The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Second Discussion Evening

Introductory Remarks by Rudolf Steiner

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! At our last meeting, we spoke at length about the threefold structure of the social organism, and I believe that you are essentially familiar with what this threefold organism is intended to consist of, and that this threefold organism offers the only possibility of achieving true socialization. For, you see, at present the main issue is surely this: that no side—especially none of the sides that are still so influential today—really understands the nature of socialization. This is perhaps best seen in the laws that have been enacted, which are supposed to embody the spirit of socialization. I am referring in particular to the law on works councils.

[ 2 ] You may know that, particularly in Berlin, the phrase [...] was coined: “Socialization is marching!” — I don’t think one can claim today that socialization is marching. It isn’t even toddling! One might even take the view that socialization is hiding. Well, the task in the future will be to truly recognize that the impulses of the threefold organism do not contain anything utopian or ideological, but rather that they certainly contain the seeds of what can become reality.

[ 3 ] The essence of this threefold social order is, after all, that economic life, legal life, and spiritual life are truly and clearly distinguished from one another. However, since we are, after all, in a transitional period, a starting point must somehow be found. As you will readily recognize from the circumstances, this starting point can be found today, for the time being, in economic life, and for the following reason: The proletarian is immersed in economic life; the proletarian knows, from what he has experienced in his own flesh and soul, the necessity of socialization. One can truly say that, apart from the proletarian, hardly anyone else can form such a genuinely comprehensive understanding of what socialization is. Certainly, some members of the intelligentsia can do so as well. They, too, can be counted on. But that is not the issue today—whether a few people realize that this or that is correct—but rather, what matters today is that as many people as possible recognize what needs to be done and bring about a new social order that is truly social in the real sense. That is why I would like to say a few words today in the introduction about what is important for our progress in this matter. Further points can then emerge during the discussion, building on the questions that I hope will be asked in great numbers from among you. Therefore, in this introduction, I would like to offer only a few brief suggestions. What must happen, above all, is that we find people with whom socialization is possible. These people, however, must truly be genuine representatives of the broad masses of the proletariat. They must, in a certain sense, have a mandate from these broad masses of the proletariat. Now, the impulse behind the threefold social organism is practical to the extent that it can be applied anywhere. One can begin working from any point. Today, the question of works councils emerges as a very important starting point. And regarding this question—about which you have already heard quite a bit from the distinguished speaker before me—we would like to discuss it in depth today.

[ 4 ] When addressing the issue of works councils, the point now is that these works councils must first—I would say—be established in such a way that they arise solely from economic life. For we must approach the threefold social order in such a way that we first do something truly practical in one of the three members. Of course, something practical must then also happen in parallel in the other two sections. We can only do something practical if we have first, so to speak, established those people who are suited to take practical action. For this, we need the works councils, which must emerge from the individual companies.

[ 5 ] The fact is that these works councils can emerge from individual companies in a wide variety of ways. The only requirement is that the works councils emerging from the individual enterprises have the absolute trust of the working class and, to a certain extent—as far as possible—also the trust of the white-collar workers in the enterprise in question. Therefore, the task will be for the actual workers of a company—and, from among the management, those who are truly willing to cooperate—to establish this works council, initially based on the specific conditions of the individual company. Conditions can vary greatly from one enterprise to another. For example, it may be the case that in one enterprise the election or appointment—or whatever one wishes to call it—of a works council is carried out in one way, while in another enterprise it is done differently. The main point remains that those who are selected must have the trust of both the manual and white-collar workers in the enterprises in question.

[ 6 ] But first, we need the foundation required for practical work. These works councils will then exist as such and form a body of works councils. This body of works councils must be clear that it is the institution from which the recovery of our economic life must first emerge. The issue today is not about taking half-measures or quarter-measures, but about actually working from the ground up. This can only happen if we have people who are willing to work from the ground up. Do not be misled by the claim that there are not enough pre-trained people among the working class. That will prove to be the greatest error, perhaps even the greatest nonsense. For the issue at hand is not, first and foremost, that we need people with specialized technical training, but rather that we need people drawn from the immediate practice of economic life who have the trust of those engaged in economic activity. Then the rest will follow naturally, provided there is genuine commitment and genuine goodwill to create something new from the ground up.

[ 7 ] So once we have established works councils in the individual companies, we will have the “works council body.” The next step is to convene a general assembly—in a sense, a plenary session—of this works council body. And this body of works councils must, regardless of whatever is being concocted by certain authorities as a “law on works councils,” draw up its own constitution based on the experiences of economic life. It must view itself as a constituent assembly. Within this body of works councils, negotiations must take place regarding its powers, its tasks, and the entire status of the body itself. This can only happen if, at this general assembly, we first discuss what actually needs to be done to restore our economic life to health. It is therefore not a matter of theorizing at length right now about what the works councils are supposed to do. That must emerge from the general assembly of the works council body itself.

[ 8 ] Let us first establish this: It is not possible to “socialize” a single enterprise. That is utter nonsense; one can only “individualize” operations at the enterprise level. One can only “socialize” a cohesive economic region. Therefore, we do not need any general regulations governing the function of works councils in individual enterprises—as is once again reflected in current legislation—but rather we need an inter-enterprise constitution for the works council system. A works council system covering a cohesive economic region must form a unified whole. Once this general assembly—this founding assembly—has adopted a constitution, it will be able to exert influence back on the individual enterprises.

[ 9 ] In the next step, a body must be elected from this general assembly of the works council membership—a body that could be called the “Works Council Director” or the “Central Council of the Works Council Membership.” The election would have to follow a procedure that, in turn, arises entirely from the Works Council Body itself. Once this Central Council of the Works Council Body is in place, a significant step will have been taken. For what we will need in the future within the economic body is something like an economic representation—or, if you will, using the old term, something like a Ministry of Economics. During the transitional period, these things cannot initially come about in any other way than by seeking representation through that constituent assembly, that plenary assembly of the works council body. And in order to have a foundation for the future with a view to a socialist social order, we must have created, out of this works council body, a central body that is capable at any time of forming what could be called a Ministry of Economic Affairs. So, we must work toward establishing what can be a truly appropriate administration of economic life rooted in social society. If we do not work in this way, then the moment—which will most certainly come—when socialization is to be undertaken will catch us unprepared, and it must not catch us unprepared! This is a fundamental question today. That moment must not catch us unprepared. Those in power—and you see, this is, albeit in a reasonable sense, a question of power—must know what they have to do. That was precisely the defining characteristic of November 9: that the people who rose to the top did not know what to do. We must ensure that there are people in place who know what they have to do.

[ 10 ] I have emphasized on several occasions in my lectures that works councils alone are not enough today. We will need other forms of council-based governance as well. But we need not concern ourselves with that today, for the point is that we must first begin to work practically on one specific issue. The impetus for the threefold social order is not meant for endless theorizing, but rather to move on—to move on immediately—to truly practical work. The time when this practical work will be needed may not be all that far off. For if certain circles today have a mental image of some kind of peace agreement—and some kind of peace agreement must surely come about—that would bring an end to things, that is utter nonsense. A peace treaty today does not mark an end, but rather marks the beginning of a period through which we will pass and in which the civilized world—simply out of an inner necessity, yet brought about by human beings—must carry out its socialization.

[ 11 ] There are two things we must take into account, and I would like to present these two points to you today by way of introduction. You see, there is a great deal of talk about capitalism in gatherings today—and I have, after all, taken part in quite a few gatherings and discussions—and it is discussed in the same way it was before this catastrophe of the World War. Of course, all the ills of capitalism still apply today just as they did before the war, but the reality of capitalism has become something entirely different as a result of this World War catastrophe. Just consider the conditions in Germany itself. Capitalism has, after all, undergone a transformation due to the war economy. In a certain sense, the war economy elevated capitalism to its highest peak. And it was able to do so by completely ignoring people’s real needs, since the economy was geared solely toward the war effort. But because capitalism was driven into this crisis by producing only unproductive goods, the entire capitalist system has in fact entered into a completely different relationship with the working class than was previously the case. Today, capitalism does not stand as it did before the catastrophe of the World War. And what is actually the case is that we must become aware that this capitalism no longer stands as it did. For this capitalism—even if this is not yet so evident today—has simply ruined economic life across a large part of the civilized world; it has undermined economic life. It has already done so much to bring about its own destruction that this destruction must come—not “sometime,” as was once said in socialist circles, not in “the distant future,” but in the immediate future, capitalism will demonstrate to the civilized world that it was capable of continuing to operate under the old regime and of establishing the relationship with the wage-earning class that you are all well acquainted with. But this relationship cannot possibly be restored. That is why the question is so pressing today: What will the proletariat do at the very moment when, through the self-destruction of capitalism, the task of reshaping the world falls to it? Capitalism was able to continue operating under the old conditions. It can no longer do so now. It is simply incapable of it. Complete chaos and utter confusion would ensue if capitalism were to continue operating in this manner.

[ 12 ] Let’s assume for a moment that some kind of peace were to come about, even if those who now wish to reject it were to do so. Something must come of it. But whatever does come of it could only consist—and I ask that this be clearly noted—in Central and Eastern Europe being crushed to death with the help of Entente capitalism, which has not yet been completely broken, since we would then have enslavement all the way to the Rhine, especially for the working people. That could only happen if Entente capitalism were not crushed. For what might happen then? Any practical-minded person can see this clearly. Namely, the following would happen: Let us assume that peace were to be concluded—this peace, which is, after all, a peace between the already bankrupt capitalism of Central and Eastern Europe and Entente capitalism—for the proletariat has not yet been called upon anywhere, despite the socialist government, to participate in the affairs of the world. So let us assume this peace is achieved; it would only make sense if the German proletariat were willing to rebuild capitalism by contenting itself with a terribly low wage. If it were to accept this dreadfully low wage—which would gradually starve it—then German capitalism could rise again through this low wage, and what Entente capitalism demands could, so to speak, be paid for at the expense of the working class. That is one scenario.

[ 13 ] The other scenario is this: although you probably won’t believe it, it could happen that, for example, the American and British working classes decide to work as cheaply as possible, for the lowest possible wages, so that means of production can be supplied to Germany—which, after all, can initially pay for them only if its own working class, in turn, works almost for free. In both cases, the German proletarian finds himself in a terrible situation. Only genuine socialization—which places social life on an entirely different foundation—can bring liberation from this situation. If, as has often been described, you remove capitalism from the social order, then whatever emerges as peace, reconciliation, or understanding cannot be something merely agreed upon between the capitalists of Central and Eastern Europe and the Western capitalists; rather, it can only be something that arises from a society that is becoming increasingly socialist. And that alone can bring about healthy conditions in international relations. For then it will be the case that, precisely through the peace settlement, Central and Eastern European capitalism—which is no longer standing on its own two feet—will in fact have to fade from the scene. And this will have the consequence that capitalism can also be genuinely combated in the Entente states. For if there is no capital anywhere, and yet productive life prevails—productive power prevails—then one must relate to such a productive economy in an entirely different way than if one harbors the hope that capitalism will regain its strength and pay war reparations or the like. You see, I mention the latter only so that you do not believe that anything is being pushed off into the distant future. This concerns the very immediate future; it concerns the fact that the period beginning with the necessary understanding among nations or with the conclusion of peace will either mark the beginning of a terrible situation for the proletariat of Central and Eastern Europe or the beginning of a genuine socialization that must emerge from your courage, your strength, and your understanding of necessity. That is what I wanted to say at the outset.

[ 14 ] I believe that today we should discuss the works council, but in a way that leads to real action—so that we do not merely talk, but see how the impulse toward the threefold social order consists in ideas that can be put into practice, that can become reality.

Discussion

Biel, a panelist in the discussion, speaks out against the government's proposed law on works councils and against an article in the Tagblatt about the coalition government.

Panelist Lange asks: When works council members are to be elected or appointed, has consideration been given to the fact that employees and directors—both technical and commercial—should also have a say in the selection? After all, it is important that the laws or regulations that are enacted are actually drafted by people who have a comprehensive understanding of the entire context.

[ 15 ] Rudolf Steiner: The question is extremely important. The point is, after all, that we must create something that can function. Isn’t it true that, in the current economic system, one cannot, of course, function without spiritual leaders? The economy would be driven into a dead end. Production would come to a standstill after a relatively short time if we did not secure the technical leadership for it. As you know, in Russia—due to various circumstances, which it would indeed be interesting to discuss at some point—it was not possible to win over the technical leaders to the true idea of socialization, so that there one was faced with the fact that, on the one hand, there was a manual labor proletariat—perhaps even a sufficiently large one—that could have embraced the idea of socialization, and on the other hand, it was not possible to win over the masses of so-called intellectual workers to the idea of socialization. The consequence of this was what must be most deeply regretted in Russia: the sabotage by this intellectual workforce. This sabotage by the white-collar workers must be avoided at all costs; that is to say: it is necessary to pull out all the stops to overcome whatever stands as an obstacle within the white-collar workforce. Let us not underestimate the serious obstacles that exist.

[ 16 ] You see, I’ve already spoken about this. After all, we are faced today with the fact that the proletariat, through a long process of education, is politically educated to a certain degree. The proletariat—even if this may not apply to every single individual—is politically educated. Political education does not consist in knowing this or that down to the last detail, but rather in possessing a certain fundamental disposition of the soul that is political. The proletariat has this, but those who belong to the circles of the so-called intellectual workers do not. These intellectual workers have become accustomed to cultivating within themselves what one might call a spirit of deference to authority. Whether this authority is state authority or factory authority is not decisive. What is important is to know that a deep deference to authority prevails in these circles. Certainly, the individual may rebel inwardly, but most often he does so with his fist in his pocket. Yet the white-collar workforce is indispensable for genuine socialization. That is why I say: It is necessary to win over the employees and also the plant managers—and above all, to win over those among them who have a sense of purpose and a heart for genuine socialization.

[ 17 ] We must not allow it to come to the point where, when the time comes, a kind of Ministry of Economic Affairs is established in such a way that… this ministry is forced to set up five or six or twelve chairs at the very top, while the entire bureaucracy continues to operate with the same old mindset. But there is something else we must not allow to happen either. Mr. Biel has indicated quite well what would be at stake if something like what is contained in this unfortunate law regarding works councils—which is now set to be enacted—were to become reality. I have already told you that it is a fundamental fact that we are currently at a point in time where capitalism has, in effect, ruined itself and cannot rebuild itself from within. If a new order is to be built, it must come from the working people. The capitalists cannot continue as before. But this is precisely what proves that we must seize the moment. Laws such as the one that is about to become reality are designed to ensure that, with the help of the misled working class, capitalism—which cannot help itself—is propped up once again and restored to its former dominance. The working class should form works councils that, by the very nature of their organization, help capitalism back on its feet. We can only counter this if, from among the truly working people, a workers’ council movement is created from the bottom up and gives itself a constitution—that is, one that pays no heed to what essentially seeks to be a continuation of the old capitalism, because it cannot conceive of the world being organized in any way other than capitalistically.

[ 18 ] We must be absolutely clear that our first task is to get the works councils up and running in the first place, and that, as far as possible, we also need intellectual workers in these works councils. We have no use for those who have neither a sense of nor a heart for socialization. Nor would the point be to have as many executives or top managers as possible in these bodies, but above all those who must truly engage in intellectual work. Then it will be possible, through such a works council structure, to achieve something like socialization. But if you endorse a law such as the one currently being proposed, then you have done nothing more than rename the old workers’ committees. It is merely a rebranding, and of course—since the two cannot coexist—the old workers’ committees are to be abolished. The old workers’ committees could not eliminate capitalism, and the new works councils to be established under the law will not do so either.

[ 19 ] So, we must establish a system of works councils as far as possible, and these councils must be able to run the enterprises on their own. In doing so, we must not think merely of agitation, but we must think of the practical work through which the enterprises can be restructured. It is not enough to simply hold the view that production should be socialized; rather, it is essential to know as precisely as possible how it must be socialized. This will be achieved by truly bringing the intellectual workers into the works council system. That is what our efforts must be directed toward. Therefore, the apolitical attitude of white-collar workers must be eliminated. Nor must we lose sight of what is being awaited today. Today, under circumstances with which Ste is perhaps sufficiently familiar, the non-proletariat is waiting not merely for some form of socialization to come about, but for the proletariat to be overcome. Do not forget that there are statements such as that of a major German industrialist, who said: “We major industrialists can wait, and we will wait, until the workers come to the gates of our factories and beg for work!”—This mindset is not uncommon. People are waiting to see if the workers will ultimately allow themselves to be defeated. And that is precisely what must be prevented by reality. That is what matters. This must also be kept in mind when considering how to win over white-collar workers to our cause. At the beginning of what is to take shape as action among us must stand, first, the establishment of works councils, and second, that—as far as is possible today—white-collar workers must also be included.

A panelist asks: What exactly do works councils do? And what needs to be done in the very near future?

[ 20 ] Rudolf Steiner: I would like to emphasize that what I have said applies not to the near future, but to the very near future. As I have already emphasized: Now is not the time for us to spend a lot of time pondering how we can get well-educated works council members; rather, the first and foremost priority is to get the works councils up and running and to convene a general assembly of works councils. What is necessary above all else is that we have people from the business world itself who will then take care of the rest. Today, the issue cannot be about making precise, rigid statements regarding individual situations—saying that the works councils must do this or that—but rather, I have a mental image of the matter in very practical terms. Certainly, among these works councils there will be some who already know how to proceed in this or that case with regard to socialization, while others will not. However, if there is genuine goodwill, it is not at all difficult to identify the actual tasks for the immediate future.

[ 21 ] Of course, there are various approaches to this. Let’s assume for a moment that socialization cannot be limited to Stuttgart; so let’s just consider Württemberg. One approach would be to travel throughout the entire state, going from one workers’ circle to another, and speaking to the individual groups about what is absolutely essential in terms of the threefold social order—to which one usually receives the reply: “Those are goals, but not paths!”—even though it is precisely intended to point the way. So that would be one way, because today we cannot achieve anything without having a truly large number of people on whom we can rely. But we do not have the time to take this path, considering that the goal is not to work for the near future, but for the very immediate future. So we must absolutely consider the other path. We must secure those individuals—and this is what the works council aims to be—who, by having themselves elected or appointed as works council members, commit themselves fully to the work of socialization. Then I truly do not imagine that anything involving such a united body, one that enjoys the trust of the broadest masses, would be all that difficult.

[ 22 ] Now that we have these works councils, the question of whether people already know exactly what they’re supposed to do isn’t really an issue anymore. After eight days, they’ll know. You just have to have the people first. The problem today isn’t that it’s so terribly difficult to know what to do at first, but rather that so few people have the goodwill and the desire to do what needs to be done. So, if we have people who feel an inner sense of responsibility to work on socialization—because they have been elected by their coworkers’ trust—then we will have laid the foundation for the very next practical steps.

[ 23 ] Let us not allow ourselves to be discouraged from the most immediate practical work by saying: “We must first raise awareness.” Those who say today that “socialization takes a long, long time, so every single person must first be educated” are truly on the wrong track. That is not the issue; rather, the point is to first create a group of people who have the trust of their colleagues. Then we will be able to continue working with them, and precisely because they have a direct sense of responsibility, we will not constantly face the problem of having difficulty reaching the broader masses. You see, no matter how many meetings we hold, there will always be some who have reservations about such gatherings, such as: “The sun is shining so beautifully today; let’s go for a walk,” or: “On Ascension Day, it’s not possible to attend a meeting”—and so on. The work that lies ahead of us is immense. It will not succeed if we proceed by, so to speak, enlightening every single person. We must have responsible individuals who will then fully take on the tasks. With them, the work will be carried out in the very, very near future.

Speaker Mittwich proposes that the works council election be held separately for white-collar and blue-collar employees and that delegates be elected from each group.

[ 24 ] Rudolf Steiner: I just want to say a few words, since I agree with everything essential that the esteemed speaker before me has said. But I would like to return to one important question he raised, namely, the way in which the works council—which will, of course, consist of individual works council members—is formed. I, too, believe that the number he specified is sufficiently large for the individual companies. Of course, given the varying practical circumstances, one can arrive at one view or another on this matter. What I consider important, however, is how this works council is actually established in the first place. Please do not think that when I said “by election or appointment,” I was referring to an appointment from above or anything of the sort. Rather, I was of course thinking that, first of all, there are currently a wide variety of circumstances in individual companies, and it is certainly very true that there are numerous companies today where the workforce knows exactly: “This is the right works council for us”—where, in other words, there is no need for lengthy debate, but where, purely through trust, they know: “This is the right one.” And I would like to emphasize the extraordinary importance of ensuring that this existing trust is reflected in the election of works council members, so that the works council is composed of precisely those people who have the trust of their coworkers. That would be similar to an appointment.

[ 25 ] Of course, the election must be conducted in a practical and technical manner, but we should prevent the election from resulting in any random compositions. Only those individuals who have the trust of their coworkers should be elected to the works council. This is necessary because, above all, we need people who feel responsible for the tasks they are assigned. That is one thing.

[ 26 ] The other point is that I do not believe it is right to ask: How should the number of works council members be distributed among white-collar and blue-collar workers? I do not think it is at all possible to establish any kind of regulation today. I therefore fully agree with what the previous speaker said, namely that we should not—for that would lead to something monstrous—have the white-collar workers elect their works council on one side and the blue-collar workers elect theirs on the other. That would result in a works council that is unfit for the job from the outset. Rather, it must be elected jointly as a unified body of white-collar and blue-collar workers. And as for how many members will come from the ranks of the white-collar workers on one side and from the blue-collar workers on the other, let us leave that to the election. It goes without saying that someone who, for example, joins the works council from among the white-collar workers must be a person who enjoys not only the trust of the white-collar workers but also that of the blue-collar workers. The manual laborers must accept him as a white-collar worker as well. Thus, if, for example, in a given company, let’s say, five manual laborers and one white-collar worker are elected, it must also be possible for three white-collar workers and three manual laborers to be elected elsewhere. This must be left entirely to the workers’ trust. As a unified group, white-collar and blue-collar workers must, based on their mutual trust, elect those who are to serve on the works council. Any social distinction between white-collar and blue-collar workers must be eliminated right from the start of this primary election.

[ 27 ] I cannot imagine that the demand that we jointly elect both manual and white-collar workers would lead to anything other than the person elected as a white-collar worker also having the confidence of the entire workforce, regardless of whether they are manual or white-collar workers. If we were to structure the election in such a way that we were forced to elect a certain number of works council members from among the white-collar workers and a certain number from among the blue-collar workers, then it would no longer be a free election based on trust. If we believe that there aren’t enough white-collar workers in the companies who deserve our trust, then people who aren’t needed would end up in this constituent assembly! The election itself must not only be conducted in such a way that white-collar and blue-collar workers are considered without distinction, but also so that they have the power to vote together and jointly elect whomever they want, and as many from one side or the other as they wish. White-collar workers must be clear that they can only gain a seat on the works council by having the trust of the entire workforce. That is what I consider to be a very essential issue. I have arrived at this view based on extensive experience. Today, we really must ensure that the works councils are established. In eight days, they will be ready to provide a sound foundation for socialization based on the trust of the entire workforce—if not completely, then at least in the manner I have described.

Plenary Session: With only one dissenting vote, the assembly adopts a resolution calling for works councils to be established everywhere as quickly as possible, before the law—which is only a half-measure—takes effect.

[ 28 ] Rudolf Steiner: I must admit that I cannot really see the practical significance of the question—which, of course, comes up very frequently—‘What means of power are available, or are you willing to provide?’ For you see, the point must be that this works council, as I have already said, actually comes to form, within some central council or the like, what can truly be a kind of economic ministry embedded within an emancipated economic life. Now I ask: If this can be a real economic ministry, it can only be so because it has the masses behind it. I would like to know who could resist such a central council—or ministry of the economy—if it has the masses behind it, if it has truly emerged from the trust of the masses. That is what gives it its power. Power today can consist of nothing other than everyone wanting the same thing and having it carried out by individuals—that is, that there is truly something behind such a ministry that makes it impossible for it to be shot down or the like, and at the same time enables it to stand on solid ground, based on the trust of the broadest masses. There is no other way for us to come to power. But this power will then exist of its own accord once the body is in place. The question of what means of power I wish to grant to such a body—I can only view this as extraordinarily abstract. I do not know what one has in mind when posing such a question. Does one mean that regiments should be marched in, or that proposals should be made to conscript so-and-so many people, so that when this body convenes, it can act against the will of the others? I do not know what lies behind such a question. For if what enters the works council structure arises from the trust of the broad masses, what then happens? Then the Central Council or the Ministry of Economic Affairs will be able to bring about genuine socialization, and the broad masses will then agree to it, for it is, after all, flesh of their flesh.

[ 29 ] Well, I mean, by truly establishing something concrete on a sound foundation, power arises all on its own. It didn’t arise on November 9 for the simple reason that what was trying to emerge there did not spring from the trust of the masses, and people didn’t even know what to do once they were in power. In that case, no other form of power counts for anything. There are no means of power other than those inherent in the cause itself. That is why I have always regarded it as a highly peculiar, entirely abstract philosophical question when people say today: “You tell us nothing about the path by which we might attain power.” — That is precisely the path to power: to find a representation based on that trust, and then, through that representation, to shape what resonates with those who have placed their trust in it. That would be a practical path. Self-appointment and the like can only lead to the glory coming to an end all too soon.

[ 30 ] In the way we speak today, we are, in fact, discussing the question of power, and it would truly be a grave mistake to derail the discussion once again by raising the question of what means of power should be granted to those who already hold power simply by virtue of having attained their positions on the basis of trust and not on any other grounds. I ask that you take this into account, because I see how, week after week, confusion arises time and again from the fact that, on the one hand, people say: “Yes, that’s all well and good. Such goals may be achieved someday, but first we need power.” - We must win power by presenting these objectives in the relevant setting, where—as we set about implementing them—we actually gain the understanding of the broadest masses. That is the path to real power, to real socialization. Any other path will lead to disappointment, to a repeat of what happened on November 9 and in the days that followed.

Panelist Funk asks: How should we respond when works councils are ignored or not recognized by management?

[ 31 ] Rudolf Steiner: Certainly, one can raise the question of how to deal with the situation if works councils are in place but are not recognized by the employers. But you see, as the matter has been presented to you this evening, the necessary steps to prevent such an eventuality have, in fact, already been taken. We do not conceive of this works council system in such a way that it depends on whether the employer recognizes it or not. That is precisely why we should not create this dreadful, distorted version of a works council system, which would consist of the works councils in individual companies once again pulling the wool over people’s eyes in order to pacify the workers by saying: “After all, we do have works councils.” We want a works council system that extends across the entire economic sphere and from which a central authority gradually emerges. This central authority will be based on a majority or, as I have said time and again, on the broad masses. Now I ask you: If this works council system leads to the establishment of the future economic government, what significance will the opposition of the various entrepreneurs still have? These various entrepreneurs will simply be swept aside as entrepreneurs by this works council system! The works council system is meant to take action. If it achieves its goal, it will no longer even be in opposition to today’s business community. This is something I’ve encountered frequently lately in a wide variety of discussions: on the one hand, people want to socialize the economy, and on the other hand, they say, “Once we’ve socialized the economy, what will the capitalists say?” Yes, if we get bogged down in this question, we’ll never achieve true socialization. But if we seriously tackle socialization, then the position of the capitalists will not matter. That is precisely what “socialization” means: that in the future, it will not depend on them—on the capitalists. They will be eliminated from the picture precisely because we will no longer listen to the drivel spouted by individual works council members who are recognized by the capitalist authorities. We have no intention of continuing to work with them. That is precisely why this law must be opposed. We must truly get serious about what socialization entails. If we get serious, then this question will resolve itself entirely. If the question—“What do the capitalists have to say about this?”—were to persist, then we simply would not have socialized. But we do, after all, want to get socialization off the ground! That is why we must not allow ourselves to be discouraged by such questions, but rather we must gain clarity and generate within ourselves a will that can take hold because it is based on sound impulses. Then let us ask only: “How do we go about pushing this will through, without regard for this or that?”—and not: “What might happen?” What do we want to do?—that is what matters.