The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Seventh Discussion Evening

The chairman, Mr. Roser, opens the meeting. He then announces that there are plans to introduce study evenings at which the concept of the threefold social order will be explained and, in particular, the book The Key Points of the Social Question will be discussed in depth. The first study evening is scheduled to take place next week. He then reports that the shoe industry has made progress regarding the issue of works councils. They have already reached the point where the works councils in the leather sector have formed an action committee that intends to become active within the shoe industry in the near future.

Introductory Remarks

[ 1 ] Rudolf Steiner: My dear friends here today! As on previous evenings, I will give only a brief introduction today so that we can then discuss one or the other specific question in detail during the discussion. But in view of the waning interest in the issue of works councils, it might be advisable to begin this evening by making a few more general remarks.

[ 2 ] You see, the “Federation for the Threefold Social Order” has sought to take the first truly practical step—through the creation of a works council—in the direction that, in essence, has been charted by the social movement for more than half a century. This movement is, after all, like a cry of the proletariat against its oppression. But this cry is, in essence, nothing other than a kind of world-historical critique of the capitalist economic order. As a result of the catastrophe of the World War, conditions have now emerged that make it necessary for the criticism to which the parties of the socialist movement have become accustomed to be replaced by something else. When, out of this movement, people once again began to seek paths toward social renewal, one could indeed hope that, particularly among the broad masses of the working class—first, based on their experiences within the capitalist social order, and second, from the underlying currents that arise because the working class, through its experiences, is truly much more politically sophisticated than the bourgeoisie—an understanding would develop of what was intended to replace what had previously been merely social criticism of the social order. After the so-called collapse of the German Empire, one could, in essence, hope for something truly decisive only from this quarter, for those who were entirely tied to the old political and economic order had, despite the experiences of the catastrophe of the World War and its consequences, nothing to offer that could truly lead to a new reconstruction.

[ 3 ] One is overcome by rather gloomy thoughts today when, on the one hand, one recognizes that the intelligentsia is essential for rebuilding, and when, on the other hand, one considers the mental and political state of this intelligentsia in Central Europe today—particularly the intelligentsia among those who are leading figures. From everything that has been said here so far, those of you who have been here often will have seen that, if we truly want to make progress, a new social order must also be forged from a new spirit. This is especially true at the present moment, which clearly shows that Central Europe is in the process of collapsing. The following example illustrates that nothing can be expected from certain circles.

[ 4 ] You see, when one speaks of a new spirit from which the future is to be shaped, one must first ask: Where are the seeds of this new spirit? Well, I would like to illustrate the political spirit that dominates the ruling classes in particular today using an example—one that could, however, be multiplied a thousandfold. The following words appear in a speech given in Berlin. I ask you to listen carefully, for today we must familiarize ourselves with the spirit of the people. So listen carefully:

“The fact that, before the revolution, we could generally trust in the integrity and competence of our government, and that we could spare ourselves the need to have a say in the affairs of the excellent Prussian civil service—this is where, not least, the intellectual superiority lies that Germany demonstrated throughout the nineteenth century, particularly in its scientific and technical development. One cannot serve two masters at the same time. Widespread politicization is, by its very nature, an enemy of strict concentration and immersion in creative work. May the German spirit develop the strength to work its way through this ugly flood of political sin and mire back to that glorious state of trust that the Hohenzollerns of Prussia had bestowed upon us!”

[Interjection: Is this the Oldenburg-Januschau?]

[ 5 ] Yes, you believe that this is the Oldenburg-Januschau! It would be comforting if it were at least him. But look, these words were spoken by the leading professor of German language and literature at the University of Berlin. That is the decisive factor! These words—spoken by the representative of German language and literature, the foremost authority in this field at Germany’s leading university—are surely quite indicative of the mindset prevailing among those who today are tasked with inspiring our youth about what humanity can expect from the future. Is it any wonder, then, that gloomy thoughts arise when one thinks of this future? Essentially, one cites such things as characteristic precisely because, after all, even those people who hold sway in journalism today—especially in party journalism—have, even if they have adopted individual program points, learned quite a bit from these people in terms of their overall way of thinking. Above all, they have learned to be short-sighted, not to say obtuse.

[ 6 ] In light of this, it must be emphasized time and again: Unless people summon the will to embrace a truly new spirit—a comprehensive spirit—things cannot, fundamentally speaking, get any better. That is why it is so infinitely regrettable that, even though the idea of establishing a works council was born out of a truly new spirit, this idea—which is, after all, a truly practical one—finds so little resonance among the masses. Of course, things can sometimes move slowly—that wouldn’t even be the worst thing—but the way this has played out must certainly be counted among the very worst.

[ 7 ] We began here with work based on the threefold social order. At first—as I’ve mentioned before—those people whose opinions are always heeded said: “Well, this is just a bit of nonsense; we’ll let them get on with it.” But then this folly turned out to be something that had found a following numbering in the thousands in Stuttgart and the surrounding area. That made people extremely uncomfortable. Then the practical idea of works councils emerged in a truly practical form. That made people even more uneasy, and that’s when this curious fact emerged—one that must be noted time and again—namely, that the political parties are now putting forward strange arguments against the threefold social order in general and against the issue of works councils in particular. On the one hand, we hear: “Yes, the threefold social order—that’s actually quite good.” — For example, when our friends Gönnewein and Roser recently spoke at a public meeting over at the Dinkelacker Hall, among the various speakers—most of whom were opposed to us—there was one who said: “Yes, the threefold social order is quite good; it must ultimately come about, but we oppose it!” — So, it’s good and must ultimately come about, but it’s still being opposed. “We want,” he said, “something completely different for now, and then, once we’ve realized this completely different thing, the threefold social order will arise of its own accord.”

[ 8 ] Well, there can be no question of the threefold social order ever emerging on its own; rather, it must be worked out through hard effort. It is—and I must say this plainly—the greatest deception to repeat the same old refrain over and over again: “We only need to do this or that; we only need this or that class to gain power, and then a properly ordered social structure will emerge on its own.”—No, a properly ordered social structure must first be recognized and then worked out. And it is characteristic that people keep saying: “The threefold social order is quite good; a social order must indeed be as this threefold division describes it, but we oppose it.”—Yet when people are asked to say what they actually want, all one hears are slogans and empty phrases

[ 9 ] The only thing I have found within the Communist Party regarding its opposition to the threefold social order is that there is agreement there—as far as I can tell—that the threefold social order is quite good, but that it must be opposed. On this point, there is agreement. And from the other side, it has become clear—don’t think I have any personal stake in the matter, but when it comes to fighting for something, one must pay attention to such things—that upon the publication of the first issue of our weekly journal The Threefold Social Order, not a single idea contained in that issue was addressed, but instead there was just wild ranting. This stems from dullness, from the inability to produce even a single genuine thought of their own. Therefore, they can do nothing but rant. Even from third and fourth parties, various points have been raised that point in a similar direction. The issues were always handled in such a way that it soon became clear that all these critics do not actually raise any substantive objections. On the one hand, this reveals an inability, an impotence; on the other, it reveals stupidity, in that they keep saying that the threefold order is good in itself, but must be opposed. Well, if these things are not looked at, if the cancerous damage resulting from party politics is not recognized, then nothing beneficial can come out of the struggle in which we find ourselves.

[ 10 ] Ladies and gentlemen! Today is truly not the time to get lost in such partisan squabbles, for we are now close to the point where people who hold views such as those of Professor Gustav Roethe of the University of Berlin—which I have read to you—are once again gaining the upper hand, even in capitalist circles. One certainly need not be a supporter of these ideas—which are, after all, only half-baked or quarter-baked and, on top of that, quite impractical—nor does one need to be a supporter of Wissell and Moellendorff, but one must nevertheless acknowledge that a certain faction had the power to sideline the two of them. Had they been sidelined by another faction, this would not have been particularly harmful; but the fact that certain circles had the power to sideline them precisely from that quarter proves the current gravity of the situation in Central Europe. It proves that certain circles feel secure again—circles that, until relatively recently, still felt very insecure.

[ 11 ] A few weeks ago, just as I was arriving in Stuttgart from Dornach, Switzerland, and we were getting started with our work, the business community—indeed, the leading circles in general—still felt, in a certain sense, uncertain. There was still a very peculiar atmosphere prevailing in these circles. And one could certainly get the impression that if an energetic movement with substance and meaning were to emerge, something could be achieved. At that time, those for whom the planned economy and Moellendorff’s framework laws were an abomination did not yet have enough courage to speak out as boldly as they do today. But because it was possible to foresee how things would develop, here—and also at other gatherings where I spoke—one idea was raised again and again, probably to the point of tedium for many: that we should take action regarding the idea of works councils before it is too late.

[ 12 ] In connection with the departure of Moellendorff and Wissell, it should be noted that the Works Council Act has recently been resubmitted to the National Assembly. Take all these signs together, and you will not find it unbelievable if someone who has some insight into these matters were to tell you today: All of this is systematic work on the part of the other side—systematic work on the part of the former business owners, who had already felt themselves teetering on the brink of the abyss and who are now gradually paralyzing the social movement in Central Europe. This side will stop at nothing, not even collaborating with the Entente, when it comes to paralyzing the social movement in Central Europe. If the ideas of those people who are at work today—and this is no exaggeration—come to fruition, then all social aspirations, as you perceive them, will be impossible for many years to come. For then it will no longer be a matter of how strong capitalism is in Central Europe, but rather of how strong Entente capitalism is.

[ 13 ] That is how things stand on the one hand. On the other hand, we have the most bitter partisan squabbling, which the only way to overcome would be to pursue a matter-of-fact approach. What does this partisan squabbling reveal? Above all, it reveals the necessity of the threefold social order. In this threefold social order, spiritual life, on the one hand, should have its own independent administration; on the other hand, political or legal life should have its own administration; and on the third hand, economic life should have its own. Within economic life, as a purely economic institution, we want to allow works councils to emerge. This system of works councils would usher in the beginning of true socialization by separating economic administration from spiritual and political life. How, then, would economic life remain most securely at the mercy of capitalism? By continuing to intermingle economic life with political life! And what is it, actually, that squeaks out from the midst of this foolish party squabbling? It is the chaotic jumbling and merging of economic and political considerations. These modern parties are so harmful precisely because they are based entirely on what has become obsolete—the fusion of political and economic life. That is why one repeatedly hears from people who understand absolutely nothing about the structure of the social order that one must first have political power and then economic power. Then they reverse that again, and so on. All of this speaks of the most chaotic amateurism. The fact that precisely such views arise within the political parties shows how necessary the threefold structure of the social organism is. And in our day, I would say, we really ought—just as the twelfth hour approaches—to consult within ourselves and ask: Do we really want to be the fools of the looming reaction by following party slogans to the letter, more blindly than ever, like those seemingly well-meaning Catholics? Do we not want to rely on our own judgment? If one had relied on one’s own sound judgment, the works council system would already have come into being. Just think what it would mean if the works council system were already a reality, and if the economic demands of the proletariat were now being taken up by the works councils and resonating throughout everything that is currently unfolding within the resurgent capitalism and business world—in what is being driven by the mining industry, which is, after all, far more harmful than one might think, and in what is connected to the peace treaty. People have constantly emphasized that the primary concern is to seize political power.

[ 14 ] Oh, my esteemed audience, nothing strikes me as more ridiculous than such a phrase. Of course, one can utter such phrases—that is, that one must first have political power. But when it comes to taking the first step toward gaining power in the first place—as could have been done through the election of works council members—that first step is not taken. It is not taken because people love to speak in grand words and phrases. Yet they do not love to approach what is truly necessary in a practical and businesslike manner.

[ 15 ] The draft Works Council Act that has been on the table so far has turned out to be impractical and unacceptable. Now a new draft is being submitted to the National Assembly, after Moellendorff and Wissell’s timid attempt—which also contained elements of a planned economy—was consigned to oblivion, along with the two men themselves. All of this shows what nonsense is being perpetrated by a certain faction, though it can ultimately lead to nothing. Just imagine if, for the past fourteen “days,” our works council in Württemberg had been in session and had been putting forward concrete proposals for genuine socialization every single day! If that were the case, then one could say: From this proletariat arises the new spirit necessary for a new construction. If a thousand works council members were sitting here now—and not just those few little men—then we could say: We laugh at what those big industrialists expressed with the following words after the start of the November Revolution and the outbreak of the strike: “We need do nothing but wait!” For the time will come when the workers will appear at the doors of our establishments, whimpering and pleading, and will be satisfied if they are allowed to work a quarter of what they are now demanding. — Well, but today we are not yet in a position to view things with the necessary seriousness. Nor is it enough to express this seriousness merely in words; what matters is that this seriousness is also reflected in actions. When one considers that Central European industrialists will receive support from the Entente with regard to their power, one must surely conclude that this system of works councils must be established before it is too late. I do not mean by all this to say that nothing can be done now. Of course, we must continue working in the direction we have already begun, but it would be like playing blind man’s bluff if we were to close our eyes to the general state of the world. We are, after all, in the midst of it, and we really should not have found ourselves in this situation without already having works councils.

[ 16 ] You see, seizing and making the most of the right moment—the right instant—is of particular importance in times of such upheaval as we are currently experiencing. The point is that you can’t wait four to six weeks to do what needs to be done right away. Today, many people realize that the Great French Revolution at the end of the 18th century and the subsequent revolutions of the 19th century actually achieved only a kind of emancipation of the individual as a citizen. But the fact that, to a certain extent, individual people have become freer is meaningless for the broad masses of the proletariat. Why? Because those who rebelled against the old feudal order, while they did seize state power, failed to free the worker—even though he was now personally free—from the economic straitjacket. Today, it is time to realize that merely seizing state power is not enough. As a result of the revolutions, different people did come to power, but nothing truly new was created. The old framework of the state was retained. And so things continued on this path all the way to the catastrophe of World War I. Everything was forced into the framework of the old unitary state. Today the time has come to recognize that the proletariat must not simply imitate the bourgeoisie, which sought only to seize state power. The proletariat must develop something new and must not cling to the old unitary state. The proletariat must bring the threefold social organism to fruition. Either we will come to understand this threefold structure, or we will once again sail into such an impossible construct as was the state of the 19th century and the early 20th century. It is not enough to keep saying that we want to overthrow the old institutions and replace capitalism with new social forms! One must also know what these new forms are to consist of! That is why, with my book The Key Points of the Social Question, an attempt has been made to present to people something that truly gives the longed-for social community an organic structure. It shows how this social community can become possible and how it can take shape. What good is it, after all, to keep saying: Things must come about on their own!

[ 17 ] Well, I could have a mental image of such fanatics of the “Vonselber-Kommens” theory still believing that social order came about on its own, even though in reality it had to be hard-won. You see, if a rooster crows on the dungheap before sunrise—that is, while it’s still dark—and then the sun rises, the rooster might imagine that his crowing caused the sun to rise. Certainly, merely crowing endlessly about socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat will not bring about a new social order. This will only come about when a sufficiently large number of people hold the conviction: We must work to bring about this new social order. We must elect from among our own ranks those in whom we have confidence, so that, on the basis of existing economic experience, something fruitful for economic life can be achieved—something that can then overshadow all the bureaucratic legislative proposals and the like that are being pursued from other quarters. I ask you: Do we really shy away from such work, or why do we fail to create such a works council, which—precisely because it will be supported by the trust of the workers—would truly be a force to be reckoned with? You can be certain that the moment such a works council gives rise to new, fruitful ideas, at that very moment the works council will be the greatest power in certain areas. This is not the crowing of a rooster on a dungheap, who believes that his crowing makes the sun rise. It is a call to get to work—but to undertake work whose purpose is clearly understood.

[ 18 ] You see, I believe that the new spirit could blossom solely out of such a feeling. But as long as this new spirit does not live in people’s minds, nothing beneficial will come of it. And the current economic situation is such that, above all, we must consider how to get our economic life in Central Europe back on its feet to some extent. This will require tapping into new sources of raw materials of all kinds, especially in the East. There will be many things that the Central European business community has not yet undertaken. However, it is probably no longer possible to tap into sources of raw materials in Siberia, for the course of world events does not permit this today; the Americans and the Japanese will no longer allow it. Where we can be effective is throughout the entire Eastern part of Europe. But there, the challenge will be to strike the right note in order to harmonize with the Russian folk-souls. That was precisely the worst aspect of the industrial circles that have led us thus far: they never found the right tone to establish an appropriate connection with other folk-souls. This is another reason why a new spirit must enter our economic life. Otherwise, the East will slam the door in our faces—especially if we approach it with the spirit that our leading circles have developed thus far. Above all, we must develop a brotherhood—an economic brotherhood—with the East; otherwise, we will never emerge from the situation into which we have fallen.

[ 19 ] A new spirit, pointing in all kinds of directions, is necessary! May this new spirit take root in our hearts and minds, for we need it. You will not find this new spirit in what I read to you at the beginning, for it says there, “that before the revolution we could, on the whole, trust in the honest and objective reliability of our government, that in the excellent Prussian civil service we could spare ourselves the need to have a say—and therein lies, not least, the root of the intellectual superiority that Germany generally demonstrated during the nineteenth century, especially in its scientific and technical development. ... May the German spirit develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mire back to that glorious state of trust, as Prussia under the Hohenzollerns had bestowed upon us.”

[ 20 ] One must not speak that way today; you will understand that. But, ladies and gentlemen, I will now translate these words into another language and then ask you whether one is allowed to speak that way today: The fact that, before the revolution, we could generally trust in the honest and objective reliability of our party bigwigs, and that the excellent bureaucracy of the party bigwigs spared us the need to have a say—this is where, not least, the intellectual superiority lies that Germany demonstrated in general—though not in its social-democratic and socialist development—during the nineteenth century. One cannot serve two masters: the party bigwigs and the threefold social order. General politicization is, by its very nature, an enemy of strict discipline and immersion in devotion, in submission, in party bigwigdom. May the social spirit develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mud back to that praiseworthy party system of trust, just as the party bigwigs have bestowed it upon us Social Democrats. You see, there you have the same patterns of thought applied to something else. Whether one is Professor Roethe speaking this way about the Hohenzollerns or some well-meaning party man speaking this way about the party bigwigs, both are based on the same emotional sentiments. It does not make a person any freer simply to worship other idols! One becomes free by relying on one’s own judgment, one’s own reason, and one’s own feelings. We have appealed to these very feelings. I hope that it will ultimately turn out that our appeal was not in vain, for if it had been in vain, the prospects for the development of the proletariat would be grim.

Discussion

Mr. Huch: The speaker fully agrees with Dr. Steiner’s remarks and expresses his regret that the idea of the threefold social order is not being received as it should be. He attributes the blame largely to the labor unions. As a member of a workers’ committee, he, too, observes that the business community is behaving quite differently today than it did six to eight weeks ago.

Mr. Fischer: He introduces himself as a union leader and defends the work of the unions against the previous speaker. He explains that if the union is not proceeding correctly, it is the workers’ own fault. — The poor turnout at today’s meeting is likely also due to the fact that workers are suspicious of anything that comes from philosophers, theosophists, and commercial councilors. — Regarding works councils, Mr. Fischer criticizes the fact that works councils in Germany are also becoming fragmented. If there is now competition over works councils taking place in various cities independently of one another and originating from different industries, that is a major mistake. The speaker declares himself a supporter of works councils. The moment the political parties and the unions have outlived their usefulness, they must of course be swept aside; the only question remaining is what we will put in their place. One must realize that one cannot simply cast aside the organizations that have thus far enjoyed the trust of the masses. — The speaker cannot imagine how unity is to prevail in a works council system, given that it will be composed of people with the most diverse economic and political views. If practical socialization is to be pursued, then we must begin by taking the means of production and land out of the hands of the exploiters and transferring them to the ownership of society, because the power of the capitalists is based on their ownership of these means. — The speaker asks Dr. Steiner to explain how the works councils can accomplish this task. Furthermore, Dr. Steiner is asked to explain how, in his opinion, works councils can be enabled to determine what is needed. For as long as the worker must ask, “Do I have enough to live on?”—he will not concern himself with lofty intellectual problems. The starving masses crave bread, not intellectual ideals. Only when food is available again will intellectual vitality also return. The vast masses will certainly not whine and beg for work; rather, they will send society to hell. The proletariat’s confrontation with the capitalists will not take the form of elegant speeches, but will require the use of force.

Another speaker in the discussion: Dr. Steiner’s idea that we must orient ourselves toward the East is in line with what I, too, have explained in a gathering. I, too, have said that the new is coming from the East; a new form of society has emerged there—perhaps not yet exactly as it should be—but the new is coming from there, and we must orient ourselves toward it. What are we witnessing? Our government has known nothing else but to look fearfully toward the West and to ensure that nothing happens other than what pleases the Entente. That is the root of all the evil we are facing today. Entente capitalism has simply taken the place of German capitalism, and we will have to wage very difficult struggles if we want to do away with this Entente capitalism. No one has yet succeeded in showing the way forward. If Dr. Steiner succeeds, the working class will follow him.

[ 21 ] Rudolf Steiner: I would like to make a few preliminary remarks before I return to the remarks of the previous speaker.

[ 22 ] At first, it was said that the working class was strongly prejudiced against the threefold social order, since it was conceived by philosophers, commercial councilors, and the like. That is not true at all; the truth is that, at the beginning of our work, the working class was not very prejudiced at all. Rather, it turned out that we found thousands upon thousands of supporters for what we do not promote as a utopian idea, but as something that is, as I called it at the time, “seeds of action.” Back then, the workers didn’t care one bit whether these ideas came from philosophers or commercial councilors; instead, they relied on their common sense and listened. And those who were prejudiced were coming from a completely different angle. And they managed to ensure that this prejudice only developed gradually. So, the situation is quite different.

[ 23 ] Although the previous speaker correctly characterized the movement of commercial employees—which does indeed exhibit some positive traits and deserves to be studied more closely by the rest of the working class—his words nevertheless reveal that he is completely unaware of what the threefold social order is in general and what it specifically aims to achieve through the establishment of a works council system. For that is precisely what must be most vigorously opposed by the threefold social order: namely, that this fragmentation should occur. It has never been our aim merely to create works councils for specific industries or to fragment the works council system into separate entities. How often has it been said: If works councils are created for individual industries, this is the opposite of what must be strived for within the framework of true socialization. We have always strived for a system of works councils that extends uniformly across a larger, self-contained economic region. And it is only from such a system of works councils that everything necessary for individualization should then emerge. The fact that the situation has taken the form where more enthusiasm is shown in certain industries than in others has nothing to do with the works council system as it should have emerged from the idea of social threefolding.

[ 24 ] Yes, and then the previous speaker also raised the argument that we would have to begin by transferring the means of production, as well as land, into the possession of society. Just try to think through to its logical conclusion what this vague statement actually means! Consider for a moment what such a demand would mean in practice! — I’d like to pick up on something here. In some city—I think it was Göppingen—I once spoke about these matters, and after me, a man spoke who, from a certain point of view, actually made some good points. He was probably a Communist. He said he was a cobbler. At first he spoke very well, but then something strange happened; he said: “Yes, I know full well that since I haven’t received any formal education, I can’t become a registrar—you need intelligence for that.” — Well, forgive me, but that probably doesn’t require all that much intelligence; however, a great deal of intelligence and a great deal of insight are required for what this man wanted to know about the conquest of political power and the like. These things must be taken into account.

[ 25 ] Well, the specific question at hand is how to implement the demand—which is fundamentally correct—to transfer the means of production and land to the public. Of course, there must also be people who can properly manage the means of production and land. The fact is: The capitalist mode of production that has existed until now has a very specific structure; it required a very specific way of managing things. This must be transformed into a different way of managing things, and that way must first be created. Today, until you have concrete plans regarding the administration of the means of production and land, you cannot simply demand the transfer of the means of production and so on to the public! That is precisely what the works councils are supposed to take in hand in a very practical way. You cannot revolutionize anything with slogans or theories, but only with people—and those people should have been the works councils, specifically a unified body, not a fragmented collection of works councils. That is what this is all about. We won’t get anywhere if we keep saying that the proposals of philosophers and commercial councilors are pie-in-the-sky, and then counter them with so-called “practice” that has sprung from even more nebulous realms—because it then becomes clear that we cannot say at all how such things can actually be carried out. But it is precisely this “how” that is at issue. This “how” is elaborated in my book The Key Points of the Social Question; one need only understand it—that is what matters.

[ 26 ] Yes, and it has also been said repeatedly that we must first change the economic system. The spiritual aspect will then arise on its own. — It won’t. We already need this new spirit in order to change the economic system. And people speak in an impractical, vague way precisely when they keep saying: “We’ll change the economic system, and then the new spirit will emerge on its own.” No, you need the new spirit in order to change the economic system. That is why I say to you: For all I care, drive the entire society away—as the esteemed previous speaker suggested—but then you must also be clear about what you have to do once you’ve driven the old society away. Do you know what you’ll do then? You can’t just keep doing the same thing—otherwise, there’d be no point in getting rid of them. If you centralize the entire economy and stack the top positions with one bigwig after another, do you really think that will improve anything? I’d like to see whether things would actually get better for the working masses if you were to put the highest-ranking union bigwigs in the top positions instead of the capitalists and entrepreneurs. That is what you should consider. That is precisely what emerged from practical considerations, as much as I appreciated the overall tone of the previous speaker. But what is really at stake has not yet been understood, for everything that is happening in the optical industry, the automotive industry, and the like is the exact opposite of what is being advocated here. And that is why it is not enough merely to point out paths; rather, a genuine understanding must take root among the broad working class and then be put into concrete practice. That is why I feel I must say, when it is said, “Steiner shows us the way”—that it will be of no use for me to point out these paths as long as large masses are repeatedly prevented from understanding them because people keep coming along who have not yet grasped this path and then speak of the opposite, as has just happened again, and then say: “If the paths are shown to us, we will follow them; I am happy to be taught.” —But when something is shown, people object that it is nothing. No, as long as this is the case, we will not make any progress. We will only make progress if we develop an instinct for what is right. And that is what we find lacking in the “League for the Threefold Social Order.” At first, we found a certain healthy instinct among the masses, but then we had to learn that obedience to the old leaders is, after all, very strong. I will not doubt that a healthy instinct will emerge, but it will only come to the fore when the masses are no longer addressed by those speakers who, without delving sufficiently into the matter, simply talk and prevent the masses from taking further steps—indeed, on the contrary, repeatedly lead them back to the old obedience and to dubious ideas by saying over and over again: “Go ahead and form works councils; they’ll just fall apart again.”

[ 27 ] If what we had been striving for had truly been achieved, then we would not have fragmentation, but rather a unified approach to economic issues within the works council movement going forward—at least for Württemberg. This would then serve as an inspiration for others and could have an impact beyond this economic region.

Mr. Fischer: He states that his criticism of the works councils was not directed at Dr. Steiner, but rather at the remarks made by the chairman at the outset ... I said: I am convinced that the ideas Dr. Steiner developed and brought to the masses were different. However, what was propagated was different from what turned out to be the case in practice. — Dr. Steiner said that the socialization of the means of production was just a catchphrase and that afterward there would be no one left who knew how to manage the means of production. - It would be a sad state of affairs if the workers and employees who have been doing the work all this time did not know what to do with the means of production! By this I mean that shareholders are eliminated and it is declared: The shares no longer have any value. The assets pass into the possession of the general public and are managed by the general public. - Dr. Steiner places spiritual ideas above all else. But today the working class wants only bread, because it is physically worn down and unable to embrace spiritual ideas. I ask Dr. Steiner to address this and show how these ideas can be made accessible to the masses when their stomachs are empty.

[ 28 ] Rudolf Steiner: That’s a snake biting its own tail. Consider this: on the one hand, it is said, “We can transfer the means of production to the community.” — Well, a truly concrete body that would represent this public interest would be the works councils. But such a body must first be created; it doesn’t exist yet! Certainly, the masses are weakened by hunger. But are we supposed to wait until manna falls from heaven so that there is bread, which can then be socialized? That’s a snake biting its own tail. Of course, we must strive for both at the same time, and we will achieve nothing unless we all work together, because the manna will not simply fall from the sky. Work must be done! We will all have to work, but we will only truly want to work if we see the results of that work. We will work even with weakened muscles and hungry stomachs if we know that tomorrow our work will yield a result. — But if we’re always just told that things should be socialized, then we won’t be able to work even on an empty stomach, because we know that we won’t be fed tomorrow either if we don’t work with practical ideas.

[ 29 ] So what matters today is that we engage with this and also say: All right, the old society was driven out in droves on November 9 [...] The previous speaker, who had some very good points to make, then described very well what happened next. I do not wish to examine now how much of what happened can be attributed to incompetence. For I attribute it more to the incompetence of those in power today than to their ill will. Because of this incompetence, what should actually have been overcome keeps coming back into play. That must be avoided. Whether this society, which was discussed today, is driven out with or without force is another question. But those who take their place must know what they want. That alone is the practical consideration. And it is the aim of the “Federation for the Threefold Social Order” to ensure that November 9 is not repeated and that, after a few months, we do not have to say again: “Well, you see, we now have a different regime throughout economic life, but it’s just the same as the previous one.” — That must be prevented. But this can only be prevented by establishing a system of works councils and then demonstrating that work is indeed done differently under the new regime. Of course, if no one could be found among the working population—among the employees—who is truly capable of working, then one would indeed have cause to despair. But that is not the only issue. What is essential is that new forms of socialization then become visible. People are, after all, all accustomed to working in one way or another under the old regime. That is why, now that power has been won, those who have won it must truly recognize how to handle this power. So, the point is to tackle the matter in a truly practical way. And that is the sad part—that people today have no understanding of precisely such a practical approach and keep coming up with the same old platitudes. Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not saying that the transfer of the means of production and of land into the community is a cliché in and of itself. I didn’t say that. But what is a cliché? Something is a cliché to one person because they can’t see anything specific behind the words, while to another it is a profound, golden truth because they see something concrete behind it. For example, when Bethmann-Hohlkopf—I mean, Bethmann-Hollweg—says, “Clear the way for the capable!”—that is a cliché, because he perhaps means that, for example, his nephew or someone else is the most capable. But when someone who has genuine social insight and a genuine sense of humanity says, “Make way for the capable!”—that is not a cliché; that is real. If someone simply keeps repeating the old party slogan about the socialization of the means of production, then it can be a mere cliché. But if the person saying it characterizes it as it is described in my book, then it is not a cliché; it is an expression of reality. That is why you should not assume that whenever I call something a cliché, I mean it in an absolute sense. I mean that it is a cliché when the necessary reality does not underlie what is said. That is what I wanted to add.

Mr. Roser: The previous speaker is mistaken if he believes that I welcomed the works councils in the shoe industry simply because they formed separately. I merely wanted to point out that the leather industry has embraced the threefold social order. I must note that the works councils in the footwear industry have been firmly established on the basis of the threefold social order; that is the sole reason I welcomed this development. We have to start somewhere.

Ms. Bühl: I would like to tell Mr. Fischer that the union secretary said: “No works councils without a law; the law must first be enacted.” The main blame for the fact that we do not yet have works councils lies with the political parties. It’s a shame that when you’re at meetings and speak your convictions, people immediately say, “That’s just another one of Dr. Steiner’s ideas.”—Why can’t we even express our convictions?—And then they’re always bringing up the “Kommerzienräte”! Why do you always speak in the plural? I know of only one Kommerzienrat among us, and it wouldn’t be a bad thing if we had a few dozen of them. Just look at everything that one Kommerzienrat has already accomplished! First of all, the free school. It’s a shame to hear how people judge the matter. It’s a good thing when Kommerzienräte do things this way. I can’t open a school. That’s the foolish mistrust among the working class and the political parties. [Interjection: Where does he get the money?] One person opens his wallet, the other doesn’t; that’s the difference. If a person thinks socially and has compassion for his workers, that’s the main thing!

Mr. Huth: Mr. Fischer’s remarks have prompted me to speak up. First, I would like to confirm—because I know him—that he is not one of those union bigwigs who operate in the spirit of a “Legion,” but rather one of those who work in the spirit of a truly revolutionary working class. However, when he criticizes the fact that works councils have been formed and have joined together in the shoe industry—and when he implies that this would lead to fragmentation because other industries also have works councils—I must set him straight. After all, in the shoe industry, when we elected our works councils, we waited quite a long time for the metal industry to follow suit and elect its own works councils, so that together we could form a federation of works councils in the spirit of the threefold social order. But now that time has passed—through the fault of the proletarian parties—and the situation in other professions has not yet progressed as far as it has in the shoe industry, we have had to conclude: It makes no sense if we do not come together and carry out practical work on our own. We must form a works council, no matter how small it may be, and then carry the idea of the works council out into the circles of those workers who have not yet taken any steps in this direction.

We cannot wait for some government to bring us socialism. The liberation of the proletariat must come from the proletariat itself—and if it follows a path shown by a philosopher, then so be it, provided the path is sound. It has been pointed out that the old slogan—“We must first seize political power”—keeps haunting people’s minds. This is constantly drummed into the proletariat. This phrase is in fact a cliché, a hypocritical phrase used by the parties that call themselves proletarian today but do not know what they must do at this critical moment. Because they do not know this, they constantly put off the proletariat with talk of grand schemes, until we receive reinforcements from the West that will place political power in our hands. - We had power, but what did we do with it? We let it slip through our fingers again because we didn’t know what to do with it. We must shift our focus from seizing political power to seizing economic power through the works councils. Then power will no longer be able to slip through our fingers. The works councils, which are intended to be merely economic instruments, will then be supplemented by political councils—by a legal organization. But if we do not also combine these two organizations with an intellectual organization, we will not achieve a healthy state of affairs, as Russia demonstrates. The leaders of the USP have already taken the first steps toward a two-pronged structure. But the cultural aspect must not be forgotten either!

When I read Däumig or Müller, I have to tell myself: Put into practice, this will lead to the threefold social order, because they’ve really just forgotten the cultural aspect. — I am a member of the USP, but I do not shy away from telling the parties that they do not know what to do. As proletarians, we must say: If you don’t know how to lead us, then you must step down. — Every movement has the leaders it deserves; so do we. The proletariat as a whole has not yet mustered the courage to tell its leaders who they really are. Even though it is already quite late, we must nevertheless take up the issue of works councils with renewed energy. Mr. Molt: There has been repeated mention this evening of the person speaking to you, who—if I may say so—still belongs to the old council movement. Mr. Fischer, whom I now have the pleasure of meeting for the umpteenth time, asked me the specific question of where the money I have actually comes from. This money comes from exactly the same capitalism from which Mr. Fischer also derives his income—that is, from the capitalist economic cycle. And the only question is whether one keeps for oneself the money earned on capitalist grounds or whether one returns it to the general public. By their deeds you shall know them! — People used to say: “By their fruits.”—If one establishes a school so that true socialism can be put into practice; if one uses what one has saved through hard work—truly through work, not through capitalism—to ensure that the younger generation learns about things other than what we have learned, then I would call that the practical fruit of a good idea. If it came about simply because I was able to fill my stomach a little better during the war and thereby had a good idea, then it’s still good that at least it exists. The idea really does seem to be there. And if there aren’t good ideas everywhere, then at least we can be glad that there are still people who have ideas, and the main thing is that they are put into practice.

You see, the issue of works councils—which Mr. Fischer has so thoroughly misunderstood—has truly reached a much more serious stage than was expressed this evening. It is truly a matter of to be or not to be! Either we establish the works councils—and then we will have socialism—or we will perish under Entente capitalism, not only manual laborers but also white-collar workers. And this fact, together with a true vision of socialism, can already inspire our generation from within to make the works councils a reality—and even, as a Commercial Councilor, to place oneself in the service of this cause—precisely because one is truly sincere about it. And the fact that we mean it sincerely is proven by the remarkable fact that even proletarian assemblies want this peculiar Commercial Council member to give them lectures on works councils—not to the detriment of these assemblies. That is why I stand firmly on the ground of the works councils, just as I stand on the ground of the threefold social order. These works councils are simply different from those in the automotive and optical industries, for the latter are nothing more than political tools to strengthen the parties; they are not there to thoroughly socialize economic life on a large and genuine scale. That is why we at the “Federation for Threefold Social Order” are so resolutely opposed to the idea of lumping together the works councils that originate from the political parties with those that we advocate.

You have probably already read in a daily newspaper today that this Works Council Act has once again been submitted to the government. We are well aware that works councils cannot be standardized, precisely because every business is different. Economic life cannot be regulated by political power or by laws; rather, it can only regulate itself. Once the law is in place, it is difficult to oppose it—one would have to be a revolutionary to do so. But if we do not even take a serious stand against the draft legislation now, how much less possible will it be once the law is in effect? Only a few weeks separate us from this law. This time must be put to good use. If it is not, it will simply be too late for works councils and for socialization. That is why there is such a fervent hope that the working class will finally wake up. It is incorrect to assume that workers are prejudiced against “philosophers and commercial councilors.” The reality is different. Anyone who has read the newspaper and seen what the Sozialdemokrat said about this Waldorf School—it states: “The school is nice, but it comes from factory owners, so it’s worthless”—must admit to themselves: These are the people who are hindering true socialism and true progress. Party bigwigs of all stripes are to blame for the fact that our honest efforts and the works councils have come to nothing so far. But the proletariat itself will soon see how it is being driven into misery and hardship if it does not pull itself together in time.

This appeal should be directed to you once again today. There is no time to lose! We have only three to four weeks left. If we let those slip by, it will be over for good. So that you can see how serious the situation is, I would like to read you a few lines from a letter that came into my hands just today. This letter comes from a German diplomat who holds a top position abroad, and you should hear how the situation in Germany is characterized from that perspective: “Conditions at home are getting worse and worse, and I fear that the catastrophe we hoped to avoid by accepting the peace has merely been postponed, only to come crashing down upon us all the more violently. What is now called a government in Germany is nothing more than a caricature of one, wavering between party doctrines and fear of revolution, swinging from left to right. Meanwhile, the morale of the people is completely collapsing. The speed at which our reputation abroad is plummeting is indescribable; there is nothing left to save.”

This is a letter that arrived today from a high-ranking German diplomat who is familiar with the situation and knows how things stand, and how we are viewed abroad today. But things can truly only change if we in working-class circles do not fail to recognize that we are only now facing true misery, and if we then pull ourselves together at the last minute to reach a state where our economic life—which is teetering on the brink of the abyss—can be restored. And that can only happen if we roll up our sleeves ourselves, if we ourselves want to ensure that, through the introduction of works councils, we finally make a upward turn. I wanted to address this appeal to you once again, so that we do not have to say in three to four weeks: Now it is too late. — There is still time, but it is the twelfth hour. It is up to you, not us.

Mr. Jansen: When Dr. Steiner began his lectures eight to ten weeks ago, there was truly great enthusiasm for the idea of the threefold social order. But the moment Dr. Steiner—and with him the “League for Social Threefolding”—moved from theory to practice, that is, from idea to reality; the moment work and effort were demanded of those who until then had been allowed only to shout “bravo” and clap—at that very moment, part of that enthusiasm already began to wane. The workers’ lukewarm attitude was also partly to blame for the fact that enthusiasm for Dr. Steiner’s ideas did not go far enough to enable them to fight against the leaders. All of us who were involved in the agitation know a thing or two about this apathy. Dr. Steiner, too, is feeling the apathy of the masses. The idea of works councils has drawn out the last reserves of strength in capitalism, which was by no means secure a quarter of a year ago. It has tried to undermine these works councils by denying their validity and feasibility. And the so-called educated class of our present-day society, along with the even more cheap press of all stripes, have managed to drag down the true idea of the threefold social order and the works councils to the level described in the newspapers. |

Half a century has passed since Karl Marx died of starvation, and today people are still arguing about how to carry out socialization. And more than half a year has passed since the Jena of the German workers—the November Revolution—broke out, and still no one knows how to carry out socialization. Surely we should be grateful when a man has taken the trouble to seek a practically viable path—a path that now makes it possible to introduce socialism in a relatively short time. The opposite is true! Let’s be frank: on the one hand, jealousy is to blame; on the other, stupidity. I already illustrated this a few weeks ago with an example: People talk about killing the lion—capitalism—but they are afraid of the little mouse—the representative of the factories, the director—and of the union and party officials and the like.

Mr. Fischer spoke of commercial councilors, professors, and doctors who advocate the idea of the threefold social order. Don’t we also have professors and doctors in the political parties? Do we also say that their ideas are worthless for that very reason? And if they weren’t in the party—the parties would have long since perished due to the stupidity of the masses. Here’s another curious little story: Mr. Molt, whom I welcome as a colleague and whom we have asked to speak informatively about works councils at our meeting tomorrow—this gentleman has money. We have a vast number of people in the party who also have money—who had it in the past or who have made money through their activities in the party. These men, who call themselves party comrades and party leaders, quietly keep their money to themselves. They do not make it available to the party! They buy themselves mansions and settle comfortably up there. So let’s not be too quick or too loud with the accusation: “That man has money.” - We must see what the people among us do with their money. It has been said: Hunger must first be eliminated so that people are even open to intellectual nourishment. - A communist recently said: Hunger is the worst revolutionary. Once hunger rages, there is no stopping it; then what has long been suppressed breaks through. -— What are strikes, after all, if not hunger revolts? And because hunger is a powerful motivator, it would not be wise to eliminate hunger just yet. Let us ensure that we abolish mass hunger by abolishing mass exploitation. Socialism is, after all, the path to that goal! Hunger is a driving force to finally bring about socialization.

Mr. Kühn: As executive director of the “Federation for the Threefold Social Order,” I would like to say a few things in response to the questions that have been asked. — We intend to convene the works councils for an initial meeting next week. Furthermore, we will begin the study evenings next week. Mr. Roser has already spoken about this. Perhaps I may say a few words about the discussion that took place this evening with Mr. Fischer. Unfortunately, Mr. Fischer has already left. I wanted to tell him before the meeting that I know for certain that he was never present—neither here nor anywhere else—at lectures given by Dr. Steiner. The only time I encountered him was at a meeting to discuss the works council issue, which had been convened by employees, and where he heard something about the threefold social order from a few speakers. Dr. Steiner was not present. — That’s how people who have no idea about the matter judge it; they come up with all sorts of ideas and simply want to dismiss the whole thing. Incidentally, however, Mr. Fischer told me this evening that his union—or rather, his association—intends to hold meetings in the near future to discuss works councils and to establish them on a trial basis in the factories. You see, people now come—having heard bits and pieces here and there—and make their own thing out of it. That is what we want to avoid and what we must combat. We must not make common cause with those who want to know nothing about the threefold social order and do not work toward it. Works councils that are not established on the basis of the idea of the threefold social order will never be able to bring about socialism. The works councils we wanted to introduce would have been the first step toward socialization in the sense of the threefold social order. We must reject everything else. It is a pity that Mr. Fischer has left and can no longer engage with us on the subject of the threefold social order itself.

Time and again, objections to the threefold social order come not only from people who know nothing about it, but also from those who have already heard many lectures on the subject. I’d like to share an example with you. There is a Communist leader who is a quite gifted orator and captivates large crowds. He appears at almost every gathering. This man has heard a great deal about the threefold social order, but has understood nothing of it. For example, he says: “Yes, the threefold social order leads to a three-class system, because if you create three divisions, then there is a class in each division, and that will lead to even worse conditions than we have today; after all, today we have only two classes.” — If one were to draw conclusions about classes based on organizations, one would have to say to him: Today we do have a unitary state, that is, one member. So there ought to be only one class today as well! The man does not understand this and arrives at such a prejudice. Precisely in order to eliminate class rule, we want to put the social organism on a sound footing. There is no question of a threefold division of classes. The same man also asserts the same thing that Mr. Fischer asserted, namely, that the threefold division protects the entrepreneurs. Anyone who has read Dr. Steiner’s book knows that today’s type of entrepreneur will disappear entirely. But the most delightful objection raised by this Communist leader was when he said: “You can’t separate the economy from politics.” You see this all the time in the Reichstag or the National Assembly, how people represent their economic interests—just think of the industrialists in heavy industry! They can’t help but represent their economic interests. — That is why people cling to the old, to this idol of the unitary state: because they fail to see that this is precisely what we want to fight against, what we want to abolish. It is economic policy, in particular, that has driven us into this disastrous catastrophe. People recognize this very well even in calm conversation, but mustering the strength to take measures that would make such economic policies impossible—well, that is beyond people’s capacity. Above all, there are the party leaders who have corrupted the workers’ council movement. We must shake off these people. Until then, the proletariat cannot see socialism realized.

Among the employees—whom we have also called upon—one constantly encounters an incredible prejudice. I would like to give an example of this as well: A person whom I hold in high regard, who plays a leading role as an employee in a factory, said to me: “I don’t know yet whether capitalism is really so wrong.” In any case, I insist that things are better today than they will be in the future. I stand by my views and would rather go down with them than introduce something new. I know that I stand alone in this and may soon find myself out on the street, but I’d rather that. That way, I’ll remain honest and consistent.” — I’ve been told that this is the kind of man who has a heart for the proletariat; someone like that speaks in such a conservative manner. When I told him he was conservative, he got terribly angry. He said that was just being honest. I told him: “That’s exactly like riding a train.” At a station, the conductor comes in and says the train is going to derail at the next station, and you say: “I’m going to stay on anyway; I’d rather be in an accident than get off.” — I said: “I’d get off as quickly as possible and see if we can’t move the train to another track where it won’t derail.” — That’s how we have to pull ourselves together at the last moment and do everything we can to get the works councils together. We must put forward and advocate for what we see as the practical path, and not be afraid of being attacked too harshly by the party bigwigs. In fact, spreading this message by word of mouth should teach people something new and open their eyes to the narrow-mindedness of their party leaders.

[ 30 ] Rudolf Steiner: The question has also been raised: How can what is healthy in syndicalism be related to the threefold structure of the social organism? — Well, it would of course take us very far afield if we were to discuss the nature of syndicalism today at this late hour. But I would like to say this much: there are many truly healthy elements in syndicalism, just as there are, of course, in other contemporary movements. What is sound lives above all in syndicalism, since among very many syndicalists the idea prevails that—without regard for the ceaseless insistence on state legislation—economic achievements for the broad masses of the working population must be attained through direct competition with entrepreneurship. The idea that something forward-looking could emerge from economic life itself through a kind of federative structure is a sound concept within syndicalism. Syndicalism has, after all, come to the fore particularly recently within the French labor movement, and it is somehow significant that it has emerged most strongly there. The French do, after all, have a very strongly developed sense of the state. But just as people in France who were particularly state-minded sought to establish a certain labor movement, they realized that such a movement could actually be of use only if it operated exclusively on economic grounds. The federative organization of economic life, as envisaged by syndicalism, even bears certain similarities to what is sought through associations based on the idea of the threefold social order.

[ 31 ] You see, in the threefold social organism we have an independent spiritual life, then an independent political or legal life, and furthermore an independent economic life. This independent economic life—I have spoken of it often—will have to be built on corporative, cooperative foundations; that is to say, associations will form, on the one hand, from the various professional groups and, on the other hand, from certain connections between production and consumption. One of the objections raised, for example, by Professor Heck in the Tribüne is based on his argument: “Well, if economic life is to be structured in the future as Dr. Steiner envisions, how will it then be possible for, say, artisans and small merchants to be knowledgeable about the affairs of large-scale industry?” — Well, this shows that even Professor Heck has not understood what is meant. Of course, one cannot be an expert in every field, nor is it necessary, for if a federal structure truly comes into being and the individual associations collaborate intensively, then something fruitful for economic life will emerge. It is simply not possible for everything that must develop on a purely democratic basis—such as labor law—to be represented or administered in the same way as purely economic matters. This view is also encountered, at least to some extent, in syndicalism. In the Anglo-American labor movement, the principle of Anglo-American parliamentarism still prevails very strongly. Since this system is based on a certain balance of power—namely, power against power—Anglo-American labor organizations are also structured according to the same principle: workers’ power is pitted against employers’ power, just as the Liberal and Conservative parties face off in Parliament. We encounter a different form within the labor organizations in Germany. There, a certain centralism prevails—I would even say a certain military-style system based on command and obedience. I don’t know if you’ll entirely agree with this, but I can assure you that I have attended trade union meetings on several occasions and that each time I was unpleasantly struck by the fact that whenever differing opinions arose, the chairperson would stand up and say: “Come on, guys, this makes no sense!” — So, this centralized-military system is the second; and the third is what is meant by a federal structure—a structure composed of independent bodies—in which there will be no majority rule or centralization, but rather objective negotiation. This appears as a positive impulse in syndicalism, yet here, too, a further step is necessary—as sought through the idea of the threefold social order—namely, that the progressive factors, which have yet to enter the thinking of present-day humanity, be genuinely taken into account. And here I believe that an understanding of this may well develop precisely out of syndicalism. But this should by no means be taken to mean that I am simply singing the praises of syndicalism here. However, I do firmly believe that the threefold social order can be better understood from this perspective than from any of the other movements.

[ 32 ] Well, I don’t have much to add to what the previous speakers have said here. I would just like to make one point, namely that it has recently become very clear to me and to the friends of the threefold social order what one speaker said about the apathy of the masses. Yes, where there is apathy, that is precisely where we need fire; for if we truly want to make progress in our time, we need not only insight—which, of course, is primary—but also fire. You see, when people keep saying that we don’t really need the spirit—that it will come about naturally through economic restructuring—then I ask you: Yes, the possibility of making progress was there to a certain extent. November 9th came and went; the National Assembly was elected. But is there any sign of a new spirit in this National Assembly? There was, after all, a whole new group of voters who previously had no right to vote: all women. It is strange, however, that quite obviously this spirit has not yet descended upon these women either, for the National Assembly still shows absolutely nothing of what we truly need for the future. For that, however, enthusiasm—passion—will be necessary.

[ 33 ] In this context, I ask you: Isn’t it rather short-sighted to refuse to acknowledge that a certain degree of “socialization” has already begun—even before official socialization has taken place? Do we want socialization to exist only on paper? Will we only be satisfied then? Just imagine if that Commercial Councilor who devoted himself to the threefold social order had done things the way the other Commercial Councilors did. Then it would have turned out that, at the very moment when socialization was to take place, there would have been no Commercial Councilor at all! It would have turned out that, at some point, this Commercial Councilor would have been expropriated just like the other Commercial Councilors, and then there would have been no money left for real socialization or better schools and the like. And now I ask you: Is it a great sin if someone, before humanity is ready to take money from others, already gives up his money for socialization? Is it a sin if someone does not constantly proclaim: “The means of production must be handed over to the general public!”—but instead does so of their own accord? I fear that those who constantly spout empty phrases about how the means of production must be placed at the service of the general public will not use them as wisely as those who, out of their own insight, are already doing so beforehand. This is socialization before official socialization. This stems from the spirit that we are striving to cultivate as the social spirit of the future. And to level the accusation that someone possesses the social spirit beforehand—that is, before it is enshrined in any constitution—means being utterly incapable of penetrating the spirit that alone can save humanity; it merely reveals a longing for the written word. The law that you enact, you can confidently take home with you. — We need the spirit from which socialization arises. That is why one should not fall into the error of saying: “The Waldorf School is nice, but it was founded by a commercial councilor; we want nothing to do with that!” — It would be wiser to say: Take him as an example, and become, as socializers in the future, just as he is—then all will be well. What is constantly put forward from this corner against titles and the like merely testifies that, despite everything, people cling more to words and phrases than to deeds. And until we can bring ourselves to take action and to stand by that action—regardless of where it comes from—we will not make any progress; that must be our conviction. And when that becomes our conviction, then we will look at nothing other than whether someone is a reasonable person inspired by social sentiments, and we will ask for nothing else. As long as we ask about anything else, we will not move forward. Unless this becomes our realization, all talk is in vain. For the first step must be taken by those people who understand what is to happen, regardless of whether they play this or that role in the existing order. All of us living today, of course, derive our livelihood from capitalism—whether we are capitalists or the lowest-ranking workers. And we cannot change anything unless we look to what lives in the spirit and must come about from the spirit. We must finally overcome empty rhetoric; we must move on to what can truly become action.

Mr. Roser: As chair, he thanks Dr. Steiner for his presentation and once again draws attention to the next event. He asks those present once again to familiarize themselves with the book The Key Points of the Social Question so that they will be able to discuss the book and the threefold social order within their respective circles.