The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Fifth Discussion Evening

Chairman Mr. Gönnewein: On behalf of the “Federation for Threefold Social Order,” I hereby open tonight’s discussion and warmly welcome you all. I expect that this evening will take us a step further. Works councils have already been elected at various companies, and this evening these works councils will have the opportunity to express everything they have to say and to ask questions so that Dr. Steiner can address them in detail and dispel any doubts. Today’s events compel us more than ever to engage deeply with what the coming times hold for us. I therefore expect that everyone present will make full use of this discussion. I now give the floor to Dr. Steiner to open the discussion.

Introductory Remarks

[ 1 ] Rudolf Steiner: My dear friends! As has been the custom at these gatherings, I would like to begin with just a brief introduction, and I hope that all the important matters to be discussed today will come up during the discussion.

[ 2 ] We have now gathered here repeatedly to discuss the issue of works council elections, and in these meetings we have tried to clarify for ourselves from what perspective the works council issue should be addressed here—namely, from the standpoint of the threefold social organism.

[ 3 ] This threefold social organism is intended to structure the entirety of social life into three parts: namely, the economic, the legal or state, and the spiritual sub-organisms. In other words, what has hitherto been chaotically fused into a unitary state is to be divided into its three natural components. One might now ask: Why, in fact, should this happen?—It should happen because the course of history itself is pushing toward this threefold division. Thus, the historical development of humanity shows us that, particularly over the course of the last three to four centuries—and especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries—all aspects of human relations have been forced together into the unitary state, and that it is precisely because economic conditions have been fused with political and spiritual conditions that we have fallen into catastrophe. Until people are willing to recognize that the only way to achieve a recovery of conditions—and thus also progress in human development—is by dividing this unitary state into three parts, they will not be able to make any headway at all—neither with socialization nor with democracy. That is why we have also approached the issue of works councils here from the standpoint of an independent economic life. You see, the easiest way to understand the necessity of dividing the unified state—which has thus far failed—into these three parts is to recognize how economic life differs from actual state and spiritual life. In economic life, on the one hand, everything is subject to natural conditions. These vary from time to time and are subject to change. Population size also plays a role. Furthermore, in economic life, everything depends on people organizing themselves into certain occupational sectors and professions. Additionally, economic life involves an individual, personal factor: the sum of human needs. Isn’t it true that it is easy to see that the sum of human needs would turn people into a kind of machine of social life if one were to attempt to regulate the needs of the individual in any way? That is why you will find, clearly articulated in the socialist worldview and already in Marx’s work, that in a true socialist community, there should be no standardization or regulation of the individual’s needs. One person has certain needs, another has different ones, and the point cannot be for some central authority to dictate to people what needs they should have; rather, the point is to identify those needs based on real life and, through production, ensure that they can truly be satisfied.

[ 4 ] If one takes a broad view of economic life as a whole, one will inevitably conclude that everything in economic life must be based on the principle of contract. Everything that constitutes economic life is, after all, based—or should be based within a social community—on performance and consideration. This fact also underlies the demands of the proletariat today, since it has been recognized that this fact is still by no means taken into account—namely, that performance must be matched by consideration. Today, the prevailing principle is still that one extracts from human labor whatever one needs or believes one needs, without having to provide any consideration in return. This is why the demands of the proletarian masses today express the view that, in the future, it should no longer be possible to satisfy one’s needs through the labor of the working population without the latter receiving compensation in return. One must be clear that economic life always depends on concrete circumstances—that is, on natural conditions, the nature of occupations, the work itself, and the output. One can only manage the economy by establishing connections between the various types of output. Not everything produced today can always be utilized in the same way. One must also anticipate output that will only be produced in the future. Indeed, much more would need to be said if one were to fully characterize economic life in this way.

[ 5 ] Since everything in economic life must be based on performance and consideration, and since these two depend on different factors, everything in economic life must be based on the principle of contract. In the future, we must have cooperatives and associations in economic life that base their mutual performance and consideration on the principle of contract—on the contracts they enter into with one another. This principle of contract must govern all aspects of life, and in particular life within consumer cooperatives, production cooperatives, and professional cooperatives. A contract is always limited in duration in some way. When no further services are rendered, it no longer serves a purpose; it loses its value. The entire economic life is based on this principle.

[ 6 ] The legal system is based on something fundamentally different. It is based on the democratic adoption of all measures that ensure every person is equal to every other person with regard to human rights. Labor law is also part of human rights. Every person who has reached the age of majority can advocate for this. Every person who has reached the age of majority can participate—either directly, for example through a referendum, or indirectly through elections or a representative body—in establishing the rights that must prevail among equal human beings. Therefore, in the legal, governmental, or political sphere, it is not the contract that prevails, but the law. In the future, laws will also regulate, for example, employment relationships. Thus, the duration, scope, and nature of work will be determined by law, while what is to be accomplished within the legally established working hours will be regulated by contracts within the economic sphere.

[ 7 ] Intellectual life, on the other hand, is of an entirely different nature. Intellectual life is based on the fact that it enables humanity to develop its abilities for political and economic life. However, this is only possible if the foundation is laid within intellectual life to ensure that developing human abilities—which are not simply given to a person at birth but must first be cultivated—are properly nurtured and developed. It would be a grave mistake to believe that intellectual and physical abilities—the latter being, after all, fundamentally equivalent to the former—could be recognized and nurtured in the same way as matters of government and the economy. That which relates, for example, to education and instruction can be based neither on contracts nor on laws or regulations, but must be based on advice given for the development of abilities.

[ 8 ] Yes, these three spheres of life—spiritual life, legal life, and economic life—are indeed very different, so that their intermingling is not only a complete impossibility but also spells great disaster for human development. Our current confusion and social ills have arisen precisely because of this intermingling. If we are now to address an issue such as the establishment of works councils, we must first understand from which of these three spheres of life the corresponding measures should be taken.

[ 9 ] You are right to find in Marxism the view that, in a social community, everyone must be provided for according to their abilities and needs. But this raises the question: What is the path to truly providing for everyone in human society according to their abilities and needs? — The way to ensure that everyone receives their due in accordance with their abilities is through a completely free intellectual life—independent of economic and political life—supported by the educational and school system. And the possibility of ensuring that everyone receives their due in accordance with their needs exists only within an autonomous economic life. In between lies what has been forgotten in Marxism: the legal sphere, which deals with matters that are expressed neither in economic life nor in spiritual life, but which simply depend on one’s having become a mature human being and developing a relationship with every mature citizen within a self-contained sphere. What I do in economic life is subject to the laws of commodity production, commodity circulation, and commodity consumption. How I work in economic life is subject to the law. This distinction must henceforth be made in a fundamental way. Only in this way can we move beyond what is today called capitalism and what constitutes the current wage system. For the very fact that capital and the wage system are components of economic life effectively undermines everything that could lead to the recovery of economic life. But one should not believe that things are really as simple as many people still have in their mental images today. However, when we begin to carry out truly positive work—first with the works councils and then with the economic councils—it will become clear that this work will be vast and comprehensive. One of the most difficult tasks within so-called socialization is determining how performance and compensation can be properly regulated within the social order. And it will be up to the works councils to take the first steps toward this regulation—that is, toward true socialization. This means that the works councils have been set a major, truly fundamental goal, for they will have to take seriously for the first time what others merely pay lip service to: socialization. What most people today imagine when they think of socialization is, for the most part, not only not socialization at all, but at best a kind of fiscalization. In some cases, there is no clear mental image at all.

[ 10 ] As I said, many people today have a mental image of the matter that is far too simplistic, which is also related to the fact that economics—and, indeed, the science of human coexistence in general—is, if you’ll pardon the expression, still in its infancy; in fact, it’s not even that, because it hasn’t actually been born yet. It is true, however, that people rightly say: In the future, production should not be for the sake of profit, but rather for the sake of consumption. — That is quite correct, for the intention is to express that what matters is that everyone receives what meets their needs. But that alone would not create a healthy community. A healthy community exists only when performance is met with a corresponding return—that is, when people are inclined to provide a return of equal value for what others work for them, produce for them, and deliver to them. And it is precisely this problem that is very difficult to address, as you can see from the fact that current science does not yet have—nor can it formulate—any concrete mental images or proposals on this matter. At best, you will find the proposal today to replace the existing state with the “economic state,” a kind of large economic cooperative.

[ 11 ] But you see, this overlooks the fact that it is impossible to manage an economic entity centrally once it exceeds a certain size and encompasses too many different economic sectors. People would only realize this, however, once they have actually established the so-called “economic state.” Then they would see that things simply cannot work that way. The matter must simply be regulated in an entirely different way—namely, in such a way that, even if one adheres to the principle that one must produce in order to consume, there must nevertheless be a corresponding consideration for the output. One might now say: So let’s not concern ourselves with the comparative value of one commodity relative to another. — What some economists say today sounds like this: We’ll focus only on needs and then centrally produce what is necessary to satisfy those needs, and distribute it. — Yes, but you see, it then turns out that one is compelled to introduce compulsory labor. But this is a terrible measure, especially when it is not necessary. And it is not necessary! Compulsory labor is considered necessary only because people succumb to the superstition that there is no other means than compulsory labor to realize the principle of performance and consideration. Furthermore, they do not consider what ingenious means might be devised in the future—if, for example, compulsory labor were legally introduced—to evade work. So, it is by no means merely a matter of compulsory labor not being necessary; it is also a matter of it being impossible to implement at all. But, as I said, the main point remains that it is unnecessary if one fully implements the principle that every service must be met with a corresponding reward. This can now be put into concrete terms as follows:

[ 12 ] Isn’t it true that if people want to live in human society, they must work—that is, produce something? In doing so, they create something that has meaning for others. What a person produces must have a certain value. He must be able to exchange what he produces for the goods produced by others that he needs to satisfy his needs for a certain period of time. He must be able to satisfy his needs through what he exchanges until he has once again produced a product of the same kind. Let’s take a simple example: If I make a pair of boots, that pair of boots must be worth enough that I can exchange it for what I need until I have produced a new pair of boots. A true measure of value exists only when one takes into account everything that must be paid for—for people who cannot work, for children who must be raised, for those unable to work, for the disabled, and so on. It is possible to determine the correct price of a good. However, the following is necessary for this: Namely, the moment too many workers are producing a given item—that is, when an item is produced in excessive quantities—it becomes too cheap. In that case, I do not receive enough to meet my needs until I have produced an equivalent product myself. The moment too few workers are employed—that is, when an item is not produced in sufficient quantities—it becomes too expensive. Only those with more than a normal income would be able to buy it. It is therefore necessary, in order to ensure fair pricing, to make sure that the correct number of workers—both mental and physical laborers—are always working on a given item. This means that if, for example, now that we are living in a transitional period, it were to turn out that a certain item is being produced in too many factories—that is, in excess—then individual factories would have to be shut down and contracts concluded with the workers of those factories so that they can continue working in another industry. Only in this way is it possible for fair prices to emerge. There is no other way to achieve this. If too little of a good is produced, new enterprises would have to be established to produce that good. This means that, in economic life, care must be taken at all times to ensure that production occurs in accordance with certain proportions. Then the wage relationship, then the capital relationship can cease to exist; all that needs to remain is the contractual relationship between intellectual and manual workers regarding the fair [determination of the share due to those who jointly produce the goods]. We are, in fact, striving toward this ideal; we hope for this ideal; we must move toward this ideal; and anything that does not move toward this ideal consists of unclear mental images.

[ 13 ] What the threefold social order essentially aims to achieve is not to feed people empty promises, but to tell them what the living conditions of the social organism are—that is, how one can truly live. And it is possible for the current ailing social organism to recover. But then one must also truly take the concrete living conditions into account. That is what matters. But if this is to happen—if the economy is managed in such a way that the right prices emerge—then this forms the true foundation for socialization. The old wage conditions—that is, the idea that one can fight for a higher wage, which usually results in food, housing, and so on becoming more expensive—must be overcome. The function and significance that money has today must be changed. In the future, money will be a kind of dynamic accounting system—as it were, a record of what one has produced and what one can exchange for it. All of this is not something that can only be strived for in decades to come, but can be pursued immediately, provided that enough people understand it. Everything else is basically just hot air. Therefore, the first thing at stake is recognizing that it is crucial for works councils not to be based on a law, but to emerge directly from economic life. And so, in a founding assembly of works councils, the experiences of economic life must take center stage. Then the functions and tasks of the works councils will naturally follow. This is what one must understand: namely, that this works council system must emerge from economic life and not from the old state system, and that this works council system must be the first to truly demonstrate what socialization is. Socialization is only possible if there are bodies within economic life that carry out socialization. And the works councils are to be this first body that truly socializes from within economic life.

[ 14 ] One cannot bring about socialization through regulations and laws; rather, socialization can only be achieved through people who are active within economic life. The impulse toward the threefold organization of the social organism seeks to replace mere fantastical demands with the truth. And that is what matters today. And I believe that people today can learn what really matters. Until now, people have created various mental images of ways in which the ailing life of the social organism could be improved. And how have things turned out?

[ 15 ] Look, I’ve mentioned this several times before and don’t want to dwell now on the mental images the “practitioners of life” of that time had from January 1914 through August. But I do want to talk about the mental images these practitioners imagined when the misfortune struck that led us into the current catastrophe: Bethmann Hohlkopf—I meant to say Bethmann Hollweg—said it would be a violent but brief storm. — That is how he spoke of the coming war, and others said similar things, for example: “In six to seven weeks, the German armies should be in Paris,” and so on. That is what the practitioners always said back then, and that is how it has always gone in recent years. And now again, during the October–November catastrophe, what hasn’t been said! Everything that was said ultimately led to yesterday, which has brought us the prospect of hardship and misery. It is now time to stop listening to whatever people predict one way or another, and instead finally listen to what is conceived based on reality. Today, there is certainly a lot of talk—for example, from economists and political scientists—but no one ever mentions that the principle that performance must be matched by compensation is based on strict realities. This principle essentially means that everyone receives, in return for their work, what they need to satisfy their needs until they have performed a new task.

[ 16 ] So we want to establish works councils to which we will explain what the concrete task of the socialization of economic life entails. Legal norms are of no help here, nor are general socialist ideals; the only thing that helps is what is honestly and sincerely drawn from reality. And this is what must be brought into the works council system. The establishment of the works council system should truly be the first step toward seriously pursuing the socialization of economic life. If we start somewhere, the rest will follow. Then people will also emerge who will strive to create equal rights for all and the necessary institutions in which people’s abilities can be fostered. Today, oppression still prevails, and empty rhetoric reigns. I have, after all, often pointed out the phrase “give free rein to the capable.” Behind these words, however, lie mostly very selfish interests. Only through a truly free spiritual life can human abilities flourish in the future. And only in a legal system where every person is equal to every other can political conditions also develop anew. And in economic life, fair prices must prevail. Then not everything will be geared toward a competitive struggle between capital and labor or a competitive struggle among individual enterprises. For this to happen, however, it is necessary to replace the competitive struggle—which reaches its peak in the interplay of supply and demand—with reasonable decisions and agreements that must emerge from bodies such as the works councils that are now to be established.

[ 17 ] What do we actually want to achieve with the works council system? We want to use the works council system to take the first step toward a genuine, sincere socialization of economic life. And it can be a source of deep satisfaction that, despite some resistance—which has certainly made itself felt in certain circles of the local working class—we have found support for the idea of works councils, so that we have already been informed of about twelve works councils, and negotiations are to take place regarding the election of additional ones. But if something truly fruitful is to come of this, then works councils must be elected in all enterprises throughout the Württemberg region. Then the works councils from a wide variety of industries must come together, for only through negotiations, through the exchange of experiences, and the measures resulting from them can we achieve what is the beginning of true socialization. You can have this socialization tomorrow, but you cannot merely talk about it and let theorists draft laws; rather, the people with whom true socialization can be carried out must be mobilized. For socialization is not something that will be achieved through laws; socialization will come when there are a thousand people within Württemberg’s industry. With this, we have tried to tackle the issue where reality lies, and the reality of socialization lies in the flesh and blood of the people—not in laws that exist on paper and are then supposed to be magically transformed into reality.

[ 18 ] What we want to bring over from the reality of flesh-and-blood human beings is called a utopia. This makes one want to ask: Who, then, are the real utopians? We don’t want a utopia! Or is it a utopia when a thousand people are elected who can make a difference in the economic sphere? Are a thousand flesh-and-blood people a utopia? Yes, just as soon as people realized that this was not a utopia, but rather a group of real people who want to carry out socialization, that’s when they started saying that we are striving for a utopia. We don’t want a utopia; we want the purest, truest, and most honest reality! That is what matters to us. It is something one simply needs to recognize. That is why I ask you, regardless of what is currently being said by those utopians who have always failed with their utopias—that is, by those utopians who are waging a campaign against the reality advocated by the “Association for Threefold Social Order”—to become independent and to rely on your own judgment for once. For I believe that every reasonable person can distinguish utopia from reality. And if people accuse you of merely making a prophecy, then, I think, anyone who hears what I have said today will no longer speak of a mere—or even an incorrect—prophecy. I am not prophesying anything; I am merely saying: If a thousand people are elected from all sectors, that is no prophecy, for what they will do, they will do without prophecy, because they will be a living reality. There have been enough “prophecies” in recent years. What new victories were people always prophesying before November 9th: “We will triumph because we must triumph!”—Those who hurl the word “prophecy” at those who speak from reality as if it were a kind of slander should take that to heart. As for prophesying—the others have already done that more than enough, namely the circles that have held power until now. Now we must speak to the world in a different tone—a tone that is already rooted in the hearts and souls of the people. And you should elect such people to your works council. Then you will be able to bring about true socialization in the world.

Discussion

The chair, Mr. Gönnewein, thanks Dr. Steiner for his 3 P] insightful remarks and opens the floor for discussion.

Mr. Lange: He begins by speaking of the danger that Anglo-American capitalism might take root in Germany, which would turn everyone into slaves.

We must help ourselves. This self-help consists of saying: We are taking the economy into our own hands. After all, the German capitalists do not just want to exploit us. In a certain sense, we must join forces with the German capitalists. There are also people among them who sincerely want to contribute to the reconstruction. But the workers and employees must say: We are taking control of the businesses; we are no longer interested in striking, but in working—specifically, in work that is truly constructive. And for that, we need the works councils. We need raw materials and land. But reconstruction is only possible if working people come together. As workers, we must stand firmly on the ground: Only work can redeem us. The speaker goes on to discuss financial conditions

Mr. Roser: Over the past few weeks, we have held several discussion evenings during which we spoke about works councils and economic councils. Many of you will be familiar with this, and it will have become clear to you in many ways what the threefold social order aims to achieve. Nevertheless, one must repeatedly observe that the idea is still not sufficiently understood. This is, of course, understandable, because the threefold social order represents a completely new idea, and as with everything new, this idea is also met with a certain degree of skepticism. Nevertheless, we can state that the reception of this idea appears to be satisfactory in those circles that take an interest in it. It must undoubtedly be emphasized that it was precisely this conflation of the three spheres—economic life, politics, and spiritual culture—in the old state system that brought about so much of the terrible misery that befell the German people. When we read Dr. Steiner’s book, we can clearly see that if we are not able to fundamentally separate these three spheres from one another—that is, if each is not nurtured according to its own nature—then we will inevitably find ourselves in a world of trouble. We should therefore strive with all our energy toward this threefold social order. We, as working people, naturally have the greatest interest in economic life, for that is the factor—the institution—in which we are represented. That is why we must also devote our greatest attention to the economic sphere. Of course, we must also have—and gain—a certain degree of influence in the legal or political sphere and in the spiritual sphere, but as manual and intellectual workers, we must concern ourselves first and foremost with the economic body, with the economic sphere.

The question has been raised repeatedly: What kind of field, what kind of work is our responsibility here? This work has already been mentioned and discussed many times. It is the formation of works councils. Socialization—which has already been discussed frequently by Dr. Steiner and other speakers—is increasingly being demanded from all sides. Why? Because it represents the only way out of the chaos that can steer our economic life back onto a healthy course. Socialization means, after all, the collectivization of all means of production—their transfer into the hands of those classes that can manage and determine their use. That is why it would be of the utmost importance for us to take an even greater interest in the issue of works councils than we have so far. But this is understandable given the political circumstances, given the political storm clouds that have hung over us over the past few weeks right up until yesterday’s conclusion. All of this has prevented us from gaining a proper understanding of this issue. I believe things should be different in the future. We simply must address this issue—and address it very intensively—precisely in light of the circumstances that have arisen as a result of yesterday’s signing of the peace treaty. It goes without saying: If we are not in a position to take socialization into our own hands, then we will never achieve our goal; instead, we will only be driving our people toward general enslavement and impoverishment. That is why we must, first and foremost, vigorously take the issue of works councils into our own hands, regardless of any obstacles that stand in our way. If we expect works councils to be established by law, we will get none—only dead letters on the page that have no other purpose than to carry out what the exploiters of the past have done to us until now. But they must be nothing other than the tool of the working class, of the entire people.

We must establish works councils as an institution that is not forced to dance to the tune of capitalism. The catastrophe of war, in particular, has given us ample cause for reflection. We, who are active in the working committee of the “Federation for Threefold Social Order,” have clearly recognized that, whatever other proposals may be made, there is no better idea than the threefold social order. The threefold social order—and with it the autonomy of the individual sectors—will form the foundation upon which our entire people can rebuild. We want to strive for something other than the subjugation of the proletariat. Nor do we want to allow the state to continue using the entire economy for political purposes, only to ultimately sacrifice it to militarism. We must make economic life independent so that something beneficial for the life of the entire nation can emerge. I therefore appeal to you: Work to ensure that the idea of the threefold social order is carried out to the masses, despite all challenges from the right and the left. The idea of the threefold social order is challenged only by those elements who do not want to take it into account and do not want to allow it to emerge for their own benefit. That is why they fight against it. I believe that we can only improve our national life if we realize the fundamental idea of the threefold social order—the autonomy of economic life, legal life, and spiritual life. Then let us see if we cannot look forward to greater well-being for our people.

Mr. Georg Müller: Dr. Steiner has left several points regarding works councils still very unclear. First, you will all agree with me that establishing works councils is not as easy as some people have a mental image of. The law has already put a stop to that. If we want the works council system as described by Dr. Steiner, then we will have to fight hard in the future, because we must be clear about this: Whatever the working class does will always be thwarted by capitalism. Capitalism remains our greatest adversary even today. As soon as you come up with practical proposals, you will find that every effort to implement them is thwarted. That is why I ask: What is the easiest way to overcome these obstacles? — Some of you will ultimately say that the only way is to strike. But we’re not talking about a strike right now. We must find more practical ways to implement our ideas. If the working class is truly willing to come together, deliberate, and cooperate, we will find other ways—even beyond the law. We don’t just want an advisory voice; we want a decisive voice in the works councils. Not only capitalism, but a large part of the bourgeoisie opposes this. It will take decades to push through works councils as they are conceived here. Workers cannot do it alone, and the others will not give up their businesses for the sake of socialization. The question now is: How far will the struggles go to achieve this? Above all, however, workers must stand more united.

Mr. Hahl: As a representative of the “General Association of German Bank Employees,” I would like to say a few words. I can do so based on the experience I have had the opportunity to gain throughout my varied life.

I was the head of a company in Egypt, and in that role I had the best results when I involved my colleagues—that is, I didn’t just give orders, but also explained business matters to my employees and asked for their opinions. This helped stimulate their interest in the business. Today’s law on works councils puts a stop to genuine employee participation. Above all, this law does nothing to dispel the employees’ feeling that they are, after all, merely in a kind of slave-like relationship to the dominant capitalist system. Through the threefold social order, workers are initiated into the inner workings of the enterprise; they are informed about all its branches, so that they possess not only the right but also the ability to have their say in management. I would also like to say this to the previous speaker: If you possess these abilities, you will not so easily allow yourself to be taken advantage of by the capitalist manager. — In the implementation of works councils in accordance with the threefold social order, people do not work against one another but with one another on the basis of complete equality. Business leaders rail against this and cling to the old system of domination, without realizing that they thereby run the risk of losing everything. For what is now rising up in workers’ circles against the material and spiritual domination by capital will not subside until human labor—which is today degraded to a commodity by prevailing conditions—loses its slave-like character, and this can only happen through the threefold social order and the works councils it requires. The government may socialize as much as it wants, but it cannot escape the unrest until it applies the necessary leverage and attempts to solve the problem through the threefold social order. As long as it merely observes the actions of others without also studying their motives, it cannot gain a clear picture of what the proletarian movement signifies. Today, the government believes that the proletariat’s movement consists of momentary fantasies that can be dismissed with posters on bulletin boards bearing the slogan “Work! Work! Work!” The sufferings that are coming to light today, however, are entirely logical consequences of the conflation of economic life, spiritual life, and legal life. During the war, you could see how the pastor was even forced to say from the pulpit what the state dictated to him as good patriotism. That is the intermingling—and hence the calamity. That is the root of the evil; that is where the lever must be applied so that the individual spheres are made independent, so that schools and the church no longer have to do what the state dictates.

The day before yesterday, the new prime minister spoke those words about the life and death of our people. These words can rightly be applied here. A struggle against the enslavement of the working class is taking place here. And if this state of slavery is not abolished—and it can only be abolished through the threefold social order and the works councils it requires—then it could be that we are indeed condemned to death as a people. Then it could be that the passions that have been stirred up will take everything away from capital, that we will become the battlefield between Bolshevism and the Entente. That is why I consider it the urgent duty of every single person to advocate for the threefold social order and for works councils. That is why I call on you once again to elect works councils in accordance with the threefold social order.

Mr. Münzing: First and foremost, I would like to address something that appears in the book The Key Points of the Social Question. On page 78, it says: “Any increase in capital resulting from the means of production—after deduction of the lawful interest—owes its origin to the workings of the entire social organism.” —“After deducting the lawful interest”—I would ask you to please explain what I am supposed to understand by that. In my view, the entire question surrounding capitalism and socialism ultimately boils down to the words: “Money bears interest; capital bears interest.”

If we examine this idea more closely, we find time and again that money actually differs in that it yields interest without the money itself “working.” As workers, this must be deeply repugnant to us when we hear the phrase: “Money works.” Who works? Surely not money! Money is used so that others can work to generate interest. There are views today that say: The social question can be solved by abolishing commercial profit and the like, and there are many other proposed solutions to the social question. I believe that the social question could be resolved solely by the political parties decreeing: “Interest is prohibited!” This would also apply to war bonds and money in savings banks. I would ask you to give this idea some thought, even if it is not part of tonight’s topic. If a government were to come to power today and declare that money would no longer earn interest, the entire situation would immediately shift. After all, the root cause of all these economic upheavals lies in the fact that capital in savings banks earns interest—that money must “work.” What I find missing from all the political platforms is precisely this simple demand for the abolition of interest. And I would like to ask Dr. Steiner for his views on this matter. I am a newcomer, but I have encountered this issue time and again. Rent is also part of this issue. Rent would then have to be paid in such a way as to cover certain wear and tear on a house, since a house does, after all, lose value through use. And regarding works councils: If works councils are to have any real practical value, they must under all circumstances have the ability to influence not only wage regulations but also pricing regulations.

[ 19 ] Rudolf Steiner: I would like to address only the two questions that were asked directly. Mr. Müller is, in a sense, concerned that the works councils might not be able to assert themselves and that, above all, if they were to approach the employers with what they consider to be their powers, they might simply be rejected. You see, when it comes to such matters, we must also take the actual circumstances into account, and we must absolutely consider that something like these works councils, as conceived here, has, in essence, never before been confronted by the business community. Just consider how, in the course of capitalist development in recent times, the protectionist relationship between the state and capitalist enterprise has emerged more and more. On the one hand, capitalist entrepreneurship supported the state; on the other hand, the state in turn supported entrepreneurship. This is particularly evident in the various causes of war, especially in the West. But a body that has truly emerged from economic life itself—from all sectors of economic life—and that is sustained by the trust of the entire working class—such a body has never before stood in opposition to capitalist entrepreneurship. And I ask you not to overlook this fact. I ask you to compare this with what has already occurred historically—namely, when such united demonstrations took place and these demonstrations were able to bring about change. What matters, quite certainly, as Mr. Müller said, is that this unity, this solidarity, truly exists. And the election of works council members can, after all, only take place if this unity exists. It is supposed to emerge from this unity.

[ 20 ] If the works councils come into being, then they will be a revelation for the unification of the current working class, and then let’s see what happens when the united working class confronts the business community in the form of works councils. After all, it is not merely the works councils of individual companies that face off against individual employers, but the entire body of works councils—composed of members from all industries and companies—that faces off against the employers of an entire economic region. The individual works councils return to their companies as representatives of the entire body of works councils and now face the employer not as individuals, but as representatives of the body of works councils in the respective economic region. This represents a power of which one need only become aware. You can confidently let such a test of strength come to pass; it will have far-reaching consequences. That is one thing.

[ 21 ] The other point is that it cannot be a matter of—as Mr. Müller also said—the works council having merely an advisory role. No, it should not merely have a decision-making role; rather, it should be the actual administrator of the enterprise. It should simply manage the enterprises itself on behalf of the entire workforce. This naturally gives rise to certain difficulties that lie in areas quite different from the mental image you have of them. For example, initiative within a business must not be paralyzed by the fact that many people want to give orders and the like. But all of that can be worked out. That is one thing. But then there is something else to consider. I ask you: What, fundamentally, is the basis of a business’s capital? No matter how much money the capitalists may have, that money has value only if people work—otherwise, it has none! So, the working class is not pitted against those who are still actually entrepreneurs, but against those who merely have money. And in this context, we must be clear about one thing: If we live in reality, then we do not live outside of all time, but rather we live in a specific time. And I do have the feeling that many people among the working class still talk today as if things were the same as they were seven or eight years ago, before we sailed headlong into this catastrophic war. I don’t think many people have given much thought to what it means economically that, once the war was over, all sorts of things were manufactured in some factories and then destroyed again. Such things were done because people no longer knew how to maintain production by natural means. Things have changed, but even today people still have the habit of speaking from a capitalist perspective based on the old conditions.

[ 22 ] You see, in many respects, the situation is such that old truths are no longer truths at all today. Of course, the truth about surplus value is a fundamental truth, but today it has largely ceased to exist—it has already gone up in smoke—and what is so feared today as “capitalism” actually stands on terribly hollow ground. It no longer really knows how to sustain itself. You can see this from the fact that it is already thinking, for the most part: For heaven’s sake, if only we could make our way over to Entente capitalism so we can crawl under its wing; we can no longer manage on our own. — The time is coming when the works councils will no longer stand opposed to capitalism in the old way, but will instead face the collapsing entrepreneurial class and will have to take over what has collapsed. And a time will come when you will say: It was a good thing, after all, that we have these works councils, because someone has to manage the businesses; the others can no longer do it, for entrepreneurship has largely collapsed and can no longer function. That is why these works councils must exist. They may not be present everywhere, but that will work itself out. For the most part, they will find abandoned battlefields. It will even often turn out that business owners will be glad when works councils come on behalf of a unified economic region. Right now, they’re still acting this way because they believe they can rely on the protective state and the laws to cover for them. They want the protective state to cover what they themselves can no longer do. In this case, strange circumstances would arise. Not only would the works councils be mere window dressing, but the channels through which the dilapidated capital could be restored would also be rediscovered—channels through which various resources would flow back to where they had previously drained away. People have strange views on this matter. In Tübingen, a professor said: “In the future, we will become a poor people. People will no longer be able to pay for schools, so the state will have to step in; it will then have to pay for the schools.”—The professor was afraid that people would no longer be able to pay for schools. He had simply forgotten to ask himself: Where does the state get the money? Only from the pockets of individual people! In this regard, laws very often simply mean that things of value are redirected to where people want them to go. And under certain circumstances, laws may be nothing more than a roundabout way of getting capital that is already crumbling back on its feet. A works council system that emerges from economic life, from the working population, will not be like that. It will know how to stand on its own two feet. Then let’s go ahead and put it to the test. There’s no need to assume that the works councils will be powerless in the face of the employer. Depending on the circumstances, the opposite could very well be true.

[ 23 ] We do not live outside of time; rather, we live in a specific era, and in this era, it is crucial that we recognize that capitalism is collapsing. We must anticipate this. We must also be clear that economic life must be rebuilt from a different perspective. And socialism is being ushered in by the collapse that capitalism itself has brought upon itself. For the catastrophe of the World War was at the same time the collapse of capitalism and will, as a result, increasingly influence that collapse. I ask you to bear this in mind. When considering matters that pertain to the future, one must take such factors into account.

[ 24 ] When quoting something like the “law of interest,” I ask that you bear in mind that every sentence in my book aims to honestly state what is actually true, and that my book strictly rejects anything that purports to be “interest on interest.” Thus, genuine capital growth—as is the case today, where capital can double in fifteen years—is impossible if the reality I describe in my book were to come to pass. But I am, of course, speaking of a lawful interest rate. In this regard, I ask you to consider how I speak of capital in my book. For you see, it is easy to deceive people by telling them: If you do away with all interest, then everything will work out properly. — The whole point of all these matters is simply whether it can be done. And I have described only those things that can actually be carried out.

[ 25 ] Consider the situation. If the ideas in my book are put into practice, money takes on a certain character. I have sometimes expressed this to friends in a somewhat trite way by saying: In the economic order described in my book, money truly begins to stink for the first time. What does that mean? It means the following: When I acquire realities—money in and of itself is not a reality; it becomes one only through corresponding power relations—so when I acquire realities, they are subject to the law of consumption. Capitalism in the true sense exists not only within the human world but also in the animal world. When a hamster hoards, when it builds up its winter supply, that is its capital for the near future; the only thing is that it can only be used in the near future, otherwise it would perish. And in our capitalist economic system, we have managed to ensure that, at least for certain short periods of time, money has lost the character of all other realities. What do we do, after all, when we calculate interest? We multiply the money by a percentage and time, and divide by one hundred. This gives us the interest. In doing so, we have calculated with unreal, illusory constructs! We have calculated using what we have set up as representatives of reality. What was produced by capital may have long since become unusable, may even no longer exist at all, and yet, according to our power structures, we can still calculate: capital times percentage and time divided by one hundred. [... In the future, the key will be to be aware—when founding a company or a business—that past labor is always put to use in future labor. And this must happen again and again, for otherwise the entire process of human development would come to a standstill.]

[ 26 ] You see, when you set up a new business, you have to hire new workers, regardless of whether it is a company or an individual doing so. In the past, it was the individual; in the future, it will arise from the structure of society. So you have to hire workers. When you’re setting up a business that can’t yet contribute anything to society, these workers still have to feed themselves and clothe themselves. Therefore, for this business to come into being, work must have been done earlier. So, the possibility must be created for earlier work to be used for later achievements. But this is only possible if, when my earlier work contributes to a later achievement, I derive a certain benefit from it. For in truth, I work—let’s say—quite diligently today, and it doesn’t matter how; but from what I produce today, some new business will be built in ten years. That’s another point. When I work today, I must also receive something in return for my work. The work is simply being saved for the future. And that is what I call legitimate interest, and I have called it that because I want to be honest in my book—I do not want to achieve cheap success by calling white black. In economic life, past labor must be used for future achievements. Just as work in the present yields a return, so too must it, if saved, yield a return in the future. Economic life necessitates that past labor be utilized in the future. Consider, for instance, that capital gradually depletes itself. While capital has now doubled in fifteen years, in the future it will, after fifteen years, more or less cease to exist. The reverse process is taking place! Just as other things go bad, so does money. Thus, capital does not bear interest, but the possibility must be created for past labor to be incorporated into future output. Then you must also receive wages for it. I could have called it “wages” [in my book], but I wanted to be completely honest and express the following: The essence of economics lies in incorporating past labor into future output, and I call the just compensation for this “interest.” That is why I also explicitly stated: There is no interest on interest. That cannot exist, nor can capital be allowed to work arbitrarily. Money goes bad. It perishes just like other things, such as meat and the like. It’s no longer there; it doesn’t continue to work. If you take things as they are presented in my book, you must bear in mind throughout that I’m proceeding from what is possible and what should actually come to be—not from demands that arise when people say, “Let’s do away with this and that.” Yes, my dear listeners, someone might even come up with the crazy idea of saying: ‘Let’s do away with the floor.’—Then we wouldn’t be able to walk anymore! You cannot do away with things that are simply necessary in real economic life or in other areas. You have to take things as they are; only then are you being honest. I don’t promise people the moon, but I want to speak about the real living conditions of the social organism. And so I wanted to speak here about what can actually be accomplished, and that will be precisely what brings about what unconsciously underlies the demands of the broad working masses. And it is better to strive to fulfill these demands based on a knowledge of reality than to lull people into complacency with mere promises.

Mr. Haupt from Esslingen: He voluntarily established works councils at his company quite some time ago. Among other things, he states:

What does the employer think of the works council? He views the establishment of works councils as a specter! It is the worker’s duty to show trust as well and say: We don’t want to tear everything down—that’s not our goal. We want to work, but without a whip, freely and from the heart. - If you approach the employer in this way, he’ll be more accommodating. I know for a fact that a large number of companies in Esslingen would like to handle things this way. But they can’t, because they’ve struck a compromise with the unions. The union leaders have negotiated a collective bargaining agreement—as a last resort, so to speak—to bring together the masses who want nothing to do with them. This is a misstep that will come back to haunt them bitterly. It will become the downfall of the unions. Only the works councils can save us from this mess. The unions have every reason not to do so. The employers’ associations are hiding behind them and are glad that things aren’t moving as quickly with the works councils as they had hoped.

There are three ways to establish works councils: Either the employer in question does it voluntarily—that’s what I did—which is probably the most sensible approach. I told myself: Everything is just in shambles—we’re all clear on that. So let’s see if we can find something new to finally get out of this misery. — The second approach is: Stop talking so much! Act, don’t just talk! Talking serves no purpose. People talk and talk about how much effort the federal government has put in, and say: “Come on, folks, let’s get to work.” You don’t notice a thing—people are asleep. — The third measure is power. But I want to make it clear: power without terror, without strikes—that’s important. — By power, I mean the ability and the awareness of having the masses behind you. They’ll push things through. If the matter were organized as I have in my mental image, the Federation—or a corporation of workers’ representatives—would first convene, and they would listen to the views and objections. The corporation would then make use of this and press its case with the employer. You can’t be rejected any more than that. But if the employers reject it, they’ve created a festering wound; it remains a volcano. Well, that would be the last card the two sides could play. Otherwise, there’s no other option but ruthless terror. We can come together if we only want to. That’s what matters.

The responsibilities of the works council are not so simple. If you have works council members yourself, you know what kinds of strange things can come to light there. There are people who are fully committed, but there are also those who come with political agendas and the like. We’ve already experienced all sorts of things. Finally, I’d like to say this to you: Go vote today, not tomorrow. Get in touch with the “League for the Threefold Social Order.” I’m convinced that the group in Stuttgart will then take matters into their own hands. They’re still trying to reach an agreement with the employers. And then stand before the business owners and say: We declare that the works councils have been elected. - Let’s trust one another! Woe to anyone who goes on strike! You must not go on strike! It must be done without terror, without force, without spiritual oppression, and the like.

Mr. Schlegel: In principle, I am of the opinion that the works councils and the body that unites them—as Dr. Steiner described in his lecture this evening—are the only practical means of carrying out the socialization of economic life, which is intended, so to speak, to create the material foundation for the advancement of humanity. And tonight, this will likely be the only way to take a step toward socialization in order to save our people and our empire—our country—from economic collapse. On the other hand, I believe that works councils should not be established haphazardly simply because the “Bund” wants them to be. The prerequisite, after all, would be that employers do not oppose these works councils. If, for example, works councils are introduced in only some of the businesses, how does one envision their consolidation—that is, the body comprising all the works councils? Regulating production is, after all, the main issue. How does Dr. Steiner envision these bodies acquiring authority if not all political and state power is concentrated in the hands of the works councils? Isn’t it impossible to introduce works councils in a region as small as Württemberg on their own? After all, Württemberg’s industry is not yet sufficient to produce all necessary goods. Württemberg needs trade. I ask Dr. Steiner to comment on these concerns.

Dr. Steiner has said that it is impossible to establish works councils through legal provisions. I am of the opinion that it is necessary to make the election of works councils mandatory according to a centralist principle. The key issue would simply be what form the law would take. It could, after all, take whatever form is necessary. If the entire working class—both white-collar and blue-collar workers—is united and holds political power, then it will be easy to seize political power in the state and then take the necessary measures toward socialization. I direct my appeal above all to the representatives of the socialist parties: it is their duty and responsibility to work, above all, toward achieving unity.

I would like to remind you that we could win over large segments of the working class and the rural population to the idea of socialism if only we were united. We need precisely the intellectual proletariat and the peasantry if we are to carry out socialization. It is understandable that large masses of workers are turning to the USP and the Communists, for when people cannot have their wishes fulfilled, they turn to those who voice their grievances. Dr. Steiner has already pointed out that these ideas are still alive among a large portion of the working class, that conditions today are the same as they were before the outbreak of the war, and that if we were to undertake socialization, we would very quickly achieve material improvement for the masses of the working population. That is a mistake! Even if we were to embark on socialization through the works councils and the threefold social order, all we would achieve at the moment is to save our economic life from collapse for the time being. It will still require years of work—and above all, the smashing of Entente capitalism—before the fruits of socialization become apparent. Party leaders must also point out the actual circumstances to their followers in this regard.

I would also like to point out that a threefold structure of the social organism does in fact exist [Interjection: Oh, really?] and that the point is to transform it and steer it in a different direction [Laughter]. The three spheres are merely intertwined [Laughter]; they simply need to be separated. I say this because in many circles there is a view that something new must be created. It is merely a matter of transformation, specifically according to the principles advocated by the “Alliance for Threefold Social Order.”

Just as necessary as the establishment of works councils would be a greater effort to educate the working class and white-collar workers in ideological matters than has been done so far. The ethical goals of socialism, in particular, have been pushed into the background today in favor of material goals. We must campaign for this. Dr. Steiner believes that the works councils will bring about the unity of the proletariat. I believe that the unity of the proletariat will bring about socialization and the works councils. Mr. Haller: I would like to correct a few things that the speakers have said. One gentleman spoke of power without terror. If the working masses are still so skeptical of these works councils today, it is because the working class knows full well that nowhere in world history is it written that capitalism has ever voluntarily relinquished its privileges and placed the entire system in the hands of the masses. I believe the most important thing is not to rush to elect works councils, but to spread the idea among the masses; for works councils will be elected quickly once the ideas have taken root among the masses. It was said that the election of works councils is preparatory work. I cannot disagree with that, but I would like to emphasize that we have no interest in continuing the future state in a capitalist form. We must build something new.

If the works councils were to become forces to be reckoned with even in the industrial state of Württemberg, it might be impossible to maintain their influence throughout the entire empire in the long run, for the capitalists are united and will eventually reconcile with the Entente capitalists. If the masses of workers were as united internationally as the international capitalists are, we would have been spared this terrible pile of rubble. We must try to take control of the entire economy.

Dr. Steiner said that many people have not yet grasped the concept of socialization. The workers do not understand what is meant by it. There is still much work to be done in educating them. And intellectual workers, too, have not yet realized that they are just as dependent on the employer as the proletarian manual laborer. It has been said that a bridge must be built between manual laborers and white-collar workers. I have not yet seen much of such a bridge being built. If the leaders are not willing to build this bridge, the white-collar workers and the manual laborers must take the necessary steps themselves. When it is said that we might then be ceding the battlefield between Bolshevism and Entente capitalism, I must point out that the circumstances in Russia and in Germany are entirely different. In Russia, the white-collar workers engaged in sabotage. I urge the blue-collar workers to prevent this disaster in this hour of crisis. The white-collar workers must stand by our side so that we may finally achieve our goal. Once a works council is elected today and the entire economic structure is in our hands, a director will have no more rights than a works council member. The works councils are to be the basic unit of economic life. The works councils must step forward and say: “Mr. Director, you may continue to manage the business under our control and leadership. We are not here to drive people away; we simply want equal rights for all.”

Mr. Biel: I had actually intended to refrain from speaking, but since I am also a member of the works council, I would like to say a few words after all. I would like to return to the point of how necessary it is that we seek to create a new economic system. In my opinion, this new economic system can only be achieved through the threefold social order as proposed by Dr. Steiner. You are all well aware that the conditions imposed upon us are very difficult. We will have to start with an initial payment, and this initial payment alone necessitates a restructuring of economic life. We can no longer continue to produce under the old conditions, where we, as workers, are left with the so-called minimum subsistence wage while right next to us a capitalist is making millions. We must then continue to pay, with the very sweat of our brow, the debts incurred by this old society and the capitalists who still remain. For these reasons alone, every person should realize that the old way is simply impossible. I do believe, however, that there is still enough reason left in humanity for the Entente’s terms to be rejected as unworkable. I believe it will happen very soon. Let us step up to the election of works councils and not allow what our brothers in the East have won to slip away again, so that they will not have to reproach us later, saying: “We showed you the way, but you did not want to follow it.” — They have shown us elementary school; now let us see if we are capable of passing the final exam.

Mr. Spörr: It is clear to all of us that works councils are a necessity. It is also clear to us that in our entire intellectual life—in everything we think and feel—we must break new ground. I therefore welcome the fact that Dr. Steiner is able to convey these ideas to the masses in such a compelling way and to find supporters here as well. However, one major question remains unanswered for me in Dr. Steiner’s remarks: How will the employers’ resistance to this movement be broken? Employers will take the position of granting only what they are legally required to grant. But the laws being made today are not crafted by practitioners, but by party bigwigs. Men must rise up to create laws for us that are actually useful. And we must act quickly, or else we will be crushed by Entente capitalism. It will be a long time before the working class of the Entente brings itself to understand what our hardship has taught us.

I believe there is only one guiding principle: namely, that we work as quickly as possible to ensure that intellectual workers become involved in a timely manner wherever the organized working class has already become involved. That was the curse of the revolution—that the educated masses, of all people, were not politically up to the task. Here, the “Bund” has the task, above all, of educating the public. When we look at bourgeois circles today and see that people who owe their freedom of speech to the working class are willing to crush that very same working class, these are factors that give us pause for thought. I do not believe it is right for the government to be able to maintain its power solely through the use of force. Above all, education must be promoted here.

Mr. Gönnewein: Most speakers rightly made it very clear that enough words have been spoken—we want to see action. This cannot be emphasized enough. If we cannot take action today, it is not because the people are not ready, but because they are not united. I believe the people are actually ready. At the very least, one might assume that they have been brought to maturity over the past four years. But attempts are being made from all sides to sow discord among the people, because they do not want anything to come from another source that does not originate from the so-called party leaders themselves. If we still do not have works councils today in various companies—and especially in large companies—it is not because the people are not ready for them, but because attempts are being made from all sides to prevent it. We are willing to do so. But precisely because it was Dr. Steiner who came up with this idea of threefold social order—and not those who consider themselves called to do so—that is why it is not the right thing. I recall that when Dr. Steiner gave his first lectures to the working class, the workers cheered him and declared that something had come along that could free the working class from misery. After the matter was investigated, the party leaders came to the conclusion that if they paid too much homage to the cause, various leaders might lose their positions. — So they dragged the whole thing through the mud, causing many to fawn over the party bigwigs in order to drum up support for them. It is not the work of the party bigwigs that is dangerous, but rather their minions, because they allow a dogma to be imposed upon them. This is an unhealthy dynamic. As long as this is not understood, we will not be able to extricate ourselves from this confusion.

It has been rightly pointed out that people are trying to give nothing but inflammatory speeches. They can go anywhere. Every day offers an opportunity to hear all sorts of things. Today, it would have been appropriate—and a particular source of satisfaction—if these gentlemen had come to the discussion evening and clearly told us that they have something better than Dr. Steiner’s idea. We try at every opportunity to invite them, in the hope of finally hearing something better. But that has not yet happened.

It has already been pointed out that capitalism will not relinquish its privileges—of course not. For us, it is an invincible adversary; we are well aware of that. We know full well that it can only be brought down through intense struggle. But we can no longer even speak of such a form of capitalism. After such misery, it is no longer possible to speak of capitalism on this scale. Today, if we do not want to succumb to misery, it is essential that we unite all of humanity to salvage something from the rubble. There can be no question of not expressing solidarity with intellectual workers. One speaker said that the bridge between manual and intellectual workers has not yet been built. Certainly, there are manual workers who have the good will to build that bridge. But I would like to remind you that it is precisely those who have not yet seen the bridge who are preventing us from doing what is necessary. For example, when you speak with an engineer or a senior executive, they call out at you: “Look at this traitor to the workers! He’s cozying up to capitalism!” How, then, can we build the bridge to bring about an agreement? This undoubtedly requires further reflection.

When it is said that we must take up the struggle against capitalism, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, and then introduce the threefold social order, we are aware that, unless we hold power, the endeavor is bound to fail because of the entrepreneurial spirit. However, I have come to the conclusion that things will not remain this way, but that the times ahead will already bring us some progress. We would indeed have to be out of our minds if we did not see from the present situation that something new must come. But then it is necessary that we not fall into the same mistake as on November 9, when we were, after all, deceived about the whole situation, by not approaching the matter with sufficient awareness. We must grapple today with the idea of wanting to establish something tangible, so that when we have the power, we’ll also know how to make something of it. When the communists tell me, “We want everything to be the way we envision it,” I call out to them: “I hear the message well, but I lack the faith.” —One must ask: If the people are not yet ready for socialism, how could communism possibly take root? Unfortunately, we have not yet reached that point, which is why we are focusing on what gives us the opportunity to rise up toward the light. And here I must say: The threefold social order is a stage from which we can ascend to socialism. That is why it is unfair that we are constantly being berated for declaring our solidarity with the capitalists who have come down to the level of the proletariat to work together with the proletarians so that humanity can survive. Things today can no longer be viewed the same way they were in 1913. Someone should come forward today and explain to us how we can find a better way out of this misery! As long as that does not happen, it is inappropriate to drag this idea through the mud in the newspapers and elsewhere. Today would be the perfect opportunity for these gentlemen to step forward and show a better way. I call out to you: Do not let these gentlemen mislead you! If you have embraced the idea of the threefold social order, do not let them tell you: “This is not the right path”—but choose for yourselves! Do not allow yourselves to be counted among those who let a dogma be imposed upon them, but walk the straight path as class-conscious workers ready for struggle within the parties! But when it comes to embracing an idea, you can also find inspiration here in the “League for Threefold Social Order.” Here, the proletarian—and indeed the class-conscious fighter—has nothing to apologize for. That is why, whenever the party approaches you, you must say that it is unjust to restrict you from going where your conscience leads you, where you can learn something.

On July 2, there will be a continuation of this discussion here. I would like to ask you: Please bring along people who do not yet believe in the threefold social order. Anyone who has been listening closely tonight will have already realized what this is all about. We no longer need to hold seminars or try to figure out what the “Bund” wants, but we should strive to carry the idea of the threefold social order into other circles as well, and tell the leaders that they need to buckle down and read Dr. Steiner’s book. Then they’ll surely come to a different conclusion. Shout it right in their ears so they’ll finally understand, because they’re slow on the uptake.

[ 27 ] Rudolf Steiner: I have only a few more things to say to you, but these few will be necessary.

[ 28 ] It was first stated that, in principle, the only practical way to resolve the question of socialization would lie in what the Threefold Social Order advocates with regard to works councils or something similar. But the “League for Threefold Social Order” has been criticized for wanting to allow works councils to be elected in a haphazard manner. Yes, I actually don’t quite understand what is meant by the claim that this particular process is supposed to be a “haphazard” election. Under certain circumstances, one might even come to the conclusion—if one studies the draft of the law on works councils, which was published in the press some time ago, with a completely open mind—that it is, in fact, a haphazard affair. So it comes down to trying to view the matter truly impartially. Then it will become clear that, in fact, if what we envision as works councils comes to fruition out of economic life, a significant portion of what must be established as a real power in the future will already be in place. If people are always saying, “We won’t get anywhere unless we have this or that,” and that “economic power is of no use to us unless we have political power,” and so on, then one must counter that the point is simply to start somewhere, and not to let ourselves be deterred by constantly saying, “That’s no use” and “This is no use.”

[ 29 ] Look, I can certainly understand when someone says: Even if a small region like Württemberg elects works councils, not everyone will do so; all of Germany should vote. Yes, of course it would be best if the whole world were to elect works councils right away. But I think that since we can’t do this all at once throughout the whole world, let’s start where we can. We have to work with the circumstances that exist, and for now, that means Württemberg as a unified economic region. If we just start somewhere, then—if the initiative takes hold—it will be possible to expand it further. I think we shouldn’t let all the objections deter us. If works councils cannot be established throughout all of Germany right away, then we must simply focus on what is fruitful for Württemberg. What really matters is that we understand this threefold social order—that we see the matter must be taken in hand in each of the three separate, independent spheres of the social organism. I must say that the esteemed speaker who spoke of the “wild” works councils—because they have emerged purely from economic life—has not yet fully grasped the threefold social order; otherwise, he could not have said that this threefold social order actually already exists and that the three members are merely jumbled together. Of course, these three members of the social organism are there, but the fact that they used to be jumbled together is precisely what was wrong. That is why we want to separate them. It is not a matter of whether they exist, but of how they are structured—or rather, how they should be structured. And the “League for the Threefold Social Order” certainly would not have been formed if it were not a matter of placing precisely these three elements side by side in their independence in the right way. What matters is that the three elements stand side by side in the right way in life.

[ 30 ] A number of other things were said as well, particularly by that one gentleman who, with a slight, smiling glance, once again took a swipe at the “idealists.” But what that gentleman said—precisely that—was thoroughly imbued with a certain abstract idealism. He said, for example: “Practical people must arise.”—Yes, we must present things to people as they are; that is what makes one a practical person, not when one idealistically proclaims: “Practical people must arise.” We do not want to wait; rather, we want to take such measures that the practitioners can assert themselves. That is what we can do. The call “Practitioners must arise” is an abstractly idealistic call. Nor should one say: A struggle will arise. — That does not give rise to practical people; rather, they arise through the liberation of spiritual life and other spheres. For when it is said time and again that we need development, and a certain pessimism is introduced into the whole matter, I would like to draw your attention to the fact—though I have also pointed this out in the relevant sections of my book—that certain things cannot be accomplished overnight. But after all, works councils can, in a certain sense, be set up overnight, and then things will move forward. It is not a matter of constantly pointing to the need for development, but rather of getting to work on what can actually be done right away. I actually always want to call out to those who speak of “development” that they strike me as someone sitting in a room where the air has become stale, and who—before fainting—could indeed open the window to let in fresh air, but would simply have to take that next step. They shouldn’t wait until “development” brings about better air. — That is what we should finally understand: that wherever human actions are involved, people must actually roll up their sleeves and get to work. We cannot wait until the workers of the Entente are able to come to our aid. If we do what the workers here are supposed to do, then there is a chance that we will make progress and tackle the most immediate tasks. That will do us more good than devoting ourselves to abstract ideals.

[ 31 ] Now I would like to return to one point in particular. It is always said that socialization can arise only from the unity of the proletariat. One might just as well say—and this would be the truly practical approach—that the proletariat should, for once, try to devote itself to a great task! What, then, causes disunity? It arises because people do not set themselves the right tasks, because they talk past the issues, because they do not discuss what really matters—not where the shoe pinches—but instead draft party platforms that can be varied at will. One person can say one thing, and another can say another. But when it comes to truly substantive matters, the proletarians are in agreement. They need only reflect on the fact that it is the substantive issues that matter. Therefore, let us try to establish a body that emerges from the trust of the working class, in which substantive issues and practical necessities are discussed. You’ll see that agreement will already be reached there, because people will be talking about something that is real, and not about something that is merely a party platform or the like. Party platforms are mostly there to sidestep the real issues. Try to get started with this works council and use it to discuss the practical matters yourselves, and perhaps unity will arise of its own accord precisely because of that.

Mr. Gönnewein: You have heard the closing remarks, and I would like to add: Take to heart what has been said! Share it with your colleagues so that it may bear fruit for the benefit of the threefold social organism. — The meeting is hereby adjourned.