The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Fourth Discussion Evening

Chairman Mr. Lohrmann: I hereby call today’s meeting to order. Unfortunately, attendance is very low, which is likely due in large part to the fact that the political parties are now turning against our cause. This is based on a misunderstanding. I have also discussed this with various party members. They view the threefold social order as a fragmentation of the working class—the proletariat—in the struggle that will lead to the liberation of the proletariat. For this reason, the party opposes the threefold social order. We can, of course, still discuss today what position we must take going forward, especially with regard to the parties. I believe this matter can be addressed later in the discussion.

Introductory Remarks by Rudolf Steiner

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! I will keep my introduction quite brief, because I believe that the main issue should then be addressed in the discussion and rebuttal. The Chair has just drawn your attention to the fact that a fierce countercurrent is emerging against what the “Federation for Threefolding” is seeking here. And you have also heard the reasons why this countercurrent is asserting itself. I might even go so far as to say that the matter could be expressed quite differently—that is, what is being said about the reasons behind this countercurrent. If this countercurrent were truly based on the assumption that a wedge could be driven into the party system, it would be proceeding from entirely false premises. I cannot see how one can maintain the claim that we somehow intend to drive a wedge into the party system. For you see, the situation is this: The parties have their platforms, and they also intend to do this or that in the near future. They are not being prevented from doing this or that at all! The point is simply that members of any party—who are free to remain within their party structure and do what that structure requires of them—are offered the opportunity to take up something positive that can be put into practice. There can be no question whatsoever that this is linked to any intention on the part of the leaders of the “League for the Threefold Social Order” to take for themselves the positions that the party members are meant to fill.

[ 2 ] You see, the way things turned out was that people realized: With the party platform, nothing can be achieved at present, especially with regard to the most important issue—the issue of socialization. You witnessed the so-called revolution of November 9. You saw that party members had taken the helm of the government. But you have also seen that these party members didn’t know what to do with the situation that was actually before them—even though they had a high degree of power over it. You could experience great disappointment—indeed, I would say I am convinced that you will actually experience it—if you were to completely disregard something like the striving for the threefold social organism. You might experience the disappointment that, during the second upheaval, other party members will rise to the top of the government who—not out of any ill will, but simply because the party platforms are powerless—will, after some time, fail to produce anything that is in any way positive. You might find that yet another disappointment follows. To protect you from these disappointments—these repeated disappointments—by pointing out what the present time demands and what actually needs to be carried out—this is precisely the task that the “League for the Threefold Social Order” has set for itself.

[ 3 ] Political parties always have the peculiarity of gradually drifting away from what originally inspired them. Political parties, in general, have a strange fate. Since I did not simply pull the idea of the threefold social organism out of thin air, but rather arrived at it through truly intense, firsthand experience of the social movement over decades, I have witnessed quite a lot. For example, I witnessed the rise of the so-called Liberal Party in Austria. This party called itself liberal, but was rooted in monarchism, as was to be expected in the 1860s and 1870s. So it was a liberal party. But when this liberal party sought to assert itself within the existing Austrian state system, it adopted a peculiar title for itself: “Your Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition.” This was an official epithet for the opposition in the monarchical Austrian state.

[ 4 ] I cited this example to show that, in certain situations, political parties are sometimes stripped of their true driving force. But there are examples that speak even more clearly. For instance, there are two major parties in North America: the Democratic and the Republican parties. A long time ago, these two parties deserved their names: one called itself Republican because its members were republicans, and the other called itself Democratic because its members were democrats. Today, the situation is such that the Republican Party is by no means republican anymore, and the Democratic Party is anything but democratic. The only difference between the two parties is that they are funded by different consortia from different campaign funds. Parties come into being, have a certain lifespan—which is relatively short—and then they die. But even as corpses, they remain alive in a sense; they are reluctant to die. But that doesn’t matter. Even though they have lost their original meaning, they still serve as gathering places for people, and it is still good that they exist, so that people do not drift apart. That is why—unless one is a theorizing politician, as party members often are, and unless one wants to be an ideological or utopian politician, but rather wants to stand on practical ground and is aware that in political life, something can only be achieved with cohesive groups of people—that is why one has absolutely no interest in fragmenting the parties. We would be doing the most foolish thing we could possibly do if we were intent on splitting up the parties, or if we even wanted to found a new party. We couldn’t do anything more foolish. So, that really cannot be the issue at all.

[ 5 ] So one wonders: Yes, where exactly is this resistance coming from? You see, it comes—I would say—from people’s conservative mindset. I see this happen time and again in my many lectures: panelists stand up, and when they speak, you have a strange experience. You realize that they’ve only heard what they’ve been accustomed to thinking for decades. Much of it is correct, of course, because the old ideas are not wrong. But today, new ideas must be added to the old ones! The strange thing that one often observes among these panelists is, above all, that they have not even heard the new ideas with their physical ears; they have simply heard only what they have been accustomed to hearing for decades. Yes, this is indeed due to a certain inner inertia of the contemporary human mind. One must familiarize oneself with this inner inertia of the contemporary human mind, and one must combat it.

[ 6 ] What I find hard to understand, however, is when certain people say: “Yes, we actually agree both with what Steiner proposes to combat capitalism and with the threefold social order—it must come about. But we oppose it nonetheless! We must fight against it!” — To anyone with a modicum of common sense, this must seem bizarre. And yet this point of view does exist!

[ 7 ] Isn’t it true that we are now on the verge of establishing the works council system? Yes, this works council system is an immensely important matter, for the following reason. Today, works councils can be set up in such a way that they are nothing more than a facade for a covert continuation of the old capitalist system. They can be established in this way, but they will certainly amount to nothing more than that if they are established in accordance with the draft bill, with which you are, of course, thoroughly familiar. They will most certainly amount to nothing more than such a mere formality even if they are established on the basis of a different draft bill. The only solution, as I have said here many times before, is to establish works councils out of the living fabric of economic life—that is, for them to be elected from within the economic sphere itself and to organize themselves within a self-contained economic region. Here—since the old state borders must be maintained—that would be Württemberg. This must be a constituent assembly that creates from within what others seek to enact as law. The rights, the powers—everything that works councils are tasked with doing—must arise from the works council movement itself. And we must not lose the courage to create the works council movement ourselves, out of economic life itself. But you see, as soon as one begins at one end—as soon as one really gets serious about treating one member of the threefold social organism as it ought to be treated within the economic cycle—then one must stand on the ground of the threefold social organism. Then the other two members must at least cooperate in some way and be organized in parallel; otherwise, one will not make any progress. It is already easy to provide proof today, simply based on the facts, that… we need what the threefold social organism calls for. For, whatever is said about that socialization experiment carried out in Austria, the very thing that matters is never emphasized.

[ 8 ] If you have been following the reports closely, you may have heard from ministers in the state legislature here in recent days that Lenin has now once again reached the point of seeking help from capitalism because he doubts that socialization, as he envisioned it, can be carried out in the present era. Such developments are, of course, noted today with a certain satisfaction even by socialist governments. Let them have that satisfaction. But you see, what really matters is that we must ask ourselves: Why has this Eastern experiment failed? It is because—and it is truly possible to see this; one need only have the courage to combat one’s own prejudices—it is because, above all, within this Russian, Eastern, socialist experiment, no consideration was given to establishing an independent socialization of intellectual life. This link was missing, and the failure lies in the absence of this link. And once one recognizes this, one will know how to do things differently. One must learn from the facts, after all, and not from the ghosts of party programs that have been haunting one’s mind for decades. That is what matters, and I can tell you this: Either the works councils are established in such a way that they are the first institution of what is envisioned on a grand scale in the sense of a social organization of human society—so that something equivalent to true socialization can emerge from the establishment of the works councils—or it is not done this way, and then true socialization will not be achieved. If one waits until the continuation of the old system of government establishes works councils through a law, if one constantly proceeds from the idea that anyone who wants to act practically will fragment the party, then one will get nowhere.

[ 9 ] There is one question that must inevitably be asked again and again. You see, when we began discussing these matters here in the spirit of the threefold social organism, we and our friends from the political parties gained the trust of the working class—the trust of a large portion of the working class—relatively quickly. At first, people apparently watched this unfold with equanimity, thinking, well, as long as a few people are just playing around, it’s enough to say: Don’t worry about these utopias. — But then they saw that these weren’t utopias at all, but rather the beginning of actually putting something practical into action. At that point, the whole “utopias and ideologies” line no longer really held water. But then, when we tried to work on behalf of the works councils, the accusation of utopianism could no longer be sustained at all. And now they’re coming out with the claim that fragmentation is being brought into the party. Yes, but those who say that had to come along first; they had to be the ones to tell people that fragmentation is being brought into the party. After all, we didn’t bring it in. But those who say that are the ones bringing it in themselves. Where does this fragmentation come from? There’s only one answer to that question: You don’t need to talk about it the way you do, and then there won’t be any fragmentation. Well, the matter—the matter of the works council—is simply too serious for us not to really bring such things up today. And so I hope that, from these perspectives, one or the other of you in this unfortunately sparsely attended meeting will still speak at length today about the various things that are necessary.

[ 10 ] Actually, I can’t help but be very surprised by the opposition that’s emerging here when I take a closer look at certain things. The political parties, for example—they all really need to look beyond themselves, namely, to strive toward something positive. Yesterday I received Arbeiterrat, the journal of the Workers’ Councils of Germany, edited by Ernst Däumig. In it you’ll find an article titled “The Council of Intellectual Workers and the Spirit of the People” by Dr. Heuser of the KPD. It addresses a number of issues. Among other things, the article contains the following passage, which I consider so important that I would like to read it to you. So, the article is by Dr. Heuser, a member of the KPD: “It is, however, a prerequisite for the existence of the socialist state that the intellectual element in the life of the people be given due consideration in accordance with its significance. There is a great danger that, through the one-sided consideration of the materially active segment of the population, the intellectual conditions of life in the socialist community will be stifled and the future state will be transformed into a material entity in which intellectual forces have no room to maneuver and thus no freedom. The purposeful working class rightly demands: All political power to the workers’ councils—all economic power to the works councils. We demand: All intellectual power to the councils of intellectual workers!”—Please, a member of the KPD! All intellectual power to the councils of intellectual workers! “We demand, alongside the body of workers’ councils (political body) and that of the works councils (economic body), a body of intellectual councils (intellectual body), in which the intellectual element of the people can make its voice heard at any time and which, to counterbalance the immense political and economic rights of the overwhelming majority of manual laborers, is granted sufficient influence over the appointment of the more important public positions to ensure that they are filled by intellectual, competent individuals in the more important positions of the public sphere; otherwise, there is no guarantee that these appointments will not continue to be made, as they have been, in a spiritless manner based on power politics or material-economic considerations. The militaristic Hohenzollern regime collapsed because it failed to understand the social demands of our time, just as capitalist sham democracy will collapse despite its “victories.” A socialist state that unilaterally favors the interests of manual laborers while neglecting the interests of the intellectual segment of the population is equally untenable: it will create a new class conflict, new oppression, and new struggles.”

[ 11 ] Now I ask you—there is no mention here of reading my book—but I ask you: What is this other than the threefold social order? And now a particularly important conclusion:

[ 12 ] “The intellectual element of the peoples, however, is also capable on its own of permanently shaping the international understanding of the future and establishing a genuine League of Nations. Let us assume that in the new socialist state, the political workers’ councils or the economic works councils have the final say—where would that lead? Foreign policy would then either be determined by considerations of (political) power—the cabinet wars of earlier centuries are already a sufficient cautionary example for us—or policy would be determined by economic interests; the World War we have just experienced serves as a terrible example of this. If, however, policy is guided by considerations of spiritual humanity, this alone guarantees that a permanent barrier will be erected against the temptations of human lust for power and possessions. Only then will the cultured person return to justice toward oneself and others.”

[ 13 ] This, you see, is an article by a member of the Communist Party in the Arbeiterrat, which is published by Ernst Däumig. So, those who do not view things solely through the lens of the party, but see them as they are, confirm what has often been said here—namely, that the threefold social order is in the air. It is strange, really, that more people do not come to this realization. Here, however, without any mention of our movement, you have the entire story of the threefold social order. In my book, of course, it is more thoroughly substantiated and elaborated in detail. You will find it hinted at in the appeal “To the German People and to the Cultural World.”

[ 14 ] Unfortunately, however, it is still the case that people today are unable to rise to the level of the broader perspectives that are truly necessary. That is why they will not be able to establish even the smallest institutions in a way that corresponds to the great reckoning we are currently facing. Therefore, it is essential that we truly understand today that salvation for economic life can only come about if we first establish an independent economic body—at the very least, we must begin with that. This must be the works council system. From the system of works councils, the other necessary elements will naturally emerge: the system of transportation councils and the system of economic councils. From these three systems of councils, it will follow that the works councils will deal primarily with production, the transportation councils with the circulation of goods, and the economic councils with consumer cooperatives in the broadest sense. Everything else—such as forestry, agriculture, raw material extraction, and, above all, matters pertaining to international economic life—can then also be integrated into this council system of economic life. One need only realize that this economic life does not present the difficulties that are always cited to create a bogeyman, but that it is merely necessary, when the economy is socialized, to record the trade deficit—that is, the excess of imports over exports—on the consumption side. Then the correct outcome will follow naturally.

[ 15 ] All of this is contained within the system of the threefold social organism, and when people say they don’t understand it, it’s simply because they don’t want to make the effort to truly draw the appropriate conclusions, but instead believe that one must first draw up a program. Yes, reality is not a program; reality requires more than what can be expressed in a program. Anyone who speaks about reality must assume to some extent that people will think things through a bit, because reality is, after all, very complicated. And I ask you, when it comes to the important question of works councils in a practical sense, not to form a mental image of the matter as simply as many do today. The future social economic order will have to be based on the principle that has, after all, been correctly proclaimed for decades: Production must take place not for the sake of profit, but for the sake of consumption. — The only question is: How do we do that? This question cannot be answered theoretically; rather, it is answered by your electing works councils and by those works councils then coming together in a federation of works councils. If we proceed in this way, then the question of production for consumption will be answered by the people themselves. There is no “theory” about it; rather, the solution will lie in what real people—those who come from economic life—have to say, each based on their own needs, and what they contribute to the solution.

[ 16 ] Things must be approached in such a way that we do not call it “practical” when we say that this or that should happen, but rather when we empower people who, through lively collaboration, are then to figure out what is right. At first glance, one might say that it is easy to figure out what is involved in consumption, because statistics everywhere show how much pepper, coal, knives, forks, and the like are needed. And if one has the exact statistics, one will simply have to produce as much as those statistics indicate. Yes, even if the statistics aren’t too old, they would still be completely useless for the present moment. And even if they are new, they apply only to that one year, and by the next year they’re already outdated. What needs to be said about consumption must be continually reassessed and addressed in a dynamic way. That is why we need the economic councils. They must be constantly on the move. For the matter is not that simple. We cannot rely on the literature; rather, we need a living system of councils spread throughout the entire economic system. But this requires courage. Instead of what capital has done in a selfish manner, we need living human beings so that the reorganization of economic life can be carried out in a social manner. Otherwise, we will not make any progress. This is precisely what must be seriously considered today, particularly with regard to the question of works councils. In practical terms, this means nothing other than that works council members are elected, who then in turn come together in a constituent assembly of works councils. This body of works councils will then have to be supplemented by the transportation councils and the economic councils. In this way, we will make progress.

[ 17 ] How suggesting a practical course of action is supposed to lead to the fragmentation of the parties and confusion in people’s minds—that’s something someone else would have to explain to me. I cannot see it that way. Not a hair on the parties’ heads will be harmed by this—truly not—if they wish to form a united front. Let them do so. That will be much better than if people go their separate ways. We certainly have no interest in people going their separate ways. We do, however, have an interest—especially when one sees that nothing positive can be achieved through mere programs alone—in ensuring that positive ideas are carried into the working class. Our aim was never to found a new party; rather, the intention underlying the founding of the “League for Threefold Social Order” was to help the proletariat attain a truly social standing. And this can only be realized if class rule comes to an end. Then, however, the issue is not one of clinging to a party program with a small or large membership, but rather of asking: What must happen? And because it is increasingly recognized that the proletariat will never achieve its goal with the old party programs, that is why the impulse for the Threefold Social Order exists.

[ 18 ] I wanted to start with that as an introduction. Now I hope that we will have a lively discussion about the works council issue and other related questions. If the works council election is to be the first step toward true socialization, then it can only be beneficial to repeatedly examine socialization from a different, higher perspective.

Discussion

Chairman Mr. Lohrmann: It is very important for us at this time and under the current circumstances that, as Dr. Steiner read aloud, a Communist leader writes that the threefold social order must be established. When we talk to our comrades, we’re brushed off with brief sound bites. That’s the stumbling block in our work for the works council elections! We have nothing but committed comrades as leaders in the workplaces, but they’re being influenced by the party against our cause, so they aren’t even interested. They reject the cause without getting to the bottom of it. Our main task will be to overcome this resistance. The parties fear that the threefold social order will create a rift among the working class that will weaken the proletariat in the struggle against capitalism.

But I have also spoken with many comrades who believe in our cause. However, these people do not want to speak out in public so as not to compromise themselves in the eyes of the party leaders and comrades. That is the great cancer plaguing our movement. Everyone who understands the cause should freely and openly stand up for it.

At the Bosch plant, we held workplace elections, but only as a temporary measure. This is a problem, because even though we now have a provisional works council, its members were not elected by the workers, and so not all of the workers are interested in the cause. After all, our main task is to get the entire working class interested in the cause, in order to seriously show the current government—which supports capitalism—what we want.

Mr. Huth: When I look at this empty hall, I can’t help but think that those who bear responsibility as members of the Labor Committee should also have the courage to stand up for what they have recognized as right. And those who recognize the threefold social order as correct—as their strong applause has always shown—do indeed advocate for it. It is said that the threefold social order leads to the fragmentation of the working class. Let’s take a look at the working class. It is already so torn apart into various parties that fight each other with such ferocity that it is almost impossible to fragment it any further.

We need unity among the proletariat, but not merely under just any slogan, such as “All Power to the Soviets,” as put forward by the Communists—a slogan whose actual meaning no one really understands. It is merely a slogan, and we need action. When we use slogans such as “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” it is essential that we be able to create a mental image of what this slogan actually means.

What exactly is the “dictatorship of the proletariat”? Is it supposed to come from the top down or from the bottom up? If we wait until the government enacts a works council law that meets our needs, we’ll probably never see it happen; and if we wait for some proletarian party to give us the guidelines we need to achieve unity among the proletariat, then I am convinced we’ll never achieve that unity—just as we’ll never achieve true socialization. Everyone today clings to the words of Karl Marx: “The emancipation of the working class can only be the work of the working class itself,” and yet when it actually sets out to do so, people say: “Stay out of it; you don’t understand this until we tell you what to do.” This is precisely what causes fragmentation—that every party wants something different. We need a revolutionary act in which every worker, no matter which proletarian party he belongs to, can participate. And such an act is the creation of works councils on a truly revolutionary basis, as Dr. Steiner has shown us. What Dr. Steiner read aloud as the words of a communist is, after all, exactly the same thing that Dr. Steiner is telling us—namely, the threefold social order.

Let’s take a look at the brochure containing Comrade Däumig’s speech, which he delivered at the USP party convention, and apply it to practical situations. He doesn’t actually say “threefold social order,” but what he says does indeed imply the threefold social order. For example, when he explains that a strict distinction must be made between the political and economic tasks to be solved, and that a separate council system must exist for each of these two branches. He did, however, only mention this in passing, because he wasn’t entirely clear on it himself. It will be necessary for the members of the workers’ committees who agreed with what Dr. Steiner said not to be deterred by the behavior of the parties, which now find themselves excluded from the truly revolutionary work, and that they not be deterred by the clamor being spread, but rather consistently continue to put into practice what they have deemed correct—namely, to hold elections for works councils in all enterprises and to have these works councils come together to form a federation of works councils that will create for itself the laws we need.

We at our company have elected the works council, and I would now like to ask that all works council members who have already been elected register with both the “Federation for Threefold Social Order” and the Action Committee of the United Proletariat. This Action Committee has distributed a leaflet regarding the election of works council members because it wants the election to be conducted on the basis that has been outlined. It is therefore necessary for the works council members to register so that we can get down to practical, real work. A question was asked earlier about whether the Action Committee still exists. Yes, it still exists, even though the party has called on its members to withdraw from the Action Committee. That is an act of arrogance on the part of the party. The members of the Action Committee were elected from within the workplaces, in opposition to the parties and the party leaders. Only if we can move beyond the parties can we restore health to party life. The parties have driven us apart; they cannot bring us back together. They have fought each other so fiercely that, as they themselves say, they refuse to sit down at the same table. But when I, as a member of the USP, speak today with a member of the KPD, we are in complete agreement. This unity can only be embodied in an organization that is supported by the trust of all workers. We must have the courage to tell even the leaders what is necessary and right. If they reject the threefold social order without even having considered the idea, then that is—yes, I can’t find a fitting expression—almost a meanness: simply expecting the worker who has familiarized himself with the concept of the threefold social order to step aside, and putting him on trial before an inquisitorial court because he holds something to be good and true based on his convictions. If the labor leaders act with courage, we will also be able to convince the workers organized in the parties that the threefold social order must come about. They themselves—the members and leaders of these parties—are, after all, unconsciously handing us the weapons with which to defeat them. Read the article in the Spartakist about the threefold social order. It is clear that they are in complete agreement with the threefold social order, yet they still oppose it. Why? If we present the article from the Süddeutsche Zeitung to our leaders, I am convinced that even the workers organized in these parties will be persuaded that the threefold social order must come about and that it is a revolutionary act when we work for it and advocate for it. It is solely the conservative mindset of all these leaders—who wish to be revolutionary—that prevents them from truly understanding the threefold social order.

I would therefore ask that in those workplaces where there is already a movement underway—where a small step has been taken toward works council elections—the committee members not allow themselves to be misled, but instead continue consistently and repeatedly take a stand on the works council election at every works meeting. We must absolutely achieve the unity of the proletariat, and nothing is more important. We will never achieve unity through the political parties. The working class is becoming increasingly fragmented, and the socialization of the entire economic life—as well as intellectual life and political life—could never be realized. In this spirit, I would like to urge those present to stop raising the question: “What power do we actually have?”—This is a completely secondary question. We must simply step forward and address the heart of the matter, and we must summon the courage to defend the threefold social organism against the political parties. Only if, with courage and self-respect, we speak our minds to those who are too complacent to embrace a new perspective will we make progress.

Mr. Sander: I have listened to all of Dr. Steiner’s lectures and have never viewed the matter through a partisan lens, but rather have regarded it as an ideal cause. Now the political parties are coming forward and saying that the path of threefolding is a new party. However, I do not yet consider the matter feasible, because humanity is not yet ready for it. We have only party people who argue among themselves and who have not yet entered into a spiritual life at all. Since the worker has no spiritual life whatsoever, he cannot live with this cause. Only material interests play a role among the proletariat. In this respect, the proletarian is no different from the capitalist. He, too, can never get enough. Only through the threefold social order can things improve; only through it can a healing of life as a whole take place, for the entire social life is ailing due to the entanglement of the three spheres. But the proletarians have often been disappointed and are therefore suspicious. They are always afraid: Wait, this man and that man—there’s something else behind it. They think that even Dr. Steiner might be in the pay of capitalism. They cannot explain it any other way; they simply think: The man is being paid!—That is, of course, completely out of the question. I have also observed this in meetings and lectures where many clapped so enthusiastically that others asked, “Why are they clapping like that?” It is out of this great disappointment that people develop such mistrust.

At the most recent Sieglehaus lecture, a USP agitator said that people who support the threefold social order simply have to leave the party. — That is an act of arrogance on the part of the party that must be denounced. The issue of the threefold social order has nothing to do with the party. The parties themselves fragment the masses. Even the Action Committee of United Proletarians was, once again, a party, and that was a major mistake. If it had not been a party, unity would have been achieved much more successfully.

The issue of works councils is a very serious one. Whether the council system adopted by the National Assembly will be expanded remains to be seen. But if we establish works councils now, we will run into difficulties with the current government, which takes the position: “You have voted, and you must accept the laws we present to you.”—And for the time being, we must abide by that. Works councils can only be established once the matter is mandated by the political parties or labor unions. I would also say: Works councils should have been established long ago, and we must thank Dr. Steiner for finally explaining to us what a works council looks like. No one else has stood up and explained what a works council is and what duties and responsibilities it has. We could only learn that from Dr. Steiner. I believe the others are either hiding it or simply do not know. Even if the matter cannot yet be put into practice, it is nonetheless a colossal step forward in our time that we have finally received guidelines, that a movement is finally taking place in the innermost heart thanks to Dr. Steiner. For he has gained a profound influence over people’s inner feelings and thoughts. Anyone who attended the lectures, even if they do not admit it publicly, must quietly say to themselves: After all, the man is right. — People simply do not say it out of fear or for partisan political reasons. Mr. Sommer from Munich-Pasing: I have come here to find out how conditions in Bavaria might be shaped in the future. Bavaria, after all, has a very special interest in emerging from the revolution with something to gain. The government currently in power in Bavaria has not yet provided a solution that the Bavarian people—and the other German states as well—need. To help you understand what I mean, I’ll note that I am a high-ranking civil servant. Among other things, my job involves obtaining documentation for the very large projects that are currently being discussed everywhere—including outside Bavaria—and that are to be carried out in Bavaria; these projects concern major waterway connections between the Rhine and the Danube. Bavaria is, relatively speaking, exceptionally well-positioned within Germany. According to recent studies, if everything were carried out in the best possible technical manner—which, of course, will never happen; this is merely the upper limit, the theoretical one, which could nevertheless be achieved with technical means—one could generate approximately six million horsepower from hydropower. The Walchensee Project, the Middle Isar Project, and so on. [Interjection: Get to the point!] I am interested in hearing and being instructed here in lectures by Dr. Steiner when such major projects are being prepared, regarding how this should be done in the future. Is it more expedient to continue along the paths that the governing authorities in Bavaria have taken so far, or is it more correct and better for the public good to follow the paths proposed by Dr. Steiner? Based on what I have learned here, I have come to the conviction that it can only be in the interest of the public good to work on the basis of Dr. Steiner’s proposals. Dr. Steiner’s ideas must be disseminated in all circles. I believe that, unfortunately, relatively very few of the mid-level and senior officials—who have, as it happens, fallen in the wake of the current government and who, in many cases, are consulted—at least as advisors—in the drafting of legislation—are informed about the matter. One reason why progress on this matter is slower than one might wish—given the gravity of the situation—is that people are gripped by fear. I am speaking here today in Stuttgart. It is doubtful whether I would be allowed to say what I am saying here in my home country without risking one thing or another. But in this day and age, one must set aside fear of others and look only to what is best for the general public.

Mr. Pfetzer: We must not believe that we can persuade capitalism, through sheer will, to stand by the working class. That can only happen through force, through struggle. We can elect works councils, but what role and function do they have vis-à-vis the current government, which is, after all, completely in control? The government works closely with capitalist society, doesn’t it? The fragmentation of the parties is indeed a reality, but I am well aware that the working class is united in its distress. Yet we all have selfishness in our minds, and it is present among party leaders as well. I am convinced that the only thing on the minds of party members is: How can I secure a ministerial post or a seat in parliament?—We should elect representatives who can then be removed if we have reason to believe they are harming the common good. Then I am convinced that we will not allow political parties to become our masters.

Mr. Lange: People make far too much of a mystery out of the threefold social order and Dr. Steiner’s ideas, and they add this and that—things he never actually said. We should simply try to grasp what is new! One of the speakers said that if you want to buy a seat, you have to have money. But Dr. Steiner says that money must enter the economic cycle, and that the soil is a means of production; that is what matters. In the new order, everyone who has the desire and love for it must be able to pursue their calling. The gentleman from Bavaria rightly said that, economically and technically, we cannot exploit this potential to the full extent that would be possible. Why not, then? Just because of that pesky money—and because money holds such a position today? Putting one’s life on the line, as the previous speaker said, isn’t really that important. The practical approach isn’t to let yourself be beaten to death first. Then you’re no longer here and can no longer work. One must realize: I must be present; I must be the bearer of the right ideas; I must truly work—and not think that I have to let myself be shot dead. That the parties, like the dear Church, quarrel over this—how precise is the matter down to a hundredth of a millimeter?—and fail to arrive at the truth—that is plain to see. Schiller said: “I belong to no church”—out of religiosity. - So today one can say: I do not belong to any political party. But many then swing back and forth between the parties.

The issue today is setting up works councils, and people are asking: What will the government say? — We don’t care what the government says; it doesn’t matter at all. The main thing is that we establish works councils. The people will take care of making the laws. First of all, we need to have the people who can represent the economy. Right now, they’ve all scattered. There’s no one there who could truly take on the practical implementation. People always say: “That’s theoretical; you can’t understand it.” — I recently spoke to sales assistants. I said: “Now we want to push through our salary and wage demands [...]” Yesterday the people were talking about it—I wasn’t there—but they understood right away: We need works councils; we need people who can truly determine the future of economic life. What matters is that these people, who are part of the business world, do what’s necessary. Then people will no longer ask: “What will the government say? What will happen to us?” — Nothing will happen to us; we just have to realize how simple the matter is and not read into it anything that isn’t there.

Dr. Unger: The main focus of today’s discussions is, first and foremost, the issue of works councils; secondarily, how we can respond to the attacks being leveled against the goals of the “Federation for Threefold Social Order.” It is therefore our duty, even in this circle, to point out something I publicly raised last Tuesday at the Siegle House regarding the strong resistance being mounted by industry against the election of works councils. Now, please note that these industrialists have more or less resolved to reject the works councils—at least initially, of course. Secondly, however, they also reject those industrialists who are active in the “Federation for Threefold Social Order,” for example, or those who, of their own accord, wish to join forces with the other productive forces to form works councils. The industrialists hold a kind of inquisition against such members of the “Federation for Threefold Social Order.” So, on the one hand, we see parties that declare that those who wish to advocate for the threefold social order must now be asked whether they can remain within the party or not. On the other hand, we see the industrialists doing exactly the same thing. They view coercive measures from both the right and the left as attacks on freedom—on something that can capture people’s minds, hearts, and souls, and the whole person, as a way out of chaos. Against this, the law asserts itself, seeking to suppress the emergence of an idea by force. [Several critical remarks follow regarding the stance of the political parties and leading economic circles. The remarks conclude with the words:] I would like to share something else that happened last week. We had a meeting at which a Communist said: “I have followed Dr. Steiner’s presentation with great interest. But I then had to tell myself that such theories, when it comes down to it, do not really mean very much.” Now, however, I see more and more clearly that this “League for Threefold Social Order” has not remained merely theoretical, but is practically addressing an issue that is, in truth, a fundamental question of our time—namely, the question of works councils. Since I have recognized this, I am in complete agreement. I must admit that there is indeed a resolution here to move forward with practical work. Well, that was a confession just as we need it.

Another participant in the discussion speaks up: As a worker, I naturally have the greatest interest in seeing the issue of works councils put into practice. The Reich bill for the establishment of works councils is nothing more than a shadow of the real thing. [...] The parties’ aversion to the threefold social order stems primarily from their feeling that the working class is being drawn away from the class struggle. But we still stand on this ground of class struggle and will know how to represent our interests there as well. For now, we simply have to achieve practical results, and that means electing works councils. The issue of works councils is also an issue of class struggle. It is, in fact, the most practical issue of all, and we must do everything we can to establish works councils as quickly as possible. If the bill passes, the old capitalism will remain in place. We must learn our lessons from the entire opposition and the statements coming from both the right and the left. How can we do this? There is only one answer: We elect our works councils despite all hostility. We promote the idea of works councils because it is the only true way out of the chaos from which we cannot escape without practical action.

Mr. Navrocki from Berlin-Friedrichshagen: Dear Comrades! If I may take the liberty of making a few remarks, I would first like to tell you that, before I came here, the issue under discussion was uncharted territory for me. But as a proletarian who thinks and feels alongside the masses, it was clear to me that if this issue is to be truly addressed, it cannot be treated as a party platform but, as Dr. Steiner said, must be approached from the perspective of life itself. [After making a few critical remarks about the parties’ actions to date, Mr. Navrocki concludes his remarks with the following words:] Several speakers have said: We must take action. — But this action can only consist of going beyond the government’s program and proving that it is possible to carry out our program. The most essential and important thing, however, is that all those who devote themselves wholeheartedly to this program—because they are convinced that only through the realization of this program can something meaningful be created—must also commit themselves fully to it. These can only be people who think and feel in a proletarian way. Only those who are in touch with the masses—and who may themselves have gone through the school of proletarian misery—will truly care about lifting the proletariat out of that misery. Such a person will have to recognize that work can only proceed in the direction of elevating all people to lofty ideals of humanity. It is at this level that these ideas originated, and we are merely the ones who must go out and realize this program.

Mr. Jansen: I want to be the first to report on the status of the elections for the establishment of works councils. If a group of workers in our company had not taken a separate stance, we could tell you that the works council elections took place today. Last Monday, we negotiated with our management regarding the introduction of works councils. We presented them with the various points of view and said: The purpose of introducing works councils is to replace their private rights. We want to replace private capitalism, and that is why we want to elect works councils. At first, the director made a funny face, but he is a good-natured and reasonable man and has come to terms with the fact. He said: “Well, whether we hold the works council election a little earlier than required by law doesn’t matter to me. For heaven’s sake, schedule the election.” — Just a heads-up. The one group among us that has not yet been able to bring itself to take a stand will have to answer for it on Monday, so that the election will take place one way or another on Wednesday.

From discussions with colleagues and others, it appears that people feel the introduction of works councils is a path leading into the dark. There are a great many people who are not accustomed to thinking and acting independently. They do not wish or want to be told, in any way, what they should or should not do. From the very outset, they want the consequences of their actions laid out for them down to the smallest detail. But because works councils are required, once elected, to assume the obligation and responsibility of steering workplace and economic life in directions that are supposed to be decisive for the welfare of the proletariat and the well-being of all our fellow citizens, they recoil. They feel this is too much to ask. Truly, one can understand this. For years on end, people have been organized and herded along. We must not overlook this. For decades, the majority of our fellow workers have been unable to bring themselves to form an independent thought or take independent action. They need support and guidance in everything. The resistance and reluctance on the part of a segment of the working class can be attributed to this. A certain apathy prevails there, coupled with a great deal of complacency. One might agree with Dr. Steiner and call it “intellectual laziness.” We must tackle this head-on.

The issue of wages is still too much of a focus among our coworkers. As soon as we mention works councils, the first question is: “Will we get a raise then?”—If we could say, “Two marks more a day,” we’d have nothing but friends. But since we say: “Coworkers, look ahead for a change!” If you fight today to get one mark more, you’ll have to spend one mark fifty more tomorrow. It’s a never-ending cycle. One thing leads to another. Your living conditions will keep getting worse. Before you know it, you’ll reach the point where you can no longer survive.

Mr. Lorenz: All union representatives and committee members should consider it their first duty to put their intentions into action as quickly as possible, especially by promoting the idea in workplaces where it is not yet known. — We have had a works council in place for a month now. Of course, as long as works councils are only established in individual companies, it is futile. We must bring the works councils here together as quickly as possible so that a founding assembly can be held.

Mr. Baumann: The parties—and especially their leaders—repeatedly level this accusation: Dr. Steiner is not a Marxist. He does not stand on the ground of Marxism. Therefore, we cannot associate with him. — This remark strikes me as coming from people who take the stance that they are venerating the bones of a saint. It must be said once and for all that a great many party comrades are bone-worshippers or fetish-worshippers because they want to cling only to the old ways. Marx says in his Manifesto: “Workers of all countries, unite!”—If Marx could speak today, he would point out in passionate terms that we should not put the parties in the foreground in a fragmented manner, but rather use them as a rallying point so that something can be accomplished through them. He would say: If you cannot even agree among yourselves in Germany, let alone throughout the world, then you are not worth anything more than for capitalism to spit on you—we should not engage in the worship of relics, but rather in the living power of thought, in the ideas shown to us by Dr. Steiner. Marx would say: If someone comes after me who brings something new—and his name is not Marx but Steiner—then hold fast to the living spirit and not to the old bones.

Mr. Conradt: Much has been said against the threefold social order, but especially that the idea could not be put into practice. Ever since the issue of works councils gained momentum and it became impossible to raise substantive objections, people have resorted to more convenient means of attack by spreading falsehoods within the parties. One of these falsehoods was that those who advocate for the idea of the threefold social order receive money for doing so. The person who made this claim said: “For the sake of integrity, the party must expel such people.” — What, then, should be done for “reasons of cleanliness” with those in the party who feel compelled to resort to slander? When Mr. Gönnewein rebuked the speaker in question and said that no one should accuse others of hiding behind the stove unless they had been sitting there themselves, the speaker resorted to a word that was appropriate in this case: he cried out, “Meanness!” But that very word comes back to haunt him, since he approached us with such an accusation. This is how the resistance we face escalates. First, there are unfounded objections; then, meanness. We’ll see what follows. We absolutely must discuss the question of the threefold social order with those who have so far shied away from such a discussion. Even though the leader of the USP has said that one shouldn’t speak of the threefold social order at every meeting, I still think that we can get the ball rolling on this issue at party meetings. That is the right way to justify ourselves—not before small cliques, but before the general public.

[The following resolution is read aloud and adopted unanimously:]

Resolution

The meeting of many workers’ and employees’ committees from the Greater Stuttgart area, which took place on June 14, sees the threefold social order as the truly practical path to the recovery of our entire national life, despite all the hostility from employers’ associations, labor unions, and party leaders.

The Assembly views the works councils provided for by law as nothing more than shadow versions of the real ones, which will never be in a position to exert any influence on socialization, and therefore has no interest in the election and establishment of such shadow works councils.

[ 19 ] Rudolf Steiner: As you can see, today’s discussion has consisted entirely of expressions of agreement. Therefore, I will be able to keep my closing remarks quite brief and make just a few comments.

[ 20 ] You see, when faced with facts such as those that have been discussed at length today—and which act as obstacles to what we wish to achieve in terms of the progressive socialization of human society—it is good to really look closely at the entire mindset, at, I would say, the entire state of mind from which such things arise. At such a serious moment as the present one, one should not harbor any illusions or allow oneself to be misled. A few days ago, you may have read a peculiar article. I believe it appeared in the Sozialdemokrat. It spoke of “backroom maneuvering.” The basis for this is the founding of a so-called “Daimler-Werk-Zeitung.” This “Daimler-Werk-Zeitung” is said to state that the plant management has no inclination or confidence to conduct verbal negotiations with the workforce. That is why they are attempting to establish a plant newspaper. If one reads what one person or another writes there, it might perhaps be easier to reach an understanding. Well, I read this in the Sozialdemokrat. It reminds me that it certainly happens that people living together in a family cannot quite understand one another, and then, even though they live under the same roof, they write letters to one another. But aside from that, it is pointed out that a great deal of work has been done behind the scenes, likely between me—this is clearly stated—and Mr. Muff, who is said to be a major, and between Director Dr. Riebensam.

[ 21 ] But you see, I first heard about this Daimler-Werk-Zeitung through the article in the Sozialdemokrat. Until then, I knew nothing about Mr. Muff, with whom I am said to have conferred. I do not know him at all. Dr. Riebensam attended various public meetings, and I occasionally spoke with him quite openly following these gatherings. Beyond that, however, I have never had a private meeting with him. We merely encountered each other at a few gatherings—which were hardly the kind of places where one would engage in any particular conspiracies against the Stuttgart workforce or against the Daimler workers in particular. After all, workers from the Daimler plants were standing around everywhere, since these were mostly gatherings of the Daimler workers themselves. As you can see, these matters stem from peculiar ideological motivations, and one must be very attentive in order to view the situation correctly.

[ 22 ] I would also like to point out how strangely certain people think about this or that issue. I was once at a meeting where people were talking about socialization—in such a way that, ultimately, nothing could come of it. I can’t go into the matter itself right now. Well, there was also a union leader there who said: “We cannot agree with this idea of the threefold social order.”—I thought the man was about to explain to me his reasons for opposing the threefold social order. But I had miscalculated. He knew nothing about it at all. Instead, he said: “Yes, you know, you published a leaflet there—it lists Mr. So-and-so and Mr. So-and-so as signatories—and if you’re in such company, we want nothing to do with you.”—You see, there lies the condemnation, which may now have taken on great proportions. It stems from some very peculiar underlying attitudes. I think it would be quite good—precisely to generate the momentum needed to tackle the most important matters first—if we were to look such things in the eye without any illusions, things that actually surface—or, I might say, are washed up—from rather murky depths. For we are living in such serious times today, and we need to tackle the things we do with such seriousness that we must resolve to hold the view that only those who work with honest means and from a sincere mindset will make progress.

[ 23 ] My dear friends here today, unfortunately, over the past few decades, a great deal has been accomplished all over the world through unscrupulous means and with an unscrupulous mindset, and this way of working—with an unscrupulous mindset and unscrupulous means—has ultimately led the world to mass murder. If we truly want to extricate ourselves from the situation we have found ourselves in, then we need moral strength and courage. That is what I would like to state quite openly, especially because it would give me particular pleasure if I could point out to those people who have so often acted with dishonest means—and who, by virtue of their social position, have concealed this fact—were once confronted with the fact that those who have oppressed them until now, and in whom an awareness of their humanity has now awakened, work only with pure means and wish to show them how they should have acted. It would give me great pleasure if it could one day be said of the German proletariat in particular that it can serve as a model for the world even with regard to the choice of means. I believe that a great deal will depend on such matters in the near future. If one considers the international situation—one need only look a little beyond the borders—it immediately becomes clear that the world is waiting for Germany to finally speak in a different tone than it did up until 1914 and after 1914. But it is not only those in Germany who are still capable of thinking, but also those in the world—that is, outside Germany—who do not believe in anything positive coming from Germany as long as the upholders of the old order remain in power. A great deal depends on these things. And that is why we must not lack the courage—so that, despite the current government and despite all party leadership, those whose names have not yet been mentioned may stand up. So that they may stand up, rise above the broad masses of humanity, and say: We are here! — Therefore, establish the works council system in a sensible manner, for I believe that, for the first time, the works council system can provide the foundation for new people to emerge—people who judge matters from entirely different perspectives than those who are currently staging the peculiar spectacle of world governance.

[ 24 ] This is a matter of both national and international significance. Consider an issue such as that of works councils from the highest possible perspective. Try, for the first time, to create something that can stand up to scrutiny from a high vantage point; then—even if it seems to be only a beginning, it will be a beginning of something great—you will have created something great. We must not be timid and say: We don’t have the people; the proletariat isn’t yet educated enough; we have to wait. — We can’t wait any longer; we must act, and we must have the courage to establish the works council so that it exists. Then, from within its ranks, people will rise to the top who have not yet been able to make themselves known. That is precisely what is important: that we place people in the positions where they belong. For those who have come to the fore so far have made it quite clear that they have run their course. We need a new spirit, a new system of human action. We must be absolutely clear about this. We must engrave this deeply in our hearts. If we take the matter courageously into our own hands, then we will make progress. That is why I would like to say again and again: Let’s take a chance on this—let’s get the works councils up and running! I have no doubt that within these works councils we will find those who have something sensible to say about the future course of human development. For if one were to doubt this, one would have to despair of humanity altogether—and I do not want that.