The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Sixth Discussion Evening

The chair, Mr. Roser, opens the meeting

Introductory Remarks

[ 1 ] Rudolf Steiner: My dear friends! I will keep my remarks brief again today and hope that you will make active use of the discussion, so that we may perhaps be able to discuss one or two specific details today. Since events are increasingly pushing for a restructuring of the social order, it would not be good if the efforts intended to bring about such a restructuring—that is, efforts such as the establishment of works councils—were to fall completely dormant once again. For, my dear friends, there are certainly people who would be quite happy if this works council movement were to fall dormant again. All the more reason, then, for us to strive to keep it alive. Having spoken at the last meeting about the threefold social order and its connection to the works council issue, I would like to say a few words to you today about something that, particularly in light of the threefold social order, can foster an understanding of the works council movement.

[ 2 ] As you know, our initial goal is simply to establish works councils within the individual companies. We want works councils to be elected from within the individual companies, so that they are simply in place and then form a federation of works councils covering an economic region that is, for the time being, self-contained—let’s say Württemberg. At a founding assembly of this association of works councils, everything pertaining to the tasks, authority, and so on of the works councils would then be determined. As a result, for the first time—independent of the other two institutions, namely spiritual life and state or legal life—economic measures would emerge from the individuals engaged in economic activity. These measures would thus first be decided upon at the founding assembly of the association of works councils. Only then would the tasks be established. Then the individual works council members elected in the enterprises would return to their workplaces and assume their duties there. At the same time, the demands—which can only be made in the context of general socialization—would also be on the table. If there were then genuine unanimity—for in this unanimity lies the power—any government, whatever it may be, would have to comply. I even believe that some people already have a clear sense of what it would mean if these works council members were elected from all workplaces and formed a constituent assembly across a unified economic region, and if resolutions were then adopted by this constituent assembly that were backed by the confidence of the entire working class of that economic region. That would be real power, for in the long run no government, no legislative body, will be able to oppose a power founded on independent judgment, unanimity, and trust. In this way, one can quite concretely envision the path forward. But with that, the first step toward true socialization would be taken—a socialization that can ultimately arise only from the decisions and measures of the working people themselves. Perhaps only then, once the decisions of such a workers’ council are in place, will people truly understand what socialization actually means.

[ 3 ] However, we must also be aware that the election of works council members must be handled with great discernment, for this works council will, in many respects, have to implement entirely new economic measures and provide entirely new impetus. I have often said, when speaking about these matters in connection with the threefold social order, that what we need above all at the present time is a change in thinking—a genuine change in thinking. And I have a mental image of the situation in which, for the first time within a unified economic region—supported by the trust of the entire workforce—the general assembly unanimously adopts such an economic measure. It is precisely then that a change in thinking, a re-learning, could come to the fore. But one must realize just how profoundly economic life today actually needs to be rethought. I would therefore like to describe an example of the old way of thinking so that you can get a sense of the difficult tasks facing the works councils.

[ 4 ] You see, this old way of thinking is not merely a collection of ideas, but rather the expression of the economic order that existed until now and that came to an end with the catastrophe of the World War. But the way people used to think still lingers into the present day, and that is precisely what, fundamentally speaking, must one day be thoroughly eradicated from people’s minds. I would now like to cite a characteristic example of this. An essay has just been published by a very famous professor of economics from the old regime—that is, by a man whose thinking embodies much of what the old regime, the so-called private-capital regime that must be overcome, has produced. I would like to cite what is said there by Professor Dr. Lujo Brentano as an example of what prevailed in the old regime. Brentano’s ideas pertain to the entrepreneur of the old regime, and he earnestly endeavors, as far as he is able, to form a concept of what the private entrepreneur actually is. That he by no means regards this private entrepreneur as a superfluous piece of furniture in the future economic order is evident from Brentano’s concluding remarks. He says:

“Many people today believe that private enterprise is coming to an end. They see the banks’ control over so many large-scale enterprises as the beginning of the absorption of all enterprise into a single, unified entity—and, through this, the transition of all enterprises into state-run operations. We are only at the beginning of a development that is opening up regions of the world previously largely untouched by private enterprise, and experience to date has shown that, in the competition for this development, the various nations emerge victorious the less they rely on the state and the more they leave it to private initiative. The more the national economies of individual nations become part of the global economy, the greater the scope for private enterprise, and the brighter its future. However, it will fulfill its mission not only all the more beneficially, but also all the more harmoniously—and thus all the more advantageously for itself— the more unreservedly it recognizes one of the fundamental principles of today’s economic order—personal freedom—even in the structuring of labor relations, and the more it seeks to earn the money it earns not by increasing value through the stunting of the needs that its products are intended to serve, but through the most complete possible satisfaction of those needs with the most economical use of the means of production. As long as this remains the perspective that guides them, their end is not yet in sight.”

[ 5 ] So you see, a true representative of the old economic order is saying here that private enterprise is not only not coming to an end, but that it is now more than ever beginning to flourish, because without this private enterprise, the economic order that is to develop in the future would be completely impossible. So we are faced with the view that still dominates many circles today—namely, that abolishing private enterprise is out of the question, since it has a future. That is why, if one is to approach the question of replacing the old entrepreneurial system with works councils seriously—and not merely as a matter of agitation—one must grapple a bit with the ideas that are floating around in people’s minds. One must, so to speak, be prepared; one must know what people are thinking and what arguments they will raise when conflicts arise between the representatives of the old order and the representatives of the future—that is, those who wish to advocate for works councils.

[ 6 ] Now you see, this economics professor wants to clarify for himself the concept of the entrepreneur and present it to the public. He asks himself: What is an entrepreneur? Well, he now lists three characteristics of the true entrepreneur. First, “that he holds the right to dispose of the factors of production necessary for the manufacture of a product.” But first, we must clarify what this gentleman actually means by “factors of production.” What he means by this is made crystal clear by one of his statements. He doesn’t even come up with this statement himself; rather, he borrows it from Emil Kirdorff, one of the most successful men in business practice to date. He says: “We, the directors of joint-stock companies, are also employees of the company and have duties and responsibilities toward it.” And good old Brentano now figures out that the “elements of production” also include such directors as Privy Councilor Emil Kirdorff—meaning that the entrepreneur must have the right to dispose of the “elements of production,” which also includes directors. The entire workforce, right up to the directors—all of them are “elements of production.” First, then, an entrepreneur is someone who has the right to dispose of the “elements of production”; these also include the directors. And a man like Kirdorff understands quite well that he is not actually a human being, but rather an “element of production” in economic life. One must really understand what kinds of concepts are in people’s minds. That is why I have repeatedly emphasized that it is necessary to rethink and relearn. So that was the first characteristic of a true entrepreneur.

[ 7 ] The second is “that he assigns these elements of production a purpose—to serve a specific productive end—and disposes of them accordingly.” Here, one must bear in mind that this refers to all people engaged in production; he must therefore assign a purpose to them. That is the second characteristic.

[ 8 ] The third is “that he does this at his own expense and risk.” We now have all three characteristics of a true entrepreneur as defined by the old regime—that is, the entrepreneur who, according to the old regime, must continue to exist to uphold the future economic order and is expected to play an even greater role there than before.

[ 9 ] You see, unless one is afflicted with the blinders of professors, entrepreneurs, or others, one must surely admit that individuals possessing these three characteristics will not tolerate the realities that are now being created in Europe, because, after all: We have come so far in our understanding that the future cannot depend on a small number of entrepreneurs who dictate the fate of the “elements of production”—that is, the far greater number of people, the masses. But that is precisely what is being demanded. Let us, however, follow the train of thought of this representative of the old regime a little further. It is, in fact, extraordinarily interesting. You’ll probably think I’m joking now, but what follows is actually in this essay; I’m not joking. For after first portraying the vast mass of workers as “elements of production,” Brentano—strangely enough—also counts the workers, the proletariat, among the entrepreneurs! He says: “Even if the worker is not, therefore, a producer of the finished product ready for consumption, he is nonetheless a producer of an independent good that he brings to market at his own expense and risk. He, too, is an entrepreneur—an entrepreneur of labor services.”

[ 10 ] So you see, ladies and gentlemen, we now have before us the concept of the entrepreneur, as presented by a leading contemporary economist. This concept of the entrepreneur is so vague—indeed, it is such that all of you sitting here are nothing but entrepreneurs: entrepreneurs of your own labor, which you bring to market at your own expense and risk. Yes, and now there’s something else to consider. Brentano says that the problem everyone keeps talking about doesn’t actually exist, since everyone is an entrepreneur. That is why he had to determine what actually accounts for the fact that the vast majority are not satisfied with being entrepreneurs of their own labor, acting on their own account and at their own risk. He says: “There was once a time when the worker was not this; a time when he was absorbed into the enterprise in which he was employed. He was not yet an independent economic unit, but merely a cog in his employer’s economic machine. That was the time of the worker’s personal lack of freedom. The interest in the progress of his own economic enterprise then led the employer to awaken in the worker he employed an interest in his own performance. This brought about the gradual emancipation of the worker and, ultimately, his complete liberation.” Fine, but the problem lies in the following. There is another nice sentence that goes like this: “The capitalist entrepreneur, however, has not yet fully come to terms with this transformation from a master into a mere purchaser of labor.” So the problem consists solely in the fact that the business owner has not yet come to terms with this role—that is, no longer being a master in the old sense, but rather a buyer of labor. With this, Brentano is actually saying the following: If the worker sells his labor to the business owner at his own risk and expense, then everything is fine. All that remains is for the entrepreneur to learn to understand what it means to be a buyer of labor. —It is only because he does not yet understand this that harm still exists. So all that is left is to finally drive it home to the entrepreneur: You simply must learn to buy labor on the labor market, which the worker sells to you as the entrepreneur of his labor power.

[ 11 ] Yes, it is, of course, a strange certificate that this gentleman is issuing to the entrepreneurs. The proletariat has now reached the point where it asserts that, above all else, labor must no longer be a commodity. That gentleman, however, attests to the entrepreneurs that they have not even risen to the realization that they are buyers of labor. Thus, this luminary of economics considers today’s entrepreneurship to be very backward.

[ 12 ] But what does all this actually mean? You see, you just have to face the full gravity of this fact. Lujo Brentano is one of the most famous economists of our time; he is one of those who have perhaps instilled the most concepts into the minds of those who, as intellectuals, speak about economic life—and today we can catch him, as a university professor and a respected figure in economics, spouting nothing but utter nonsense. Yes, we must already face these facts clearly today. After all, we often succumb today to a belief in authority that is far, far worse than the Catholics’ belief in the authority of the church hierarchy ever was. People simply refuse to admit this. That is why we must make these things clear to ourselves, and we must learn from such things what a great task this works council system will have. Above all, it will have to show what economic life really is, because what has emerged from intellectual circles as the result of reflection on economic life was, after all, just “Kohl.” But what exactly is this “Kohl”? Let’s just consider it in terms of its reality. Why is this “Kohl” even there? People haven’t even come up with it themselves. If they had, they would have come up with an even bigger mess. They didn’t even come up with it; they simply studied the conditions as they are now, and these conditions are precisely confused—they are chaos. Gradually, this thoughtlessness regarding supply and demand in all areas of economic life has led to this chaos. To begin reshaping this from the ground up—that must be the first act of true socialization. We need, I would say, this sense of the gravity of what the works council system is meant to be. And I would like to speak of this gravity again and again, because even in some circles of the proletariat there is still so little of this gravity and awareness of the magnitude of the task.

[ 13 ] You see, when people speak today of the threefold social order, what are they really talking about? They are talking about what must happen so that the decades-old demands of the proletariat can be met. But what is the response to this? Well, yet another article has appeared in the Tribüne. It is titled “Dr. Steiner and the Proletariat.” It states, for example, that this threefold social order is merely a matter of ideas, and that there are already more than enough ideas floating around at present. That is what I would call a reckless assertion. Then let this gentleman just point out the ideas that are now swirling around in such abundance. Let him prove just one fruitful idea! It is precisely a lack of ideas that plagues the present. That is indeed the case, and yet here it is recklessly claimed that ideas are just swirling around in the air. And then it is said: “What helps the worker—and I am speaking here only of manual laborers—to improve his life is not sophistry, but the energetic realization of socialism.”—But what, exactly, is the realization of socialism? You see, if one just keeps saying “socialism, socialism,” all one has is a phrase, a word! But you have to show the way! When someone says, “What helps the worker improve his life is socialism”—it strikes me as if someone were to say, “I want to go to Tübingen”—and I tell him, “Well, you can take the train; trains leave at such-and-such times.” — I’m telling him exactly how to get to Tübingen, just as the path to the threefold social organism specifies exactly how to achieve socialization. He says: “It’s sophistry for you to give me the train times; I’m telling you, if I want to get to Tübingen, I’ll only get there by making my way over to Tübingen.” — You could put it something like this: I don’t want a specific, concrete path laid out in detail; rather, I want socialism. — I want to get to Tübingen by making the journey there.

[ 14 ] Well, the article goes on to say: “Anyone who is concerned with public life will very often address—and will have to address—political and economic issues together in a single sentence.” Yes, but this happens because everything has been muddled together. But these must be kept separate. It then continues: “Therefore, not a ‘threefold social order,’ but the realization of socialism!” So, once again: I want to come to Tübingen by making the transition.

[ 15 ] Yes, one must certainly consider what stands in the way of such a genuine mapping out of the path, as we are attempting to do with regard to the works council issue—which has already been discussed many times—based on the ideas of the threefold social organism. After all, a genuine charting of the course is thwarted by the tendency to always just love to pull the wool over people’s eyes. But with empty promises—no matter how beautiful they may be—nothing will be achieved; rather, it will be achieved solely by taking specific measures, such as what I told you about at the beginning today. Let us elect works council members who are present as real people, not as ideas floating through the air! These people can then draw on their economic experience to decide what is necessary for the recovery of our economic life. Today, it is simply necessary that we move beyond mere talk and gain insights into economic life, and use these insights to drive further development. I have shown you today that we cannot rely on the luminaries or the authorities in this regard. I have introduced you to one of the most famous among them through his latest remarks. I created a mental image of him in such a way that you could see the value of it when those who parrot others keep saying: “Yes, that’s what the famous Mr. So-and-so said; there’s nothing else to counter that.” Certainly, if one always points out what this or that person has said in light of current events, one still does not know how things really stand—even if that person is famous. But when you catch them on such points—where concepts become confused, where concepts fall apart—it becomes clear that we must rethink and relearn in the present. And so I would like to say again and again: if not through anything else, then surely this rethinking and relearning will have to come about through necessity. Even those who are still resisting today will have to relearn, for in the coming years and decades, many things will happen in this poor Central Europe—and many things will have to happen—if, for example, a third of Central Europe’s population can no longer be fed, if the old conditions persist in the form they have taken on as a result of this terrible Treaty of Versailles, this so-called “peace.” A third of Central Europe’s population would have to die out or be killed if the old conditions were to be maintained.

[ 16 ] The reason for the current restructuring is, of course, that things simply cannot continue as they are. But what would be immediately imminent—namely, the death or extermination of one-third of the population of Central Europe—should be enough to convince people today that they simply cannot remain stuck in their old, complacent mindset and say: “We are practical people; such ideas are just ideas—we certainly can’t get involved in them!” — No, people are simply too complacent to engage with what is truly practical. Today, this practical approach must be comprehensive; it must not be limited to this or that area, but must encompass the entire economic sphere. And if one is unwilling to shed this complacency of thought when examining the circumstances, one will not make any progress. Well, with these words, I wanted to point out to you how we must move forward, and now we can begin the discussion.

Discussion

Mr. Roser: From Dr. Steiner’s remarks on Brentano’s article, it is abundantly clear where things are headed. It is now up to us to show that the proletariat will not remain stagnant, as the luminaries of political economy imagine, but that it will take its destiny into its own hands. Our first duty is to promote socialization by establishing works councils in accordance with the threefold social order; otherwise, we are heading toward a chaos so great that we cannot even begin to imagine it. We must make the economic sphere independent through our own power. This does not mean that this must be achieved through violence; that is not necessary. It is precisely Dr. Steiner’s proposals—precisely the idea of making economic life independent in the spirit of the threefold social order—that must be the path along which we are primarily able to work in practice. There can be no doubt about it: If the works councils are properly elected based on the trust of the masses—so that perhaps a thousand come together in Württemberg—do you believe the government would have the means or the courage to break up these works councils? — I find that hard to believe, for the working class that elected these works councils to carry out practical work will surely also provide the necessary support to ensure that the works councils can function. We must absolutely uphold the idea of establishing works councils, for this is the only path that can lead us out of the chaos—that through the establishment of works councils and the works council movement, a legislative body will indeed come into being to carry out socialization in the spirit of the threefold social order. Only in this way can we be saved from ruin. The idea of the threefold social order is so grand, so powerful, that every single person ought to grasp it—out of their own initiative, out of their own interest—because as a proletarian, they must say to themselves: My future is at stake; I have a duty and obligation to do everything in my power to push this idea through. —With this in mind, I ask you to join the discussion. Please speak your mind.

Emil Leinhas: Dr. Steiner presented an article to you today by a leading figure in the field of economics. As it happens, I also happen to have with me a piece in which a leading figure in the field of practice expresses his views on socialization. This is Privy Councilor of Commerce Deutsch, the chairman of the board of directors of the General Electricity Company. The fact that it is deemed desirable to present this great practitioner’s statement on socialization to the broader public is evidenced by the fact that the venerable Berlin Chamber of Commerce is publishing this memorandum, accompanied by the following introduction. The Chamber of Commerce writes:

“In connection with studies on the anticipated effects of the nationalizations carried out under the Act of March 23, 1919, with which we are currently engaged, we have received from our member, Mr. Geheimen Kommerzienrat Deutsch, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft, statistical compilations along with explanations regarding the ratio of labor to capital in the profits of a large number of industrial enterprises, which we hereby present to the public as a contribution to the assessment of these issues.”

The Chamber of Commerce is making additional copies of the memorandum available to those who wish to assist by distributing it. And what does this beacon of practical wisdom have to say about socialization? I would like to read a few passages to you; they speak for themselves:

“How is it that the word ‘socialization’ has taken root with such indomitable tenacity in millions of minds, and that the working class, above all, sees in it a panacea that would put an end to all their grievances and dissatisfaction with their economic situation in one fell swoop? This dissatisfaction and the workers’ hostility toward the capitalist system of production are constantly fueled by the inflammatory notion that a small number of capitalists claim the vast majority of the profits from industrial labor for themselves, while the working class must be content with a small share. This idea is as false as it is inflammatory, and as long as we fail to convince the workers of this, a fruitful and peaceful cooperation between the two factors of economic production will be impossible in the long run.”

[E. Leinhas then went on to discuss Deutsch’s remarks. Since he himself had announced that further details on the subject would soon be published, his subsequent remarks were not recorded.] Mr. Stecher reports on the Haushahn factory: We have frequently discussed the question of the threefold social order among our colleagues at the factory. I was able to ascertain that, on this issue, the entire workforce—with the exception of those who engage solely in propaganda for party purposes—is sympathetic to the cause. This morning, at the invitation of the Bund, I, as chair of the workers’ committee, contacted the employees’ committee at our company regarding the works councils. The chair of the white-collar workers’ committee told me that he, too, was sympathetic to the cause, but he then added: “After all, good things should come from the government.” Dr. Steiner also gave us a lecture in Weil im Dorf a few days ago that made a tremendous, profound, and unforgettable impression. People flocked there from all over. — I call on the workers’ and employees’ committees present here to join forces and discuss the cause of threefolding wherever they have influence. You can, of course, request speakers from the Federation for Threefolding to help promote the cause. The speakers will find willing ears and willing hearts among the workers. Business circles are already showing interest as well. A manager at our company told me that he, too, is looking into the matter, because it is well known that if things continue as they are now, we are heading for bankruptcy. Something new must come along. Unfortunately, the office staff still lacks interest in these pressing issues. But if we do not come together and work together, we will not make any progress.

Mr. Conradt: The Federation for Threefold Social Order is often accused of wanting to dismantle the political parties, much like the syndicalists. Surely the Federation would never even consider such a thing. I have heard this accusation dozens of times. Precisely when one is committed to the idea of threefolding, one can clearly see what is fruitful within the political parties and that there is something alive in them that contributes positively to our national life only if the impulses within the parties are not carried out in a one-sided manner. There are, however, currents within the parties that belong to an ascending culture, and currents that belong to a descending culture. The good must simply be brought to life in the right way.

[Mr. Conradt’s subsequent remarks were no longer recorded verbatim by the stenographer. A brief summary reads as follows: “Mr. Conradt goes on to say that, with regard to the threefold social order, social measures can only be taken in the economic sphere, that democracy belongs only to the political or legal sphere, but that one can speak of anarchism in the spiritual-cultural sphere if one strips the word of its negative connotations.”

It is also reported that a new works council has been formed at the Faber company and that the following motion was submitted by the workers' committee of the Julius Faber company:]

“Today’s meeting of the employees’ and workers’ committees requests that the works council members elected to date join together as a works council as soon as possible, and instructs this provisional works council to undertake all preparatory work it deems necessary to promote the idea of works councils everywhere and to secure for the works councils the influence to which they are entitled. — Signed, Glatz, Chairman of the Works Council and Chair of the Workers’ Committee at Julius Faber.”

Mr. Glatz: The motion submitted by our Workers’ Committee, which has just been presented to you, speaks for itself. We have now met on numerous occasions without actually achieving any practical results. Given the current circumstances, we have every reason to work as quickly and intensively as possible to achieve what we all strive for—something practical for the working class and for all of humanity. We must not allow interest to wane instead of growing. First and foremost, it will of course be necessary to encourage the formation of works councils in those factories where none yet exist. Furthermore, the campaign must also be extended to rural areas.

The owner of our company personally brought Dr. Steiner’s lectures to our attention. He holds very liberal views and is a prominent figure in business circles. After we had looked into the matter of the threefold social order and, on our own initiative, sought to hold a works council election, he then took the opposite position and said: The employers had decided to wait with the works councils until the matter was regulated by law. He could not recognize us as a works council. — We went ahead with the election anyway. The resolution was passed unanimously; the white-collar employees also joined in. The election took place in the factory itself amid great enthusiasm. It is gratifying to note that nearly all employees and workers exercised their right to vote, despite the company’s resistance. Even if the company does not recognize the works councils, they have nonetheless been elected. And since the majority of the works council members also belong to the workers’ committee, they must at least be heard.

I would therefore like to ask you to support the motion so that this matter can be properly addressed.

Mr. Roser: I would like to announce that twelve works council members have been elected so far. I would also like to express the hope that the works council will be formed either later this week or early next week. Of course, we need works councils not only in Stuttgart, but this initiative must be extended throughout all of Württemberg. I would therefore like to make a special appeal to those present to show even more interest in the idea of works councils than they have so far. Furthermore, I can report that new works councils are in the process of being formed. Next week, we will notify the individual works councils of when they are to meet. Then they can pass the necessary resolutions among themselves.

Mr. Jansen: I would like to present a document to you that deserves to be made public. I do not wish to name the company; that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I simply want to highlight the entire line of reasoning:

“The undersigned officials have not officially declared, either in writing or orally, that they were elected by the staff to serve as works council members. As has already been stated, our position on the matter is as follows: First, the election by the workers has been contested, and this contestation has been upheld by management through a corresponding announcement. Consequently, the validity of the election is in doubt. Second, according to a paper by Dr. Steiner, only those individuals who are in a completely independent position—dependent neither on the boss nor on the business in any other way—are eligible to serve as works council members. Since this is not the case for us, and we civil servants find ourselves in a distinctly dependent position, the validity of our election is also in doubt. Third: According to a report from a gentleman, socialization has already taken place at the …, in that all surpluses, after payment of the guaranteed interest rate of five percent, are transferred in full to the municipal government and thereby made available to the general public. From this perspective, the supervisory board has rejected the establishment of a works council. Efforts are underway to convene a joint meeting of all committees to discuss the works council matter. Fourth, we take a stance in favor of works councils that may be elected in accordance with the law. As far as we know, according to Dr. Steiner, the plan is to carry out the socialization of companies in such a way that the employer, the management, the supervisory boards, and all shareholders are to be eliminated, and that the so-called works council—or rather, the entire workforce—is to take their place. Since this amounts to an overthrow of the existing order and existing laws, we hereby declare that we do not support such efforts and therefore cannot accept election as works council members.”

This is truly a document of world-historical significance! Here are people who, after half a year, have finally broken free from conditions of dependence thanks to the revolution, and yet they declare: “Because we don’t want to take on capitalism, we must not participate, for we are, after all, in the service of capitalism.” They have an interest in ensuring that sacred capitalism remains in place and that, as employees, they are the ones who want to help prop up this idol so that the golden calf does not topple. The logic in this document is a sign that there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done to hammer out this stupidity. It will require the iron fist of the proletariat to carry out this task. However, I will seek contact with these authorities and try to find out to what extent the document corresponds to the facts and to what extent these gentlemen are rebelling against any economic reconstruction.

[ 17 ] Rudolf Steiner: Regarding this document, which is very interesting, I would like to note that, as it seems, there are currently employees who are able to develop the following line of thought: The law on works councils is not yet a law, but merely a draft. So there is still no law on works councils. However, based on the four sentences, these gentlemen take the position that it is not merely a matter of overthrowing the existing order—which is debatable, but we need not discuss that— — of the existing order and the laws—if one disapproves of any existing law; rather, you take the position that it is already an unlawful subversion to violate today any law that does not yet exist, that you do not yet know, or a law that might be enacted in the future. In other words, these gentlemen undertake to guarantee their obedience from the outset to all laws that may be imposed upon them.

Mr. Nagel, Dresden: Anyone who has followed Dr. Steiner’s remarks on Brentano’s essay will no longer find it incomprehensible that the government could approach us with a bill such as the one on works councils. Our concern cannot be to establish such works councils; rather, we must gain control of economic power. Here in Dresden, unfortunately, the movement is still very small, but it is well known that Dresden is fifty years behind the times. However, having studied the conditions here, I hope that my report will provide enough inspiration back home so that fruitful work can be done there as well. It was very gratifying for me to see that so many workers in Stuttgart have already committed themselves to the threefold social order.

Mr. Dorfner: As much good news as we have heard, there is one thing I find lacking: I am very often asked about this and that concerning the threefold social order and the works councils. I always say: Come to the discussion evenings; there you can ask questions that Dr. Steiner himself will then answer. But almost no questions are asked here. People who don’t like to ask questions verbally can always do so in writing. — I’ve also been asked: Won’t the works councils make the workers’ committees obsolete? — I’d like to ask Dr. Steiner to answer this question.

[ 18 ] Rudolf Steiner: The workers’ committees, after all, carry out their tasks primarily within the individual workplaces. What is at stake, however, in the establishment of works councils is to embark on a genuine process of socialization. Once the works councils are elected and then convene as a body of works councils, this inaugural assembly of the works councils will be able to initiate what are called the first steps toward genuine $socialization. Then, presumably, the workers’ committees—if they are to continue to exist—will be able to take on a role within the individual companies, or, what is much more likely, the workers’ committees as such will no longer be needed, but will be replaced by the works council, which, however, may need to co-opt specific members of the current workers’ committees for its future work, since it will not have enough people available—if it has only seven or eight members—to carry out the tasks currently performed by the workers’ committees.

[ 19 ] These specific questions can only be fully answered once we have a fully constituted works council. The workers’ committees were, after all, originally structured differently from the works councils. The works councils are intended to be the actual leaders of the enterprises. A true works council would either include the current entrepreneur—if he agrees to it—as a member of the council, along with representatives from the ranks of white-collar workers, intellectual workers, and manual laborers, or else the entrepreneur would have to step down. One must be absolutely clear that the works council, as such, is conceived to be the true leader of a business, so that all entrepreneurship in the current sense disappears alongside this works council. The workers’ committee, however, is still conceived in such a way that entrepreneurship in its old form remains in place. I ask you to carefully consider this distinction—that is, the difference between something that still stems from the old order, such as the workers’ committee, and that which is now intended to mark the first step toward a genuine reorganization. You must keep this distinction in mind; otherwise, you will not be able to fully grasp the tasks of the works councils.

[ 20 ] Furthermore, we must bear in mind that the question of whether the workers’ committees will continue to exist or be restructured cannot be answered until we have convened the founding assembly of the works councils.

[ 21 ] Then the question was raised here as to how matters should be handled with regard to the works council in a state-owned enterprise. On this point, I must say—as has already been mentioned here—that it should make no difference for the election of works council members whether the enterprise is privately owned or state-owned. Even in a state-owned enterprise, efforts should be made to overcome all prejudices and elect works councils so that these works councils, too, will have their place within the works council system once what I would like to call the “statute of the works council system” has been drafted. It will then become apparent that the usual absorption of such enterprises by the state will naturally not continue. These enterprises will have to be transitioned into an independent economic organism. But this demand will first have to be made.

[ 22 ] You see, the ideas underlying the impulse toward threefolding are certainly intended as practical demands, but they must first be put forward. The fact that a single person writes about them in a book—or puts them forward—and that a “federation” advocates for them does not, in and of itself, accomplish anything. In the economic sphere, these demands must be made by the economic actors themselves, and they must be backed by the confidence of the entire workforce.

[ 23 ] It has also been asked how the socialization of the state railroads and the postal and telegraph services can be carried out from the standpoint of the threefold social order. Of course, people today will still harbor great prejudices in this regard, and one can certainly admit that it would indeed be a very major upheaval if these economic enterprises were to be transferred from the current state to the administration of an independent economic entity. But this must happen, for the postal and telegraph services, as well as the railroads, are very much part of economic life and will only be able to develop properly within economic life if that economic life is independent of state or legal life. |

[ 24 ] The reason it is so difficult to create a mental image of these things today stems from the following: We have become accustomed to thinking of things as they have always been. People say, “These are facts.” But, my dear friends, facts are, after all, things that have been created—created by human beings—and they can just as easily be reshaped and changed. That is what we must keep in mind. The point is precisely that everything pertaining to economic life must truly be placed on its own free economic foundation. The reason why these things are so difficult to conceive of today lies in the fact that money—which, in any case, is already no longer real money in a large number of European states—is actually based on a completely false foundation. Of course, the transition will be difficult, because money makes humanity dependent on the leading trading nation, England, and because we cannot simply persuade the English and Americans to abandon the gold standard overnight. In foreign trade with these nations, we must, of course, maintain the gold standard until circumstances force even the gold standard to come to an end. But for the threefold social organism, we must strive to ensure that the state no longer confers value upon money, but rather that money derives its value from within the economic organism. Then, however, money will no longer be a commodity, as it is today. Even if this is hidden, the truth is that money today is indeed a commodity—and this is solely because its value is imposed upon it by the state. But in the threefold social organism, money as a medium of circulation will exist only in the sense that it is, so to speak, a form of floating accounting. As you know from what I said eight days ago, everything in the coming economic life will be based on actual performance and consideration. For one’s work, one receives, so to speak, a voucher; but this means nothing other than: what corresponds to my work is available to me on the general assets side, and I can exchange it for what corresponds to my needs. If I hand over the voucher, it means the same thing as when, in a small business today, I have to record what is on the left-hand side to balance it out on the right-hand side. Thus, monetary transactions will be the “flying bookkeeping” for the economic organism. Such things are, in fact, already present in their infancy today. You know, after all, that there is already a kind of credit entry—that is, credit balances that can be transferred without actual monetary transactions taking place in certain areas. In general, most of what the threefold social organism calls for is already present in embryonic form here and there. Those who today speak of the impracticality of the threefold social organism should see how, here and there—albeit on a small scale, so that it is sometimes not useful but harmful—what is present here and there will, when summarized and expanded on a large scale, constitute the threefold social organism. The state railroads are conceived today—I am almost tempted to say—as a piece of state furniture, and people imagine the upheaval as something terrible. But one need only consider that what will matter in the future—namely, the administration of economic life through works councils, through transportation and economic councils (which will, after all, be added to the mix)—is that these changes are thoroughly connected with genuine socialization, and that all these fears are unfounded. The point, then, is that the railroads, for example, should be managed sensibly and not in a way that leaves the bureaucratic state calling the shots.

[ 25 ] If one has a clear mental image of the details, one will see that practical solutions can be found in every situation. However, when people keep coming back and saying they don’t understand what is written in my book, I must say that I understand that now, for I would be very surprised indeed if, for example, Professor Brentano—whom I have told you about—and his students, who are very numerous, were to understand the Key Points of the Social Question. For I do not believe they are capable of understanding the book. But I believe that precisely those people whose thinking has not been corrupted by this kind of training—if they can only overcome their habitual ways of thinking just a little—will be able to understand what is written in the “Key Points.”

Mr. Roser: The individual points that came up this evening were, of course, mainly related to the economic sphere. It is understandable that this economic sphere is of the utmost importance in our discussion evenings. But in all of this, we must not forget that economic life is only one part of that great problem, that great idea of the threefold social order. We must not lose sight of the fact that economic life alone is neither viable nor functional unless we also consider legal and spiritual life in an appropriate manner. The reason for this is that our current circumstances are so chaotic precisely because these three spheres have been muddled together. This must always be our guiding principle: that we strive above all to ensure that these three spheres are finally separated. They must then work together again in harmony, but not in the way it happens now or has happened in the past—for example, where the constitutional state encroaches upon and violates economic life, or where economic life exploits spiritual life. Only when spiritual life also reaches its highest flowering—only then can a healthy economic life, indeed a healthy national life as a whole, emerge. Only through this threefold social order will the entire national life be placed in the proper light.

Mr. Lange: He speaks of how doctors today are being reduced to the status of craftsmen because they cannot freely prescribe medications and the like, but must instead follow the instructions of health insurance companies. Here, too, there are restrictions on all sides imposed by state laws and state authority. Furthermore, the mistake being made today is that people always try to force the new into the old. But that is no way to move forward.

Mr. Kühn: The fact that attendance at today’s meeting is low is not due to a lack of interest, but rather to the fact that a large meeting is taking place at the same time in the Dinkelacker Hall. A great deal of detailed work must be done to form the works councils. It’s a long process. At the individual meetings in the factories, it becomes clear how difficult it is to convince individual people. It really shouldn’t depend so much on individuals, but rather on the understanding of the masses. Then individual companies will simply be swept along. We have various speakers and presenters who are always available to speak at meetings. Based on my experience in individual companies, I must say: One almost never hears factual objections to the threefold social order. The workers are almost entirely in agreement; only the white-collar employees are usually a bit more reluctant, as is evident from the interesting letter that was read aloud earlier. In many cases, people simply don’t have the right sense of the matter.

It would be desirable if the works council members elected to date could meet more often, including those from out of town. These discussion evenings would provide such an opportunity to meet, but unfortunately not even all works council members are here—not to mention that those from Esslingen and Heilbronn cannot travel here every time. The various industries should be represented; we need to agree on this, and I’ll now read aloud which industries and sectors are represented: a leather factory, several machine factories, streetcars, a cigarette factory, a cardboard factory, a shoe factory, a measuring instruments factory, a repair shop—that is, a state-run enterprise—a typesetting machine factory, and a factory for optical instruments. I would also like to note that the works council at the state-owned enterprise is the only one that was established with the approval of the supervisor. As you can see, we have a whole range of very different industries here. Works councils are currently being formed at a shoe factory in Kornwestheim, as well as at four or five machine factories; these are, of course, predominant. However, sectors such as the textile, paper, and printing industries are still missing, which is a great pity. The food industry is also not yet represented. The current works councils are actually not yet sufficient to carry out real work. I would therefore like to propose that the works councils attend these meetings as often as possible—or even regularly—and that the workers’ and employees’ committees, which come here anyway, all be converted into works councils. If you all step forward to be elected—rather than just listening to what is being said—you will all soon be works council members, so that we can soon fill this hall with them. Of course, I do not mean that the workers’ committees should disappear; they will likely be well-represented on the works councils. If these question-and-answer or discussion evenings are organized in such a way that specific details are addressed—for example, how to reorganize this or that business—then that in itself constitutes a form of preparatory work for the future activities of the works councils. And that would make these evenings quite interesting.

[ 26 ] Rudolf Steiner: There really isn’t much more to say in today’s closing remarks. First, I would like to answer a question that has been raised. The question is this: Since the vast majority of the proletariat still thinks in materialistic terms, it expects the works council assembly’s activities to improve the fulfillment of its material needs. What measures would need to be taken to quickly bring about a just balance between needs and compensation during the transitional period? — You see, there are things that cannot simply be plucked out of thin air. If it weren’t for the fact that the works councils are absolutely necessary and are finally beginning to engage in genuine social work, the proposal to establish them would not even be made. Therefore, such a view on improving the situation before the works councils begin their work cannot really be considered very significant. After all, there are plenty of people today who come up with strange questions when it comes to asserting the truly practical considerations that will lead humanity to more beneficial conditions than we have today. In recent weeks, I have repeatedly encountered people asking: “Well, now that socialization is supposed to take place, what will happen after socialization to a small shopkeeper who has a store on the street?” Or another question: “How will the university janitor be socialized if the threefold social order is to be introduced?”

[ 27 ] Well, when you listen to these questions, they all really boil down to one thing: namely, the question, “Yes, how do we actually bring about this great upheaval so that things don’t just stay the same?” That’s what one type of person asks. The other group of people does want a major upheaval, but they don’t want to go about it that way; they don’t want to intervene; they want milder measures. And this tendency underlies our question to some extent. The only answer is this: With this other, milder approach—even for the transitional period—nothing can be achieved. That is why it is essential that those who want improvement be willing to take the steps that can bring about that improvement. One cannot ask: “How do we bring about improvement in the run-up to the establishment of works councils?”—Rather, one must say to oneself: “In order for improvement to be brought about, we want to have works councils as soon as possible.” I even fear that not even a miracle could help here. So do not rely on miracle cures, but take the practical approach; the sooner, the better.

[ 28 ] You see, this issue of Tribüne has now been published, and it includes the essay about me and the proletariat that I’ve already mentioned. The same issue also contains an essay by a university professor who refutes the entire threefold social order point by point. One cannot even say that what he puts forward this time is inaccurate, but it is accurate for a very peculiar reason. You see, the man understands absolutely nothing about the threefold social order. He is completely incapable of truly understanding any idea set forth in my book on the core issues of the social question. Because he doesn’t understand this—yet he is a university professor, so he must understand everything—and because he simply doesn’t understand, he concocts his own threefold division. It’s a terrible mess. If you put together everything he describes as a threefold division, it results in a terrible mess—an unworkable, ridiculous, appalling mess. And that is what he is now refuting. It is terribly easy to refute what he has concocted there. But that is what the essay consists of. It contains nothing of what the matter is actually about. Thus, the man cannot form a mental image of why this independent economic body should actually exist. I told you recently: The independent economic body must exist within the threefold social organism because, in the realm of economic life, everything must arise from expertise, from being immersed in economic life, and from the experiences of economic life; and because one cannot make decisions regarding economic life on the basis of general law, where every competent person must decide on matters in which all people are equal. It can only be a blessing for economic life if decisions are made with expertise. Professor Heck cannot imagine this. He cannot conceive of anything other than what he has already seen, what he has already experienced, and what his habitual ways of thinking are rooted in. When it comes to such matters, I am always reminded of something I heard recently. Someone—I believe it was also a professor—said to me: “I am familiar with the aspirations of the threefold social organism.” — I asked him, “Does any of this make sense to you?” — “It hasn’t been that way so far,” he said. You see, that “it hasn’t been that way so far”—that was all that came to his mind. What hasn’t existed so far simply doesn’t seem to be open to discussion; he couldn’t comment on it any further. These are precisely the kinds of things one experiences. One encounters objections that aren’t really objections at all. Not long ago, the following objection was even raised: “Yes, the idea of the threefold social organism is, in a sense, based on a moral standpoint, and to take a moral standpoint is a great mistake.” — Yes, that objection has been raised before. There are, in fact, the most peculiar objections of all. One of the most common is this: “Yes, this threefold social order would be quite nice, but it requires a different kind of people. You can’t introduce the threefold social order with the people we have today.” - Well, those who say such things fail to realize that much of what is expressed in people today is precisely a consequence of our social conditions, and that this will change the moment those social conditions are restored to health.

[ 29 ] Well, people never look at things from a truly objective perspective. Let me give you a striking example, which I may have already mentioned here before. After all, there was a terrible bureaucracy within the civil service in Germany right up until this world war. Now, due to the war economy, the necessity was recognized not to let civil servants manage things alone, but increasingly to appoint merchants and industrialists to government offices so that they could apply their practical wisdom there with a view to boosting the war economy. This then gave rise to a curious fact that is very interesting. Namely, the businesspeople and industrialists became far more bureaucratic than the bureaucracy had ever been before! So, they integrated wonderfully into the bureaucracy. Anyone who has observed this also knows what it would mean if people were no longer surrounded by unhealthy—that is, bureaucratic—conditions, but rather by the kind of conditions described by the impulse of the threefold social organism. Just as industrialists and merchants have transformed themselves into bona fide bureaucrats within the existing bureaucracy, people would adapt to these healthy conditions, and one would no longer be able to say that we must first have better people in order to establish a better social order. We must realize, after all, that it is precisely through an improvement in social conditions that people will be given the opportunity to become better people. But if we demand that people must first be better people, then there is no need at all to improve social conditions. If social conditions had not made people what they currently are, then social conditions must be good; they must be in order. From this, you can once again see the necessity of rethinking and relearning. That is what is fundamentally necessary above all else. And if people could just immerse themselves a little bit in reality and think from within it, then we would already be one step further.

[ 30 ] You see, here is a young man who is quite well-meaning—one would so much like to help him—and he writes: Yes, he cannot help but tell himself that perhaps the threefold social order would be a solution, if only people were different from what they are now. - And now I ask you: Don’t you think that deep down in his soul, this man harbors the view that others are not the better people, but that he, who recognizes this, is—at least in potential—that better person? —If you turn to the next person who tells you the same thing, he, in turn, sees himself as the better person, and a third person would likely feel the same way. Surely everyone would have to say to themselves: If everyone thought the way they do—and actually, one must first take into account what other people are like—if, then, everyone thought the way they do, then the better people would already be here! - You see, it’s not a matter of thinking in an abstract, logical way, but rather of grounding one’s thinking in reality, so that one doesn’t say something that, as a thought, is constantly somersaulting. But that is precisely what has such a terrible effect in the present and strikes us as the fact that people are constantly stumbling over their own thoughts—which are actually non-thoughts. That is why it must be emphasized again and again that not only is a change in our economic life necessary, but also a change in the spiritual structure of our social life. We have been driven by what has happened so far into a crisis, above all, of spiritual life.

[ 31 ] When we look out over the world today—I would say—what stands out most? Yes, over the past four to five years, what must strike us most is that, when it comes to world affairs, the truth has not been told anywhere—but rather, all world affairs have been distorted and presented in a skewed light, from reports on battles to the goals of nations. From the motives for war to peace, everything has been misrepresented. Everywhere, there are clichés that do not correspond to the facts of the world. But this persists in everything that has developed out of the cultural and social conditions to date. It permeates even the individual activities and institutions of human life. Therefore, we must say that all those who view the social question one-sidedly are not being honest with humanity. One is sincere toward humanity only when one acknowledges: Economic life has led people into this crisis; therefore, it must be placed on a different foundation. Legal life has shown that class privileges and class disadvantages prevail in the individual legal jurisdictions; therefore, it must be placed on the foundation of universal human rights. It has become clear that law has been understood as that which can only be upheld by force, and this continues to this very day. And it has become evident that in spiritual life, people’s thoughts are skewed. In the three fundamental spheres of life—namely, economic life, legal life, and spiritual life—we see humanity in a crisis, and those who are sincere about progress must realize that progress must be made independently in each of these three spheres, because the crises result precisely from the intermingling of these three spheres. Therefore, I can only say: If you take decisive measures in any specific area—such as now in connection with works councils—in the spirit of a comprehensive social reorganization, that is, in the spirit of the threefold social order, then you are acting in the direction of humanity’s progress toward a true social order. If you bear in mind this connection between an individual measure and measures based on a holistic overview, then you are fulfilling your duty and obligation today toward humanity and toward yourself. Individual measures have no significance today; what matters is solely what is conceived within the larger social context. The smallest must be considered in conjunction with the largest. Be aware of this: If you succeed in truly bringing about the establishment of works councils, then you will have done something of historical significance for all of humanity to come, because this is connected to the greatest problems facing humanity today. Therefore, do not ask for petty steps, but stand on a foundation that truly forms the basis for moving forward to action, for it is action that matters. And if we add to this, step by step, what we understand from the threefold social order, then we will be able to achieve what gives us hope of emerging from the terrible situation into which our spiritual life, our so-called legal life, and our economic life to date have led us.