The Rudolf Steiner Archive

First Discussion Evening

Introductory Remarks by Rudolf Steiner

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! You have just heard how this evening’s proceedings are to unfold. We will make the most progress in the entire movement aimed at social reconstruction if, through this process of posing questions and engaging in free discussion, we strive to reach a consensus on what needs to be done. Since I will only learn about what is to be discussed this evening through your subsequent contributions to the discussion, I will take the liberty of drawing your attention to a few points with just a few words, as it may be helpful to address them before we begin our deliberations. Above all, I would like to emphasize once again that this “League for the Threefold Social Order” differs in certain respects from other, party-based movements, without this “League for the Threefold Social Order” intending in any way to disrupt or interfere with those party-based movements. If the “League for the Threefold Social Order” believes it must take action today, it does so for a very specific reason.

[ 2 ] You all know very well how long the call for socialization has been echoing around the world in a more emotional way. You all also know that this call for socialization has taken on a particularly urgent form today. You know that we cannot escape confusion and chaos unless we take into account what is contained in the demand for socialization, unless we earnestly strive through action for what can truly be called socialization.

[ 3 ] On the other hand, we see that, especially since the beginning of the German Revolution, it has become abundantly clear that while there is a call for socialization, there is at the same time a lack of concrete mental images about what actually needs to be done, how this is actually to be put into practice, and what socialization actually entails. Right now, we are seeing fresh evidence every day of just how little people understand what needs to happen to bring about socialization. And so we see that the call for socialization is growing ever clearer and more justified, yet the government is doing nothing significant—indeed, not even anything insignificant—to bring about true socialization. Indeed, we can even say—perhaps you will wish to elaborate on this very question or provide more detailed information later in the course of the debate—that it is clear from what is happening that there is no mental image of genuine socialization.

[ 4 ] You may have read that draft bill, which is supposed to establish—as they say in bureaucratic language—the institution of the so-called works councils. Of course, in the places where such things are being initiated today, the first thought is to enact laws specifying what works councils are supposed to do, what their rights will be, and so on. But if you take a look at the entire draft that has now been released, you’ll have to admit: Yes, this doesn’t bear the mark of true socialization in the slightest. They even call it the “socialization of enterprises,” as if individual enterprises could actually be socialized! What this draft contains regarding the formation of works councils is, in my view, nothing more than the infusion of a certain democratic principle—that of the parliamentary system with which we are all too familiar—into individual enterprises. Indeed, this is already widely referred to today as the “democratization of enterprises.” The parliamentary principle is supposed to extend certain offshoots—like inlets—into the enterprises, where the process of parliamentarization is then to continue. Just as the parliamentary system to date—practiced in isolation within all sorts of “houses”—has contributed nothing to socialization, so too will this extension of parliamentary “inlets” into the workplaces bring nothing to them in terms of what socialization actually is. You can see this most clearly in the fact that this draft speaks throughout, in the very old way, of the “employer” and the “employee.” Even if it is not openly stated, the fact remains that old capitalism continues to lurk behind it all. Everything is conceived in the old capitalist form. Essentially, everything is to remain as it was, and workers are to be reassured by the fact that works councils can now somehow be elected to conduct all sorts of theoretical negotiations with the employers. But when it comes to the actual social restructuring, everything is ultimately to remain as it was. Anyone with a sense for reading such a draft can clearly see this. Nor has even the slightest attempt been made to truly dismantle capitalism. And so we see that even the very first demand of socialization—the dismantling of capitalism—is not being addressed by what is now so often called socialization.

[ 5 ] What kind of thoughts can one even possibly form in the face of such a government? Truly, one can no longer come to any other conclusion today than that the only salvation lies in the vast majority of workers now truly educating themselves about the harm that the social order has caused so far, and in their educating themselves about what can truly bring about improvement. Enlightenment is, above all else, what matters most. In this context, it is important that we no longer listen to those who keep saying, “Yes, but enlightenment takes a long time.”—It need not take long if we are only willing to make a little effort to see things without masks or illusions, if we strive to see things as they are and as they must happen. We no longer have the time to wait years for socialization to take place. Something must happen immediately. But something can only happen if a united mass of people supports what is to be done. Time and again, people ask: “Well, where are the practical instructions regarding what is written, for example, in my book The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life in the Present and Future?” — The most obvious practical step is for as many people as possible to demand what is written in my book, so that it becomes completely impossible to continue governing against these demands. Therein lies the power of the future: it will force through exactly what is at stake. Otherwise, a power will simply never know how to exercise that very power, or what it is supposed to do. It really comes down to knowing what to do. That is why proper education must take place in the broadest circles, and people must be able to form a mental image of how something like the dismantling of private capital and the abolition of the wage system can take place.

[ 6 ] Above all, one must be able to form a thorough mental image of the following. You see, the actual economic issue—where does it manifest itself? One must be able to see it in the right place. One must not allow gray theories to obscure the facts. One must see the economic issue where it is, and proceed from there. Where is it? Where is it as a fact? Well, it is there where I have to take my wallet out of my pocket and have the money in it to buy something in a store to satisfy my basic needs. And the economic process must ensure that there is enough in my wallet for me to purchase the necessities of life. That is the fundamental fact of all economic life. Everything else today is, in essence, there only to obscure this fact.

[ 7 ] Why does the threefold social organism call for a separation of economic life from legal life and spiritual life? It calls for this separation so that economic life can be truly socialized within itself, so that we may finally see it in its true form—the true form that unfolds as a process between the merchandise in the store and the contents of the wallet. Only when we separate from the rest of the social process what must take place between the wallet and the store do we put ourselves in a position to think in a truly socialist way. But what does that mean? It means a great deal. However, if one does not start from the correct facts, then one cannot arrive at correct views regarding all other matters either.

[ 8 ] I will draw on your discussion to learn what needs to be said about the details. But first, I would like to set out some necessary guidelines, based on the fundamental economic fact I have just described. You see, if there is something in a store that I need to satisfy my basic needs, and I come with my wallet and pay for the goods out of that wallet, then one must be clear that this initially involves a process that somewhat obscures the true nature of the situation. I receive goods; I hand over money. Is money a commodity? Can money ever be a commodity? You really don’t need to conduct any in-depth studies, but those in-depth studies prove precisely what I am about to say.

[ 9 ] You just need to have a real sense of what a piece of paper is, and you’ll say to yourself: A piece of paper can never be a commodity in the same way as, say, a loaf of bread that you buy at the store. I mean, that’s something even the simplest mind can understand, and no science can claim otherwise. What you take out of your wallet as a banknote cannot be a commodity, but only an instruction to receive a commodity—nothing else. Therefore, however, it must originate from a commodity. A commodity must first have been produced—that is, something must have been provided. In this sense, services are also commodities. This piece of paper must have been created through a process that produces a commodity or a service, and thus the piece of paper merely forms the bridge between the commodity you buy in the store and the commodity that must first have been produced so that you could have received this paper instruction for that commodity. That, simply put, is the economic process. Any other element in the economic process is unhealthy. If the economic process is to be healthy, nothing else can be exchanged within it except commodity for commodity.

[ 10 ] But let us ask: Is it merely goods for goods that are exchanged in today’s economic process? No, and as soon as one thinks it through properly, one realizes what is really at stake. Today, in the economic process, it is not merely commodities that are exchanged for commodities; rather, commodities—albeit perhaps represented by money—that is, commodities or money, are exchanged for labor. Labor power is paid for in the economic process just as commodities are. As a result, however, labor power is incorporated into the economic process.

[ 11 ] You see, there is a very simple line of reasoning that can show you that labor does not belong in the economic process at all, because by its very nature it can never really be compared to any commodity. One simply has to set straight people’s very convoluted mental images about such things today. One must figure out how people came to think about these things in the wrong way.

[ 12 ] Look, it’s work that involves a certain amount of physical exertion. Now, even if a person has no need to, say, chop wood, they may still feel the need to work. In that case, they might engage in sports, for example. And the amount of effort one expends on sports could, under certain circumstances—if they exert themselves particularly hard—wear down the body just as much as the work of someone chopping wood wears down the body. Work has nothing to do with the economic process; rather, work is related to the economic process only insofar as it is applied to something of economic value. Sports are of no economic value; they exist solely for the sake of human self-interest. Chopping wood is valuable. Because the work is of economic value, it becomes part of the economic process. But what is essential about work is that, with regard to the use of my labor, I must be a free person—that I cannot be compelled by economic coercion to put my labor at the service of capitalism in any arbitrary way. When it comes to the use of labor, freedom, lack of freedom, and coercion come into play. Therefore, it is essential to understand quite simply that work as such must be a matter of law and not a matter of economic life.

[ 13 ] In economic life, the only thing that matters is what is produced through labor; that must be paid for. However, there need not be an entrepreneur who pays a worker for his labor. The relationship between the supervisor and the worker must be determined on an entirely different basis—that of the law. With regard to economic life, if true justice prevails, the worker and the employer can only be partners who distribute the proceeds of their labor fairly among themselves. In the future, there must be no more payment for labor—that is to say, the wage relationship must be abolished; furthermore, the wage relationship must not be allowed to exist.

[ 14 ] A new state of affairs must be brought about—a social state in which the supervisor and the worker jointly produce goods and share what they produce together as free partners in a just manner, based on a commodity contract rather than an employment contract. Only when such a transformation of the relations of production has been brought about can one speak of socialization. But then one must also stop using all the old concepts—those still based on capitalism—in a socialization program. One must completely rethink things. We must truly cast aside the old mental images—not merely because they are mental images, but because they are embedded in our lives.

[ 15 ] But there is still something else to consider. If labor is to be placed in a relationship of compulsion within the economic process, then something must exist. What is that? You see, here I must return once again to the fundamental fact of the economic process: the wallet and the store. If the bill I have in my wallet is really nothing more than an instruction to obtain a commodity, then, strictly speaking, there can be no compulsion to work at all, because then this bill must always, in some way, trace back to something that has been produced as a service. And the only issue is that this output then circulates in the appropriate manner—circulates in such a way that consumption regulates production at all times. But that is not how things are today. What I carry in my wallet has, in fact, become something entirely different from a claim on a commodity through the economic process of modern times. It has, in fact, become a commodity in its own right—something that possesses an independent value within the social order. But it has become this only because a certain type of commodity—which, strictly speaking, could be completely eliminated if only the leading trading nation, England, were to eliminate it as well—could then be entirely removed from the economic process; within a domestic economic process, it can always be eliminated; one would then only need to take a different consideration into account in relation to foreign countries—namely, that this token I carry in my wallet has a different significance than merely being a token representing a commodity. This stems from the fact that, through state relations, a commodity has been created that is not actually a commodity, namely gold or silver. Neither is actually a commodity, but both are represented by the note. As a result, the monetary process is detached from the economic process, drawn out of the economic process; thereby, money itself is turned into a commodity, and thus money—which in truth ought not to be a commodity—can become entirely independent in economic life. But this is the foundation of capitalism.

[ 16 ] [If one can manage one’s finances independently using money, what results? Since money can never be created in any way other than through the production of commodities, and since commodities, in an economic system based on the division of labor, can never be produced in any way other than through labor, capital gives rise to power over labor. Capital is nothing other than power over human labor.] One gains the ability to acquire human labor by separating money—as an independent commodity—from the economic process, whereas money should actually be nothing more than a worthless token in the sense of an instruction regarding what one exchanges for a commodity using that money. But through this separation of money, labor power has become the servant of the power known as “capital.” As a result, something now prevails in the economic process that continually distorts it—for example, with regard to price formation. For while I should be paying only for the commodity, I am forced to pay for labor power as well. But because the power of capital reigns over labor power, labor power is paid as little as possible, since, naturally, a ruling power tends to purchase as cheaply as possible. If labor power is contained within the economic process itself, capitalism drives down its value.

[ 17 ] What matters now is that labor power must be removed from the economic process. Only commodities may exist within the economic process. However, because the economic process is so distorted, other things can also exist within it. You see, for many decades the socialists have repeatedly called for the socialization of the means of production. Today, however, it is essential to know how this socialization of the means of production must be brought about. It is not enough to merely call for socialization in the abstract; one must know how it can be carried out. Today we have reached the point where we can already make such things a reality—if only we want to, if only we truly have the courage to do so.

[ 18 ] You see, before we examine in detail the unique position of the means of production in today’s economic life—which, in essence, are capital—it would be good to first consider something else.

[ 19 ] Today, it is not only goods that can be purchased—that is, what is produced by human labor within a social organism based on the division of labor—but one can also purchase something entirely different: something that no human produces, but which exists by nature—namely, land. But this buying of land—or, rather, taking out a mortgage on land—is merely a process that distorts the economic order. It is something entirely different from the mental image people have of it. In reality, one cannot actually buy land, because land only has value when it is worked. What one buys—that is, what one acquires through the so-called purchase—is the exclusive right to use the land. That is all that matters: this exclusive right to use the land.

[ 20 ] So when you buy land, you are not buying a commodity, but a right. And these are the cancerous flaws of today’s social order: that within the economic process, one can buy not only commodities, but also labor and rights. By being able to buy labor, one acquires the ability to draw that labor into the economic process—that is, to exploit it. And by being able to buy the right to use land, one acquires power.

[ 21 ] One must be clear that there is no way out of this calamity at all unless one tackles the issue head-on. However, finished means of production—not means of production that are still being made, but rather the finished ones that are then used to continue production—have exactly the same value as land does in the economic process, or rather, the same significance. In reality, these finished means of production cannot actually be bought. But if one does buy them, one is in fact acquiring the right to use them exclusively. So, once again, one is buying a right. And now you can see most clearly from these means of production that, once they are finished, they simply must not be for sale—the means of production must cease to have a value on the economic market. Once they are completed, they are exactly like land. This raises the question—which, after all, involves a truly social demand: How do we ensure that the means of production no longer have economic value once they are finished? We can achieve this only—as I mentioned earlier—by allowing everything that does not belong in the economic process to become independent components of the social organism.

[ 22 ] What, then, is necessary for production? Is capital really necessary? No! It is simply nonsense to say that capital is necessary. In order for the means of production to be operated, intellectual labor is necessary. Every worker understands, of course, that intellectual leadership and intellectual labor must be present. And he also understands that he would soon have to stop working if intellectual leadership and intellectual labor were not available. But today the issue is not intellectual leadership, but rather private ownership of the means of production and profitability—that is, the ability to invest the capital tied up in the means of production. That is why it is necessary to separate the means of production from the economic process, so that, through the social order itself, they can always reach those who possess the appropriate abilities and in whom the workers have confidence. That is why the threefold social order seeks an independent spiritual organism. It is simply nonsense to say [that this creates new ownership structures …] In this spiritual life, which is, after all, closely connected to the other branches of life, it will then be ensured that the means of production find their way through the world by means other than purchase. And in what I call the constitutional state—which truly has nothing more to do with the old state—provisions will be made to ensure that labor can obtain its due. In economic life itself, then, only the production, distribution, and consumption of goods will remain.

[ 23 ] Then, when we are faced with such an economic process, we will be able to muster the courage to demand that there be a liquidation government. This government will then say to itself: All right, I must remain in place for a while, because the old system must continue. But I must retain, at most, only something like a Ministry of Police, a Ministry of the Interior, and a Ministry of Justice, which will establish the legal framework through the appropriate democratic representation.

[ 24 ] It is, again, a slander to say that, under this legal framework, only legal scholars will rule. No, the people will rule; there will be a true democracy that will expand. Both on the left and on the right, the government must be a liquidation government that, on the one hand, transfers intellectual life to its own administration and, on the other hand, transfers economic life to its own administration. The liquidation government will have to take the initiative in such a way as to create a free environment for economic life, so that within the economic sphere, a genuine socialization can take place through the forces that regulate the respective values of goods—that is, the prices necessary for a healthy livelihood.

[ 25 ] You see, I know, of course, that whenever I discuss something like this, people will say—from all sorts of different perspectives—“Yes, he expresses himself so vaguely.” — I just want to know how anyone is supposed to express themselves precisely about something that is an infinite realm. One can only draw attention to what actually underlies these matters. But I always hope that precisely those who, out of the hardships of their lives, have acquired a certain inner sense of the truth of this matter, will see that what is being presented here is based on a truly thorough understanding of the entire process of production and consumption. And only from such an insight can one move on to action. That alone is therefore what is truly practical, whereas those who always draft laws or design institutions in such a way that one hole is closed only to open another in its place are not true practitioners.

[ 26 ] It is certainly possible to organize a business quite well if one leaves it to operate under capitalist principles—that is, if one allows the entire economy to operate under capitalist principles. Then it may be possible within individual businesses for workers to receive what is so nicely called the “full product of their labor,” though this would mean that no surplus value is generated anymore. Walther Rathenau will, of course, come along and say: Surplus value serves no other purpose than to build up reserves—that is, for the ongoing improvement of the means of production and the expansion of the enterprise. All the surplus value that is generated goes back into the enterprise. — I would simply like to know how those who do not work but receive some kind of royalties or the like make a living if everything goes back into the enterprise. Well, one can let such people talk. But something else is far more important.

[ 27 ] Let’s assume that all surplus value were simply distributed among the workers. Do you believe that, if the old capitalist order remained in place and surplus value were distributed among the workers in a given enterprise, it would then be necessary to work without producing surplus value? Even if the economy is not socialized, it is still possible to extract surplus value. In that case, it is simply not deducted from the workers’ wages; instead, the consumer must pay for it. The point is not that no surplus value is produced, but that the producer does not pay for it… and the consumer must pay for it. But who is that? Once again, it is the worker. So if you take the surplus value in addition to your wages, you must in turn pay, as a consumer, for what you have earned. You plug one hole, only to open another.

[ 28 ] One can never break free from this unnatural cycle of economic life unless one eliminates the fifth wheel on the wagon—which exists solely so that people who have not worked can profit from it. This fifth wheel is, of course, called capital. And one cannot break free from this cycle unless one establishes a direct relationship between the means of production and the intellectual worker on the one hand, and the manual worker on the other. If one is unwilling to do this—if one does not throw out this fifth wheel, which serves only those who do not work—then one will never achieve socialization.

[ 29 ] As you will see, the main point of what is described in my book is that it genuinely seeks to eliminate from economic life that which constitutes capital and that which constitutes a coercive relationship of labor. This can only be achieved by establishing a legal framework within which labor is regulated independently of economic life, and by creating an intellectual framework within which individual human abilities are regulated independently of economic life. Then they will flow into economic life in the proper way.

[ 30 ] Anyone who understands this won’t be very impressed when people come along and say: “Yes, you want to destroy the unity of social life by dividing it into three parts.” No, I want to establish precisely this unity, and those people who speak of the fragmentation of this unity—like the foolish columnist in yesterday’s Süddeutsche Zeitung—believe that I want to cut up a horse. I do not want to cut up the horse, but they believe that I am cutting up the horse if I do not make it stand on a single leg. People think that the horse is a unity only when it stands on one leg. But the horse must stand on four legs. I do not want to cut up the social organism, but rather to set it on its three healthy legs. In doing so, I want to shape it into a whole. That is what matters.

[ 31 ] Now I have once again shared some thoughts with you on how to understand these matters, but from a different perspective than I have usually presented in my lectures. I simply wanted to introduce this evening’s discussion, and I hope that many of you will now speak up with insights that can help us move forward tonight. We must make progress, particularly with regard to the genuine dismantling of capitalism and the genuine abolition of forced labor.

Discussion

Mr. Biel poses two questions: 1. Is democracy a necessity for implementing such a new form of economic life, or is it, under certain circumstances, justified to use force if democracy cannot bring about such a state of affairs? Can powers also be justified in this case? — 2. Is this threefold social order or socialization possible without taking international conditions into account—that is, without all culturally developed nations that are relevant to the matter coming forward simultaneously with the same ideas and demands?

[ 32 ] Rudolf Steiner: Regarding the question of whether democracy is a necessity for the realization of true socialization, I would like to say the following: In a certain sense, one can truly say that, up to now, the majority of people have not yet been able to warm to new ideas; rather, as the esteemed speaker before me has already said, it has always been only small groups. However, it is precisely on this point that we must be clear: today we are facing not small, but major turning points in world history. Much must change, and it will only change if, precisely with regard to the most important matters, we are willing to strive for something different from what has existed until now. Anyone who today does not merely look back on the customs of earlier times, but can see what people want, will have to take into account a wide variety of real factors.

[ 33 ] You see, the previous speaker, for example, said that a small caste drove people into the World War. Well, in the next few days I will be publishing a short pamphlet on the outbreak of World War I, which will show just how small the number of people was—on the German side, for example—who drove the conflict forward. This small group operated, in its own way, entirely out of conditions dating back to a distant prehistory. The old conditions were simply carried over into the present. For the government in Berlin to have ruled as it did—in spirit, not through technical means—there would have been no need, for example, for the art of printing, through which education and the capacity for judgment were brought to the broadest masses. But hasn’t this catastrophe of the World War truly plunged into the abyss that which had simply been allowed to continue unchecked? |

[ 34 ] Today we stand on different ground, and people today are simply not the sort who are willing to let small groups dictate what they should do, or who want merely to replace one small group with another. Today, everyone wants to have a say. Today is the time when we must learn the difference between ruling and governing. It certainly seems, however, that this difference has not yet been fully recognized. Today, the people must rule; a government may only govern. That is what matters. And this also means that democracy, in a healthy sense, is necessary today. That is why I have no hope that even the most beautiful ideas can achieve anything if they are to be realized by small groups and if they are not supported by the understanding and insight of the true majority of the population. The most important task today is to win over the vast majority of the population to what has been recognized as an opportunity for change. Thus, we are now faced with the necessity of securing the support of the majority of the population, in a democratic manner, for what will ultimately be achieved in terms of true socialization.

[ 35 ] Of course, there could be transitional periods during which a small group might achieve something that is not recognized by the majority. But that would surely be short-lived. On this point in particular, we must realize that even today the time has come when, through democratization, people are to be regarded as equals; and therefore we must lay the groundwork on which all people can be equal in their judgment, separating it from that in which people cannot be equal in their judgment. Just think: if a child at school is particularly gifted at learning arithmetic, and you want to make him or her a musician, then by educating the child incorrectly, you are depriving social life of a very special force. The healthy development of individuality must be nurtured precisely within the social organism. You cannot democratize this; you can only allow discernment based on a true understanding of human nature to prevail. Something entirely new must emerge in the realm of education and the school system.

[ 36 ] And in economic life, do you want to make decisions democratically? For example, how boots or valves should be manufactured? There, one must form corporations based on objective knowledge regarding production and consumption; there, objective interests must be the deciding factor. On the left and on the right, purely practical interests must be set aside; then what remains in the middle is the foundation of democracy, where nothing else comes into consideration except what every mature, adult human being has the right to demand from every other mature, adult human being as an equal, and from which justice then radiates into intellectual and economic life. Precisely because the call for democracy is so justified today, we must recognize how democracy can be implemented. This was not necessary in capitalist society. People called themselves democrats there as well, but it was not yet necessary to engage so thoroughly with the concept of democracy as we must today. Today we have reached the point where we must ask ourselves: Since democracy must come, how can we realize it in practice? — The answer must be: Only by placing it on its own foundation, and whatever cannot be administered democratically, whatever not all people can judge, will be objectively separated to the left and right.

[ 37 ] It is so easy to understand why this threefold social organism is necessary that one really has to wonder why people are so opposed to it. When people ask, “Who is open and honest, for example, in a democracy?” the answer is precisely the threefold social organism, because it seeks to discover how democracy can be realized, rather than mixing everything up and creating confusion so that democracy cannot exist in a unitary state. Of course, those who constantly cry out, “For throne and altar!” have not created democracy. — But, ladies and gentlemen, neither will those who replace the throne with an office and the altar with a cash register bring about democracy. Democracy will be achieved only by those who are sincere in their commitment to human society and do not seek to impose democracy where expertise alone can be the decisive factor. That is why people will have to come to terms with the fact—which, incidentally, sensible socialists have always maintained—that in the future there must be objective administrations and no sham administrations based on elections and the like. Certainly, elections must take place, but beyond the mechanics of voting, we will have to learn other things as well, beyond what we already know today. I simply wish to point out this: Democracy must come, but we must have a social organism that makes democracy truly possible.

[ 38 ] As for international relations, I will simply say that, while this world war was raging, it was precisely because of this international character that I proposed this threefold social order, for I saw in this threefold order alone a remedy to somehow emerge from the terrible devastation and destruction of this world war. For anyone who had been an attentive observer over the course of decades could see quite clearly that the jumbling together of all manner of things was bound to bring about this modern catastrophe—the greatest in world history, which, incidentally, is still far from being overcome.

[ 39 ] Let us illustrate this history using a single example: the Baghdad Railway issue. As you may well know, this Baghdad Railway issue played a major role in the events that ultimately led to this world war. Anyone who studies the negotiations surrounding the Baghdad Railway issue knows how closely intertwined the economic interests of capital imperialism—or capital imperialisms—are with national, chauvinistic, state-sanctioned, and legal prejudices. For example, a certain German financial consortium believed it already had the matter in the bag because it had won over certain people in England—including financial consortia, that is, people steeped in capitalist economic interests—but then state interests came into play and threw everything into such disarray that the English backed out again. Then the French backed out for the same reasons. Then, in turn, it ran counter to German state interests, and this pattern continued throughout the entire course of the negotiations. Anyone familiar with real life knows how, in modern life, the three spheres of existence—spiritual life (which also includes national life), economic life, and state or legal life—have repeatedly become intertwined.

[ 40 ] You see, when I visited Vienna once during this world war—people have, of course, judged this world war and their fate in it from a wide variety of perspectives—some told me: “This whole war is nothing but a pig’s war.” — Not to condemn it, but to describe it, they meant to express that one of the most important causes was Hungary’s refusal to allow the import of Serbian pigs. In other words, a purely economic matter that became intertwined with national—that is, spiritual—issues. Thus, various cauldrons of turmoil formed, in which the events that eventually became the World War were brewing: all manner of legal relationships, pre-legal relationships, class-based relationships, and the like. That is why precisely those who look to the international level must point out that the only salvation for the future lies in separating the three spheres of life, so that a threefold social organism may take shape. Then the individual spheres will support one another, and each will point to the other.

[ 41 ] People can sometimes be so stubborn that it’s truly astonishing. You see, I once spoke with a man who is a legal scholar—he’s even a director-general—and I pointed out to him that when the social organism is threefold, conflicts can no longer arise at the boundaries because one sphere does not interfere with the other. I said that conflicts between states do not arise so quickly from economic conflicts if everything isn’t all mixed up. Good economic relations, for example, will help with state conflicts and the like. — “Yes,” he said, “but if you implement that, then you’re going against something that has always been part of history, namely that the most important wars in history have actually been wars over raw materials.” If you want to implement that, you’d be eliminating resource conflicts altogether, and yet our experience shows that these resource conflicts have always existed. — I had to reply: “Yes, if you’d wanted to provide me with confirmation that I’m right, then that would make sense to me. But I can’t understand why you’re presenting it to me as a rebuttal.” - That’s how people are today. When they think straightforwardly and naturally, they can’t bring themselves to accept it, because people’s mental images have already been warped.

[ 42 ] So, with regard to the international sphere as such, it was precisely this threefold social order that was conceived first. It is the foundation for a genuine socialization of international life as well. But it has another special characteristic. It does no harm at all if one social organism is threefold while the others are not yet ready for it. For if the others are not yet ready, those who have introduced the threefold social organism can still enjoy its benefits. Externally, if that should hinder them, they can still present a united front. If there are three parliaments, they can join forces in negotiations with foreign countries, since the others do not yet allow for anything else. But they will still be ahead of the others because they are implementing the threefold social order within their own territory. That is precisely what is important: that one does not set out to revolutionize the whole world, but rather that one can begin in a specific region. Then—and of this I am absolutely certain—it will have a very contagious effect when truly wholesome conditions arise in a region. It will have a thoroughly contagious effect. That, precisely, will then contribute to internationalization. One must simply think practically. The only thing that could happen now is that the Entente might prevent us from introducing these blessings, so that we cannot set an example. But we must show courage and initiative precisely in what we are capable of creating anew. Perhaps it is precisely through such efforts that we will be able to fight against the powerful capitalist-imperialist forces.

Panelist Mittwich asks: 1. How will it be possible to tax individuals in the socialist economic system in the future? - 2. How will we socialize?

[ 43 ] Rudolf Steiner: With regard to the point about democratization and its significance during the transitional period, I do not believe that the two esteemed speakers who spoke before me have presented anything that truly differs from my remarks. Of course, misunderstandings might arise in one circle or another, but nothing that truly differs from what I have said has actually been put forward.

[ 44 ] You see, you must regard this as the very foundation of the entire impulse of the threefold order—namely, that it is directed toward reality in every respect, that it does not theorize at all. Actually, when it comes to what is written in my book on the social question—if I may express myself a bit paradoxically—it is not even so much what is directly written there that is important, but rather what happens when one sets out to put into practice what is written there. People will realize that all sorts of things emerge—things they had no mental image of before—precisely the things that are unconsciously demanded today by those who are truly working and productive. And in one specific case, this applies to democracy. Of course, during the transitional period, a very significant question will be this: If we now actually achieve a sufficient majority—and I consider that the only sound approach, since small groups simply cannot sustain anything in the long run—if we achieve a sufficient majority for something that is truly practicable, then the question naturally arises from the actual circumstances at hand; it can only come from there: In what way does one then, more or less explicitly—you know what I mean by that—show those whom one wishes to see no longer in power the door? This is, of course, a significant transitional question, and I believe that if a truly relative majority—I would even say a sufficient majority— it just depends on there being a number of people who tip the scales and can carry the cause—people who are involved out of conviction and insight, not out of blind following or deference to authority—then a way will also be found to bring about the new.

[ 45 ] But you see, the question—which Mr. Mittwich has indeed discussed very well here—does not strike me as having been addressed in a particularly practical way, especially when I have a mental image of these things taking place in space and not in our heads, not in our thoughts. Mr. Mittwich rightly said: When it comes to the fate of Germany, to the great, serious issues of the present, only those who are productive workers—those who are truly engaged in productive activity in some way—should have a say. — I completely agree. But you see, human society would be in a bad state if the majority of people were not productive, if they were idle. The majority is already engaged in productive work. And if we had only those who are productively active—if they truly constituted a “majority”—then we would be in fine shape. Then those who are productively inactive—the parasites of society—would be in a strong minority.

[ 46 ] Now, the thing about the threefold social order is that it is certainly only those who are productively active—that is, those who truly produce something and matter to society—who will internalize what lies at its core. If they embrace it, we can rely on these people, and the minority that does not embrace it need not be taken into account. By adopting something truly reasonable, we will, in practice, end up with a majority that can be relied upon. So I believe that the matter itself will ensure that, if it is accepted, the majority of productive workers will assert themselves. But I do not yet see, in practice, how one could push anything through without being able to rely on the majority of productive workers. Merely making the demand that only productive workers should have a say in Germany’s fate is not enough. The matter only becomes practical when one considers how the productive members of society alone can form a majority. The parasites will already be weeded out if we can adhere to the threefold social organism. For that will bring about true socialization, and those who are unproductive social parasites—of that you can be quite certain—will not be able to find any appeal in this socialization. They will have to fall back into inactivity—well, they’re already there—but also into inactivity with regard to their vote and so on.

[ 47 ] It’s true, of course, that capitalism can exert coercion economically—I’ve made that point clear enough. But this coercion ceases the moment we render it harmless by ensuring the dismantling of capitalism. That is why I really still cannot understand how people constantly confuse what is appropriate for the present with what is appropriate for the time to come—a time that must truly already be at our doorstep, for we do not have much time left. As for the present, one could certainly say that the capitalists can strangle us, but that is precisely what we want to prevent—that they be able to do so. We cannot imagine conditions that we are actually trying to eliminate. That is why it is incorrect to object that the capitalists will hold power. They simply will not have it if we move forward as the threefold social organism suggests. That is precisely how it will be taken from them. And finally, for anyone who looks more closely today, the question arises: Is capital as such—primarily as an economic power—really still so extraordinarily powerful across vast areas today?

[ 48 ] Look, I’d like to use an analogy to illustrate something. I was once visiting a family that had a rather large dog. And suddenly, after the woman of the family had been looking at this dog very thoughtfully for a long time, she had a strange thought. She said that if this dog were to suddenly become aware of its strength and use it, it could tear us all to pieces. But he’s so tame, and we’re really only saved by the fact that he’s grown accustomed to being tame. — You see, the strength of old capitalism has already been greatly undermined today. People just don’t realize how much has already been undermined, how much is only being kept up in appearance today simply by perpetuating the old conditions. Yes, you see, if after the German Revolution—though comparisons are always flawed, and this one is meant merely to illustrate the balance of power—those who rose to power had found within themselves the awareness of the strength inherent in the bulldog, and had not allowed themselves to be hypnotized by muddling through along the old paths, then we would already be further along today.

[ 49 ] Well, specific questions aren’t always that easy to answer, especially for practical-minded people. Let me tell you why. The thing is, depending on the circumstances, specific questions sometimes call for one answer and sometimes another. Things can be handled in very different ways, and it isn’t always necessary to do them the same way every time. The “program-oriented” person, the theorist, is usually so clever that he devises a socialist program down to the last detail. There have always been people like that. But that’s not what matters; what matters is showing how the groundwork must be laid so that people can socialize on their own, so that they can come together in the process of socializing.

[ 50 ] I must emphasize again and again: I do not consider myself smarter than others when it comes to the details, but I try to offer suggestions on how to bring out in every person what can contribute to socialization. That is why I would like people to stand on three foundations. After all, people are not divided into classes; rather, they will all be part of every sphere. And it is the people who will form the unity. That is why I would like to join the community of ideas and forces in such a way that socialization can truly be brought about by the people. Then, under the new conditions, we will also find a just system of taxation. We must not forget: We cannot derive a just principle for taxation from today’s wealth statistics, since we are working to place them on an entirely different foundation. Isn’t that right? All these things—such as income tax, excise tax, and so on—will be placed on an entirely different foundation in the future. Please read my treatise on the social question. There you will see that, in the future, many things will indeed be quite different. For example, the father of a family occupies a very different position in the social organism than the single person, precisely because, if the constitutional state truly develops as I assume it will, then every child has the right to an education. Then the situation will not be one in which the family man must divide his meager wages among a large family, while the single person can spend everything on himself. The circumstances will be entirely different. [Interjection: And the other necessities?] The right to necessities is, of course, a given. It is guaranteed by the fact that the economic process is a real one. Anyone who produces something will, simply through the economic process, have the opportunity—which is far more secure than an abstract right—to procure the necessities of life. What the emancipation of economic life is intended to bring about is that people have enough to get by. Needs are better met when one has a right to the necessities of life and, consequently, enough money in one’s wallet. This is what concerns the right to necessities. It is actually not a useful expression, because in reality it is irrelevant if one truly envisions the realization of the threefold social organism. For then, in fact, what is created is what truly places people on an equal footing with one another from a certain age onward.

[ 51 ] Isn’t it true that income as such may, under certain circumstances—especially in a truly socialized community—not be the determining factor in what one can consume? For it is entirely possible that, because a person has to perform—let’s call it—high-quality work, he may appear to earn more than others, especially in a socialist community; yet he does not have more for his consumption than others—he must, in turn, spend it in the appropriate manner. What matters is not to focus particularly on this concept of income and consumption in the future, but rather that—because one person will be placed on an economically equal footing with others—it will be possible in the future to eliminate the state as a tax collector from the economic process altogether.

[ 52 ] You see, one concept will have to disappear entirely in the future: the concept of legal personality, including economic-legal personality. In fact, the taxes that are due will have to be paid by individual people, because in the state—in the democratic state—on the foundation upon which the law is to stand, the individual stands face to face with the individual. People can only be equal when one person faces another as an individual. In the realm of economic life and in the realm of intellectual life, there must be corporations. In the realm of the state, there can only be law—which is the same for all people—and every adult can understand this. The corollary of this, however, is that every private individual, every single person, is merely a taxpayer. This can be structured proportionally so that injustice never occurs, but such proportionality will not be necessary if there is truly a balance among people. The tax issue will then be something entirely different. That is why the matters at hand—and those that can be addressed today—apply more to the transitional stage. In such a stage, one often has to implement measures that are not permanent. Of course, the aim here is to gradually pave the way for the taxation of the individual, not the taxation of entities [...] Naturally, a consumption tax must also be established—by which I do not mean the indirect taxes that are unjust. So, a consumption tax must be established; that is to say, those who spend a lot of money must naturally be taxed more than those who do not spend much, because if someone stashes their money away in a straw sack, it has no significance for social life. It only gains significance when it is spent.

[ 53 ] These are, of course, such specific questions that today—because they are very specific practical issues—can, in essence, only ever be answered inadequately, since even the institutions in this transitional stage cannot yet be fully developed. If we can find a way of thinking that makes it possible to distribute fairly what is due to the state, then we will also find a way to tax those who still have a high income today more heavily than those who have less. And what Mr. Mittwich said about the future can only be realized if everything that can be created through the threefold social order is in place.

[ 54 ] A very real question is how the process of socialization should be conceived. Some say it can only be achieved through an increase in production. Yes, but there are really quite other factors to consider as well. In this regard, there is still little clarity among people today. You see, I once said in a lecture—I believe it was to Daimler workers—that what is peculiar about recent human development is that, because of machines, the number of workers worldwide does not correspond to the number of people listed in the encyclopedia as the world’s population. The encyclopedia lists approximately 1,500 million people, but in reality, if we count the working population, the number is 2,000 million—that is, 500 million more. That is a peculiar fact. Of course, I am not claiming that ghosts are running around—who, after all, would not be working even if they were—but this is the case because we have machines and can compare what is economically produced using machines, as opposed to, say, the Orient, where there are not yet so many machines and where people do more manual labor. This makes it possible to calculate that the increase in output achieved worldwide since the advent of machinery corresponds precisely to 500 million people. Just imagine how much labor and productive capacity could be saved if this were truly utilized in a sensible way. But, strangely enough, I was told in response: Yes, I was quite right to say that machines have created 500 million “imaginary” people—that is, 500 million more than actually exist—so that the work is being done by 2,000 million people; but in return, people’s needs have also risen during the machine age, and the same is true compared to earlier times. — This is an objection one hears very frequently: that simply increasing productive capacity also increases needs. One hole is plugged, and another opens up. But in reality, things are different. The fact is that we must make use of everything that can lead to rationalization and the proper organization of the production process. Anyone who thinks that the production process simply needs to be ramped up is missing the point—and that point is: a proper balance between consumption and production, not the greatest possible increase in production. Nor does that lead to what we must strive for, namely a pricing structure that truly creates dignified living conditions for all people.

[ 55 ] What is necessary, specifically, is that—particularly in production—mistakes not be made of the kind that, let’s say, were made in Germany. One of these—and many were made—is that, for a long time before the outbreak of World War I, German industry consumed twice as much coal as was necessary. Simply put, a great deal of resources were wasted that could actually have been put to entirely different uses. It is precisely this that matters: that we have people in the economic process who are up to the task of the current situation. But we do not have such people. While people may be capable of thinking in highly advanced technical terms on a grand scale, we lack true economic leaders—that is what we are missing. The economic process is not really organized the way it should be, because people have absolutely no idea how crucial it is not to waste productive forces unnecessarily.

[ 56 ] I have often used a grotesque example in these lectures. It is not uncommon today for a young person, after graduating from college, to have to write a doctoral dissertation. I will now describe a specific example. A young man was assigned by his professor to write his doctoral dissertation on commas in Homer—which, incidentally, do not exist. This is, of course, a dissertation that contributes absolutely nothing to the social process. People who are hypnotized by scientific thinking take offense when one says such a thing. But this matter must be viewed from an economic perspective. From an economic standpoint, it is significant that this young man needs a year and a half to complete the work. During this time, he must eat, drink, and clothe himself. For him to be able to do so requires that a certain number of people must work to provide his food and drink, yet he squanders his productive capacity; he contributes nothing to society. Through what people call “free, independent science,” he becomes a parasite on social life. That is just one example. But there are many such things in our production process—and in our entire social life—where one can be very diligent yet ultimately unproductive. This raises the question: How do we eliminate this? We cannot eliminate it without placing intellectual life on its own solid foundation. Does it stand on its own solid foundation today? Wherever you examine it, you sense the unhealthy ground beneath it. Where do all these people come from who are unleashed upon the working population and are supposed to lead or govern those who actually do the work?

[ 57 ] I have often cited the example of a certain government official named Kolb in my lectures. This government official, Kolb, did not do what many others do—retire after a certain amount of time—but instead went to America and worked there alongside laborers, first in a bicycle factory, then in a brewery. Then he wrote a book: As a Worker in America. In this book, you’ll find the following beautiful sentence: “In the past, when I saw someone on the street who wasn’t working, I used to think: Why isn’t that good-for-nothing working? Today I see things quite differently. Today I know that the uncomfortable aspects of life seem quite comfortable when viewed from the comfort of a study.” — Well, you see, this man made it all the way to the position of State Councilor. So he certainly studied there, in our modern intellectual workshops, but he had no idea about life, no idea about work. Life is run by such people today! You have no idea how much our living conditions depend on such things! But aren’t these conditions bound to be unhealthy? Yes, I simply ask you to consider that a person is truly dependent on his or her thoughts. What’s inside the head is not insignificant; it’s contagious—it affects the whole person, especially when it reaches them during their formative years. And now let me tell you something: Do today’s educational institutions ensure that people are trained to understand the very life in which their work takes place? No, the circumstances are entirely different. And in the minds of those who graduate from our educational institutions today, what kinds of thoughts dwell within them? They harbor the thoughts that people absorb, for example, through the Greek language. But a language is the clear reflection of external life. Grammar, word formation, even intonation, and everything else is drawn from life. The Greek language—when I immerse myself in it—enables me to find my way into Greek life. Back then, only those who engaged in politics, art, or science—or perhaps managed agriculture—were permitted to be free people. All others were unfree. Everything about learning Greek is geared toward this very fact. The people who graduate from educational institutions today come out with ideas that are applicable only to a social order in which only a few are free, while the majority are unfree. People do not realize what is happening unconsciously, what is seeping into them. That is why spiritual life must be liberated, so that we do not have capitalists and their servants as spiritual leaders, but rather so that spiritual leadership is in harmony with economic life. Isn’t it actually absurd—since we are now talking about the “great reckoning”—isn’t it absurd that our spiritual leaders do not follow the example of the Greeks? The Greeks learned in their educational institutions for the sake of their lives. One may criticize this today as one pleases, but that was simply life back then. Today, that must not be our life! Yet we do not learn what is necessary for our own lives; instead, we allow our youth to learn what was relevant to ancient Greece.

[ 58 ] Yes, you see, people today still don’t think about these fundamentals of healthy socialization. But that is necessary, especially when we talk about properly organizing production, which is, after all, quite complicated today. So today we must learn to recognize, for example, how large a production facility may be. Because, you see, what Mr. Mittwich said certainly applies to a production facility that is too small. It cannot, of course, survive because it belongs to an old economic order. But we must not allow production facilities to become too large for purely economic reasons, and here’s why: Facilities that are too small—and I must state this today as an economic law—will, in the future, lead to those who work in them starving. Facilities that are too large will cause those who are supposed to buy what is produced in these facilities to starve. A production enterprise must be of a very specific size, and this size can only be determined if, in the future, people who understand the matter create a proper balance between consumption and production. The interests of consumption are always such that they seek to expand. Consumer cooperatives—as you will always see—have an interest in growing larger. Production cooperatives always want to become smaller. The proper balance is created by the combined effects of production and consumption. Then enterprises will emerge that are of an appropriate size, so that the intellectually active person can truly work for the benefit of those who labor physically alongside them, and from this will arise a natural prosperity that will ensure a dignified existence for the broad masses.

[ 59 ] So, as you can see, the issue isn’t that simple. It’s important to realize that it’s unhealthy when someone says that if all production is carried out by machines—as that gentleman told me back then—then needs will also increase. The question is whether it’s a healthy state of affairs to allow needs to rise, or whether we shouldn’t consider the possibility of relieving people of some of their work so they can find some rest. That can also contribute to the proper regulation of prices. People often fail to see the simplest things. Let me give you an example: I once got into a friendly argument with someone about scribbling on postcards. I said: I don’t like writing postcards, because most of the time they’re just a whim and actually somewhat unnecessary. And I believe that I can spare all the mail carriers—who have to run up and down the stairs—this running up and down. I’d like to spare them this work. The other person said: “That’s not right, because, first of all, it gives me joy when I can bring joy to someone else with the card.”—Well, that was still reasonable. But then he said: “Secondly, the current mail carriers will soon no longer be enough, and more will have to be hired. So someone else will earn a living because I write a lot of postcards.” — To which I replied: “But just consider what you’re actually saying. Do you really believe that you can increase the amount of bread by even a single gram simply by hiring people to deliver postcards? The amount of consumer goods needed for the same number of people isn’t going to increase just because the cards are being delivered!” One must distinguish between productive forces—which must be transformed into labor—and entirely unproductive forces. And that dreadful phrase, often used, that one must “create work” so that people can be hired—it makes no sense at all if what is being created is something entirely unproductive.

[ 60 ] So, what matters is not simply that production be blindly increased through sensible socialization, but rather that a proper balance between consumption and production be established. You see, it is just as necessary that we develop the goodwill today to educate ourselves about these matters. For if we continue to think in those dreadful terms that stem from the capitalist order, then we simply won’t make any progress. We must ask ourselves again and again: Is this still a capitalist way of thinking, or is it a realistic seed of an idea for the future? That is why we must tell ourselves: Today, we have to turn an idea around twice to ensure that it is a thought for rebuilding and not one derived from what is ripe for dismantling. That is what I wanted to say in response to the questions.

The following question is raised: Under current circumstances, we are unlikely to secure a majority for the threefold social order, because not even the proletariat is united among itself. What can be done to bring about this unity?

[ 61 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes, that is one of those questions that always boil down to the fact that, while one recognizes what is right, one has a mental image of not being able to achieve it for whatever reason. One really shouldn’t pose this question in this way; it truly gets us nowhere. The question must become a matter of will. I cannot speak definitively on this. One simply has to do something. One must carry what one has recognized as right from person to person. One must not ask oneself: “Will we achieve a majority or not?”—but rather, one must do everything to achieve this majority. Then we fulfill our duty toward ourselves and toward all of humanity. It must be a matter of will, not merely a theoretical question like: “How do we get the majority?”—I say: We must have it! And that is why we must work to get it. It must be a matter of will. There is no other way.