition period—they must absolutely establish a position for themselves that ensures they are completely independent of the current bosses and plant managers. They must, of course, have an independent position.

[ 14 ] The next step, then, will be to ensure that, even as enterprises are being established today, the primary consideration is that they form a single legal entity spanning the relevant economic territories. For anyone who still conceives of socialization today as merely the socialization of individual enterprises would very soon see what a bizarre situation we would find ourselves in five years from now if we were to socialize only individual enterprises. If we were to socialize only individual enterprises, we would end up with the most extreme individualism among those enterprises, and the workers would be the most dissatisfied. Such inequality in income among workers would arise that it would be unbearable. For socialization is only possible if the entire economic entity—once it reaches a certain size—is socialized as such.

[ 15 ] First of all, the point is that, above all else, works councils should be formed for certain types of businesses within a given region. The works councils initiate a very important process of overall socialization, so that a bond is created not only between the works councils of similar businesses, but across all businesses. Then a genuine socialization of economic life can gradually take place. Only then will things turn out for the best. So if we begin to develop an understanding right from the start of this extraordinarily important establishment of works councils, we will see that we are on the right track with what the threefold social order entails. Progress will only be achieved if we do not tolerate the state—which takes the place of the state—interfering in the functions of the works councils in any way other than by ensuring that the works councils can function, just as the state must naturally ensure that I can walk down the street without being mugged. But just as the state does not otherwise interfere with people’s personal rights, it should not interfere with the works councils by imposing any restrictions on their functions or the like. The functions must arise from the self-constitution of the works council system within the economic organism. That alone leads to success. With this example, I wanted to show you what the threefold social order actually entails. It is meant to be practical; that is to say, everything we have to do tomorrow and the day after can only lead to something if it is handled from the perspective of the threefold social order. Then things will work together in the right way.

[ 16 ] You see, my proposal is based on the assumption that, now that socialism is here, it cannot be removed from the agenda. Anyone familiar with conditions in economic life, political life—that is, the legal sphere—and intellectual life can no longer imagine—because it is an unrealistic mental image—that socialism can be introduced today and simply be in place tomorrow. No, once socialism is here, it will require constant work. Socialism will always have to be reimagined. It is something truly alive. We must have precisely the kind of organizations that work time and again in the spirit of socialism. People’s thoughts have not yet caught up with what is actually a reality in this field.

[ 17 ] A long time ago, a peculiar statement emerged from a school of economic thought. Today it is considered outdated, but it still lingers in people’s minds. It was the Physiocrats who said that there was no need to impose laws on economic life, because either it develops on its own in accordance with those laws—in which case they are unnecessary—or one imposes other laws on it that do not correspond to its development. But then one would be harming economic life. Put that way, it seems absolutely correct, and yet it is completely wrong—namely, because economic life is not something that remains static, that is, that stays the way it once was. It is an organism, and just as a natural organism grows older and changes—and we must recognize its change as a condition of life—so too must it be with economic life. This means that laws must exist, but they must emerge from economic life itself. Thus, there must always be forces at work that counteract the damage economic life inevitably inflicts upon itself. Anyone who believes that they can introduce socialism once and for all—and then it will simply be there—is like a person who says: “I ate yesterday, and I was completely full. Now I don’t need to eat anything else.” Because the organism is constantly undergoing certain changes and because it is a living entity, it must eat continuously. And so it is with socialist measures. You must continually socialize, because the social organism is a living entity. And that is also what leads to the necessity that, right from the start, we create—out of life itself—such things as, for example, works councils and many other things.

[ 18 ] You see, the biggest mistake that has been made so far is that people have believed social life to be something like a papier-mâché replica of an organism. So they created a mental image of it as a mechanism; one that does not live. But it is alive; it’s just that people have imposed laws on the social organism that are meant to apply to something that is dead. The organism, however, carried on, and now people are surprised when revolutions occur. That which must be continually improved builds up when it is not improved, and erupts into revolutions. Revolutions have been brought about by those who were short-sighted enough not to recognize the vitality of social life. I do not mean those who are pressured into doing one thing or another, but rather those who are the leaders and do not understand how to exercise leadership. That is why it is so important today that, when sooner or later the call truly goes out once again to take matters into our own hands regarding what needs to be done, we do not approach the matter with empty heads once more, but rather come forward with constructive proposals. It is not enough simply to say: “Power must be acquired.” That is certainly true, but then, once we have power, what can we do with it? I wanted to preface my remarks with that. Now I hope that your questions will help spark a very lively discussion.

Discussion

Beierat, one of the panelists, states, among other things: “When it comes to socialization, business owners must also be consulted, because the working class cannot resolve all issues on its own. In order to ensure that the current owners help establish works councils, it is necessary to create a legal framework that is uniform throughout the entire Reich.” ^{1The stenographer did not always record the exact wording of individual participants’ remarks—and when he did, it was sometimes only fragmentary. In some cases, the surviving texts are summaries that convey the gist of the remarks.}

[ 19 ] Rudolf Steiner: I’d like to say a few things about this right away, because we might make the most progress by addressing the individual questions.

[ 20 ] You see, essentially, what the esteemed speaker just said does not actually contradict what I have put forward; it’s just that I tried to approach the matter not theoretically, but practically, so that we can actually achieve a goal. If one wants to achieve something practical, one shouldn’t let the matter be ruined too much by refusing to take a concrete first step somewhere. With anything practical, a start must always be made somewhere, and after all, before we came here, there was a meeting down there in a small room where all the existing works council members were gathered. So, at any rate, a start has been made. The only thing that matters—and of course you can think of this beginning however you like; you can always make a different one—is that something practical emerges from such a beginning. In this regard, I would like to remind you that I also spoke about this yesterday: for the practical implementation of the threefold social order, it is, of course, first necessary that a kind of liquidation government be established. I certainly do not think that we can decide today to introduce the threefold social order by tomorrow!

[ 21 ] Since we live within the mindset of people who, until now, could only form a mental image of a government within a unitary state, we must—under all circumstances, not because we love any particular government, but because people have lived together in a state until now—have a government for a wide variety of matters. However, contrary to what the previous speaker stated, I must say: It doesn’t matter to me whether it is one government or another. What matters greatly to me is that it be a government that makes proposals in the spirit of true socialization. So I don’t consider this a correct statement: “It doesn’t matter to me whether it is one government or another.” For precisely when there is a government that will have to recognize that, in the future, it must stand solely on a legal foundation and must liquidate, on the one hand, intellectual life and, on the other, economic life—then, in the form of such a liquidation government, the proper authority will exist to bring about that transitional period, and indeed with reasonable measures. These will then form the foundations upon which works councils can be established; these councils, in fact, instead of engaging in many other activities currently undertaken by various governments, could use their power to somehow persuade recalcitrant business owners—pardon the expression—to embrace reasonable ideas of socialization. That would be the task of a sensible government during the transitional period.

[ 22 ] These foundations, which still need to be laid today by the liquidation government, could already be in place. But in doing so, this very liquidation government must be thoroughly imbued with the realization that government laws must never interfere with the emergence of a healthy economic life, so that this economic life can truly develop on its own. It is therefore necessary for the liquidation government to ensure that works councils can be established. However, it must not interfere in the entire process of their formation. This must come about from within the works council movement itself.

[ 23 ] The government has no other task than to ensure that works councils can be formed beyond their economic territories—that is, based on economic necessity. This will provide the best foundation if the government ensures that works councils can function properly. Works councils can be formed when the government creates the necessary conditions and does not seek to dominate them.

[ 24 ] Today, people do not understand the actual difference between ruling and governing, and one can truly be very surprised that the events of November have taught people so little about this distinction. There is—and this distinction is not mine, but Karl Marx’s—a very significant difference between governing and ruling. And if a government learns to govern and no longer believes that it is a government only if it can rule, then even the mental image of socialization that the broadest masses can have will become possible. For in the future, it is not a government that must rule, but the entire broad mass of the people. The government must govern and learn how to govern if the entire broad mass of the people is indeed to rule. People have not yet broken the habit of associating the term “ruler” with a single individual or body. This is something that must be thoroughly eradicated from people’s ways of thinking. When establishing a body conceived in the spirit of socialization—and it must be conceived in the same way as the works councils—the distinction between governing and ruling must, above all, be instilled in people’s minds. Everything that falls within the powers of the works councils must emerge from the broad masses, and “governing” will consist solely in creating a real foundation—not a legal one—so that the works council system can form freely, based purely on economic necessities, knowledge, and insight.

[ 25 ] You see, that is what is unique about my proposals for the threefold order: I do not draw up programs, but rather I try to offer suggestions based on reality so that something sensible can emerge. I’ll tell you frankly: this is what distinguishes my ideas on the threefold order from all others. Yesterday it was said here that they contain nothing new. They contain something fundamentally new. The people who used to speak of socialization and of all kinds of reforms were intelligent and knew down to the last detail what needed to be done. I do not presume to be smarter than the others, but I firmly believe that conditions can be brought about in which those who know something about these matters can come into their own. I do not wish to show the way to what the works councils should do, but rather to how they can educate themselves. Then they will recognize for themselves what they must do. I want to put people in their proper place. I do not presume to know anything new, but I want the new to emerge.

Various participants in the discussion take the floor.

[ 26 ] Rudolf Steiner: With regard to the two esteemed speakers who spoke before me, it gives me a certain sense of satisfaction to note that I myself have very little left to say, because the discussion between these two speakers has unfolded in such a gratifying way that one has completely complemented the other, and everything that actually needed to be said has already been said. I would just like to add the following.

[ 27 ] When it is argued that there is a difference between focusing all one’s thoughts on the question: “How do we gain the power to rule?”—and the other line of thought: “What do we do once we have gained that power?” —I must say that I am constantly reminded of what already played such a significant role in the discussions of the 1880s. During those years, I had the opportunity to discuss many questions that were already being addressed from a socialist perspective at the time—for example, with Adler in Vienna, who recently passed away, and also with Pernerstorfer, who likewise died last year. And of course, those socialist thinkers of that time were even closer to the great socialist impulses that originated with Marx and Engels. Back then, it was not yet the era of so-called revisionism, which I believe has done much harm to the development of socialism. I don’t want to be misunderstood here, but for my part, I have always felt that this gradual shift from real socialism toward a somewhat vague, bourgeois way of thinking—which was called revisionism—actually did tremendous harm, for the simple reason that some people are so terribly satisfied when they can say: “We want the most immediately practical solution; we want to achieve something for tomorrow.” — These people do not consider that what is achieved for tomorrow may, under certain circumstances, undermine all ground for the day after tomorrow. I often had to object to Adler and Pernerstorfer: I acknowledge all the points they raise as criticism of the current social order, but one must also have a plan for what to do when what these socialist leaders themselves ultimately predicted comes to pass. — These socialist leaders always predicted: This current social order is breaking itself down; it is destroying itself. — That was an absolutely correct view. And that is why these socialist leaders always waved off any suggestion that anything should be done to forcibly bring about the replacement of the current order with another. They were, in the truest sense of the word, developmental socialists, and they said: The breakdown will take care of itself, and then it will be the proletariat’s turn. — I have always been of the opinion, however, that if one assumes this will happen, one must know exactly what one will do then.

[ 28 ] Aren’t we actually in a different situation today? After all, the November events are behind us, and you can be quite certain that those who were leaders at the time had already created a mental image of something like the November events, but there was nothing positive to be done about it. This shows, after all, that it is important not merely to run after the question like a hypnotized chicken—“How do we seize power?”—but to ask ourselves: “What do we do with power?” I must ask this again and again: How do we act?

[ 29 ] The esteemed speaker before me said that economic collapse is coming. I do not actually share this view. I believe that it has long since arrived, and that what is now being done by the ruling circles is merely a continuous attempt to cover up and obscure the economic collapse that has long existed. The economic collapse has been with us ever since it was officially declared that it was best for the German Reich to no longer produce for people’s needs, but rather for what is blown up in the air. With that, the economic collapse was, in fact, complete. And it has always been incomprehensible to me how little people actually realized that a measure such as the Auxiliary Service Act—which, admittedly, well suited the subjective needs of the old ruling classes—would deal a terrible blow to economic life, one that could not really be remedied by anything. People simply kept thinking about other things, but had no sense of the economic consequences of such a measure.

[ 30 ] Well, I believe the economic collapse is here, and we are facing events that are only being delayed as long as it remains possible—through one means or another—to conceal or obscure certain things. But then we will have to figure out how to organize the reconstruction. I therefore have absolutely no objection to what the previous speaker, Mr. Schreiber, said, but I tell you this: It will happen naturally that power must shift from the circles that have been in charge until now to the circles that the previous speaker had in mind. But all the more must these circles feel a sense of responsibility so that, when they come to power, they will be capable of doing what is right. So, that is what I would like to emphasize again and again, and what is of particular importance to me.

[ 31 ] It has been said—not as a criticism, but in agreement with me—that I want to establish the institution of works councils first, and then their functions will naturally become clear. But then we must not continue to harbor any illusions, for what the reconstruction will require will not be very easy; it will not be possible without a truly substantive understanding of the economic system. — The esteemed speaker before me has just helpfully cited various points. We must not succumb to amateurism; rather, we must be properly equipped when, for example, we make the observation that the role of the works council is not limited to the socialization of individual enterprises. Precisely what the previous speaker said about the right to co-determination, about profit—which must, however, take on a completely different form—and what he said about the right to co-determination with regard to pricing, shows us that, as soon as these concrete issues come before us, we will have a great deal of work to do in the realm of facts. For it is precisely these matters—and this is the peculiarity of capitalist, specifically private-capitalist self-interest—that it has not addressed; rather, it has simply abandoned humanity to a savage competition of interests, income, and so on.

[ 32 ] We must not continue down this path, or we will soon find ourselves back in the old conditions. Whether those who then manage the means of production are called capitalists or something else is irrelevant. There is also the possibility that people from these circles—I won’t say necessarily from the proletariat, but from those who lead the proletariat—will rise to the top, who, under certain circumstances, may be every bit as bad as the old capitalists; well, that is something that can only be avoided if we are firmly in control.

[ 33 ] You will not hold it against me if I cite something that may seem theoretical; it is, however, something practical. When it comes to the right of co-determination in price formation, two things are particularly relevant. In a non-socialized, market-based economic system, the price is determined by two factors, for it is a kind of natural law that the price is not determined by a single force, but by two forces. Suppose, for example, that a certain quantity of butter is produced in an economic context. Let’s assume that more butter is produced than is necessary for human needs. Then, under certain circumstances—and this can certainly happen—the surplus butter that people do not need is used, for example, to make wagon grease. This causes the price of butter to become immensely cheaper than it would be, for instance, if less butter were produced than the total population needs. Such factors are inherent in price formation in the most fundamental sense. This is one factor that determines price formation. The other factor—namely, that prices are based on production costs—is entirely separate from the factor just mentioned in economic life; here, what matters is the cost of production. This gives rise to an entirely different pricing system, and this pricing system intersects with the random economic system—that is, with the other one. And as a result, we have mutual competition not only among prices but also among pricing systems, and that is the situation we find ourselves in today.

[ 34 ] Now just think about it: If a worker’s income is regulated solely by this one pricing system, you may find that, under certain circumstances, the worker receives higher and higher wages but never achieves a better standard of living, because the prices of housing and everything else rise at the same rate. You can plug one hole, but another opens up on its own. We can only bring some order to this situation if we are properly equipped.

[ 35 ] In the future, one thing must be taken into account: namely, how the causes converge from a wide variety of perspectives. This will be necessary if socialization is to truly take root—not merely as a matter of the heart, but in a practical way as a driving force. And if the works councils are to have a say in pricing, they will need to be prepared for these matters. The point will be to take action, not to say, “Oh, all that talk—those idealistic notions—they accomplish nothing.” — No, these are not idealistic speeches, but practical instructions regarding what needs to be done. People cannot simply take on a task without first agreeing on how to do it. Things—even in economic life—must truly be learned. And today, there is still not much knowledge available. We must make a great effort, we must have the goodwill to establish institutions, and then try to relearn in the most diverse circles. I consider it absolutely essential that works councils establish cooperatives as quickly as possible, in which people work together with goodwill, so that we can achieve a genuine, economically sound structure.

[ 36 ] We will have to do a great deal of mental work right now if we want to make progress. I ask that you keep this in mind. That is why it was very gratifying that the previous speakers drew attention to this matter. The key will be for us to truly stand on solid ground—to ensure that no one person alone claims to be wise or to know everything—and thus to emphasize that we must enable people to share with one another the life experiences each individual has gathered through their work. Then, precisely through this collaboration among people in the right positions, socialization will take place.

Further contributions to the discussion follow, and a motion is made that Dr. Steiner give additional presentations to further discuss the important issues. Dr. Steiner agrees to do so.

[ 37 ] Closing remarks by Rudolf Steiner: Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the motion to continue this discussion has indeed been adopted. This will provide an opportunity to address various questions that have arisen in the course of the discussion—perhaps at a later time in a more suitable manner than today, when the hour has already grown too late for me to say anything substantial or to ask too much of you. I will therefore only briefly touch upon a few points that came up during the latter part of the discussion.

[ 38 ] First, there was the question of what my mental image of future developments would be if works councils exist but have no real significance—that is, if works councils were to be merely a kind of decoration until a political upheaval occurs. - Well, I do believe, however, that in such matters, excessive pessimism does the cause a disservice. I believe that in practical life, in a situation as serious as the one we find ourselves in, it is of the utmost importance that people help one another. This by no means precludes the possibility that the works councils—by bringing to the forefront of the social movement the experiences and insights they have gained from the workplaces—and this will contain a wealth of social insight—will also, in essence, help bring about the time that can bring us the necessary upheavals. We should not be content to say, “We must wait until the upheaval has occurred”—rather, the point is that we must truly recognize that, if the works councils remain at their posts, we will have in them a very important means of moving forward.

[ 39 ] I believe you shouldn’t underestimate what works councils can be. They won’t be mere window dressing if they stand their ground. Many responsibilities will fall specifically to the works councils—areas where, fundamentally, even the most malicious employers won’t be able to interfere. They won’t be able to brush the issue aside. So I believe that at some point—and this is an important point—we should begin taking practical action. We should not hold back too cautiously or even fear that the works councils might be nothing more than window dressing; rather, we should take action. This is also what the “Call” and the impulse of the threefold social order entail. We should not just keep talking; rather, words should be the seeds of action, and that is the essence of the entire series of lectures I have given, and it will be the essence if I truly have the honor of speaking with you in even greater depth about these matters. And one more thing: There has been much discussion about intellectual workers, particularly in the last part of the discussion. Well, I can certainly claim some experience in this area. It is based on what I have lived through over many years. Intellectual workers have been placed in a truly dreadful situation by the circumstances I am describing in my lectures. It is almost impossible—even after these terrible experiences of the catastrophe of the World War—to discuss political issues with the vast majority of those who call themselves intellectual workers. I am not flattering you when I say—as I have already stated in the lecture—that, with regard to political training and political education, the manual laboring proletariat is immensely ahead of the intellectual workers; indeed, that the political education of intellectual workers is virtually nonexistent. This must certainly be taken into account. In this context, there is something else that must be considered.

[ 40 ] I believe that, in principle, it will not be beneficial if, in addition to the actual workers’ councils, a separate council of intellectual workers is formed. Perhaps this will have to be an important point of discussion should the lectures I was asked to give actually take place. I believe that nothing good can come of separating intellectual workers as a distinct category of “intellectual workers” from the other workers. Workers who are employed in a specific area of a business—even if they are intellectual workers—belong to the workforce of that particular branch of the business. There must be a sense of solidarity among all workers in the individual branches of the business. We will not make progress if the white-collar workers from the various branches of the business isolate themselves and demand special treatment, because the category and designation “white-collar workers” has no justification. We must foster an understanding that the white-collar workers in the individual branches of the business should join forces with the other workers. Only then will something sensible come of it.

[ 41 ] I disagree with the statement that intellectual workers stand on common ground with the manual laboring population when they jointly endorse the program of threefold social order. That is, after all, a general socio-political program, and they have not yet reached the level of reality! One can jointly endorse many programs, but one stands on real ground only when that ground is a living foundation—when one does not, in turn, create—out of what belongs together—a sort of aristocratic class. I see in this separation of intellectual workers the formation of an aristocratic class; that must be understood. And if what I actually mean were to be carried out, then the intellectual worker would gain an extraordinary amount, above all in political education—and I would place great value on one learning from the other in the near future.

[ 42 ] I, therefore, do not wish to be as pessimistic as the previous speaker, who said: “Yes, what matters above all is that a certain level of specialized education and training for works council members is the absolute foundation.” - The fact is that anyone familiar with the situation today knows that there is little to be gained from the standard technical training available, which is, after all, a thoroughly bourgeois product. I expect more from practical collaboration—from what emerges when everyone contributes what they can draw from their life experiences. That is where we will educate one another, and something entirely new will emerge. I could have a mental image of the best results being achieved precisely when works councils collaborate in the right way—without clinging to the philistine prejudice that one must first sit in a classroom—and when there is a sincere willingness to learn from one another and to learn from both sides’ mistakes. Above all, we will need to socialize in this way, person to person. Socializing means working together, helping one another, and fostering brotherhood—and we need this especially in the intellectual realm. I have often told my audiences in recent years that the world believes that those who are supposed to learn can only learn from someone who has so many degrees. Anyone who truly wants to learn—even if they have already learned a great deal—may, under certain circumstances, learn an awful lot from a two- or three-year-old child, or even one younger than that. That is learning from life, and we will have to cultivate it especially. We must move beyond the narrow-mindedness of the old vocational school system; then the works councils will be able to make an immensely significant contribution to the reconstruction effort. The matter should not be viewed with pessimism, but with confidence. Competence grows out of confidence. Then the works councils will not be mere window dressing—unless they themselves wish to be.

[ 43 ] I fully agree, however, that the works councils will serve as a buffer on both sides. I do not believe that the times ahead—if we are serious about our work—will be such that we can let ourselves be carried along by the tides of life, or even, under certain circumstances, lie down on a soft bed of rest from time to time. We will have to work very hard and must not shy away from acting as battering rams in various directions. It will not be easy to create something new out of the ruins. We need only remind ourselves that the old economic order—especially in Germany—has led us straight into utter absurdity. We find ourselves not only in a state of collapse, but also in absurdity. Just consider for a moment what it means if, for everything that has accumulated as a result of the devastation of the war, we are to pay nothing but the interest over the next few years! It is, after all, much more than Dernburg calculated. It will amount to at least 30 billion marks annually; where is that money supposed to come from? 30 billion marks that, of course, will not be available! If we even consider continuing anything from the past, then we are heading not only toward impossible circumstances but toward outright nonsense. It will be difficult, very difficult, but I think that anyone who understands the spirit of the times even a little must tell themselves: We simply have to work—we must work earnestly. Only in this way can we get out of this situation.

[ 44 ] Now I would just like to point out that I do not wish to address Mr. Remmele’s response, for the reason that it is not yet entirely clear to me what the main point of his objections is. What has been said makes the whole matter seem rather strange to me, for, you see, after all, anything can be called a heresy. I became suspicious right away when it was said that this was a heresy like the doctrine of Dühring, who taught the same thing decades ago. I am familiar with Dühring and suspect that the speaker knows him only a little, for I can confidently recommend that you: Read him, and you will see that he did not mean the same thing, but rather something that is completely different from what I consider necessary. I regard what Dühring taught as the outburst of a man somewhat enraged by human society, who knows little of reality. It is witty at times, but not something that can be applied in reality. Such objections are, after all, so fleeting. I believe it may not be advisable to dwell on these matters at length, for time will reveal how the words—which, after all, can initially be spoken based on reality—can in turn be transformed into deeds and take root in reality. I am reassured when reality puts what I say to the test. I believe it will know how to take in what I have to say.

[ 45 ] Mr. Molt has already spoken to you about the objections raised against the signatures on the appeal, and I believe that, in this regard, by expressing your agreement with Mr. Molt, you have truly demonstrated your thorough understanding of something that is absolutely necessary. You can be absolutely certain that not many business owners will act out of the same mindset as that demonstrated by those who signed this “appeal.” But those who do act this way are fully aware that, on the one hand, this “appeal” and these impulses were certainly not put forward for the sake of the factory owners; rather, if the factory owners are to have anything to do with it, they must commit to it of their own free will. At most, the manufacturers can declare their support for the “appeal,” but the “appeal” need not—and will not—take them into consideration. That is one side of the matter. On the other hand, it must be recognized that it will be necessary to work precisely with those people who, out of the most sincere conviction, are committed to the cause of socialization and social progress in the objective sense—for otherwise you have only one choice—since, after all, those with some expertise are still needed— either to have them occupy the top positions and leave everything else as it is—we have examples of this, after all—or else you run the risk of everything being sabotaged from that side.

[ 46 ] The point, then, is that we must not only be able to intuitively assess the correct attitude, but we must also be able to recognize what is necessary—to realize that we are not working toward sabotaging those who, based on their old views, do not wish to develop the new today. We must realize that we are compelled to work together with those who have joined the “Call” not out of selfish interest, but for the sake of the cause. This is what has happened with the signatories; otherwise, their names would not appear on the list. For I have yet to find anyone who has aligned themselves with me precisely to satisfy their own selfish interests. This is an experience I have had throughout my entire life. You will not have all that bad an experience. Please forgive this personal remark, but we will yet be able to discuss many substantive issues in detail, just as the gravity of the times demands. In this brief closing statement, I could only hint at a few things, but I hope the discussions can be continued.