The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Third Discussion Evening

Introductory Remarks by Rudolf Steiner

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! So that we may later engage in a fruitful discussion regarding the establishment of works councils, I would like to preface this with a few necessary remarks. I believe that, first and foremost, it is necessary to grasp, right from the outset and specifically in the establishment of works councils, the task of socialization that our present age demands in the proper way. This means that, in setting up these works councils, we are carrying out genuine work toward socialization—or, to put it better, making a genuine start on socialization. As you know, the impulse toward the threefold organization of the social organism aims to achieve what can lead to such a comprehensive and genuine socialization. Now it must be said: It is precisely in the establishment of these works councils that it immediately becomes apparent how little understanding still exists today for the true social movement. Isn’t it true that certain people—who primarily represent the interests of employers—should really give some thought to how it has come to pass that today, precisely from within the working class, this call for socialization is being raised so vociferously? When a specific issue arises, such as the question of works councils, one immediately notices on this side—I mean among those who represent the interests of employers—just how little understanding there actually is for such an institution. One might well say: The resistance coming from this side makes it abundantly clear just how difficult it will be to implement true—rather than false—socialization. You have before you the leaflets that were drafted specifically for the establishment of works councils at the suggestion of the Federation for the Threefold Social Order.

[ 2 ] Well, what do we hear from the other side—from the representatives of employers’ interests—in light of what is expressed in these leaflets? You see, the first thing they say is: “Yes, if it’s as this leaflet describes, then the workers are indeed taking matters into their own hands!” The people who speak this way simply fail to consider that, in reality, the working class has only ever taken matters into its own hands when such action was absolutely necessary!

[ 3 ] In my lectures, I have explained on several occasions how the non-proletariat—that is, the ruling circles in recent times—have missed every opportunity to respond to the social movement in any meaningful way. And I have also described how even the small crumbs given to the working class—in the form of insurance, pension plans, regulations on working hours, the prohibition of child labor, and the like—I have described how even all of this was made possible only because the working class took matters into its own hands. Today, however, things are somewhat different. What I have just listed is, in relation to the great task of socialization that lies before us today, rather a minor matter. The working class used to take matters into its own hands when it came to minor issues. But now there are greater tasks at hand—that is, now we must take matters into our own hands in connection with a major undertaking. In doing so, however, one must always bear in mind that, from the employers’ perspective, the slogan “the workers are taking matters into their own hands” always acts like a red rag. For you see, the employers are now once again striving to restore trust and a willingness to work in the factories, even though they should have realized how ill-suited the very representatives of employers’ interests are to fostering that trust and willingness to work. It is precisely because of the way these leading circles have acted that trust and the willingness to work have vanished from the workplaces. And now, when what is necessary for production and social life is to be taken into the hands of those who have experienced the business community’s practices firsthand, now they want to say: “That is not your right; it is ours.”

[ 4 ] As you may know from the flyer—and perhaps also from the most recent meetings, if you attended them—the first priority is to ensure that there are works councils in place, works councils that have truly emerged from the collective of all those who participate in economic life through their work and organization, and that it is essential for the people who have been elected to actually have a voice and be able to express their views on what should happen next. The old economic structures must not simply be continued; rather, something new must be created from the ground up. And progress can only be made by electing works councils in individual companies today and then—drawing from a larger, cohesive economic region, say Württemberg—convening a founding assembly of works councils, which, drawing on the experiences and knowledge of the works councils, will then adopt a constitution for itself—that is, define what the works councils are to do and what their rights and duties are. In this way, what is necessary for economic life must emerge today from economic life itself—from independent economic life. Something must therefore first emerge through the works councils. One cannot create today, out of the old institutions, what is actually to be achieved through the truly new works council system.

[ 5 ] You see, this should actually be the goal of the broadest possible circles of the working class today: The person to be elected should be supported by the trust he enjoys within the workplace. And then he should join forces with the works councils of a larger, contiguous economic region—let’s say Württemberg in this case—to work with them to identify and define the tasks of the works councils. Objectively speaking, that should be the view of the broadest circles of the working class today.

[ 6 ] This stands in contrast to what is being demanded by others—and, to my surprise, also by a great many sectors of the working class. This is that, first of all, in the old way—just as has always been the case—the old state should enact a law that determines from the outset what duties and rights the works councils are to have. If we proceed in this manner, I believe we will not only fail to take a single step forward, but—given the current circumstances—we will even take significant steps backward. We have already seen clearly what can come from this side. What, then, do the demands coming from this side entail? For example, it is said: The state, the employer, and the workers must all get their due. That the state—which, after all, is still fundamentally viewed today as the protector of capitalism—should get its due may well be meant in all sincerity. Nor do I wish to doubt that entrepreneurs, too, should ultimately get their due. But what these people mean by the idea that workers can get their due when they draft such laws—that, I believe, requires closer examination, for these people usually confuse the interests of the workers with how they can best use the workers to serve their own interests.

[ 7 ] So these people come up with strange words—words that, when you get right down to it, are always meant to pull the wool over people’s eyes, a “$and” that usually serves a very peculiar purpose. This sand, when it falls back onto those who scatter it, is supposed to turn into little grains of gold. People say: “But the works councils must serve the whole—the state as a whole.” They are not there to secure advantages for individual workers, but rather to serve the prosperity of the entire enterprise. — Now I ask you, what does it actually mean when people say something like this: “The works councils are supposed to serve the flourishing of the entire enterprise”? It means nothing other than that, in an abstract way, the real issue at hand is being obscured. What are enterprises in the world for, anyway? Surely to provide something for people—and people are all individuals! Businesses exist solely so that what is produced in them becomes consumer goods for individual people. And to speak of the flourishing of businesses in any sense other than that the individual person flourishes through what is produced in them—that is not speaking from reality, but covering reality with a veil of smoke.

[ 8 ] It always sounds so wonderfully beautiful when people say that everything should be done for the sake of the whole. In the economic sphere, this makes no sense, because: What exactly is the “whole” here? It is all the individuals taken together! So one shouldn’t say “the prosperity of businesses,” but rather “the prosperity of all those who are involved in businesses and in the economy in general.” Then the matter would be presented correctly, and the facts would not be obscured by a haze of vagueness.

[ 9 ] You see, it is often said that the impulse toward the threefold social organism is an ideology. In truth, however, this impulse seeks to eliminate all the vague, hazy notions—which have not only been talked about at length but have also been used in the service of oppression—and to replace them with true reality: the human being with his or her needs. Now, what do people demand? People demand that the powers of the works councils be regulated by experts after a thorough examination of the circumstances—as people always say when they don’t want something—and the experts named are employers, employees, and social policymakers. Now, the concept of the employer—as you can see from my earlier lectures and also from my book on the social question—the concept of the employer must, in fact, disappear as such in the event of true socialization. For an employer can only exist if he is an owner of labor, and owners of labor simply must not exist. There can only be work supervisors—that is, people who are active in the organization of labor—in such a way that even the manual laborer knows how to make the best use of his labor and so on. Of course, work in a business cannot proceed in such a way that everyone does whatever he wants. There must be leadership; the entire enterprise must be imbued with a spirit of cooperation—but these are not employers; they are work supervisors, that is, workers of a different kind. The greatest emphasis must be placed on finally grasping the true concept of work, for an employer who does not work alongside the others does not, in reality, belong to the enterprise at all, but is a parasite on labor.

[ 10 ] People today have some very strange views on these matters. I was in Tübingen the day before yesterday, where I spoke before an audience. There were also professors there, and you see, one of these professors seemed particularly upset that I had said workers today have finally come to realize that the old wage system must come to an end, because under this old wage system, workers must sell their labor power as a commodity. Well, in response to that, one of the professors objected as follows: Is it really so undignified to sell one’s labor? After all, what difference does it make whether a worker in a factory sells his labor or Caruso sings one evening and earns 30,000 to 40,000 marks? Didn’t he also sell his labor? — You see, people still hold such mental images today, and we must continue to challenge them!

[ 11 ] But what is being demanded today? Employers, employees, and social policymakers are first asked to consider what the works councils should do. Well, social policymakers are precisely the kind of people who advocate for the equivalence of the work of a factory worker and that of Caruso. These people, then, are supposed to have the most weighty voice. But the point today is that we must finally come to the conclusion: These people have had their say long enough, and precisely through the way they have expressed their views, they have shown that they have no say in the matter. We can do without the social politicians to the greatest extent possible. I am convinced that we will achieve something far more sensible if we elect representatives to the works council from within the workplaces—from among the physical and intellectual workers—than if the social politicians sit down together, having thoroughly proven that they can ruin everything but build nothing. And because this has been recognized, the impetus for the threefold social order has, above all, made it clear that today, something can only come about from a founding assembly of works councils. And if someone were to ask today who should have a say in this, I would say: Above all, not those who still cling to the old concept of the employer, and not those who are theorizing social policymakers—they’d be better off staying out of it. There are people who then say: This requires in-depth studies, such as those conducted by socialization committees. You see, a genuine socialization committee is precisely what we want within the works council movement, one that arises from the genuine trust of the people. These people, however, argue that the most serious damage is to be expected from violent interventions by works councils that, without prior legal regulation, grant themselves powers and form a central council in the sense described in the leaflet. One should be clear that serious damage to the old capitalism may indeed be expected, but such damage will ultimately prove beneficial in the service of a truly active humanity.

[ 12 ] Then there is another phrase that is used time and again today, even in employer circles, namely that the establishment of works councils can only fulfill its purpose through extensive education and training of both workers and employers. Yes, we have already seen quite a bit of this kind of training. The point of this kind of training is, after all, to fundamentally prepare people so that they can best serve the ruling classes—and not, by any means, to help them recognize what is truly dignified. Through this training, the aim is to thoroughly eradicate everything they have learned through life and everything they would like to cast out of their souls in light of current circumstances. This training is linked to the intention of establishing and strengthening trust between employers and employees. As I have already said: After having done everything to thoroughly eradicate this trust, it has been realized that this trust can be restored by training people to have it. In this case, that means nothing other than conditioning people to feel comfortable serving capitalism.

[ 13 ] There is something else that must be taken into account, namely that the state, too, wants to profit from the working class. Recently, in the city where the headquarters of Württemberg’s highest intellectual elite is located, a professor of constitutional law said: “Yes, we are heading toward sad times. People will be very poor!” — The gentleman may well be right to some extent. But then he said: “We will have huge, huge expenditures. How are these huge expenditures to be covered? People will have no money to cover these expenditures. The state will have to step in to cover these expenditures!” — Well, ladies and gentlemen, I must say: This is clear proof that intellectual life, too, must finally be put on a different footing, when an outstanding representative of intellectual life today asserts that the state must step in on behalf of the poor so that it can pay for the enormous expenses we will face. I’d just like to know how the state is supposed to do that without first taking the money out of people’s wallets? People speak of the state as if it were a real person. If you were to tell people today about ghosts that pay their debts, they would naturally laugh at you as a fool. But this state, spoken of in this way, is nothing more than a ghost. After all, in the real economy, printing one banknote after another gets you nowhere, because these notes only have value if they are backed by labor!

[ 14 ] You see, people today are so fond of saying: Until experts have defined the limits of the powers that works councils can have without destroying our gravely ailing economic body, and until the government enacts laws establishing the rights of these councils, works councils elected haphazardly—I emphasize: haphazardly—can only cause harm. — Yes, so these “wildly elected” works councils are supposed to be the ones established solely through the trust of the working population. They are to be contrasted with those who are installed in the factories and told: “You may do this, you may not do that, you must refrain from doing this.” — Yes, of course that leads to nothing other than the preservation of the old conditions. It does not move us forward, but rather a few steps backward, for it was already a disaster—even when economic life was still flourishing—that people thought of workers’ committees in this way. Now that economic life is in ruins, it is an even greater disaster if works councils do not emerge from the working population itself, and if, when something like this happens, people say that these are “wildly elected” individuals.

[ 15 ] Well, once you’ve seen what the other side intends to plant, you really have to turn to the wild plants. Those will be the healthier option—healthier than what’s meant to be planted in the ornamental gardens of those who are so eager to remain stuck in the old ways. I’d still like to quote another fine sentence that has also surfaced in recent days in opposition to our efforts to elect works councils. There are, in fact, various fears regarding this “wildly elected” works council. Among other things, it is said: “The one-sided exploitation of the enterprises by the workers contradicts the idea of socialization.”—But I have no idea what that’s even supposed to mean. I’m racking my brain trying to make sense of this statement. The one-sided exploitation of the enterprises by the workers—what is that supposed to mean? You see, if the workers have their fair share of shared responsibility for the enterprise, then they will know that if they do not nurture and care for the enterprises of their own accord, the enterprises will soon be in such a state that they can no longer exploit them. That one should assume—especially on the part of the sensible representatives of the business community—that the workers would be so foolish as to go about squeezing everything out of the business, only to end up throwing themselves out onto the street afterward—one really shouldn’t have such a mental image. For the workers have learned all too well what it means to be thrown out onto the street by others. I do not believe they would do this to themselves, for they have become all too familiar with this practice when others have done it to them.

[ 16 ] And then there is the claim that one would be contradicting the idea of socialization. Yes, socialization should be: a call for all those who, as working people, participate in this life—who, as working people, are truly engaged in labor—to contribute to the social order in intellectual, legal, and economic life. This is to be achieved by “spontaneously” electing works council members from among the working population—as these gentlemen put it. Well, that is supposed to contradict socialization. So I, too, am racking my brain over the second half of that sentence and simply cannot figure out what is meant by it, for the fact that works council members are elected from among those who run the enterprises and ensure the prosperity of the entire national economy is supposedly supposed to contradict socialization. Perhaps what is meant is that, as a result, those employed as workers in the enterprises will share in the fruits of their labor, while those who, until now, have always merely shared in the profits in various ways will fare poorly. That is to say, those who eke out a living solely through capitalism will fare poorly. I would therefore have to interpret the statement to mean that the one-sided election of the kind of works councils we want contradicts the elimination of the actual capitalists. Then I would have to conclude that the idea could arise in the mind of such a person that the elimination of private capitalism contradicts socialization. I can even have a mental image of how, in the minds of certain people, socialization is understood to mean that, because it contradicts the interests of private capitalists, it is not true socialization. But then we must admit to ourselves that we must form our own concepts of socialization, that we truly cannot allow others to impose on us their notions of true socialization or of what contradicts this socialization. No matter how much one clamors for laws, one will still not gain a true understanding of works councils. That is why we must resolve to create these works councils as a true embodiment of what works councils are, and not allow ourselves to be deterred from setting the wild, uncontrolled works councils against the ornamental gardens of today’s economic order. To do this, we must summon the courage and tell ourselves: From the institution of those works councils that we are now establishing through direct election—the details can be discussed later—a works council movement shall emerge that will be capable of truly laying the foundation for socialization. Then it may be that socialization will truly take hold, whereas up to now, the only people speaking of socialization’s advance are those whom we know full well to understand “true socialization” as a capitalist specter in a new form, destined to gorge itself on all manner of parasites.

[ 17 ] If we can get to the bottom of this, then we will be able to kindle the courage within ourselves to finally send this overgrown forest of works councils out into the world, so that everything is not spoiled once again by the ornamental plants of those who know nothing about socialization.

Discussion

Fran Bühl: She distributed the federal government’s leaflet on the establishment of works councils in Calw and learned that the workers there show little interest in establishing works councils. She is therefore asking Dr. Rudolf Steiner to give a lecture there to stir people up a bit.

Mr. Armbruster is dissatisfied with the course of events and, like the Sozialdemokrat, finds Dr. Steiner’s remarks “soft as a plum.” Furthermore, he believes that socialization is nothing new. He is hoping for help from a new government.

[ 18 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes, the fact that the Sozialdemokrat wrote that my remarks were “as soft as plums”—I didn’t let that bother me at the time. I told myself: There have already been so many discussions about all kinds of socialist and social programs that tasted like sour plums; so it doesn’t really seem so unreasonable to me to finally let the plums ripen—after all, as we all know, they’re soft when they’re ripe.

[ 19 ] But there is one thing the previous speaker said that is very close to my heart, because I believe it is meant to speak not so much to our intellect as to our will. It may well be true to say: If, back when the 1918 Revolution broke out, people had spoken of the threefold social order and of socialization—in the way that is being attempted today—and had actually strived for them, then we would be further along today. — You see, there were reasons why I didn’t step forward myself back then, because I ultimately thought that the others—who had always been in the party, who had always been part of it—could do it better, and I did wait to see if they could do it better. Now, the esteemed speaker before me has himself said that we haven’t actually achieved anything significant yet. Given the facts, it may seem justified that, now that those on whom we relied have achieved nothing, we should then get involved in the matter. What’s important—if the previous speaker truly believes “that we would be further along today if this had been tackled back then”—is that we tell ourselves: Well, then let’s at least tackle it today, so that when we find ourselves as many months from today as we are now from the revolution, we will actually be living in the reality we desire today. So I would like to frame this as a call for the will and the courage to pursue socialization. And in this regard, I do believe that we should rely a little on experience.

[ 20 ] Please don’t take it the wrong way when I say that the phrase “Once we have a new government, they’ll take care of it” was actually heard time and again under the old regime as well. Yes, there’s even a telling example where, roughly every few months, people would say, “Once we have a new government, things will get better.” That was in Austria in the decades before the war. Back then, a new government was formed every few months, and people relied on it. But we should have learned from experience that one shouldn’t rely on any government in that way. That is precisely why the workers’ council movement must create what can now emerge creatively from the broad masses of working people with regard to socialization. It seems to me that one thing—as I have already said here once before—has not yet been understood, but should be understood, and that is that there is a difference between ruling and governing. In the future, the entire working class will have to rule. In the past, people confused ruling with governing, believing that the government must also rule. In the future, governments will have to learn to govern. To govern means to give expression to what the working class actually carries within itself as its will. This distinction must first be learned.

[ 21 ] The new government has learned far too much from the old governments, which were governments of domination. It has adopted far too much of what people used to say—namely, that the government will do the right thing. I think that, with regard to the problem of socialization, a significant step forward will have to consist precisely in ensuring that what the government does can be properly monitored by the people. The people will have to guide the government’s course, so that we do not rely solely on ballots, but on real life, which, in essence, points the way for the government’s actions anew every day. But this will not be achieved if we keep saying: “Once we have a new government, things will get better; it will take care of socialization.”—Rather, now is the time for every person to play a part in socialization. That is precisely the spirit of our age: that every person feels they must play a part. And we must learn to understand that, if we want to socialize, we must first socialize the exercise of power. Rule must be socialized. It must not be continued in its old forms. That is why I no longer wish to hear people say that “the government will take care of it”; rather, I would be more satisfied if the broadest sections of the people were to say: We will do it, even if not only the government but all the devils were against it.

One participant in the discussion reports that the Clothing and Repair Office in Feuerbach is about to hold elections for the works council. The commanding officer has stated that he is not opposed to the election of a works council, but must emphasize in advance that these council members may only have an advisory role and no decision-making authority.

[ 22 ] Rudolf Steiner: What the esteemed speaker before me has outlined is precisely what is to be prevented by the specific way in which the concept of works councils is understood here. Of course, if works councils are to be established in accordance with the law—which is, after all, supposed to be drafted in the spirit of the past—they will, naturally, be mere figureheads. And to ensure that we do not end up with straw men, but with real works councils, let us say, for now, that these “wild ones” should be elected in opposition to the “plants” of the others. And so, at first, we will not be particularly concerned if someone says: “Well, I am willing to agree to the election of works councils, but they may only have an advisory vote.”

[ 23 ] First of all, we want there to be works councils. And I said that we would then strive to ensure that the works councils see themselves as a legislative constituent assembly, from which a kind of Central Economic Council would emerge, and that this council would then assume the functions currently performed by those who are still trying to create straw men. It is precisely through this particular approach that we wish to establish a system of works councils and thereby prevent this law from becoming a reality. For this to happen, it is essential that the working class truly stand behind this effort to establish the works councils. If the working class truly stands behind it, there is no need to fear that any law turning the works councils into straw men could come into being. That, in fact, is what it all comes down to.

[ 24 ] I must say, I was quite surprised the day before yesterday when, from a very interesting individual who spoke in favor of the socialization of all conditions, I kept hearing: “Yes, but one must bear in mind that, after all, everything has finally been achieved since November 1918.” Württemberg has become a free people’s state in which anything can be achieved. This Württemberg people’s state will even enact a wonderful school law, and it will also ensure that works councils are properly established by law, and one should not meddle with the law. — So it will be a matter of finally realizing that merely calling for power achieves nothing, but that this power must first be created. But how is it created? It is created not by always believing the things I have described, but by more and more people coming together to take truly free action. Power will consist precisely in people becoming increasingly aware of this power of theirs. If they keep talking only about how this power is supposed to come from here or there—then this power will never be attained. This power will be attained when people realize that they must act out of their own understanding. When there are enough people who understand how to truly achieve socialization from within the working class, then I am not at all concerned about power.

In a lengthy discussion that also touched on labor union issues, the speakers unanimously emphasized that, where this has not yet been done, works councils should be elected as soon as possible, despite the reluctance of business owners and the management of state-owned enterprises.

A speaker refers to the work of Professor Abbe of Jena, who—albeit under the favorable conditions of a monopoly—has done good groundwork on socialization. He also refers to the ideas of Friedrich Naumann and Walther Rathenau.

Panelist Grosshans, Heilbronn: Unfortunately, I was unable to attend Dr. Steiner’s lecture, but I did hear him speak once in Heilbronn. My 39-month imprisonment in Russia prompts me to say a few words to you, in order to explain my experiences regarding the various problems that the revolution in Russia has brought about. When the Bolsheviks’ second revolution began in Russia, they made the gravest mistake by driving out the entire technical leadership and all civil servants. They wanted to take their fate into their own hands. While I consider this to be correct in principle, given that conditions in Russia are such that 60% of the population is illiterate, how can they possibly be capable of running the enterprises themselves? Experience thus shows that it was fundamentally wrong to drive out all civil servants, technical managers, and so on, and to attempt to take matters into their own hands. In my opinion, it is precisely these ideas that Dr. Steiner has likely presented to you this evening as well—namely, that we should work toward the emancipation of the entire productive population in order to attain the long-awaited power of the working, productive people.

What I would like to elaborate on further are the major mistakes that have been made here since November 9. I reject the idea that the war with Russia should still be waged today, even at the behest of the Entente. But do not forget: If we had sought an alliance with Russia, the Entente would not be able to confront us today as it does. In Russia, in Siberia, I saw for myself how colossal quantities of coal lie on the earth’s surface—coal that doesn’t even need to be mined, since it lies right on the surface. On the Murman Coast there are colossal copper mines; furthermore, mercury and all the raw materials we so desperately need in Germany today can be found there. Furthermore, I saw how in Samara, in the Volga Valley, colossal grain stocks from 1912, 1913, and 1914 still lay there—that is, were still there in July 1917—and had not even been threshed. They were piled up in heaps as tall as a three-story house. Had our government, after the revolution — I do not wish to refer back to the old system, which has been swept away, for we need not devote any more words to it — had we, after the revolution, sought an alliance with Russia, had we worked toward an understanding with Russia, then we would be living in different times today and would not be at the mercy of our enemies, against whom we stand powerless.

And I would like to add the following: When I consider what has happened in Germany since November 9, I come to the conclusion that it is high time we reached an agreement. We—the entire working class, manual laborers, white-collar workers, and employees—must trust one another, must be able to rely on one another, and must not allow ourselves to be drawn back into the confines of party and union divisions time and again. I am convinced that a large number of our leaders have long since been left behind by the new era. These proposals for socialization prove this to us. If we read through the individual paragraphs, we—with our works councils—are ultimately nothing more than a showpiece. We may be works council members, but we have no rights; we are only there so that we, too, have a seat in the workplace.

Actually, if you look at this program of our government, it is well over 50 years old, and I believe this program can no longer serve as a guide for us today. That is why I ask all of you who are here today to carry these ideals, which Dr. Steiner has presented to us, out to the broad masses of the working people. Make sure that we reach an understanding and that we introduce works councils as quickly as possible, for time is of the essence. It is high time that our economic life is finally revitalized for the benefit of the entire working population.

[ 25 ] Rudolf Steiner: Our main task today was, after all, to address the importance and necessity of the works council, so that, with this works council, we finally have the positive, concrete foundation from which we can then continue our work. I can certainly understand when it has been said here that it would have been desirable for us to have made significantly more progress today. Certainly, we all wished for this; however, we have needed this work up to now in order to at least get to the point where we have already achieved the result today that we can see more clearly that this works council is now truly taking shape. I believe we have made great progress in that so many of the distinguished attendees here were able to tell us how far the matter has advanced, and that we have even addressed the issue with regard to the elections—or rather, will be addressing it even more in the near future. I believe this shows us how necessary it is, first and foremost, to lay the groundwork for these works councils and, at the same time, to recognize that—provided there is goodwill—we can truly make progress in this regard.

[ 26 ] Hard work will certainly be involved with what I have called a kind of legislative assembly, which emerges from the ranks of the works councils, and it seems to me of particular importance that we not succumb to the illusion that we could anticipate anything regarding this original assembly of the works councils. Precisely what the gentleman from Heilbronn mentioned in connection with the nature of the distribution of goods and the like will be an essential part of the work of the assemblies that the works councils will have to hold. All these matters must be discussed there, truly grounded in the fundamental conditions of our economic life, so that the appropriate foundations can be laid. I acknowledge that various promising beginnings have been made, such as that of Professor Abbe. Many others have also been made; in particular, numerous attempts have been undertaken in England. It has rightly been pointed out that Abbe was actually only able to get so far because his enterprise was of a very special nature. On the other hand, precisely where the matter has been pursued further, it has time and again become apparent that these efforts cannot, after all, lead to a certain conclusion. And one must then ask the question: Why is that so? Well, the reason is simply that well-meaning people, such as Abbe, have repeatedly tackled these issues in a purely individualistic manner rather than from a truly social perspective. This is what I ask you not to underestimate or misunderstand: that we now truly want to take this matter into our own hands in a social way, that we actually want to take what is then being addressed in individual businesses and extend it from the social context of the entire economy across a unified economic region. Württemberg, for example, would come into consideration here. Only once we have laid the groundwork in this direction—which, with good will, can likely happen relatively quickly—will we see that individual enterprises cannot actually be socialized on their own, but rather that the socialization of an individual enterprise can only result from the socialization of a unified economic region. For it is only through this that we will gain the possibility of truly carrying out what socialism has always demanded—namely, that production take place not for the sake of profit, but for the sake of consumption.

[ 27 ] You see, given the current structure of society, it’s actually impossible to produce in any way other than with a view to profit. The principle of producing in order to consume—that must first be established! And this principle, in turn, will determine whether appropriate ways of distributing goods can be found. Much will depend on finding, across a broad spectrum, what I would call an economic “primordial cell.”

[ 28 ] This economic unit—I would like to say a few words about it—what does it consist of? If we start not from production but from consumption—from the satisfaction of needs—then the issue is that we must first arrive at a workable solution for what, in terms of satisfying needs, leads to appropriate price formation. Today, this happens in an anarchic and chaotic manner through supply and demand, and therein lies much of the reason why it is virtually impossible to achieve anything at all today. The formula of supply and demand will not lead us to the goal of producing in order to consume. Is it not true that, in order to achieve this goal, what I produce must be worth enough in comparison to other goods that I can exchange it—regardless of how the exchange takes place—for all those goods that satisfy my needs until the point at which I have produced a product identical to the one I have now produced? In doing so, one must take into account everything one must contribute to those who are currently unable to produce directly themselves—that is, children who need to be raised, those unable to work, and so on. What one must therefore start with is gaining a clear understanding of this fundamental economic unit. Only then will it be possible to achieve fair pricing on an economic basis, so that in the future, when one earns more on the one hand, one will not have to spend more on the other, because prices naturally rise under the influence of that increased income.

[ 29 ] Even today, people continue to complain that there is an unnatural relationship between commodity prices and wages. Socialization will have to solve the major problem of eliminating this disparity between commodity prices and wages altogether, because wages as such must be abolished; because the possibility must be created that, in the future, there will in principle be no more wage laborers, but rather free comrades, free collaborators of the intellectual worker, the intellectual leader; because the relationship between employee and employer in its current form must become impossible altogether. Only when it is possible to eradicate everything that exists today and that distorts price formation—only then will it be possible to achieve true socialization.

[ 30 ] Today, people don’t just buy goods; rather, they buy, first, goods; second, rights; and third, labor. One acquires rights when one purchases land. The fact that land is now exchangeable for means of production creates an untenable situation, which stems from the fact that, on the general market, land is subject to the same price-formation mechanisms as other goods. Furthermore, the means of production also have a cost today, even after they have been completed. You know that my book posits that, once the means of production are completed, they are no longer for sale but are to be made available to society by other means. In the future, a means of production must consume labor only until it is finished.

[ 31 ] If you ask economists today, “What is capital?”—you’ll get a wide variety of answers. Ultimately, the best economists are those who say: Capital is produced means of production—that is, finished means of production that can be owned and are therefore marketable. Yes, precisely when one views capital as corresponding to the produced means of production, capital turns out to be a fifth wheel on the wagon. You know that in my book I have stated as the basis for all future distribution of goods that the means of production may, in fact, consume labor only until it is completed. Once a locomotive is finished, it may be introduced into social circulation only through means other than purchase. So we first need to be clear that, with regard to the means of production and with regard to land, measures quite different from those taken so far must be implemented. Only in this way—and there is no other means—only by allowing the means of production to consume human labor only until they are completed will we be able to truly secure labor’s rightful place. For what is money? Money is nothing. Even someone who possesses a great deal would have nothing if, due to the existing balance of power, they were not in a position to induce a certain number of people to perform work in exchange for their money. They will no longer be able to do so if we structure the prices of the means of production in such a way that these prices cease to exist altogether once the means of production are finished. Another problem is that of the distribution of goods:

[ 32 ] The gentleman who raised the issue of the distribution of goods must bear in mind that, for the past three to four centuries, our entire system of distribution has become one that is entirely in line with capitalism and must therefore also be socialized. This can only happen when we have a founding assembly of people who are truly willing to muster the courage, against all opposition, to develop new and, at the same time, necessary forms of price formation. It will be hard work, and it will be accomplished all the more quickly if we do not put the third step before the first, but instead resolve to actually take the first step. Today, everything depends on this—and it is no small matter—that we first truly establish this council of works councils. This council of works councils should not draw up programs and the like, but rather, as a matter of fact, first bring facts into the world.

[ 33 ] I just wanted to point out how difficult the problem of the distribution of goods is. We will only overcome it when we have the foundations in place, and those foundations are the people who have the trust of their fellow human beings to come together—in a way the world has never seen before—not to undertake small, atomistic experiments, which are also called “socialization,” but to truly socialize from a holistic perspective.

[ 34 ] Several names were mentioned earlier, including that of Rathenau. The name Rathenau reminds me of something that is by no means unimportant for the present. Yesterday, the latest issue of Zukunft was published, featuring an essay by Walther Rathenau titled “The End.” In this essay, “The End,” one truly finds proof of how the capitalist, with his judgment of current events, has truly reached the end of the road. Walther Rathenau is more truthful, more sincere, and in a certain sense more honest than the others, but he, too, gets no further than those who form their mental images not from a social perspective but from a capitalist one. I would like to say: What Walther Rathenau says in this essay, “The End,” is all too well-founded. He says: Well, for a long time we have heard nothing but lies from all sides. Our first demand must be that people finally be told not what is untrue, but what is true. And he rightly asks the question: What if the current peace treaty is not signed? Well, then another one will simply be drawn up, and then yet another. But what if it is signed after all? Rathenau says in response: Rantzau can then do nothing more than declare the National Assembly dissolved; he can declare that it no longer makes sense for there to be a president in Germany, a Reich Chancellor, and so on. So he can do nothing else but place all the sovereign rights of the former German Empire into the hands of the Entente and ask them to take care of the 60 million people in Germany. — Yes, that is the truth from this point of view. It is the truth that those people who have guided the course of events until now have reached the end of the road with regard to Central Europe and must admit to themselves: We have brought things to such a point that we can actually do nothing else but propose to the Entente: Take over our entire government and take care of us! — He is even right to mock a little those who say, “Better to die than to sign the treaty!” by pointing out that one cannot form a mental image of 60 million Germans dying all at once.

[ 35 ] What is there to say about this? Just this: What has been playing out between Central Europe and the West is a game between capitalism and capitalism. And as long as it remains a game between capitalism and capitalism, it will lead to nothing but its own end. A new beginning can only be made when work is done from the bottom up—that is, when the working population works toward a truly serious social reconstruction. [...]* And because a new beginning is needed for domestic political reasons and, above all, for foreign policy reasons, this is why the impulse for the threefold social organism has emerged—the only one capable of ensuring that commodity production in accordance with reality is given its due. At the same time, the goal is to find new ways of distributing goods, thereby preventing the distribution of goods from giving rise to what has hitherto been a source of capital accumulation and what has also caused our international conflicts. That is why the most important thing today is to recognize that socialization must begin with the existence of a foundation of socially minded people. These people will make it possible to find the path to the kind of distribution of goods I have just outlined, and to arrive at a new way of addressing the problems associated with land and the means of production. It is not enough merely to make demands. The socialization of the means of production is good. But above all, it is a matter of finding ways and means to fulfill these demands. There is no other way than to get to work. Today, it would indeed be quite interesting to discuss in all sorts of ways how we distribute goods. But the first thing that is necessary is that we finally be able to speak with people who are at all willing to carry out a different kind of distribution of goods. We do not need words that are merely programs; rather, we need words that put people into action. Programs will never be of any use to us. What we need today are people who truly become aware of their power and turn into reality what words are meant to be—seeds of thought.

[ 36 ] That is precisely what I ask you not to take to mean that you should say again: “Yes, it would be good if we had made more progress and already knew exactly what needs to be done.” People like Naumann always know exactly what needs to be done; but I wouldn’t make such a big deal out of it if I knew what needed to be done according to Naumann’s ideas. For then I would know that, while these are indeed beautiful ideas that one can take pleasure in, they do not lead to social transformation. The impulse of the threefold social organism differs from other impulses in that it does not introduce a new program into the world, but merely seeks to show how people in the world must come together, how they must find one another, so that realities—and not utopias or programs—may emerge. In this sense, it gives me great satisfaction that so many of our friends have already announced today how far things have progressed. I would ask that we not slacken our efforts, but continue the steps that have been taken and accelerate them even further. For once we have the council system, everything else will be achievable with its help. Those who are realistically considering what has been said today should already have understood this. They should have understood that what matters is that, for socialization to begin, we must first have people who truly want to socialize. That is the first actual program of socialization. And the first step toward socialization will have been taken once works councils are elected in the factories of this economic region. And then we will be able to say: Now let’s take the next step. For they must first be in place so that we can take the next steps. For socialization, we need people who want socialization. And in the future, the institution of works councils will likely be regarded as the first step toward true socialization.

According to a statement by the chairperson, reports indicate that four works council members have just been elected and that the election of six additional works council members has begun.