The Rudolf Steiner Archive

6. National and International Life in the Threefold Social Order

[ 1 ] It may have seemed somewhat strange to some how I addressed the topic in question. By “strange,” I mean in the sense that one might say: Yes, these were simply individual ideas—thoughts on a possible organization of social structure—and some of the things that are often repeated as catchphrases in discussions of the social question today were less evident in these lectures. Certainly, these were, first and foremost, thoughts and ideas that were at the heart of the matter here.

[ 2 ] But I believe I have also made it clear that these thoughts and ideas differ from many others put forward in this field in that they, so to speak, assert: Yes, there is a lack of equitable distribution of life’s goods. That stems from this or that problem. These problems must be eliminated—and so on. One hears such words frequently today. It seems to me that the issue is more about proceeding in this area just as one does in other aspects of practical life. When dealing with any product that is to be produced by a machine and that people need in some way to meet their needs, it is not enough simply to draw up a plan and say: “Well, a few people who are organized in such and such a way will just have to join forces so that this product can be produced.”—This is roughly how various social programs being proposed today sound. My concern, rather, is to specify how the machine—in this case, the social organism—must be structured and constituted so that what is demanded by the more or less conscious or unconscious social demands of the present can be brought about. And I believe that one will not be able to say that these lectures did not deal with how bread or coal or the like are to be procured. In my view, that is precisely what they have addressed. They have addressed what the actual foundations of the social organism are, and how people must live and work together within this social organism so that the outcomes reflected in these social demands can be realized. I wanted to preface this because a similar criticism might arise, particularly in connection with my concluding lecture today.

[ 3 ] Only those who understand how the price of the piece of bread that lands on everyone’s table is connected to the global economy—and how what happens in Australia or America, and what people there produce, affects the price of a piece of bread or coal here—will recognize the international problem as part of the broader social issue. But today it is not exactly easy to speak specifically about the international problem in the face of the various judgments and prejudices that prevail. After all, this international life of humankind has, in a strange way, reduced itself to absurdity over the past five years. Was there not already a widespread belief that international sentiment and international understanding had taken root in modern humanity? Where, then, have we actually ended up with this international sentiment, with this international understanding? To the mutual destruction of nations across vast swaths of the civilized world! And even those ideas and intellectual endeavors that placed the greatest value on their international character have failed—even in the eyes of their own proponents. We need only consider how international Christianity—for it was surely meant to be international—has in many instances carried the language of national chauvinism in its words, sayings, and views. And we could cite many other examples of international impulses that have foundered in recent times. Perhaps especially when speaking of the international life of humanity in economic terms, it will be necessary to rethink and relearn many things. And it will also be necessary to delve into those sources of human nature that can only be found by looking to the spirit and the soul. And that this should happen here—that we should not merely resort to the buzzwords “spirit” and “soul,” but rather focus on the actual workings of the spiritual and the soul—is, I believe, what the recent lectures have at least attempted to demonstrate.

[ 4 ] Throughout the world, what people develop in their coexistence and collaboration is governed by two impulses—two impulses regarding which, above all else, it is essential that truth reign within us as human beings: a true, unvarnished understanding, one not distorted by all sorts of catchphrases. Two impulses dwell in the human soul, which relate to one another like the north and south poles of a magnet. These two impulses are selfishness and love. It is, however, a widespread view that something is ethical only if selfishness is overcome by love, and if people develop in such a way that pure love takes the place of selfishness. Many people hold this view as an ethical demand—and today, also as a social demand. An understanding of what kind of fundamental opposition actually exists between selfishness and love is far less common today.

[ 5 ] When we speak of egoism, we must first and foremost understand that this egoism begins for human beings with their physical needs. We cannot understand what springs from human physical needs in any other way than by placing it within the sphere of egoism. What a person needs arises from his or her egoism. Now, one must certainly consider that this egoism could also be ennobled, and therefore it is not good to form one’s views in this particular area based on mere catchphrases. Simply saying that egoism should be overcome through love does not contribute much to an understanding of egoism. For the point is, for example, that the person who treats his fellow human beings with a pure, human understanding of their interests acts differently from the person who has narrow interests, who does not care about what lives in the souls and hearts of these fellow human beings, who has no interest in his surroundings. Therefore, the former—who has true understanding for his fellow human beings—need not necessarily be any less self-centered in life simply because of this, for serving others may very well be part of his self-interest. Devoting himself to the service of others can bring him inner contentment; it can even evoke a sense of inner well-being or pleasure. And so, while outwardly there may well be objectively altruistic expressions of life, these cannot be evaluated any differently in the emotional life than as selfishness.

[ 6 ] But the question of egoism must be expanded much further. One must also trace egoism throughout the entire life of the human soul and spirit. One must be clear about the fact that, just as physical needs arise from a person’s inner nature, so too do the spiritual and psychological aspects in many areas. For example, everything that is a product of a person’s imagination arises from their inner nature. What a person creates in the artistic realm springs from their inner being. If one approaches the matter with an open mind and seeks a true understanding of such things, one will have to say: What the human imagination creates—what emerges from the indeterminate depths of their being—has the same origin as physical needs, only on a higher level. The life of the imagination, as it unfolds, for example, in art, is based entirely—from a subjective point of view—on the inner satisfaction of the human being, on a satisfaction that is finer and nobler than, for example, the satisfaction of hunger, but which is qualitatively no different for the human being himself, even if what is produced through it initially has a different significance for the world.

[ 7 ] Yet all human selfishness depends on people coming to terms with one another, living together, and working together. Selfishness itself requires living and working together with other people. And so much of what we develop collectively with others is indeed based on selfishness and can even be counted among humanity’s noblest virtues. Consider a mother’s love: it is entirely grounded in the mother’s selfishness, and it brings about the noblest effects in human coexistence.

[ 8 ] Thus, what is actually rooted in selfishness—because human beings need one another precisely for the sake of their selfishness—extends to life together in the family; it extends to life together in the tribe; it extends to life together in the nation, in the people. And the way in which a person finds himself within the people, within the nation, is nothing other than a reflection of what emerges from him out of selfishness. There, in love of one’s country, in patriotism, selfishness is certainly elevated to a high level; there it is ennobled; there it becomes such that it appears as an ideal—and rightly so. But this ideal is nonetheless rooted in human egoism. Now this ideal must spring from human egoism and be fulfilled so that everything that can emerge from a people’s productivity may indeed be handed over to humanity. And so we see how, from the impulse of the individual human soul—from egoism—ultimately develops everything that finds expression in nationalism. Nationalism is egoism lived collectively. Nationalism is egoism elevated to the spiritual realm. Nationalism, for example, is imbued with and warmed by the imaginative life of the people, in which nationalism finds its expression. But this imaginative life itself is the spiritually higher development of what human needs are. One must go back to this root in order to understand the matter correctly by contemplating it.

[ 9 ] What develops in human nature as internationalism is of an entirely different nature. We become national in that nationalism springs from our own personal nature. Nationalism is a flower that blossoms from the growth of the individual human being, who is bound to his people by shared blood with his tribe or through some other sense of belonging. Nationalism grows with the individual. It is part of him; it grows into him—I would say, just as he grows into a certain physical stature. Internationalism is not experienced in this way. Internationalism can rather be compared to that feeling we gain when we find ourselves face to face with the beauty of nature—a feeling that drives us to love, reverence, and appreciation simply by beholding it, by the impression it makes on us, and by the fact that we freely surrender ourselves to it. While we grow into our own people—because we are, in a sense, a part of them—we come to know other peoples. They influence us, I would say, through the indirect path of recognition and understanding. We gradually learn to love them with understanding, and to the extent that we can love humanity—in its various peoples and in its various regions—with understanding, to that extent our inner internationalism grows.

[ 10 ] There are indeed two distinct sources in human nature that underlie nationalism and internationalism. Nationalism is the highest form of egoism. Internationalism is that which takes root in us more and more as we open ourselves to a more understanding view of humanity. In this light, we must view human coexistence across the civilized world, especially if we wish to arrive at a proper understanding of what clashes in internationalism and nationalism.

[ 11 ] Even when seeking to understand economic life, one must refer back to the two impulses in the human soul mentioned above. What we have described in these lectures as the threefold structure of human life leads us back to the two impulses in the human soul that we have just characterized. Let us consider economic life, for example—we will examine it in more detail later—as it permeates all national and international human interaction. Let us examine this economic life. We view this economic life in such a way that we must recognize its starting point as lying, in fact, in human need, in consumption. After all, the fundamental purpose of economic life is to ensure that human needs are met. Production and the circulation of goods, administration, human interaction, and the like must ensure the satisfaction of human needs. Here, too, we can ask ourselves: What, in human nature, underlies need and consumption? Egoism underlies need and consumption. And the point is to approach this fact with the necessary understanding. Then, when it comes to economic life, the question will not be: “How can selfishness be overcome?”—but rather: “How can altruism satisfy legitimate selfishness?”—Perhaps this question sounds less idealistic, but it is true.

[ 12 ] However, when one looks at the production that is intended to satisfy consumption—that is, to meet the needs of consumption—one immediately sees that something else is necessary. The person who is to produce is, of course, at the same time also a consumer. As the lectures have explained, it is essential that he have an understanding not only of the production process but also of the lives of his fellow human beings, so that he can devote himself to his production process in a way that corresponds to the needs of his fellow human beings. People must be able to observe—whether directly or indirectly through the institutions we have discussed—what people need in terms of consumption. Then, based on this selfless understanding, a person must also be able to devote themselves to this or that form of production that lies within their capabilities. One need only describe this, and then—even if it seems dry and sober in this context—one will have to recognize that the true driving force of production lies in selfless love for human society. And until one grasps that production can be regulated in a social manner only by creating foundations through intellectual and legal life—from which selfless love for one’s branches of production flows into the human soul—out of concern for one’s fellow human beings and out of concern for life itself—one will not be able to say anything positive about the actual task of the social problem.

[ 13 ] Between the two—between, I would say, egoistic consumption and production guided by love—lies the circulation of commodities, which creates the balance between them: today through the vagaries of the market, through supply and demand; in the future, it is to be created through a human association that replaces the vagaries of the market with reason, so that there will be people whose task it will be to organize production based on the observation of consumption needs, so that the market will consist of what the reason of the relevant organization is able to produce for consumption—which is first correctly identified and observed—from the process of production. In this field, one will have to dispense entirely with all catchphrases and address the realities.

[ 14 ] But now—and who could fail to see it—recent times have increasingly brought about something that was bound to emerge as humanity’s horizon expanded farther and farther across the Earth. The global economy has taken the place of the old national economies, the economies confined to smaller territories. However, this global economy exists for the time being merely as a kind of demand. Certainly, this demand has developed to such an extent that in almost every part of the civilized world, products are consumed that are produced elsewhere—whether in the same country or in another—within this civilized world. But even in this area, human intellectual comprehension and the human spirit have not kept pace with what has emerged as a global demand. Everywhere we see how it is an urgent demand of our time to take the global economy into account and to establish the institutions under which the global economy is possible.

[ 15 ] Under what conditions is a global economy even possible? One can truly understand this only by first considering—as I explained in yesterday’s lecture—how the social order must be shaped for the future when the community of the common good replaces the old community of force, the society of force, and the current exchange society. This is precisely the society in which production is carried out by associations through the contracts of those associations.

[ 16 ] If one truly asserts this, where, then, does the real difference lie between such a communal society and the mere exchange society, which is still the dominant form in many cases today? The difference lies in the fact that, in an exchange society, it is primarily the individual or the individual group that deals with another individual or another group. What, then, do this other individual or this group care about in their relationship to one another? Whether they are consumers or producers—their production and their consumption are, so to speak, separated from one another by an abyss—the random market—and the random market mediates the circulation of commodities and facilitates trade. No matter how one might otherwise speak—justifiably or unjustifiably—about the dominance of capital, labor, and the like, or about the significance of capital and the significance of labor, one must say: What is essential to our exchange society is that the dominant force is the circulation of commodities. It is this that builds the bridge between production and consumption, while production and consumption are separated from one another by the chasm of the market, so that they are not mediated by reason.

[ 17 ] What will replace the prevailing mode of circulation in communal society? The entire realm of economic life will be drawn into the interests of every economic actor! While today the economic actor must concern himself with how to obtain or sell his products—a matter he must attend to out of self-interest—in the communal society it must be the case that every economic actor has a full interest in consumption, trade, and production; that is to say, the entire economic system must be reflected in the economic interests of the individual. That is what communal society must be all about.

[ 18 ] But let us now consider how this common society—which even within individual states today remains a challenge for the future—must relate to the international problem. How does this international problem present itself to us, particularly with regard to economic life? Here we can see that, while there is indeed a global demand for a world economy, the individual nation-states remain distinct within the overall world economy. These individual nation-states—quite apart from the other historical conditions of their emergence—are initially held together by what arises from the egoism of the people living together. Even in the noblest aspects of national life—in literature, art, and so on—it is the imagination arising from egoism that holds ethnic groups together. These ethnic groups, held together in this way, now inserted themselves into the entire sphere of the global economy, and they inserted themselves particularly strongly—ever more and more strongly—in the course of the 19th century, and this insertion reached its peak at the beginning of the 20th century. If we wish to characterize what actually happened there, we must say: While other interests—interests that bore a much closer resemblance to the old society of violence—had previously prevailed between states, the principle of the exchange society became predominant, particularly in mutual relations within the international life of states, so that a peak was reached at the beginning of the 20th century. How production and consumption took place within individual states, what was supplied to or obtained from other states—all of this was entirely governed by the self-interest of the individual states. Only what was of interest to the individual state as such was taken into account. The way in which mutual economic relations between states were established was based entirely on the principle of trade, which in turn was based on the principle that governed the circulation of goods in the barter economy.

[ 19 ] In this area, but on a larger scale, it became particularly evident how a society based solely on exchange was bound to lead to absurdity. And this descent into absurdity was essentially one of the main catalysts, one of the main causes, of what brought about the catastrophe of World War I. It is indeed becoming ever clearer to people that there was this great contradiction between the demand for a global economy and the way individual states positioned themselves within that global economy—states that closed themselves off instead of promoting the global economy within their own borders through tariffs and other measures, and that sought to claim for themselves—and indeed did claim—the benefits that could have resulted from the global economy. This led to the crisis we refer to as the catastrophe of the World War. Certainly, other causes are involved, but this is precisely one of the main causes.

[ 20 ] And so the task will be to recognize how, particularly in the context of international life, it is of the utmost importance to find a way to conduct economic activity across borders according to principles other than those of a mere exchange economy. It must become possible—just as in civil society the individual must have an interest in production wherever it occurs and an interest in consumption wherever it occurs if he wishes to participate, just as he must take an interest in the entire realm of the economy—the consumption of goods, the production of goods, and the circulation of goods—so it must be possible to find incentives through which every state in the world could have a genuine, inner interest in every other state, so that something other than a random market-like phenomenon does not develop between nations, but rather a genuine, inner understanding prevails among them.

[ 21 ] This brings us to the deeper roots of what is today sought in abstract terms in the so-called League of Nations, which is based on the premise that certain ills existing in human coexistence can be corrected. Yet it springs from the same principle from which so much else springs today. Anyone who reflects today on the ills of life often thinks of the immediate corrective measures through which one thing or another can be accomplished. Someone sees that there is a great deal of luxury, so he wants to tax luxury and the like. He does not think to go to the root of the matter—to find the structure of social coexistence through which such excessive luxury cannot arise. Yet the fact that one must go to such sources is precisely what matters in the life of nations as well. Therefore, international inner coexistence will not be achieved through arbitrary regulations intended merely to correct problems, but rather by truly addressing the sources through which mutual understanding among peoples can be found.

[ 22 ] Well, no understanding of the people can be found if one focuses solely on that which, in a sense, arises from within human beings just as growth itself does, if one looks only at that which, as I have shown, must lead to nationalism and to isolation within the nation. What, then, do we have in intellectual life today that is, at its core, solely international in character and has not lost that character during this war simply because people were unable to embrace it in this sphere? For if they had embraced it, they would have had to destroy the sphere itself. What is there today that is truly international across the entire earth? Nothing other than, in essence, the realm of natural science as it relates to the external sensory world. Intellectualistic science—I have shown in my lectures how natural science must be called intellectualistic—has taken on an international character. And it was easy to observe in these times, when so much falsehood has entered the world: If anyone has done science the injustice of misusing it in a nationalistic sense, they have thereby, so to speak, deprived it of its true character. But do we not see, on the other hand, precisely through the fact I just had to mention, that this kind of spiritual life, which finds its expression in intellectualism, was incapable of establishing an international life? I think it is clear enough that the impotence I have described from various perspectives regarding this intellectualist school of thought has manifested itself particularly clearly in the relationship between this intellectualist intellectual life and internationalism.

[ 23 ] Science was unable to instill such profound international impulses into the human soul that they could have withstood the terrible events of recent years. And where this science sought to foster social impulses—as in socialist internationalism—it became apparent that this internationalist socialism, too, could not hold its ground but mostly drifted into nationalist channels. Why? Because it adopted only intellectualism from humanity’s ancient heritage, and intellectualism is not strong enough to exert a formative influence on life. This is what demonstrates, on the one hand, that this newer scientific movement—which emerged alongside capitalism and cultural technology—does indeed contain an international element, but at the same time reveals how powerless it is to establish a truly international life for humanity.

[ 24 ] In contrast, we must now assert what I discussed in the fourth lecture regarding the Spiritual Science approach, which is based on spiritual perception and the knowledge of the spirit. This spiritual perception is not based on external sensory perception; it arises from the development of human nature itself. It springs from the same source as the imagination. But it springs from deeper depths of human nature. Therefore, it rises not merely to the individualistic constructs of the imagination, but to the objective structure of knowledge concerning the spiritual reality of the world. In this regard, this spiritual perception is still widely misunderstood today. Those who are unfamiliar with it say: “Yes, what is discovered in this way through spiritual insight is merely subjective; no one can prove it.”—Mathematical insights are also subjective and cannot be proven; and mathematical truths can never be substantiated by human consensus! Anyone familiar with the Pythagorean theorem knows that it is correct, even if millions of people were to contradict it. In the same way, what is meant here by Spiritual Science leads to something that is objectively real within. But it takes the same path as the imagination, rising higher, rooted in the objective depths of human nature and ascending to objective heights. Therefore, this spiritual insight rises above everything else that otherwise inflames the peoples as imagination. And at the same time, this spiritual insight is sought in this or that people, through this or that language. It is one and the same throughout all humanity, across the entire earth, if only it is sought deeply enough.

[ 25 ] Therefore, this spiritual perspective—which I had to demonstrate can truly have a formative impact on practical and social life—also establishes the possibility of influencing international life and serving as a bond between peoples. A people will produce its own poetry and the distinctive characteristics of its other artistic fields in an individualistic manner. Out of a people’s individualism, something will emerge for this spiritual perspective that is entirely the same as what emerges elsewhere. The foundations from which things arise are different in various places; yet the form in which they ultimately take shape is the same across the entire earth. Many people today speak of the spirit; they simply do not realize that the spirit must be explained. But once it is explained, it is something that does not divide people but rather unites them, because it goes back to the innermost essence of the human being—in that one person brings forth the same as another, and in that one person can fully understand another.

[ 26 ] But when one truly deepens what is otherwise expressed only in an individualistic way within the imagination of each people to the level of spiritual insight, then the individual manifestations of the peoples will be merely manifold expressions of what is a unity in spiritual insight. Then it will be possible to allow the various national individualities to persist throughout the entire earth, not because an abstract unity needs to reign, but because the concrete unity found through spiritual insight can be expressed in the most diverse ways. And through this, the many will be able to understand one another within the spiritual unity. Then, from their diverse understanding of the One, they will find the possibility of establishing statutes for an alliance of nations; then, from the spiritual state, from the spiritual constitution, the legal framework that unites the peoples will also be able to emerge. And then there will be room within the individual nations for what is possible for each one: an interest in the production and consumption of other nations. Then what constitutes the spiritual life of the nations and their legal life—that is, understanding for other nations—will truly be able to develop across the entire earth.

[ 27 ] Thus, in this area as well, we will either have to turn to the spiritual realm, or we will have to give up on creating anything better than what has existed so far, no matter how well-intentioned the statutes may be. Certainly, today—understandably—a great many people speak of their disbelief in the effect of such a spiritual realm; but actually because they lack the courage to approach this spiritual realm. People truly make life quite difficult for this spiritual realm. But where, despite the obstacles placed in its way, it can unfold even within a small circle, this already shows that it is exactly as I have just described. If one has experienced, somewhere in one of the countries that were previously at war, the mood of the people—what they thought of nationals of enemy countries, how they hated them—and if one has seen how little sense of internationalism existed in such a war-torn region, then you can form a judgment about the one speaking before you—the one who has returned time and again to that place I have already mentioned in these lectures, in northwestern Switzerland, where the center of the Spiritual Science referred to here stands: the Goetheanum, the School of Spiritual Science. What, in essence, was that place throughout the entire war years? At this place, throughout the entire war, people of all nations worked together without understanding one another any less during this time than they had before, even though they engaged in many discussions—some unnecessary, some necessary. This understanding, which arose from a shared embrace of a spiritual worldview, has already become a reality, even if it has so far become a reality only within a small circle. One could say: We have been able to conduct an experiment in this area. We have been able to show that people who, at times, wanted to go their own way can understand others.

[ 28 ] But this understanding must not be sought through an abstract reference to the spirit; rather, it must be sought in the most intimate, actual process of developing the spirit within oneself. Today’s humanity still knows very little about this: that the spirit must actually be developed. Even today, people often speak of the spirit, saying that the spirit must come—I mentioned this again yesterday—and that it must permeate what are merely materialistic social demands. But one hears little more than that an appeal should be made to the spirit. Yes, if such people—who are otherwise well-meaning, reasonable, and imbued with social ethics—would only consider the following, if they would only say to themselves: Yes, we certainly did have the Spirit; but can we really appeal to the very same Spirit we once had today? After all, it was precisely this Spirit that brought us into the situation we are in now! So we do not need a new situation through the old spirit. We cannot achieve that through an old spirit. That has been demonstrated. We need a new spirit. — But this new spirit must be cultivated. And it can only be cultivated in an independent spiritual life.

[ 29 ] Therefore, let us imagine how—for this is what their very nature will compel them to do—the demand for a global economy will be fulfilled; within this global economy, social structures will stand side by side, each giving rise, in its own unique way, to intellectual and legal systems through the people who live together within them. But what is brought forth in this individual way will be precisely the means for understanding the other social structures, and it will thereby be the means for truly conducting the global economy. Otherwise, however, if such a means is not created, so-called national interests will repeatedly intrude into the global economy and claim for themselves whatever can be extracted from it. Since everyone wants this without understanding the other, disharmony will inevitably arise once again.

[ 30 ] But how, then, can a true global economy be managed? It can only be managed if the spiritual and legal organizations do not take control of the individual entities within this economy, for these entities must, after all, have their own individual form. You can only attain universality and unity in an intellectual sense by achieving what constitutes the other unity across the entire Earth. The emancipation of this Earth from individualism—that is the other unity across the entire Earth.

[ 31 ] Now, just as it is true that if one delves deeply enough into human nature, one can ascend with human development to an objective height, so that one finds, as a spiritual insight, what every other person from every other nation finds, so one must also say that human consumer needs throughout the entire world are not affected by individual nationalisms. Human needs are international. Yet they stand in polar opposition to what constitutes the international dimension of the spirit. The international dimension of the spirit must provide understanding; it must be able to imbue this understanding of other nationalities with love; it must be able to extend love to the point of internationality in the sense explained earlier. Egoism, however, is just as international. It will be able to build a bridge to global production only if that global production arises from a shared spiritual understanding, from a shared spiritual vision of unity. Understanding for shared consumption based on shared egoism will never arise from national egoisms. Only from a shared spiritual outlook, however, can that develop which does not stem from egoism—which ultimately comes from love, as I have explained—and which can therefore govern production.

[ 32 ] How did the demand for a global economy arise? Because, as the conditions of human life have become increasingly complex throughout the entire civilized world, people’s consumption needs have become more and more uniform, and it has become increasingly evident that people throughout the entire civilized world have the same needs. How can a unified principle of production—one that will be effective for the global economy throughout the entire world—emerge from these unified needs? By ascending to spiritual life, as it is meant here—to a true spiritual vision powerful enough to create common global production for common global consumption. Then, however, balance will be achieved as the unity of the spirit works toward the unity of consumption; then balance will be established in circulation, in the mediation between production and consumption.

[ 33 ] One must therefore look into the innermost being of the human being if one wishes to understand how, across the entire civilized world, a unified organism is to emerge from many individual organisms. There is no other way for this unified organism to take shape—this unified organism that is to provide the conditions necessary for creating, in accordance with social demands, such an organic connection between production and consumption across the entire globe that the piece of bread or the piece of coal I need for my individual household or for myself truly meets the social demands that are currently at work in the collective unconscious of humanity.

[ 34 ] I know very well that, even when one places things in such a sphere of consideration, many say: “Yes, but that is idealism; it soars to ideal heights!” — Yet it is in these heights alone that one finds the driving force behind external diversity. And precisely because people have not sought out the driving forces—which can only be found in this way—we have ended up in the social and political conditions of the present day throughout the entire civilized world. Not until people say: Those who are truly engaged in creating the inner driving forces for the individual social organism and for the social organism of the world—they are the true practitioners, whereas those who often call themselves practitioners have only a rudimentary understanding of their true field and are therefore abstract—not until this is recognized will the social question be able to stand on sound ground.

[ 35 ] One of those who, quite some time ago, took this matter seriously pointed out—while speaking about a certain area of human life—that the so-called idealists are not exactly those who do not know how ideals relate to real life. He sensed how absurd it is when so-called pragmatists come along and tell the idealist: “Yes, your ideals are very nice, but practical reality demands something entirely different!” — The only real fact is that practice demands precisely these ideals if it is to become true practice. And what prevents the realization of these ideals is that these so-called pragmatists are the very ones who do not allow them to be realized—either because they are too complacent to do so or because they have a vested interest in preventing their realization. And the same man said: We know just as well as anyone else that ideals are not immediately applicable in life; we simply know that life must always be shaped according to these ideals. But those who cannot convince themselves of this demonstrate nothing other than that life, in its shaping, has simply ceased to count on their cooperation; and so may we wish for them that they receive rain and sunshine at the right time—and, if possible, good digestion.

[ 36 ] This is what characterizes the relationship between the often-maligned idealism and the practical realities of life—the very thing you need if you want to build a bridge—a task that engineering, too, masters through non-material ideas: Just as the entire bridge must first exist as an idea, and only when it has been well-conceived as an idea can it become a real, practical bridge, so too must that which is to take shape from idealism be a practical idea born of an inner practical sense. And one must have the instinct, the sense of how to carry such objective regularity into real-life practice. Then one will no longer ask: How does one carry these things into real-life practice?—Then one will know: If there are enough people who understand these things, then through these people and their actions, the matter will become immediately practical.

[ 37 ] One often hears people say today: “Yes, these ideas are indeed very beautiful in many ways, and even if they were conceived as something to be realized, they would be very beautiful—but people aren’t ready for them yet. The masses aren’t ready for them yet.” — Well, what does that actually mean when one says that the masses aren’t ready yet? Anyone who understands the relationship between the idea and reality, anyone who sees through practical life to its true nature, thinks differently about these people; they know that there are enough people today who, if they only look deep enough within themselves, can muster full understanding of what is at stake here. What holds them back is, for the most part, merely a lack of courage. They lack the energy to truly penetrate to the depths they could reach if only they could develop full self-confidence within themselves.

[ 38 ] What we need above all else is something that, fundamentally, every single person today could correct within themselves, if only they would look closely enough at reality. But while, on the one hand, people fall into materialism—and even take pleasure in it—on the other hand, they are enamored with abstractions, with all sorts of abstract and intellectual propositions, and have absolutely no desire to penetrate reality.

[ 39 ] Even in everyday life, people today believe they are being practical; but they do not make the effort to view things in such a way that they might recognize their true nature. For example, when someone today is presented with a statement, they simply accept it at face value. They take in only the abstract content. In doing so, they actually distance themselves from life, rather than drawing closer to it. When someone today reads a well-written editorial, it must be said that writing a well-written editorial is no great feat these days. For so much has already been thought through in modern

[ 40 ] Civilization is not merely a matter of acquiring a certain routine so that one can string phrases together. The point is not that one agrees with the literal content of something today, but that one forms a judgment about how that content relates to reality. Yet there is much in the present that needs to be corrected in this direction, so that one must say: Above all else, people today should demand the truth—that truth which they courageously hold up against reality.

[ 41 ] Here are two examples. You can read in certain statistics—say, about the Balkan states—since people today use statistics to learn about conditions in the outside world, assess global political situations, or the like: So many Greeks, so many Serbs, so many Bulgarians! And from that, one can then calculate what the legitimate claims of the Greek element, the Bulgarian element, and the Serbian element are. But if you look a little more closely—that is, if you combine what you’ve learned as abstract knowledge about the number of Bulgarians, Serbs, and Greeks in Macedonia with actual experience—you might discover that the father is registered as a Greek, one son as a Bulgarian, and the second son as a Serb! Now one might wonder what the truth of the matter is. Can the family really be such that the father is a Greek, one son a Bulgarian, and the second son a Serb? Does one really learn anything about reality from statistics based on such assumptions? Most of what is compiled in statistics around the world today is based on such compilations—a practice that is particularly common in business life. That is why—because people do not feel the need to always go beyond what is told to them verbatim to the substance of truth and reality—so many hasty judgments are made today, for people do not delve into the heart of matters. People are content with what merely serves as a superficial layer of life that obscures the true realities. But to get to the heart of true realities—that is the foremost demand of our time: not to engage in idle chatter about whether people are mature or immature, but to point directly to what the core problems are. People will understand them only if there are others who take the trouble to uncover these core problems and draw sufficient attention to them.

[ 42 ] Or: In early June 1917, the world read—or at least part of the world was still interested in it—the accession speech of the then-Austrian Emperor Karl. In this speech, he speaks of democracy in a very contemporary way, repeatedly referring to democracy. Well, this “throne speech”—I’ve read quite a bit about it: how enthusiastic people were that democracy was being proclaimed to the world, how wonderful it was that the world was being told something about democracy. Well, if one took the throne speech from beginning to end, judging it solely by its outward, literal content—it was a fine piece of work, in the style of a literary feature, if one simply wishes to take pleasure in the style, in the structure of the sentences, and in how they seek to evoke human delight. Fine. But let us look at the truth. One must place what is said literally within its context. One must ask: Who is speaking this? In what setting is he speaking it? And there, in the ancient coronation regalia—magnificent in every possible way and resplendent in every possible way—one sees the medieval ruler standing, not even concealing what is written in his elaborate speech, surrounded by his resplendent, gold-embroidered paladins; that quintessentially medieval figure who, if he spoke the truth, spoke of something other than democracy! What is this talk of democracy—no matter how beautiful it may be—when taken literally in such a speech? A lie of world-historical proportions!

[ 43 ] One must move beyond the literal content of present-day phenomena to a direct perception of reality. One must not merely grasp things with the intellect; one must engage with these perceptions. This is precisely what Spiritual Science demands. One does not misjudge external reality with impunity. Anyone who wishes to perceive spiritual reality correctly in the sense of Spiritual Science—as meant here—and to see only the spiritual world must, above all, accustom themselves to the most absolute truth in the sensory world: they must not succumb to any delusion regarding what is happening around them as perceived by their five senses. Precisely those who wish to penetrate the spirit must apply their healthy five senses truthfully and not indulge in fantasy—a fantasy to which so-called businesspeople and many practitioners, who are greatly revered, and to which almost the entire world succumbs, often give themselves over.

[ 44 ] What we need is not a self-pitying lament that people are not mature; what we need is to point out how we must become true—truly, from the very depths of our being. Then the false talk about the spirit—and always, again, the spirit—will not resound throughout the world. Then, too, this false talk about the difference between law and morality will not resound throughout the world; instead, there will be a resounding call for the work required to cultivate the spirit. Then there will be talk of how, once the spirit has been cultivated, people will live in such a way that they will find the same rights among themselves, and only then will it be possible to speak of how an economy imbued with spirit and guided by justice can establish a true community.

[ 45 ] It is far more necessary to realize this: there are enough people who, at the very least, can gather their inner strength to comprehend such insights within themselves. One must simply not grow weary of emphasizing these things again and again. One must simply not believe that when one says, “The Spirit must reign,” this Spirit will come into the world through some kind of magic. No, it is through human spiritual work alone that this Spirit can come into the world. In this regard, too, the point is to be truthful—not to keep proclaiming the untruth into the world that “the Spirit must be,” but rather to proclaim the truth: “The Spirit will only be if there are places where work is not done merely on external nature, not merely in the sense of materialism, but where a spiritual vision is developed.”

[ 46 ] But from this spiritual perspective—and I believe I have demonstrated this precisely in these lectures, which are, after all, meant to be only an attempt, a modest one—there also emerges a genuine social understanding of humanity’s way of life in the present and in the near future. The point is that human beings become true precisely in relation to the spiritual and in relation to spiritual striving. For the spirit can only be found through the path of truth.

[ 47 ] It is merely an excuse to say, “Yes, people don’t know.” - In spiritual striving, the point is that when a lie is followed unconsciously, that lie has just as harmful an effect on the world as when it is followed consciously. For human beings have a duty in the present to bring the subconscious to the surface in order to eradicate untruth in all areas, including the realm of the subconscious.

Q&A Session Following the Sixth Lecture

[ 48 ] First, a question is posed here:

[ 49 ] What is Dr. Steiner's position on the interest-based economy and unearned income?

[ 50 ] I have—not in a polemical manner, but in a constructive one—indeed addressed this in my book The Key Points of the Social Question. I have often been accused of not having completely eliminated interest from the social structure of human society that I envision. Now, it seems to me that it is more honest to stand on the ground of reality and truly emphasize what is possible and necessary than to stand on some nebulous ground where one merely makes demands. In my Key Points of the Social Question, I have attempted to show that working with capital is indeed necessary. One cannot create large enterprises without accumulations of capital, nor can one establish a national economy in the modern sense at all. Whether this capital is conceived in the form of money or in some other form is, of course, a separate matter.

[ 51 ] When addressing social issues, most people very often make the mistake of viewing the present, as it were, as a single moment in time and reflecting only on that single moment: How should economic life be organized in this context? — But economic activity means, at the same time, using what has been produced at a given point in time to lay the foundation for future economic activity. Without laying some kind of foundation for the future, it would not be possible to maintain the continuity of economic life; economic life would constantly come to a halt. This does not, however, justify interest derived from interest income, but it does justify interest income itself, because there must be the possibility that, at any given time, enough work is done to produce outputs that can in turn serve future work. This is inconceivable without the person in question receiving some kind of equivalent for what they contribute toward the future, and that would amount to a form of interest. I could have called it something else if I had wanted to flatter those who today rail against interest as part of income. But it seemed more honest to me to name the matter as it actually is. It is necessary that those who contribute in any way—and this is, after all, the simplest way to describe complex processes—to the accumulation and utilization of capital receive compensation in the future for the work they perform, extending from the past through the present into the future. Interest, as I describe it in my Key Points of the Social Question, is nothing other than compensation for what has been accomplished in the present, for the future.

[ 52 ] Well, when it comes to such matters, of course, one must always consider what else is included in the social organism as a necessary component. In the case of human beings, for example, it is essential that they have all their limbs, because they all work together. Thus, one can only understand a limb in relation to the whole human being. The same is true in the social organism: one can only understand the individual part in relation to the whole. If you can recall what I have discussed in this regard—namely, how to understand the relationship involved in the processing of means of production—you will see that the point is this: means of production only have a cost, and are only saleable, as long as they are not yet finished. Once they are finished, however, they remain with the person who has the ability to complete them; but then they are transferred through legal arrangements and are therefore no longer for sale. This will also have a very specific effect on monetary assets. It is not a matter of enacting laws stipulating that money should not bear interest, but rather of achieving results that correspond to the social organism.

[ 53 ] As a result, what exists as monetary wealth will take on a character similar to that of other goods. Today, other goods differ from money in that they deteriorate or are consumed; money, however, does not need to deteriorate. Over longer periods of time, it does indeed deteriorate, but not over shorter periods. That is why some people believe it will hold its value even over longer periods. There have even been people who drew up wills bequeathing this or that to a particular city. They then calculated how much that would amount to after a few centuries. These are such large sums that they could be used to pay off the national debt of a heavily indebted country. But the catch is that the money won’t actually be there by then, because it’s impossible to preserve the value of the money through interest over such long periods. Instead, the actual interest rate must be maintained for shorter periods. But if a situation were to arise in the economic process where means of production actually cost nothing once they exist, and land actually becomes a legal object—not an object of purchase, not an object of economic circulation—then the following would apply to monetary assets: as I have often put it, after a certain time, it begins to give off a foul odor, like food that has gone bad and gives off a foul odor, and is no longer usable. Simply through the economic process itself, it turns out that money loses its value after a certain period of time, which is by no means unjustly short; but that is simply how it is. From this you can see how deeply this impulse for the threefold social organism is rooted in reality. When you enact laws, you are creating abstractions through which you seek to control reality. When you reflect on reality, you seek to shape it in such a way that things unfold in accordance with the deeper consciousness of the human being.

[ 54 ] Likewise, in such an organism as I conceive it, unearned income as such is by no means included. But one must also have clear concepts regarding these matters. What, after all, is unearned income? The term “unearned income” contains a great deal of ambiguity, and one truly cannot carry out reforms with ambiguous concepts. You see, for someone who thinks “work” means nothing more than chopping wood, unearned income is certainly what someone receives for a painting they create, and the like. This is just a radical way of putting it, but that is often how so-called “unearned income” is viewed. What constitutes economic value is, in fact, composed of various factors in life. It consists, first, of people’s abilities; second, of labor; and third, of various circumstances; and it is one of the greatest errors to define any good in economic circulation as merely “crystallized labor.” That is certainly not the case. I have, after all, spoken at length about labor in these lectures. It is therefore crucial not to conflate the concept of labor in any way—as is often done today—with the concept of income. After all, a person does not receive their income merely for eating and drinking or for satisfying any other physical or emotional needs, but also for working on behalf of other people. So the economic process is far too complex to be encompassed by such simple concepts.

[ 55 ] Does the speaker also view the superconscious, trance states, enlightenment, and so on as stemming from egoism?

[ 56 ] Well, I have certainly made it clear that what I call the sources of spiritual insight do indeed pave the way for things that arise from egoism; but if two things follow the same path, that does not necessarily mean they originate from the same source. Both pass through the inner being of the human being; but one, as I have said, emerges from objective depths and rises to objective heights. I just don’t want to be misunderstood. Trance states are by no means a superconscious state, but rather a subconscious one—a very subconscious one, far more subconscious than, for example, any emotions or the like. And much of what is called “enlightenment”—what comes of its own accord—is for the most part also very, very subconscious. What I would consider the superconscious is described in my book How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?

[ 57 ] How does the speaker justify the view expressed in yesterday’s discussion—a view that diverges from modern economic theory—according to which only land is productive? Is this statement based merely on a different way of defining the concepts of production and productivity?

[ 58 ] I do not believe I have in any way given cause to believe that my opinion is that only land is productive. When it comes to terms like “productive,” “unproductive,” and the like, it’s not entirely productive to dwell on them too much; rather, the point is not to rely too heavily on ready-made concepts. People today rely far too much on words. It doesn’t matter whether one gives such definitions—that something is productive or unproductive; it always depends on how one interprets “productive” or “unproductive”; rather, what matters is that one truly describes the relationships in their context. And yesterday I tried to describe how differently land fits into the process of national economics compared, for example, to industrial production. It is such a description, such a characterization, that matters. If only people would realize how much harm is caused—especially in the sciences—by clinging too tightly to such definitions or conceptual delimitations! You don’t need conceptual delimitations to describe something. Today, there is a widespread bad habit where someone says they hold this or that view on a given matter. First, you have to agree on what they actually mean by that term. Probably, after a long discussion, they will come to realize that they mean the same thing as the other person. What leads to actual production—if I want to call it production—and what leads to actual consumption—when I speak of it—I must, of course, take into account all the individual factors, from the most elementary to the most complex.

[ 59 ] For example, it becomes very difficult to move beyond what one might call—albeit in a somewhat broader sense—the “economy of animals.” After all, animals eat and drink, too. So, insofar as they are not domesticated, they, too, have a kind of economic life. But they generally enjoy what they do not have to prepare very much. Most animals take what is already there. Well, for them, nature is productive, if we want to use the term “productive.” Much of what humans consume also falls into this category. After all, when humans eat fruit, this is not very far removed—separated only by distribution systems, property relations, and the like—from the economic behavior of animals, among whom one might even find the beginnings of property relations. Now the task is to continue tracing this process—to trace how humans begin by first processing what nature provides, then bringing it further into circulation through trade, and so on. This marks a continuation of the concept that begins with nature. Then we arrive at what production is for the sake of extreme luxury—something that no longer corresponds to real needs, that is, to justified or reasonable needs. Indeed, attempting to define the concept—whether something is productive or unproductive—in any way is something that, at its core, leads to obscurity. Of course, if one enjoys delving into such nebulous concepts, one can discuss at length how the Physiocrats believed that only the cultivation of the soil was productive. One could counter this by arguing that even engaging in trade is productive, and provide very compelling evidence for it. The mistake lies in establishing a definition: “This is unproductive; that is productive!”—instead, one must be able to truly and objectively survey the entire process of economic life.

[ 60 ] So I ask that what I have presented here not be interpreted as falling under that kind of definition, but rather as an accurate description of what actually happens in economic life. And I believe I have in fact pointed out a factual difference in how land fits into the economic process differently than, for example, let’s say, industrial means of production, machinery, and the like. ‘But what is based on land also fits into the economic process differently than, for example, trade.

[ 61 ] One need not be a one-sided mercantilist, nor a one-sided physiocrat. One must realize that the moment one becomes obsessed with concepts such as “productive” and “unproductive,” that is precisely when one-sided views like mercantilism, physiocracy, and so on arise. This is precisely what should have been emphasized here: that one should not adopt a one-sided stance, but rather a comprehensive one. Now another question was asked:

[ 62 ] That altruism, egoism, and love—when understood psychologically—are essentially one and the same, and that therefore neither one nor the other needs to be overcome.

[ 63 ] Yes, I explained in the lecture itself to what extent the concept of “overcoming” is a false one. But there is a great danger in pushing this concept of the unity of all possible things from the concrete into the abstract. In that case, it again comes down to what kind of abstraction one has in mind. You see, one must be clear that if one remains in the abstract—and this question is based on a very abstract way of thinking—then, fundamentally speaking, one is right with one assertion and also right with the opposite assertion. People who think in concrete terms greatly appreciate Goethe’s saying: One cannot actually express the truth directly in a single word or sentence, but rather one expresses one thing, then another, and the truth is found in the problem that lies between the two. One must then be able to develop a living relationship with the truth.

[ 64 ] There are people who, as mystics, are eager to define things this way: they carry God within themselves; God is within human beings, the divine is within human beings. They consider this to be the only possible definition. Others find this definition completely wrong; they say: God fills everything, and we as human beings are in God. Yes, there is just as much evidence for one view as there is for the other. But here Goethe’s saying applies: The truth lies right in the middle between the opposing claims, just as the real tree lies right in the middle between two photographs that I take from one side or the other.

[ 65 ] In this regard, one must emphatically point out the dangers of one-sided thinking. It doesn’t matter at all whether someone says that altruism, egoism, and love are one and the same, and therefore do not need to be overcome. As I said, I have already addressed the question of overcoming these concepts in the lecture itself. But the point is that when such matters are to be discussed, one really should try—as I always do—to formulate one’s statements carefully. I certainly did not claim here in any way that, when striving for a certain unity, one cannot arrive at a unification of egoism and love or egoism and altruism. One need only rise to the necessary level of abstraction, and then one arrives at that conclusion. But in outward, concrete life, egoism and altruism differ in such a way that one can say—as I said in the lecture, and said consciously—that they are the two drives from which human beings act. If I say, “Up there on this or that mountain, there is a spring, and two hours away from it, there is another spring; the water supply for a certain place is fed by these two springs,” then this can be compared to what I said today about selfishness and love. I pointed out the two springs. Then no one should point out and say: “Yes, look, there’s water in one spring, and in the other as well; it’s all the same.”—The point is that if one pedantically insists on the abstract, one can see the same thing everywhere.

[ 66 ] But the very essence of the search for unity lies in understanding, for example, something like Goethe’s concept of metamorphosis. If one follows Goethe’s concept of metamorphosis, one sees how Goethe demonstrates that the green leaf of a plant and the red petal of a flower are one and the same—one simply transformed from the other. But one also knows that, in being the same thing, the two are at the same time manifold, distinct, and infinitely varied. What matters is that, in the search for unity, one always remains aware of how, in concrete life, the unified always varies toward multiplicity, and that, in the pursuit of unity, one must be careful not to overlook that multiplicity.

[ 67 ] There is a society that calls itself the “Theosophical Society.” The Theosophical Society claims that it seeks unity in all religious creeds. It asserts that all religious creeds stem from one another and are, at their core, one and the same. It teaches that all religious denominations contain one and the same thing. To me, this claim has always seemed like someone claiming they want to characterize what is on the table solely in terms of its unity. One need only choose an abstraction—let’s say “seasoning”—seasoning: that is salt, that is pepper, that is also paprika. Yes, certainly, everything is one and the same—namely, a seasoning. But if, instead of salting the soup, you say, “Oh, it’s the same thing—a seasoning—if I use pepper,” you won’t be very satisfied with that. So it is also a matter of not accepting a unity such as that dogmatically taught by the Theosophical Society—namely, that all religious creeds contain one and the same thing. To me, this unity of religions as taught by the Theosophical Society has always seemed like the assertion that pepper, salt, and paprika are one and the same.

[ 68 ] As I said, I fully acknowledge the legitimate pursuit of unity. But this legitimate pursuit of unity must not lead to a detachment from reality.

[ 69 ] Now there's one more question here.

[ 70 ] The Baden Tower. Everything of intellectual and cultural significance has a national dimension. All religions are adapted to the races. The predisposition of different nations and races toward art and science varies. Language and all the external features of the environment dictate a form of expression. The essence is always international; the form is always national art. Music is the most international of all. Love your neighbor as yourself.

[ 71 ] Well, I'm not really sure what to make of this question. Because a “Tower of Baden”—I'm familiar with the Tower of Babel, but not one in Baden. I don't know if there's a tower here in Baden as well?

[ 72 ] “Everything of intellectual and cultural significance has a national dimension.” Yes, certainly, one could say that—but I don’t know how that relates to today’s lecture.

[ 73 ] “All religions are adapted to the races. The predisposition of different nations and races”—these are two different things—“toward art and science is different.” Certainly.

[ 74 ] “Language and all the external aspects of one’s surroundings dictate a form of expression. What is essential is always international...” Yes, one must first seek out the essence of the international; for if that essence were truly there, there would not be so much anti-international sentiment among people. This, of course, must certainly be taken into account.

[ 75 ] “...form is always national art. Music is the most international.” I quietly alluded to the underlying idea here in my lecture when I said that the imagination takes on a national character, though in certain areas of art only in certain nuances. But those who are receptive to this understanding will also find these nuances in music. They will find that even where something appears to be entirely international, there is also a national element within it; and even if it consists solely in the fact that one people is simply more musical than another, it can be understood internationally, even if it could only be produced by a single people.

[ 76 ] But the point is that one now finds a certain content within human beings themselves—something spiritually perceptible that exists within every human being and that can have an international impact, just as I described in my lecture.

[ 77 ] Well, I believe that covers all of today’s questions, and I also believe that the evening has progressed to the point where I would prefer not to deliver a lengthy closing address. But there is one thing I would like to emphasize in just five words: that it would be particularly important to me if these lectures were examined not to see whether they are something contrived or programmatic, but to see to what extent they are merely an attempt—albeit an initial one—to derive a social idea, or a set of social ideas, from life itself.

[ 78 ] Yes, such ideas—which are drawn from life as practically effective forces—represent precisely what can emerge in every field from what I have characterized here as true spiritual insight. I know that much of what is characterized today as a spiritual worldview is confused, as I have already hinted at in my lectures, with what is meant here specifically by a spiritual worldview. But it might be worthwhile, after all, to address the reality of this spiritual worldview. When the time came, in the course of this terrible war catastrophe, when one could believe that, out of the distress of the times, something might be perceived of what is striving to rise to the surface from the depths of the human soul, I drew the attention of many people in positions of responsibility to what the times actually demanded, and years ago—during those difficult years—before I entered the public arena, I spoke to many about this threefold social order, fully aware of the impact it would have had if, out of such a spirit, an attempt had been made to address this terrible slaughter, to mitigate it, to bring it to an end. And I said at the time: At least the effort is there—not to present some programmatic idea through what is meant by this impulse, but rather that which seeks to be realized in the next thirty, twenty, or fifteen years—even ten years. And I told many: One can, of course, deny such things today if one wishes; one can be too complacent about it. But anyone who takes life seriously should tell themselves: One has the choice either to embrace reason or to face sad times of revolutions and social cataclysms.— I said this at a time when these more recent revolutions, including the Russian one, were still a long way off.

[ 79 ] And the point is always that it is already incumbent upon human beings not to drift through life in a daze, but to form mental images about how things might proceed. For human beings have, after all, an advantage over other earthly beings in that they are called upon to act with a certain degree of foresight. But one can only intervene in events with a certain foresight if one has an instinct for what is truly possible. Did people have a real instinct for what was possible during the first half of 1914 in the civilized world? I gave you examples in one of our earlier discussions of what people said about what was to come. Then the great slaughter came. Shouldn’t people learn from the facts?

[ 80 ] Well, that is precisely the task facing people today: to learn from events. For events—through their magnitude and the speed with which they unfold—show that people should learn from them, that people should interpret certain events as signs of the times. Otherwise, something might happen that has happened in many respects in recent years. Some things have affected people so deeply that they have said: “If only we had known that sooner—now it’s too late.” — But it is not always necessary to wait until it is too late!

[ 81 ] In Gesinnung, the ideas regarding the threefold social order are presented in particular. And just as is attempted here, as is attempted in our journal here in Switzerland, Soziale Zukunft, and as was attempted in my Key Points of the Social Question: they are presented from a spirit of conviction, so that they may be understood, grasped, and put into practice before it is too late. So that we will not have to say later, regarding important matters of life, that it is too late—therefore, let us rouse ourselves and try to discern whether the ideas presented here are merely thoughts, or whether they are the essence of reality.

[ 82 ] I keep emphasizing: It is a feeble attempt. But I do believe this: If this modest attempt is taken up by a sufficiently large number of people, then it may become something far more intelligent than a single person could make of it. But it would have to be taken up, and it can be taken up, because it stems from reality and can be tested against reality.

[ 83 ] I wanted to add these few words to what has been said.