The Rudolf Steiner Archive

3. The Realization of the Ideals of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity Through Social Threefolding

[ 1 ] There is no doubt that, as a result of the catastrophe of the World War and all that is horrifically connected with it, the social question has taken on a new character for humanity today. Admittedly, there are still not enough circles that view this change in the nature of the social question in a desirable light. But it is here, and it will make itself felt more and more.

[ 2 ] Those people who, up to the present day, have belonged to the ruling and leading circles will, by the force of facts, be compelled to no longer limit their approach to the social question to the formulation of individual ideas and measures prompted by what is currently taking place in one or another sector of industry or within one or another circle of the proletariat. These circles will be compelled to turn their thoughts and the direction of their will comprehensively toward the social question as the most significant issue in the lives of people today and in the near future. If, then, people from the previously ruling classes will only be able to understand their times when they are capable of incorporating a new conception of the social question into their entire way of thinking, feeling, and willing in the sense just indicated, it will also be necessary, on the other hand, for the broad masses of the proletariat to bring about a fundamental change in their attitude toward the social question.

[ 3 ] For more than half a century, the broadest masses of the proletariat have embraced social and socialist ideas. We have seen—at least those of us who have not spent the last few decades asleep—what changes the social question has undergone within the ranks of the proletariat. One could see the form it had taken at the very moment when the horrific catastrophe known as a “world war” broke out. Then came the provisional end of this terrible catastrophe. The proletariat found itself in a new situation. It no longer found itself, as before, merely bound into a social order that—at least in Central and Eastern Europe—was dominated by the old ruling powers. The proletariat itself was now, to a large extent, called upon to work toward the reshaping of humanity’s social structure. And it was precisely in the face of this fact—this entirely new historical fact—that we experienced something immensely tragic.

[ 4 ] The ideas to which the proletariat had devoted itself—one might say, with all its heart and soul—for decades proved to be unsustainable now that they were to be put into practice! And now we were witnessing a great historical contradiction—in fact, a conflict. We witnessed how the facts themselves—the facts of world history unfolding around us—could become humanity’s greatest teacher. We witnessed how these facts showed, on the one hand, that the circles that had been in charge over the past three to four centuries had not developed any ideas capable of providing direction for what was unfolding—particularly in economic matters, but also in other social aspects of human experience. What was remarkable was that those who, within the realm of reality, had the power to act and to influence events had allowed the facts to unfold as if of their own accord. Their thoughts and ideas had become too narrow-minded to be able to incorporate the facts into their thinking. The realities of life had become too much for people to handle. This had been particularly evident for a long time in economic life, where competition in the so-called “free market” had left behind “profit” and the like, where it was not the ideas that shaped economic life solely according to the questions of the production, circulation, and consumption of goods that were at work, but rather that which, arising from the randomness of the free market, could continually lead into crises. And anyone who is willing to see can recognize how, ultimately, because the social dynamics of these thoughtlessly unfolding events had spread across the great state empires, the affairs of these great state empires also began to spiral out of control, without people being able, through their thoughts, to master the unfolding events in any way or to do anything to find their bearings.

[ 5 ] It is precisely such matters that should give people today pause for thought. They should be able to visualize in their minds’ eye that it is indeed necessary today to look more deeply into the workings of human society in order to understand something like the social question differently than is usually the case. It is, after all, glaringly obvious how far thoughts have fallen short of the unfolding realities. But people do not want to see such things. Over the course of the last three to four centuries, they have grown accustomed to regarding business routines and public routines as “practical life.” They have grown accustomed to regarding anyone who looks beyond the immediate and can judge matters from a broader perspective as a utopian or an impractical idealist. To illustrate what I have just said, I would like to begin with a seemingly personal remark. But this personal remark is not meant to be personal. For today, when the fate of the individual is so closely intertwined with the general fate of humanity, only honestly stated facts—those observed firsthand—can sufficiently illustrate what serves as the impulses and driving forces in public life.

[ 6 ] In early spring of 1914, during a series of lectures I was giving in Vienna on topics in Spiritual Science—at that time, months before the outbreak of the so-called World War—I was compelled to summarize before a small audience—had I said the same thing before a larger one, they would, of course, have laughed at me—to summarize what had taken shape in my mind as a view of the social development of the current circumstances. I said at the time: For those who observe with an alert spiritual eye what is happening in our public life within the civilized world, it appears to be permeated as if by a social ulcer, a serious social illness, a kind of social cancer. And whatever this creeping disease is within our economic life—but also within our entire social life—it must manifest itself in the near future as a terrible catastrophe.

[ 7 ] Well, what were you considered to be in early spring 1914 if you spoke of an impending catastrophe based on events that were, so to speak, unfolding beneath the surface? You were an “impractical idealist”—if people didn’t go so far as to call you a fool. What I had to say back then, however, contrasts with what the so-called “practical people” said at that time and even somewhat later—those responsible “practical people” who were mere routine-followers rather than true practitioners, yet who haughtily looked down on anyone who tried to grasp contemporary history through some insight into ideas. What did those “practical people” say about that period? One of those “practitioners,” who was even the foreign minister of a Central European state, announced to the enlightened representatives of his people shortly thereafter that the general easing of the political situation was making encouraging progress, so that one could expect a peaceful state of affairs among the European nations in the near future. He added: “Our friendly relations with St. Petersburg are in the very best of shape, for thanks to the efforts of the governments, the St. Petersburg cabinet pays no heed to the outbursts of the press pack, and our friendly relations with St. Petersburg will continue in the future just as they have been until now.” And we hope to bring our negotiations with England to such a conclusion that the very best relations with England, too, will be in place in the near future.”—The one who said this was a “practical man.” What the other said was “dull ‘theory’”!

[ 8 ] Countless examples could be cited to characterize the views—or rather, the insights into the facts—held by those in the field at the beginning of that era, which turned out to be so horrific for humanity. It is, in fact, very instructive; the facts speak for themselves when one sees that such practitioners spoke of peace—and in the months that followed, they brought about this peace in such a way that, for several years, civilized nations were occupied with killing ten to twelve million people—a conservative estimate—and maiming three times as many. I do not wish to mention these things merely to stir up sensationalism. I must mention them because they demonstrate how narrow-minded people’s thinking has become and how it is no longer sufficient to come to terms with the facts. These events will only be seen in their proper light when we recognize in the facts the great teacher showing us that, in order to restore the health of our social conditions, not to think of minor changes to this or that institution, but of a major re-education and rethinking; not of a minor reckoning, but of a major reckoning with the old, which is rotten and decayed and must no longer be allowed to influence what is to happen in the future.

[ 9 ] What can be said about the great issues facing humanity can also be said about legal and economic life in particular. Everywhere, people talk in such a way that their ideas are insufficient to grapple with the facts. Therefore, one can say that the circles that have been in charge up to now have the practical experience, but they lack the necessary, effective, and practical ideas and thoughts for that experience. And standing opposite these leading circles is the vast mass of the proletariat. This proletariat has been shaped over more than half a century through what one might call rigorous training in Marxist thought. But today it is not at all correct to look around among the proletarian masses to find out how they think. It is relatively easy—sometimes even quite, quite easy—to properly refute what the proletarian masses and their leaders think about economic matters. But that is not the point. The point is that it is a historical fact that the souls and hearts of the proletarian masses have been shaped by the repercussions of what has emerged from intensely influential ideas—one might even say, as a proletarian theory. But this theory—which now, after the old order has collapsed, could truly have proven itself more than it has in the face of practical reality—exhibits a very particular characteristic that is understandable. For just as things have developed in the social evolution of humanity under the influence of the capitalist economic order and modern technology over the course of the last three to four centuries—and especially during the nineteenth century—the proletariat has become increasingly confined to economic life alone; but so confined that every single member of this proletariat had to perform a very narrowly defined task. This narrowly defined work was, in essence, all that he actually saw of the ever-expanding economic life. Is it any wonder that the proletarian experienced—experienced in the fate of his body and soul—how modern economic life developed under the influence of technology and private capital, yet was unable to grasp the driving forces and mechanisms at work within this economic life! He was, so to speak, the worker in this economic life, but his social position prevented him from properly examining the structure of this economic life, the way in which it is managed. And it is only too understandable that, as a result of such circumstances, something took shape whose fruits are now evident. A far-reaching proletarian socialist theory emerged, as it were, from the subconscious, instinctive drives and demands of the proletariat; yet this theory is, in essence, very very far removed—because the proletarian could not gain insight into the actual driving forces and mechanisms behind economic and other social realities and therefore had to accept what was presented to him in a one-sided manner by Marxism. And so we find that, over the course of decades, certain ideas have become deeply ingrained in the minds of the proletariat—ideas that, in essence, are as justified as they could possibly be, but which completely miss the mark when it comes to the facts.

[ 10 ] I would like to give an example. How powerful was the impact, for instance, of the following statement in the agitation that swept through the proletariat, stemming from the theoretical views of its leaders: “In the future, production must no longer be carried out for the sake of production.” “Production must be carried out only for the sake of consumption!”—Certainly, a fitting phrase, one that—unlike many of today’s catchphrases—is even “true,” but a phrase that becomes a meaningless abstraction and slips away when one thinks it through with practical sense and a genuine understanding of economic conditions. For what matters in practice is this: How do you actually do things? In practical terms, nothing is accomplished by merely making the demand that one should produce only for the sake of consumption. This is something that conjures up a mental image of how beautiful economic life could be if profit no longer reigned supreme, but rather the prospect of consumption alone. But there is absolutely nothing in this statement that in any way indicates “how the structure of economic life should now be shaped so that the sentiment expressed in these words can truly take hold.” And so it is with many of these words—we will touch on many more—which sometimes stem from profound truths but have become slogans of agitation and party politics for the proletariat. They have become abstractions and come across as utopian references to an indeterminate future. And anyone who is truly sincere toward the proletariat must admit to themselves: Thus, this poor proletariat, which today raises its justified demands, lives in such views that, while they may be a theory, are far removed from the facts of life—because the proletarian has been torn from these facts and placed in a separate place, where he has always been able to see only a very small corner of life.

[ 11 ] This is the conflict I have sought to highlight, which manifests itself, on the one hand, in the mindset of the ruling circles, who have power over reality but lack the ideas to master it, — and, on the other hand, in the proletariat, which has acquired ideas but, because these ideas are entirely abstract, stands distant from reality and alien to it.

[ 12 ] When one characterizes something like what I have just said in a few words, one is pointing to forces and impulses at work in history that are, in essence, more significant than anything that has taken place so far in the course of human history. Phrases such as “the ideologically vacuous practice of the ruling circles” and “the impractical theory of the proletariat” can only be properly assessed if one has a sense of what is so terribly alive, so mutually destructive, as it surges through the current currents of human development. The fact that such a contrast exists between the state of mind of the ruling circles and that of the proletariat leads—and has led—to a deep chasm today between everything that constitutes the thinking, feeling, willing, and acting of the ruling circles, and the longings, desires, and impulses of the will of the proletariat. People do not even properly understand what is actually emerging today from the depths—what resounds from the proletariat as the demand of the times! When one hears from proletarian circles the doctrine of surplus value, the doctrine just alluded to—that one should produce only to consume—and the doctrine of the transformation of private property into common property, one certainly understands these things literally. But this wording of proletarian desires and views—what is it, really? Is it what should prompt the leading bourgeois circles to logically criticize these proletarian theories when they are articulated? There is nothing more naive today than when the doctrine of surplus value is put forward by the proletariat, and then some corporate counsel or director of a joint-stock company states the obvious: that surplus value, when added up from banknotes and so on, is so low that, if one were to divide it up, there would be nothing left for the individual. It is the most naive thing of all to take this attitude toward, for example, the theory of surplus value. For what these gentlemen present as a “calculation” is, of course, entirely self-evident; there is absolutely nothing to object to there. But that is not what this is about at all. For if one wants to “refute” what is directly stated in the words of proletarian theories in this way, it is just as if one were to look at a thermometer in a room—which reads so many degrees—and then, if one does not like the number of degrees, if they are too low or too high, were to try to make the thermometer rise higher with a small flame. By preoccupying oneself with correcting the thermometer, one is truly not addressing the underlying causes. It is naive to take today’s proletarian theories literally and attempt to refute them. For proletarian theories are nothing more than—if I were to speak in scholarly terms—an exponent of something that lies much deeper than where one is currently looking for it. Just as a thermometer indicates the temperature of a room but does not create it itself, so too are proletarian theories a means—like an instrument or a sign—of recognizing what is currently at work in the social question and what will be at work in the near future. And here, people generally take the easy way out. One regards this question merely as an economic one, because it first presented itself as such—an economic issue arising from the demands of the proletariat, which was, after all, constrained within economic life during the era of private capitalism and technology. And one failed to see what actually lies behind all the concepts in proletarian theories that relate to capital, labor, and commodities. The proletarian experiences the entire realm of human life through the lens of the economy. Consequently, the social question appears to him entirely from an economic perspective.

[ 13 ] Anyone who has the opportunity to take a broader view should see how clearly three spheres of life can be distinguished from one another—spheres in which three of the core issues of the social question reveal themselves to us. Anyone who has learned not merely to think about the proletariat—perhaps only now, after the revolution has come—anyone who has learned, through the course of their own life, not merely to think about the proletariat and feel for it, but to think and feel with it, can discern what lies in the words that, I would say run through all socialist theories as key terms—and see what is happening in the depths of the best of the proletariat. What, then, are these key terms?

[ 14 ] First, there is the key concept of surplus value, which I have already mentioned. One need only have interacted with many proletarians on a human-to-human basis to have seen how deeply this concept of “surplus value” has taken root in their minds. And it is this impact that matters, not its theoretical validity. Anyone who, like me, was active here in Berlin during the years when decisive events were unfolding within the social movement of recent times, worked here in Berlin at the Workers’ Educational School founded by Wähelm Liebknecht—the elder Liebknecht—knows a great deal more about this issue that has just been touched upon, drawing more from practical experience than perhaps union leaders and, in particular, than—how should I put this so as not to offend? It has rightly been said: there were “war profiteers” and, after the war, “revolutionary profiteers”; it has always seemed to me that there were “war windbags” and, after the war, “revolutionary windbags”! But what was meant by “surplus value” was this: the proletarian works, producing this or that product. The entrepreneur, on the other hand, brings these products to market and gives the worker just enough to sustain his life, for otherwise he could not work for the entrepreneur—the rest is surplus value. Certainly, the situation with this surplus value is exactly as Walther Rathenau, for example, speaks of it today—I don’t want to say anything at all about this much-slandered man—but with regard to the social question, he is in the gravest of errors. It is certainly true that if this surplus value were distributed, it would bring no improvement to the lives of the broad proletarian masses. But one does not get to the heart of the matter through mere arithmetic exercises that float around in the air. Rather, one must grasp this surplus value in the correct way with regard to its social significance. Is this surplus value really as scarce as, for example, Rathenau “correctly” calculates? No! For then there would be no theaters in Berlin, no universities, no high schools—none of what is called cultural life, none of what is called the intellectual life of humanity. In truth, all of this is, for the most part, sustained by this so-called surplus value. However, the issue is not at all how this surplus value is brought to the surface in commodities and in the circulation of money, but rather that what is discussed solely under the buzzword “surplus value” expresses the entire relationship of modern intellectual life to the broad masses of the people who cannot directly participate in this intellectual life.

[ 15 ] Anyone who has taught among workers for years and has strived to teach them what springs directly from universal human feeling—what is spoken from person to person—knows what kind of character a spiritual education must have if it is to be universally human, and how this intellectual education differs from the one that has developed over the course of the last three to four centuries, precisely under the influence of the private-capitalist and technical economic order. If I may speak personally again—the personal illustrates the general—then perhaps I may say: I knew that when I spoke to the proletariat, week after week, hour after hour, I spoke in such a way that a chord resonated within their souls; that these people received a kind of knowledge, an insight, that they could take with them, that they could absorb. But then came those times when even the proletariat had to conform to the fashion of participating in “education”—in the kind of education that, intellectually speaking, was the product of the dominant, leading culture. Then one had to lead these proletarians into the museums, had to show them what had emerged from the sensibility of the ruling, bourgeois-minded class. Yes, people knew—if they were honest, they knew this; if they were not honest, they told themselves all sorts of platitudes about public education and the like—that none of this builds a bridge between the intellectual culture and education of the ruling, leading circles and what constitutes the intellectual longings and needs of the proletariat. For art, science, and religion can only be understood if they emerge from social circles with which one stands on equal social ground, so that one can share the same social sensibilities and feelings with them—not when there is a rift between those who are supposed to enjoy education and those who can actually enjoy it. There, one sensed a profound cultural lie. And today, these matters must certainly not be benevolently shrouded in obscurity; rather, they must be clearly seen. There, people sensed this profound cultural lie, which consisted in establishing all manner of adult education centers or educational institutions and attempting to impart to the people an education that could not reach them across any bridge. There, the proletariat stood on one side of the chasm, looking across at what was produced in the realms of art, customs, religion, and science by the ruling, leading circles; they did not understand it and regarded it as something that concerned only—like a luxury—these ruling, leading circles. Then the proletariat saw the use, the realization of surplus value, by uttering the word “surplus value.” This proletariat felt something entirely different from what was said about surplus value in this “thermometer language.” It felt: There is a spiritual life that is created through our productions, through our work; we produce it, yet we are excluded from it!

[ 16 ] This is how the issue of surplus value must be viewed—not theoretically, but in a way that is full of life, as it truly exists in real life. There we also see what is the first core question of the broader social issue: there we see the spiritual aspect of the social issue. There we see how, in the very same period—over the last three to four centuries—in which modern technology, modern science, and the private capitalist economic system have emerged, an intellectual life has also emerged that is increasingly becoming nothing more than what is meant to live in the souls of those people who are separated by a deep chasm from the vast masses—whose education they provide for in an inadequate manner, from whose education they have cut themselves off. That is why one’s heart bleeds so deeply when one learns how, with good intentions and goodwill, these leading circles conversed in well-heated mirrored rooms about the nature of brotherhood toward all people, about how one should love all people, and how they discussed all Christian virtues —in the warmth of a stove fueled by coal hauled up from the coal mines, into which nine-year-old, eleven-year-old, and thirteen-year-old children were sent down—children who literally—in the mid-19th century, this was literally the case; later, conditions did not improve thanks to the ruling elite, but rather due to the demands of the proletariat—these children had to descend into the shafts before sunrise and could not come back up until after sunset, so that these poor children did not see sunlight all week long.

[ 17 ] People today believe these things are said to incite unrest. No! They must be said to point out just how much the spiritual life of the last three to four centuries has become detached from people’s real lives. It has been possible to speak—in abstract terms—of morality, virtue, and religion, without this talk of brotherhood and charity, of Christianity and so on, having any impact whatsoever on real, active, practical life. This, then, is what places the question of the spirit before us as a distinct core issue of the social question. We are looking here at the entire scope of intellectual life, particularly intellectual life as it relates to people of the present and the near future, which unfolds in the realm of education and the school system. It so happened that, over the course of the last three to four centuries, as the individual princely territories developed into separate economic nation-states, the more significant and public aspects of spiritual life were incorporated into the state order. And today people take pride in the fact that, on the part of science and intellectual life in general, the systems of education and instruction have been—certainly with good reason—ripped away from their medieval ties to religion and theology. People are quite proud of this and have repeated it time and again: In the Middle Ages, intellectual life and scholarly life trailed in the wake of theology and the Church. Certainly, we should not wish for a return to those times; we do not want to go backward, we want to move forward. But today is already a different time. Today, we must not merely point out with arrogance how, in the Middle Ages, the intellectual life of the Church trailed in its wake. Today, we must point to something else. Let us take an example to illustrate this, one that is not so far removed from us here.

[ 18 ] A very distinguished natural scientist whom I hold in high regard—and these remarks are by no means intended to belittle anyone—who was also secretary of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, spoke about the Academy’s stance toward the public political system. In a well-crafted speech at the time, he said: the members of this learned academy considered it a special honor to serve as the scientific vanguard of the House of Hohenzollern. This is just one example among countless others—not hundreds, but thousands upon thousands—that brings the question to mind: What has taken the place today of what, in times past, intellectual life followed in the wake of the Church? Whose train does intellectual life trail behind today? This was not even as bad in the recent past as it would have to be if truly state-imposed orders were to take hold—under which the dreadful educational regime that has emerged in Eastern Europe could take hold, and which sufficiently proves that it would bring about the death of all culture. You must look not only to the past but, above all, to the future, and you must say: The time has come when spiritual life will have to emerge as an independent member of the social organism, when it will have to be placed on a path of self-governance.

[ 19 ] By speaking out in this way, one encounters countless prejudices today. One is practically regarded as a madman if one cannot point out the great blessing that lies in the nationalization of the school and educational system. But the salvation we must seek will only be found when the entire system of teaching and education—from teachers at the lowest school levels all the way up to instructors at the universities—and the intellectual life associated with it are placed under self-administration—not under state administration! This is one of the major reckonings that must be carried out today.

[ 20 ] The circle of people who first showed me kindness when it came to incorporating the impulse for the threefolding of the present—this circle is the very one from which the first truly free unified school is now emerging in Stuttgart as well. Attached to the Waldorf-Astoria “factory” will initially be a model unified school, based on that pedagogy and didactics—that theory of education—which springs from nothing other than the real and true understanding of the developing human being. Between the ages of seven and fifteen, every human being is the same, regardless of class or social status. But one must first get to know the child if one wishes to teach and educate him.

[ 21 ] Since I was the one who had to teach the preparatory course in Stuttgart for the teaching staff working at this Waldorf school, I also came to deal with those things that are taken for granted today. One has no idea what it means for these things to be taken for granted! But they have actually only emerged in the last few decades. On such an occasion—since the things that are the subject of practical life must also be the subject of life experience—one may point out that what one says is not spoken out of the recklessness of youth, but that one dares to speak it only when, like me, one has nearly completed one’s sixth decade of life. One recalls how curricula used to be brief, and how the subject matter of instruction was conveyed through lectures, books, and the experiences of those who were actively engaged in the living educational process—those who drew from the spirit itself. Today, however, there is no concise curriculum—today there are thick books that not only stipulate what should be covered in one school year and what in another, but also prescribe exactly how these subjects are to be taught. What ought to be the subject of free teaching is to become—and has already become—the subject of the “Official Gazette.” Until one has a clear and sufficient sense of what is antisocial in these matters, one will not be ready to contribute to the true healing of humanity. The establishment of a free spiritual life, independent of the state, is therefore the first key point of the social question. It is here that the first of the three independent members of the threefold social organism must be established. If one advocates these things today, if one points out how it can be that in the future no one within the spiritual component of the social organism will administer it except those who also take an active part in spiritual life, then—with regard to education—this will bear little resemblance to the education provided in today’s unitary state. Life as a whole will appear as if in a model republic. Everyone will not merely teach according to the requirements of a regulation, but will draw from the spirit what serves teaching and education. One will not merely have to ask what a person’s qualifications for socialism are at the age of thirteen or seventeen, but rather: What is rooted in the very nature of the human being, so that it can be drawn out of the developing human being, so that when he has received these powers, detached from the depths of his being, he does not stand as a weak-willed, broken human being, as so many do today, but stands in such a way that he is equal to his destiny and can also contribute to fulfilling his tasks in life. This points to the first member of the threefold social order.

[ 22 ] However, when one voices these thoughts, one is initially met with a question or an objection, as I experienced in a city in southern Germany. After a lecture, during the discussion, a university professor replied to me roughly as follows: “We Germans will be a poor people in the future.” That man wants to make intellectual life independent. The poor people will not be able to afford an independent intellectual life, because they will have no money. So they will have to reach into the state coffers; after all, the education system will have to be paid for out of taxes, and how, then, is it to become independent? How can it avoid being subject to the state’s oversight, since it must be supported by the state?”—I could only reply that it struck me as very strange that the professor believed that what is taken from the state treasury in the form of taxes somehow grows out of it, and that in the future it will not be taken from the “poor people.” But what one encounters most of all is thoughtlessness in every area. This must be countered by genuine, practical thinking that looks deeply into the realities of life. This will also be able to produce practical life plans that can be put into practice.

[ 23 ] And just as intellectual life, the educational system, and child-rearing must become independent, so too must economic life. It is very remarkable how, in recent times, two demands have emerged from the depths of human nature: the demand for democracy and the demand for socialism. Both democracy and socialism contradict one another. Before the catastrophe of the World War, these two contradictory impulses were fused together, and a party—the Social Democratic Party—was even named after them. Wooden iron is roughly the same thing. Both socialism and democracy contradict each other, yet both are entirely sincere and honest demands of modern times. Now the catastrophe of the World War has passed us by, has brought its results, and now we hear how the social demand is emerging and wants nothing to do with a democratic parliament. How the social demand, in turn, appears theoretically—without having the slightest idea of what the facts actually are—with slogans of a wholly abstract nature such as “seizing political power,” “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and the like—this certainly springs from the depths of socialist sentiment, but it proves that people have now come to realize that socialist sentiment, too, contradicts democratic sentiment. The future, which must take into account the realities of life rather than slogans, will have to recognize how the socialist-minded person is right when he senses, so to speak, something eerie about “democracy,” and how, on the other hand, the democratically minded person is right when he senses the most dreadful thing in the words “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

[ 24 ] What are the facts in this area? We need only examine economic life in relation to political life in exactly the same way that we just examined intellectual life in relation to political life. It was, once again, the prejudice of people in modern times—especially those who believed themselves to be quite progressive in their thinking—that the state should increasingly take on the role of an economic manager. The postal service, the telegraph, the railroads, and so on were placed under state administration, and soon there were calls to extend state administration to ever broader economic sectors. This is a vast and comprehensive subject, which I will now touch upon briefly, and I must unfortunately—since I am constrained to develop these ideas in a short lecture—run the risk that what is presented in very objective terms and could be substantiated with countless examples from recent history might be dismissed as amateurish. But that is by no means the case. But what appears here as a prejudice among the most progressive will reveal itself in its true form precisely when socialism is taken seriously. And it will reveal itself in its true form when one also takes seriously a statement that Friedrich Engels made in one of his most lucid moments in his work *The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science*. He says, roughly: If one surveys public life as it has developed into the present, one finds that it encompasses the management of the branches of production and the regulation of the circulation of commodities. But in managing the economy, the state has at the same time ruled over people. It laid down the laws by which those involved in economic life must abide—whether in their economic activities or outside of them. The same authority managed the economy—and laid down the laws governing the conduct of those involved in economic life. This must change in the future.

[ 25 ] Engels recognized this quite correctly. In the future, Engels argued, the land on which economic activity takes place must no longer be used to govern people; rather, it must be used solely to manage production and to direct the circulation of commodities. That was a correct view—but a half-truth, or actually only a quarter-truth. For if the laws that have been implemented in this economic sphere—which until now has coincided with state life—are removed from economic administration and economic management, they must be given their own place—though not a place from which people are governed centrally, but the place where they govern themselves democratically.

[ 26 ] This means: The two driving forces—democracy and socialism—indicate that, alongside the autonomous intellectual component of the social organism, there must still be two separate spheres within the social organism as a whole, namely what remains of the former state. This is the administration of economic affairs and that of public law—or, in other words, everything about which every person is capable of making a judgment once they have come of age. For what is the essence of the demand for democracy? It lies in the fact that modern humanity wishes to mature historically to the point where, on the free ground of the state and on the free ground of law, it can lawfully administer that in which all people are equal—that is, matters on which every person who has attained legal capacity can decide, alongside every other person who has attained legal capacity, either directly or indirectly—indirectly through representation, directly through some form of referendum. Thus, in the future, we must have an independent legal framework that will be the continuation of the old state based on power and coercion, and which will be the true constitutional state. A true state governed by the rule of law will never come into being except in a way where only those matters are regulated by law over which every person of legal age is capable of exercising judgment; and among these matters is something about which the proletariat has spoken at length, but where its words must once again be taken as the social barometer. For once again, a statement by Karl Marx has struck deep into the consciousness of the proletariat: There is an inhuman existence when the worker must sell his labor power as a commodity on the labor market. For just as one pays for a commodity with its price, so one pays for labor power—as equivalent to the commodity—through wages, through the price of the commodity known as labor power!

[ 27 ] That was a phrase whose significance in the development of modern humanity lay not so much in its factual content as in the lightning-like impact it had on the proletariat—an impact of which the ruling circles actually have no mental image. And where does all this stem from? It stems from the fact that the regulation of labor—according to measure, time, nature, and so on—which belongs solely within the economic cycle—that is, within the production, circulation, and consumption of commodities—has also been introduced into that cycle in a chaotic, unorganized manner. And there will be no remedy in this area until the nature, measure, and duration of human labor—whether mental or physical—are removed from the economic cycle. For the regulation of labor power does not belong in economic life, where the economically powerful also have the power to impose the nature of work on the economically weak. The regulation of work between individuals—what one person does for another—must be governed by law, where every person who has attained legal capacity stands as an equal before every other person who has attained legal capacity. Economic considerations must not determine how much I am required to work for another; rather, this must be determined solely by what will develop in the future state—which is the rule of law—as opposed to today’s power-based state.

[ 28 ] Here, too, one encounters a host of prejudices when expressing such views. Today, it is commonplace for people to say: As long as the economic order is determined by free-market conditions, it will go without saying that labor depends on production—on how goods are paid for. But anyone who believes that things must remain this way fails to see how entirely different demands are emerging historically. In the future, people will have to say: How foolish it would be if those in charge of managing any branch of industry were to sit down, take out the ledgers from 1918, and say: “We produced this much back then; we must achieve the same amount this year.” It is now September, so to achieve that, we still need so many days of rain, so many days of sunshine, and so on. - One cannot dictate to the natural order that it should conform to prices; rather, prices must be adjusted to the natural order. On the one hand, economic life will be bounded by the natural order; on the other, by the rule of law, where labor will also be regulated. It will then be necessary to determine, on purely democratic grounds, how long a person must work, and prices will be set accordingly—that is, according to natural principles, just as prices in agriculture are determined today according to natural principles. It is not a matter of thinking about improving small-scale institutions; it is a matter of having to rethink and relearn. Only when labor is assessed on the independent, democratic common ground—where one person stands before another as a fully empowered individual, as an equal among equals—and when people, as free individuals, bring this labor into independent economic life, where contracts are concluded not for labor but for production—only then will the elements that currently cause unrest in economic life be eliminated. This must be understood.

[ 29 ] Given the limited time available, I can only touch on these matters briefly. I would very much like to give a series of lectures, but that is not possible this time. However, I must still point out how the third element—economic life—takes shape within the threefold social organism and how it is to extend into the future.

[ 30 ] In this economic life, it must not, as has been the case up to now, consist of: capital management, land management, management of the means of production—which, incidentally, is capital management—and labor management; rather, it must consist solely of the management of commodity production, commodity circulation, and commodity consumption. And, as it were, the fundamental unit of this economic life—which is to be based solely on expertise and professional competence—is price formation; how must this take place? Not through the randomness of the so-called free market, as has been the case thus far in the national and global economies! It will have to take place in such a way that, on the basis of associations that arise appropriately between the individual branches of production and the consumer cooperatives, through people who emerge from these cooperatives as knowledgeable and skilled, what the randomness of the market currently produces in a crisis-ridden manner is achieved organically and rationally. In the future, when the determination of the nature and character of human labor falls within the purview of the constitutional state, it will have to be the case, roughly speaking, within economic life, that a person receives, in exchange for whatever he accomplishes through his labor, enough exchange value to satisfy his needs until he has produced an equivalent product again.

[ 31 ] To put it crudely, amateurishly, and superficially, what I just said could be illustrated by the following example, but this explanation will suffice for now: If I produce a pair of boots, the mutually established value must enable me, through the production of this pair of boots, to exchange them for as many goods as I need to satisfy my needs until I have produced another pair of boots. And there must be institutions in place within society to provide for the needs of widows, orphans, the disabled, and the sick, as well as for education and the like. However, whether such regulation of price formation—which will be the sole responsibility of economic socialization—can take place will depend on the formation of bodies—whether elected or appointed from the associations of the various branches of production in conjunction with consumer cooperatives—that are tasked with mediating fair prices in everyday life.

[ 32 ] This can only be achieved by organizing the entire economy—not, however, in the form of a Moellendorffian planned economy, but in a dynamic form—in such a way that, for example, the following is taken into account: Let us assume that a certain product tends to become too expensive. What does that mean? Too little of this item is being produced; workers must be redirected through contracts to the branches of production capable of producing this item. If, on the other hand, an item becomes too cheap, then businesses must be shut down, the workers withdrawn from them, and, through regulation, placed in other businesses. When something like this is proposed, people today describe it as difficult. But anyone who rejects this as “difficult” in order to remain content with minor improvements in social conditions should also realize that, by doing so, they will remain stuck in today’s conditions.

[ 33 ] This shows you how economic life is to be made self-reliant through associations formed purely by economic forces themselves; how economic life—over which the state has today spread its wings—is in fact to be administered solely by the economic forces themselves, and in such a way that, within this administration of economic life, the initiative of the individual is preserved as much as possible. This cannot be achieved through a planned economy, nor through the establishment of collective ownership of the means of production, but solely through associations of free industries and through agreements between these associations and consumer cooperatives.

[ 34 ] This is the terrible mistake: that the nationalization initiated thus far by the leading, governing circles should be taken to the extreme, that cooperatives should expand across the entire fabric of state life, using the framework of that state life, thereby undermining any connection between such a planned economy and external economic forces; whereas the associations envisaged by the threefold social order are intended precisely to preserve the full free initiative of economic actors and to keep open all connections between a closed economic entity and the external economic sphere.

[ 35 ] However, some things will look quite different—for example, something I can only hint at through a parable. Socialist theory calls for the abolition of private property, as they say—mere words that a knowledgeable person cannot create a mental image of—and the transfer of private property into common ownership. But that doesn’t really mean anything. I can illustrate what it might mean to you in the following way. Today, for example, people are very proud of their philosophers. But there is one thing people understand quite correctly—at least when it comes to intellectual creations—while in the material realm they fail to think just as soundly. For how do people think about intellectual property? People believe that one must be personally involved in what one acquires intellectually. One cannot really say: “What I produce as intellectual property should be produced through a communal economy or cooperative management.” That will have to be left to the individual. For it is best produced when the individual, with his abilities and talents, is actively involved, and not when he is separated from it. But one does think socially in that what one produces intellectually no longer belongs to the heirs thirty years after the creator’s death—though this period could perhaps be greatly shortened—but rather to whoever can best make it accessible to the general public again. This is taken for granted, of course, because people today do not value what they perceive as intellectual property as something special. But people make no attempt to engage with the idea that physical private property should be treated in the same way—that it should remain in private ownership only as long as one can contribute one’s abilities to it, but should then be transferred—not to this formless “public,” which would give rise to corruption and other terrible things, but to the person who, in turn, possesses the greatest abilities and would place the matter in the service of the public.

[ 36 ] When one thinks with an open mind, such things become apparent. We have undertaken to establish a School of Spiritual Science, the Goetheanum, in Dornach near Basel, Switzerland. We have called it the Goetheanum ever since the world became “verwoodrowwilsont,” ever since it became necessary for the German people to demonstrate that they would boldly present their spiritual life to the entire world. The Goetheanum abroad as a representative of German spiritual life—unlike what chauvinism does! But I want to emphasize something else now. This School of Spiritual Science is being built, and it is now administered by those people who have the abilities to bring this endeavor to life. To whom will it belong when these present individuals are no longer among the living? It will not pass to anyone by inheritance, but will pass to whoever can best administer it in the service of humanity. It actually belongs to no one.

[ 37 ] If one thinks in economic and social terms, the very things that must come about if beneficial developments are to occur in the future will already begin to emerge. I have elaborated further on the circulation of private property in the treatise *The Key Points of the Social Question*, where I have shown how the social organism must be structured into its three independent and, as such, cooperating members: the spiritual organization, with self-governance rooted in the foundations of a free spiritual life; the state, political, and legal organization, with democratic administration based on the judgment of every person who has attained maturity; and an economic life that should be based solely on the judgment of knowledgeable and competent individuals, corporations, and their associations.

[ 38 ] This seems so new that, ever since I’ve been advocating these ideas in Germany, someone once made the following point to me: “You’re dividing the state—which must be a unified whole—into three parts.” - I could only reply: Do I divide a horse into three or four parts when I say it must stand on its four legs? Or will someone claim that a horse is only a unity when it stands on one leg? Nor can anyone claim that social life, if it is to be a unity, must converge into an abstract unity. In the future, we will no longer have to allow ourselves to be hypnotized by the abstract unitary state; we will have to recognize that it must be divided into three parts—three pillars upon which it can stand: a self-governing, free realm of the mind; a legal organization with democratic legislation; and an economic organization with an administration composed solely of experts and professionals with specialized expertise.

[ 39 ] Half of the great truths were spoken more than a hundred years ago in Western Europe in words that were regarded at the time as only half-truths: liberty, equality, fraternity—three ideals that could truly be inscribed deep enough in the hearts and souls of human beings. But it was certainly not stupid or foolish people who, in the course of the 19th century, declared that these three ideals were in fact contradictory: that freedom cannot exist where absolute equality reigns; that, in turn, brotherhood cannot exist where absolute equality is to prevail. These objections were correct, but only because they arose at a time when people were hypnotized by the so-called unitary state. The moment people are no longer hypnotized by this concept, the moment they come to understand the necessary threefold structure of the social organism, they will speak differently.

[ 40 ] Allow me, in closing, to summarize in a single comparison what I would have liked to elaborate on at greater length. I could only, as it were, sketch out the main points, presenting in a rough outline what I wanted to say; I know that I could only hint at what can be fully understood and grasped only through a detailed exposition. But I would like to point out, in closing, how the unified state stood before people like something hypnotic, and how they wanted this unified state to be governed by the three great ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. People will have to learn that things must be different. At present, people are accustomed to viewing this unified state as if it were a god. In this regard, their behavior is already like that of Faust toward the sixteen-year-old Gretchen. There, too, one encounters things that resemble the teachings Faust imparts to the child Gretchen—teachings that are appropriate for the sixteen-year-old Gretchen and which philosophers usually regard as something highly philosophical. Faust says: “Does not the All-Encompassing One, the All-Sustaining One, encompass and sustain you, me, and Himself?” It is almost the same with the unitary state: people are also hypnotized by this idol of unity and cannot see how this unitary structure must become threefold for the salvation of humanity in the future. And many a factory owner is quite happy to speak to his workers in reference to the state just as Faust did to Gretchen, saying: “Does not the state, the Sustainer of All, the All-Encompassing One, encompass and sustain itself, you, and myself?”—But he would then have to quickly cover his mouth and not say “myself” too loudly!

[ 41 ] The necessity of the threefold social order must be recognized, especially in proletarian circles. People will only come to understand this when they realize that the threefold social order is necessary. For the slogan “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”—with the contradictions inherent in these three ideals—must not simply prevail in the future; rather, in the future, within an independent spiritual life, freedom of the spirit must prevail, for there it will be justified; equality must prevail toward every person who has come of age within the democratic state, and brotherhood must prevail in the independently administered economic life that nourishes and sustains people. The moment these three ideals are applied in this way to the threefold social order, they will no longer contradict one another.

[ 42 ] May the time come when we can describe the situation as follows: We in Central Europe truly look back with sorrow on what happened at Versailles. We view it only as a starting point and as a prelude to the great hardship, misery, and suffering that lie ahead of us. But may it come to pass that we can say: They can take away our external possessions, for external possessions can be taken from people. But if we are able to draw upon the years in which we denied our past—upon the Goetheanism of that time at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, when Lessing, Herder, Schiller, Goethe, and so on were active in a different sphere—if, in our time of need, we are able to draw from within ourselves upon the great Central European treasures, then, in the midst of our present distress, the other half of the truth—which a century ago resounded only halfway in “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”—will ring out from this Central Europe; perhaps in outward dependence—but in inner freedom and independence, the words might then resound from Central Europe out into the world:

[ 43 ] Freedom for intellectual life,
Equality for the democratic legal life of the people,
Fraternity for economic life!

[ 44 ] These words serve as a kind of symbol, summarizing what we must say, feel, and think today in order to fully grasp the social question in its entirety. May a great many people come to understand and grasp this; then what is currently merely a question will become a practical reality!