The Rudolf Steiner Archive

1. Questions on the Threefold Social Order I

Emil Molt: It is my honor to welcome you this evening and to thank you for your large turnout, which shows us that our invitation has been well received. The “Association for the Threefold Social Order” felt it appropriate to invite a number of distinguished guests here this evening so that all the questions each of you has on your mind—questions that have arisen, for example, from the lectures—can be raised, so that these questions may be clarified by Dr. Steiner himself. We believe that the lectures that have been held here in Stuttgart over the past four to six weeks are not merely intended to present something interesting to the audience, but above all to allow something to mature within the listeners that can lead to action. We also believe that, in order to bring such a movement to life, it is not enough for just a few people to serve as the driving force; rather, we need collaborators from all walks of life.

I would now like to ask you to take the floor, and I ask Dr. Steiner to answer any questions that may arise.

Dr. Schmucker: First, I would like to note that I am asking this question purely as a private citizen. The resolution adopted during the various lectures calls on the government to appoint Dr. Steiner to implement, as quickly as possible, the threefold social order he has advocated. Now, I must honestly admit that I have not yet had enough time to delve into his book or follow all of his lectures. I therefore apologize if my question reveals that I do not know whether Dr. Steiner has perhaps already taken a position on the matter that is close to my heart. My question: Let’s assume that one day the government decides it wants to work with Dr. Steiner; let’s assume Dr. Steiner joins a ministry—for example, the Ministry of Labor—and is assigned to an office well-stocked with government documents and commentaries; he finds, in particular, all the statutes dealing with the resolution of the social question—for example, the Labor Protection Act, the Employees’ Insurance Act, and so on—but above all the many laws that have been brought to light by the new government following the great upheaval, and which all point in one direction: namely, toward satisfying as many of the social aspirations of workers and employees as possible. What is Dr. Steiner's mental image of this task—the transition from the current system of government to the future one? What is to become of the current representative bodies, the state assemblies, and the National Assembly?

[ 1 ] Rudolf Steiner: You have approached the question from a certain angle—that of the government. Therefore, I can only answer it from that perspective. And the answer, at first glance, is that, of course, in the government’s first action, one would have to refrain from many things that could only happen as a result of that first action.

[ 2 ] As my first act in government, I would have to give it some thought—wouldn’t I? We’re, of course, speaking quite openly here—which, of course, has little to do with the question of what I would do if, for the sake of argument, I were appointed to the Ministry of Labor, found law books and the like there, and now had to continue working there. I’d just like to note formally, for the record, that I had absolutely nothing to do with drafting the resolution you’re referring to. I couldn’t accept that interpretation of the resolution, but I could only explain my position on this issue.

[ 3 ] For example, I would first have to conclude that I do not belong in a Ministry of Labor at all, that I would have no role to play there, for the simple reason that a Ministry of Labor cannot possibly continue to exist within the unified state community in the near future. That is why I mentioned the other day in a lecture that the government’s first action should be to take the initiative on various matters, thereby laying the groundwork for [further action].

[ 4 ] First, one must understand that today’s government is, in a sense, a continuation of what emerged as the government from earlier conditions. However, only a part of this government lies in the direct continuation of earlier conditions—namely, the part that would encompass, for example, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior (for internal security), and the Ministry of Public Health. These matters would fall within the continuation of what emerged from earlier governmental principles. For everything else, such a government would have to take the initiative to become a “liquidation ministry”—that is, a ministry that takes the initiative in all directions to lay the groundwork for a free spiritual life, one that would be based on its own administration and constitution and would have to organize itself from within once the transition from the present to the future conditions has been completed. This administration would also have a corresponding representative body, which, of course, could not be structured like today’s representative assemblies but would have to grow out of the specific conditions of spiritual life. This would have to take shape purely out of the self-administration of spiritual life; in particular, the systems of education and culture come into consideration—these would have to be transferred, on the one hand, to the self-administration of spiritual life.

[ 5 ] On the other hand, a Ministry of Liquidation would, in turn, have to transfer to the autonomous economic sector everything pertaining, for example, to transportation and trade; the Ministry of Labor, too, would have to organize its administration through bodies that would emerge from the economic sector. These would, of course, be very radical measures, but from this perspective, they can only be radical. Only then would a foundation be laid for addressing specific issues in any way.

[ 6 ] What I have just discussed does not change anything with regard to what has been built from the bottom up. It merely indicates the path by which something new can be created out of what already exists. Only then—once those organizations have been established within the economic sphere that would carry on what is set forth in the legal codes you cited—only then could [further steps] be undertaken. That would be just one step that could come later. I am not envisioning a program, but rather a sequence of steps, all of which are real actions, real processes. Everything I mean in my books and lectures is not a set of instructions on how to do it, but rather how the conditions should be created so that people can enter into the possible interrelationships necessary to bring things into being. Economic laws can only grow out of economic life itself, and only when all those corporations—whose impulses can contribute to the shaping of economic life itself based on the specific, concrete conditions of that life—are able to express themselves within that economic life.

[ 7 ] So, as far as the government is concerned, I would view that as the first step: understanding that this must be a caretaker government.

[ 8 ] I'm happy to discuss any other specific issues related to this.

Dr. Schmucker: Suppose we were to establish a form of self-governance to regulate economic life. Could the works councils—which are now to be introduced for individual companies under the draft Reich law—serve as a means for this self-governance if—as is certainly the intention—the works councils were expanded upward, for example by consolidating the Württemberg works councils into a State Workers’ Council or State Works Council, and ultimately into a Reich Works Council or Reich Economic Council? The draft law uses the term “works council” to refer to a body that would be a purely worker-based representation, in which employers would not be included. Just as the works council cooperates with the employer, employers and employees could also sit together in the higher state-level body; and then, in a Reich Economic Council, not only workers but also employers would be represented, so that parity in representation would again be ensured here as well. Could Dr. Steiner find the idea feasible that such an organization would fulfill some of the needs of economic life, and that these economic self-governing corporations would be assigned all other tasks which, in Dr. Steiner’s opinion, should be handled by economic corporations as self-governing corporations?

[ 9 ] Rudolf Steiner: I ask that you not regard the few introductory sentences I am about to say as abstractions, but rather as a summary of experiences. These can only be summarized in such sentences.

[ 10 ] Just as the structure of economic life has developed, so too does this economic life suffer from the fact that harmonizing interests within the existing structure is simply not possible. I’ll just touch on a few aspects of this. As our economic life has developed, for example, the worker has become completely uninterested in production—I’m setting aside the truly foolish attempts to generate interest, such as through profit-sharing, which I consider impractical. As things stand today, the worker is interested in economic life solely as a consumer, while the capitalist, in turn, is fundamentally interested in economic life only as a producer—and even then, only as a producer from the standpoint of profit—that is his standpoint, economically speaking; it cannot be otherwise. Thus, we have no way today of organizing any kind of genuine harmonization of consumer and producer interests; it is not inherent in our economic structure.

[ 11 ] What we must achieve is to ensure that those involved in shaping the economic structure are equally interested in both consumption and production, so that no one who plays a formative role—not only through judgment but also through action—has merely a one-sided interest in production or consumption, but rather that the organization itself fosters an equal interest in both. This can only be achieved if we are able, from within economic life itself—and indeed from all forms of economic life—to gradually lead people, at first, to form small corporations, which will then naturally merge further. They must be corporations, for the reason that trust must be established. This is possible only if larger corporations are gradually built up in a unified manner from smaller ones—that is, only if, from all the various forms of economic life, we have individuals whose judgments and influence—based on economic realities—enable them to exert a social impact in every respect through their aptitude for managing economic life as such. If, therefore, we wish to socialize economic life, we cannot do so through institutions, but only by engaging people in the institutions in the manner described and ensuring their ongoing participation in them.

[ 12 ] That is why I consider it absolutely essential today that we not enact any laws at all to establish works councils, but rather that we have the opportunity to create works councils from all forms of economic life —so that they exist from the outset—and to allow these works councils to give rise to a network of works councils that only has true meaning when it serves as a bridge between the individual branches of production. A system of works councils that exists solely for individual sectors is of little significance; only when the activities of the works councils unfold primarily between the branches of production that interact with one another do they have a purpose.

[ 13 ] That is why I said: The individual works council really only serves a purpose within the company—to a greater or lesser extent—if it plays an informational role. What needs to be done with this works council concept in economic life can really only be accomplished by the works council movement as a whole, because it can only be a blessing for individual companies in the future if the works councils emerge from the structure of economic life as a whole. So I believe that the focus actually lies with the works council movement as a whole—that is, in what is negotiated among the works councils of the individual factories—and not in what happens solely within the individual factories.

[ 14 ] But then I can only expect this institution to be a blessing if these works councils—which, of course, must be established on the basis of existing conditions, which must not arise from pie-in-the-sky hopes but must stem from what exists today—if, for example, they are elected from among all those who are in some way involved in the business. I do not want to speak of “employers” and “employees,” but of people from the circle of all those who are truly involved in the enterprise through mental or physical labor. In other words, everyone who participates in the enterprise would form the basis for organizing such councils from within. Naturally, if one were to approach the matter from the perspective of economic conditions, the reasonable employers of today would be included in their capacity as intellectual leaders, and we would have a system of works councils that, at least initially, would not consist of elected representatives from all [sectors]—that would only be the case after some time—but which could represent the interests of the most diverse group of people involved in economic life. However, I can only imagine that such a works council system would nevertheless focus its primary attention on production conditions, so that I actually cannot imagine that a mere works council system would already be anything significant. I can only imagine that, in addition to the works council system—though I do not overlook the objection that one will say: Where would there be any work left to do if all this were to be implemented in practice? — I can only imagine that the works councils would be supplemented by transportation councils and economic councils, because the works councils would primarily deal with production, while the economic councils would deal with consumption in the broadest sense. For example, consumption would also have to include everything we consume from abroad—that is, imports; all imports would fall under the jurisdiction of the Economic Council. I do not claim that [with this] everything would already be in perfect order today, but these are the three most important [types of] workers’ councils that must exist initially: the workers’ council, the transportation council, and the economic council. For this, only one wing of the government would have to take the initiative; [it would] not have to enact any laws, but [would] only have to ensure that these workers’ councils are established. These councils would then have to begin to establish their own constitution—that is, to create what flows naturally from independent economic life, based on what they have experienced within it. The constitution of the three councils would arise entirely from the circumstances themselves. That is what I would regard as the first step: the creation of works councils arising from the circumstances themselves. Only then would these councils have to establish their own constitution. In practice, I would call this the decentralization of economic life in a given area. So as long as the view persists that laws governing works councils should be enacted by a central government, I regard that as something that has nothing to do with what should happen. Taking that first step—that is what the times demand of us.

Dr. Schmucker: In my view, this work—which those involved should carry out themselves in order to form organizations and manage them on their own—requires a highly intellectually developed workforce of workers and employees. However, the experiences we’ve had with factory workforces during the war and with the working class in recent months make me hesitant to assume that the majority of the working class—indeed, the overwhelming majority, as it must surely be—is up to this great task. When one has experiences such as those we have had recently—where the workforce of a company comes and, under threat of violence from the employer, demands: “You’ve made so-and-so much profit. You may be struggling now, but if you don’t share it, the state will take a large portion of what you’ve earned.” “We demand a cost-of-living allowance now!”—This whole process is familiar to everyone: the continuous rise in wages, food prices, and so on, with one thing driving up the cost of another. These experiences raise doubts as to whether workers and employees have reached the level of development necessary to fulfill the task demanded of them here.

[ 15 ] Rudolf Steiner: If we start from the principle that, with regard to any given matter, we always want to do the best we can possibly imagine or picture in some ideal way, then we will never, in practice, carry out what really needs to be done. I will, of course, concede that a large part of what you have just said is absolutely correct. But I ask you to consider the following: In recent weeks or months, I have had the opportunity to speak with a great many workers, and I have found that when you truly speak to a worker in his own language, he repeatedly brings up matters that are grounded in reality. I have found that they then prove to be receptive at heart and come to realize that what needs to be done can only be something that does not undermine economic life or let it wither away, but rather builds it up. It is extraordinarily easy to help workers understand what needs to happen if you address what they themselves have experienced. And starting from there, he will easily grasp certain interrelationships in economic life. Of course, there is still a great deal that he cannot understand, for the simple reason that circumstances have never allowed him to gain insight into certain interrelationships—ones that simply cannot be understood when one stands at a machine from morning till night. I am well aware of that, too.

[ 16 ] But of course there is another factor: even our most experienced business leaders do not engage very thoroughly with the actual conditions of economic life. I do not wish to present Rathenau to you as an economist [with a broad perspective], but rather as a principal, for his writings reveal on virtually every page that he truly speaks from the standpoint of the principal, the industrial entrepreneur. Well, isn’t it true that, when all is said and done, there are no absolute objections to these statements from this point of view, because, fundamentally, all of these points are correct. I would like to mention just one thing: Rathenau calculates what the concept of surplus value actually entails. Now, of course, it is very easy today to prove that what could have been calculated some time ago as surplus value is long outdated. Well, Rathenau also works out this calculation very neatly in detail and arrives at the entirely correct conclusion that, fundamentally, the entire surplus value cannot actually be claimed. For if the worker were to receive it, he would have to give it back, since the institutional framework requires that it be used as a reserve. This calculation is, of course, simply correct. The question is whether it is possible to escape the result of this calculation—whether one can find an economic way to circumvent it. The point is that there is no other way to escape what Rathenau calculates than by realizing what I presented as the answer in my book: that the moment any coherent set of means of production is completed, it is no longer saleable—that is, it no longer has any purchase value. Then the entire calculation collapses, for the Rathenau calculation is only feasible if the means of production can in turn be sold at any time for a very specific value. Thus, the correct premise for the actual conclusion is missing—a premise for which the ruling class is not yet ready. It would first have to understand that we cannot move forward because we are at a dead end unless we bring about major changes. And one would immediately see, if one were to find common ground—but on a basis where the sole interest is to sustain economic life rather than to serve the interests of individuals—that the principals do know something, but that their knowledge is one-sided and can be supplemented by others.

[ 17 ] I believe I can say, with regard to all the beautiful ideals that an individual human being can produce intellectually: “One is a human being, two are people, more than that are animals.” — But as soon as we turn to the kind of thinking that is to be realized in social institutions, the opposite principle applies: “One person is nothing, several are a little something, and many are the ones who can then make it happen.” - Because when twelve people from a wide variety of political parties sit together with the good will to synthesize their individual experiences into a collective whole, we have not merely a sum of twelve different opinions; rather, as these opinions are actually put into action, a potentiation of these twelve impulses arises. Thus, an immense body of economic experience is formed simply by socializing people’s opinions in this way. That is what matters. So, I must say, I believe that what you’re saying is correct, as long as you’re dealing with a working class that simply makes demands from its standpoint as consumers. For the fact that they have demands will, of course, not result in anything at all that could lead to any kind of socialization. That way, you’ll only end up dismantling economic life. We must not create a mental image of achieving ideal conditions the day after tomorrow, but rather a state that is viable if we do things this way. It is precisely on this point that we should ask: “What is viable?”—and not: “Are people smart enough?” Let’s take people as they are and make the best of the situation, and let’s not speculate about whether people are highly developed, because, after all, something must always happen. We simply cannot do nothing; something must happen from some quarter. I don’t see why, if we remove people from economic life, they should be any less highly developed than, for example, government officials and the members of the former German Reichstag during all those years when precisely that happened—which then had such terrible consequences. After all, only what was possible happened there as well. The point is that we do what is possible with the majority of people who are here. I do not imagine that an ideal state could be created, but rather a viable organism.

Dr. Riebensam: I’d like to address the issue of works councils. What other means do we have of speaking with the workers? The situation is now escalating to the point where we need to find a way to defuse the tension. I’d like to get to the heart of the matter and ask: Why would you put a car on the road without a steering wheel? In my view, our workforce is like that machine. I have spoken with many people about this and expressed my view that I consider it impossible to achieve any kind of cooperation with a large workforce in this manner. For every chairperson of a workers’ committee is stoned by the workers the moment he or she becomes the representative of a particular opinion. You assume good will on the part of the workforce. I’ve tried everything—initially not without success, for I’ve had the workers’ trust ever since I’ve been able to speak with them and they’ve been able to hear me. But the people who don’t show up are in the majority. I can perhaps speak to two thousand; the others lack the goodwill. I know from experience that the large crowd is capable of confusing even those who were initially convinced. The wisest members of the workers’ committees, with whom I have spoken privately and who expressed positive views, have now returned to the position that makes me ask myself: Has all the work I’ve done over the past six months been in vain? I have made certain proposals to the government with the intention that things proceed in such a way that the workers are satisfied. If these were to come from the government as a decree, all the work would be in vain; but I consider it pointless to establish works councils without any oversight, as that leads to the most absurd outcomes. Since you yourself say that we must start somewhere, we should begin in a way that makes it feasible.

[ 18 ] Rudolf Steiner: Everything you’ve said actually boils down to the fact that, fundamentally speaking, it is currently impossible for management to cope with the workforce. Of course, this didn’t happen without a reason; it has, of course, developed gradually. I believe you are misjudging the situation if you place too much stock in counting on the workers’ goodwill. For the workers will demand that goodwill from you, precisely because they have learned through agitation—to a certain extent, quite rightly—that nothing will come of it. The workers will say: “We can have this goodwill, but the employer certainly won’t.”—This mistrust is already too great today. Therefore, on this front, there is no other recourse than to gain as much trust as possible. The moment there is someone—even if it’s just for two thousand workers, or for eight thousand workers, for that matter—who truly knows how to articulate social goals that workers can understand, where the focus is not merely on goodwill but on understanding, then the situation is quite different. Certainly, when you speak to two thousand workers, they may in turn be confused by the other side, but the situation will ultimately turn out this way: If you truly speak to the workers about what they understand, then you are not merely speaking to two thousand who are confused by the people they last spoke with, but these workers will in turn have an impact on the others.

[ 19 ] But if we ask ourselves whether this path has even been taken at all, we must say that, essentially, it has not. And everything is being done to make this path unappealing over and over again. Of course, when workers today see that works councils are being imposed on them from above through laws, it completely erodes their trust. So if, today, something that makes sense were to come from the central authorities in a truly audible way—so that workers can see that it makes sense—then they would naturally cooperate, truly cooperate. But that simply doesn’t happen. And that is precisely why the movement for the threefold social order exists—to create something that truly constitutes a conceivable goal. You won’t reach the worker if you speak only of concrete institutions, for he has already been pushed into the role of a mere consumer. No one explains this to the worker. Everything that is being done is moving in exactly the opposite direction. Let the institutions emerge on their own today. If these works councils are truly to be established, simply let them come about—perhaps even just in the form of proposals; after all, many proposals can be put forward here—it cannot be limited to a single type of legislative bill. That is, of course, the best way to turn the entire working class against the works councils. Today, there is no longer any possibility of making any progress this way. Today, we can only succeed if we seek something other than countering violence with violence—namely, pitting personalities against personalities and earning personal trust. That is what is possible for the worker. Anyone who understands how to speak to workers in their own language—so that they realize nothing will come of simply driving up the wage scale, and they also see that there is a genuine willingness to finally move in this [new] direction—will go along with it and do their part. The worker will not cooperate if one merely proposes legislation; rather, he wants to see that the leaders in the government actually have the will to move in a certain direction.

[ 20 ] That is precisely what the current government is being criticized for; while one gets the sense that it wants to do something, everything that is happening is proceeding along the same tracks as before. There is nothing new in any of it. On the other hand, when people are involved, it’s really not a matter of simply setting a car in motion without steering it. It really must be steered if it is to be able to move. We have no choice but to tell ourselves: Either we try to move forward and go as far as we can, or we’re simply heading toward chaos. There’s no other way to do it.

Dr. Riebensam: I agree with all of this. I’m open to the idea that workers should first be shown this goal, but that we shouldn’t continue down the same old path. I think it’s possible that you’ll see today that workers in a factory are causing a great deal of disruption. However, it might still be possible to find a way for workers to participate constructively. We are willing to take the workers into account, but they must also take our perspective into consideration, lest faith in the possibility of mutual understanding fade away entirely. We must find a way somehow. [But that’s not so easy.] When the workers come forward to form works councils, and we tell them, “Come, let’s sit down together and do the right thing,” that is essentially an abstract template; they do not accommodate our advice at all. Recently, I attended a workers’ meeting where the workers demanded too much. They said one should not approach the matter with a petty mindset; there was no point anymore in making any agreements; they wanted to decide everything on their own in the future. This realization must be the foundation of my future actions. However, I could possibly imagine a works council that meets every eight days and with which I discuss everything before tensions arise. But we should also tell the workers this: We can’t just set up a works council on our own.

[ 21 ] Rudolf Steiner: You see, in these matters, it is important not to rely on unsystematic experiences, but on systematic ones. Since no other option was available to us, we held a whole series of workers’ meetings, almost day after day, and one thing kept coming up again and again at these meetings. It was very clear that an extreme view had emerged from within the workforce itself: “Yes, if we’re on our own, how on earth are we supposed to manage in the future?” Of course, we need those who can lead; we need the intellectual worker.” — This realization does not come about through dictation, but only by truly working with the people. That is why I considered it important—Molt will be able to confirm this—that right from the very beginning, when he came with other friends to put this matter into practice, I told him: The first requirement is that, first and foremost, honest trust be earned—but not in the way that has been customary up to now, with “I am the boss, you are the worker,” but rather from person to person, so that the worker is gradually and concretely initiated into the management of the entire enterprise and also gains an understanding of when the enterprise ceases to be economically viable. This is something that [is indispensable], and I openly ask: Where has this actually happened? Where is it done this way? — A great deal is being done in government today, with individual commissions convening to deliberate on the best way to do this or that. In this case—forgive the harsh expression—they’re putting the cart before the horse. It is impossible to make progress this way. What is needed today is to create a living link between those who [work with their hands] and those who understand their work. Far more necessary than holding ministry meetings is for individual men to go out among the people and speak to them face to face. That is the ground on which we must begin. One must not be discouraged if success does not come the first time; it will most certainly come the fourth or fifth time. So, isn’t it true that if only some kind of start had been made—in what is actually practical today—one would be able to see [that something is taking shape]; but there is no start, and people are resisting it.

Emil Molt: We’ve made a start. May I draw the attention of those gentlemen who are interested to the fact that we have already been implementing this type of works council for weeks. Although I am fully aware that the whole thing is still a bit amateurish, it has nevertheless become clear that—while we are here discussing how to gain trust—we have already gained it. This is essential because we set out to make people, not cigarettes. We have used the company to make people. Making cigarettes is merely a means to an end. Our aim was to truly connect with people and to do so during working hours. You simply have to take the time to do this. It’s crucial to bring things to life from the ground up. If things are like this elsewhere now—well, a lot has been neglected over the past six to eight weeks. If we had started this sooner, much of this could have been avoided.

[ 22 ] Here’s the thing: The people on the job don’t just want to work; they also want to know. We must be clear about this: The more we give in to this urge and do not shy away from steering this powerful current into the right channels, the more we can harness this energy. Therefore, we should not hesitate to tell every factory owner to lay his operations out like an open book, for that is how trust begins to take root. As long as we merely talk about what we should do, we will not win the people’s trust. We must grant them insight and show them: We have nothing left to conceal today. In the past, the factory owner had more to hide. Now, at most, the worker can see that no profit is being made. Only when he figures it out for himself will he believe it—after all, he doesn’t believe the manufacturer. When people make wage demands, they are merely driven by a thirst for knowledge; they want to gain insight. But one must take the helm oneself and provide insight into the manufacturing process; then one will see that people will concern themselves with issues other than wages. Please understand that we [at the Waldorf-Astoria] are not speaking as theorists; we have experience, and we have proof of this. Even if not all ideals have been realized yet, we are well on our way to achieving them. And the difficulties that other businesses are facing now—we will never encounter them.

[ 23 ] Yesterday I spoke before a large group of workers from another factory. I saw the enthusiasm with which the people received my report as soon as things were viewed from a broader perspective. Today I heard from my own workers that news of this meeting is spreading like wildfire among the workforce. People can see for themselves that if things were like this everywhere, conditions would be completely different. For days now, we’ve had a steady stream of visitors from the workers’ committees of all the major factories, and they say: “Yes, if only we had that where we work!” There has been a major failure on the part of the bourgeoisie; if you really talk to our colleagues, you’ll encounter narrow-mindedness and parochialism everywhere.

[ 24 ] Dr. Schmucker: I had a mental image of the government’s draft bill as dreadful, but not this dreadful; it is a veritable monstrosity. If one studies the matter, one sees that the lawmakers in Berlin are unfamiliar with the circumstances; they have no idea what this is all about. Now they want to abolish the employee and worker committees and replace them with works councils of 40 to 80 members who are unfit for work.

[ 25 ] Mr. Geyer: There is no one here who is not touched by Dr. Steiner’s proposals. But I must frankly admit that every day I grapple with the question of why, just when I think we’ve made it over the hill, we are faced with new problems. We are in the midst of an intellectual revolution. People are increasingly concerned with the intellectual side of social structure, more so than was previously the case, when the individual’s interest was generally focused solely on an economic revolution. But I must say that, in my opinion, this intellectual revolution is not moving in the right direction. Workers and many employees are by no means aware of what is at stake today. Their focus on consumption holds them so firmly captive in their thinking that they fail to acknowledge the value of other people—those who do not work with their hands—as equals. Dr. Steiner is correct when he says that social policy cannot be driven from above. But we must reach a point where human beings enter into a closer relationship with one another. Unfortunately, however, we are already so one-sidedly entrenched in culture, in the state apparatus, and in the global system that a return to the original culture, to the original state, is necessary—not in a spiritual sense, but in terms of the relationship between human beings. There is no longer any authority that stands above human beings. All people should enter into relationships with one another, forming small circles—a kind of crystal—that unite to form larger units. This crystallization should then continue to grow until we reach the summit, where the dissolution of the state apparatus has come to an end. I believe this is how Dr. Steiner envisions the process until the threefold social order is established. However, a considerable amount of time will pass before that happens, [and a problem will arise]: Councils will be formed, but these councils will change very frequently—just as people already frequently change their positions—so that chaos will ensue. There will not only be friction between the small organizations, but also conflicts within the Ministry of Liquidation. This could cause the entire tower—which is to be built from the bottom up—to collapse. I believe that our current level of general public education, as a prerequisite [for this reform effort], does not yet make it possible to hope for the emergence of genuine trust among people. I mean, a general public education campaign would have to begin first; however, I readily admit that this general public education will also face obstacles from both above and below. The person who is supposed to be educated—the worker—regards not only the employer as an enemy, but also anyone who is intellectually superior, because he fears that such a person will try to convince him of something that runs counter to his interests. This is a common experience. I do not believe that, even though Molt has had good experiences with the works councils in his company, things will always remain that way. Human beings are human beings, and having observed humanity throughout its ten-thousand-year evolution, I must say: Human beings are not mere earthly creations, but beings who will one day reach a point in their cultural development where one can truly say: now human beings are culturally so advanced that their existence on earth will be a happy one. To bring this about, however, a person would have to come along who possesses superhuman intellectual powers capable of capturing the souls of people.

[ 26 ] Rudolf Steiner: I would like to say that all of this could actually be used to present a perspective on the value of the human being. But for those who are thinking practically about what needs to be done in these chaotic times, the issue really cannot be whether people are sufficiently culturally educated or can be educated, but only about making of people what can be made of them. And above all, when we speak of the social organism, we should abandon from the outset the notion that we somehow want to establish happiness through the social organism or bring happiness to people through social institutions. Social restructuring is therefore by no means about creating happy people, but about understanding the living conditions of the social organism—that is, creating a viable social organism. The fact that we cannot make progress with public education as it stands today is precisely what has led to the impulse for the threefold social order—to demand the complete emancipation of public education from the other members.

[ 27 ] Well, anyone who truly wants to understand human beings must not speak in terms of tens of thousands or thousands of years, but rather in terms of what is truly manageable. Anyone who considers the development of public education over the past few centuries—one need only look at three to four centuries if one wishes to understand the root causes of today’s problems—can conclude: Through the ever-increasing nationalization of the entire educational system, we have brought about the very lack of public education that we face today. We have reached a point where, little by little, our ruling circles have created a system of education that leads to nothing but distorted concepts. Just consider that the ruling circles have driven the worker into the realm of mere economic life. For whatever scraps of public education you throw his way, he does not understand them. I was a teacher at the workers’ educational school and know what the worker is capable of understanding and what is being done incorrectly. I know that they can only understand something that is not drawn from bourgeois education, but from the general nature of humanity. You have said that workers regard anyone who is intellectually superior as an enemy. Of course they regard as an enemy anyone who merely represents an intellectual life that is [conditioned] by the social structure of a small caste and class. They sense this very clearly in their instincts. As soon as he encounters that spiritual life which is drawn from the whole human being, there is no question of him being an enemy of those who are spiritually superior; that is out of the question; on the contrary, he realizes very well that this is his best friend. We must find a way to achieve a truly social education for the people through the emancipation of spiritual life. We must not shy away from a certain radicalism. We must have an inkling of how concepts, mental images—how the very essence of what constitutes our education today, to put it simply—has rubbed off on people. There has been much discussion about the high school system. What, exactly, is this high school system? We established it by staging a kind of paradox. Intellectual life, after all, is a unified whole. The Greeks drew intellectual life from everything, because it was, at the same time, the intellectual life that was suited to the circumstances. We teach nothing in school about what actually exists in the world, but rather what existed in the world for the Greeks—that is what has been imprinted on our culture. From this paradox, we now demand: We want to offer the people enlightenment. We can offer this to them only if we today return entirely to our own roots in this area, if we, as human beings, draw closer to our fellow human beings. We are not to return to some speculative primal state; only what the times demand comes into consideration. Today it is necessary that we truly learn from such things. When I taught my students—and I can say there were a great many of them—what I could not draw from any branch of high school knowledge or high school education, but rather what had to be built anew, they learned eagerly. Of course, because they also absorb the judgment of the educated—which [actually stems from high school knowledge]—they knew full well that this is a cultural lie; naturally, they want nothing to do with learning from it.

[ 28 ] We will not be able to make any real progress unless we are capable of taking the radical first step of implementing this threefold division—that is, truly separating spiritual life and economic life from political life. I am convinced that many people today say they do not understand this threefold division. They probably say this because it is too radical for them, because they lack the courage to really study the matter in detail and put it into practice. Isn’t that right? The point is really that we are not dealing with superhumans, but with people as they truly are, and doing what can actually be done with them. Then a great deal can be accomplished if one does not start from this or that prejudice. We really ought to put the educational system on its own footing once and for all and let it be administered solely by those who are actually involved in it. But people can hardly form a mental image of what that would mean, even though it is actually something that, if one is willing to imagine it, already exists.

[ 29 ] So, the school system must first be considered entirely separate from the state. It is completely out of the question that we will make any progress unless we rise to this radical way of thinking: to separate the school—indeed, the entire educational system—from the state.

Dr. Riebensam: I want to get back to reality, to what we actually intend to do. I’d like to speak on a personal level and respond to Mr. Molt by saying that I consider his view—even though he experienced it in his own factory—to be somewhat unrealistic. It’s based on experiences within a small circle. Twenty years ago, I implemented principles in a small factory that no one had even thought of at the time. I openly demonstrated what I was doing in the workplace. We used the Taylor system, which seems to work well. I then tried the same thing in a much larger factory—the workers went along with me. I then tried it here—but there was a lack of trust. Given these circumstances, I have expressed my reservations, and I must stand by them. Let’s return to what we want to achieve. The question was asked: How should we begin? Let me assume for a moment that we call the workers together with the aim of establishing works councils. How do we do that? It’s possible that you, Dr. Steiner, might tell me we could even grant the workers self-governance. I’m not yet convinced that this is feasible. I’d like a concrete example of how a works council was formed in a large factory.

[ 30 ] Rudolf Steiner: I would like to begin by saying that everything that can be done in detail within a company today can really only be a preparation for what works council governance entails. Since Dr. Riebensam took this matter as his starting point, I would just like to say: Certainly, experiences gained in such a small circle as Dr. Molt has described should not be celebrated as a victory too soon. But let us not be mistaken: What can be demonstrated by these experiences, at least initially, is that trust can be established within a certain circle. And that is, after all, what Dr. Molt primarily meant. It cannot be a victory because, when considering systematic socialization, a victory cannot be achieved in a single enterprise. The victory of a single enterprise—even if it consisted of raising the standard of living of its workforce—could, if achieved unilaterally by a single enterprise, only come at the expense of the general public.

[ 31 ] Socialization should not be approached from the perspective of individual businesses at all. For I want to draw your attention to one thing: things that, under certain conditions, can lead to something beneficial may, under opposite conditions, cause the greatest harm. I can expect nothing at all from the application of the Taylor system in our current economic order other than that, through the ever-increasing application of this system, there will ultimately be such an increase in industrial production that this increase will make it impossible for us in every way to arrive at any necessary—or even possible—structure for the price levels of those goods in life that do not originate from industry, but rather, for example, [from agriculture!

Dr. Riebensam: I didn't want to go into detail about the Taylor system.

[ 32 ] Rudolf Steiner: I merely meant that this Taylor system might, under certain circumstances—if applied under different conditions—lead to something positive; under our current system, however, it would only exacerbate all the system’s shortcomings.

[ 33 ] Regarding the specific question: How should we proceed with regard to the works councils? — Let us not forget that we only want to do what is presented as a demand. We must observe the demands and distinguish the essential ones from the non-essential ones. The council system is indeed a reality today; that is to say, it may still be in its infancy, but anyone who correctly observes the social forces at work in our social organism understands this. The same applies to the idea of councils in this specific case: works councils, transportation councils, and economic councils will assert themselves of their own accord. For now, however, we have only a preliminary sense of this among the working class. The real issue is that the social constitution of the works council movement must emerge—and that general principles cannot be established for this purpose. In fact, the point is that we must finally get used to making initiatives possible, and you will have such initiatives the moment they are unleashed. You need do nothing more than popularize the idea of works councils—and that is of great importance today. Then, in a wide variety of specific workplaces, the question will certainly have to be answered in many different ways: How do we do this?—It can be done one way in one workplace and another way in others, depending on the goals and the people involved. We must arrive at the possibility that a council structure is constituted from within the workplaces, that a council structure separates itself from the workplaces and operates between them. That is actually where the work of the council structure truly begins. The question of “how do we do this?” you would then have to resolve on a case-by-case basis. We need only understand the concept in general terms and implement it in specific cases.

[ 34 ] The general tone we’ve heard here today—and our experience has shown that we’re not gaining any trust—is something that, I believe, if examined on a case-by-case basis, would lead one to conclude that the matter really needs to be approached differently. First, we really need to fully embrace the necessity of putting the economy on its own feet. Just consider this: if we do that, then it’s simply a matter of goods and the production of goods; we would no longer be dealing with wages at all. Of course, this cannot be accomplished overnight. But the worker understands this when you tell him: “We cannot abolish the wage system overnight.”—But if the trend is toward abolishing the wage system—truly transferring the worker’s labor power into the realm of the rule of law, so that decisions regarding it are made there—since it does not belong in economic life—then all that remains is a contract regarding distribution between management and the worker. This is a concrete matter; it must first become a reality, it must be implemented in every single enterprise; only then can we make progress with the people. Unfortunately, however, the will to do so is lacking. For example, there is no understanding [among entrepreneurs] that the wage system can be replaced. It is regarded as a conditio sine qua non of economic life.

Dr. Riebensam: I would say that the workers probably have works councils [in mind, but they don’t anticipate] the [fundamental] goal. [This is something that needs to be made clear to them]. You are doing that here by giving lectures.

[ 35 ] Rudolf Steiner: Not among the leaders [of the workers], who think in the old ways, who think in a bourgeois manner.

Dr. Riebensam: Of course we must tell the workers all these things, but first I must be clear about them myself; I must think these ideas through. Then I can also try to talk to the workers and influence them. But I’d like to ask you: Are you also familiar with the works councils in the other factories?

[ 36 ] Rudolf Steiner: I am only familiar with the Molt system, which was introduced based on this idea [regarding works councils].

Emil Molt: One fine day, because we saw that there was a need, we called a meeting, discussed our goals and objectives, and then said: The most capable people can join the works council, but they must know that they still have a lot to learn. Those who join must learn from day one, but under guidance. They must learn what is necessary to run a business. Trust develops; people then see that running a business isn’t so easy—just as people today realize that governing isn’t so easy either. People then come to understand that the director is the first works council member of his business, because he is the only one who knows the business from the ground up. Then you work through fundamental issues with the people so that they can sense what the imponderables are.

Dr. Riebensam: How many people work at your company?

Emil Molt: Seven Hundred.

Dr. Riebensam: Who should I meet with?

Emil Molt: They'll come on their own.

Dr. Carl Unger: I could contribute a few experiences, albeit specific ones, because my company employs metalworkers, who have a somewhat different mindset than other workers. My experience is that we have set up a program—which isn’t really a program per se—but rather it’s simply a matter of working out the basic principles for a works council before the government intervenes, because otherwise nothing will come of it. You said that you consider it essential for the works council to seek connections with the outside world and to establish contact with other works councils. The prerequisite was the appeal that was published at the time and circulated in our company. In all the various questions that have been discussed here, we always sought to apply the principle of the threefold social order. [In our company, however, we were forced] to do it the old way—but that doesn’t really belong here. [The whole matter of the works councils] must be approached from a legal standpoint. [And it is actually a good thing when] people ask about the threefold order, because in this way they are instructed and pass on their knowledge within their circle, since the idea of the threefold order is something that must work from person to person.

Dr. Fritz Elsas: Dr. Schmucker first asked Dr. Steiner what he would do if he had now been appointed to the government in accordance with the workers’ resolution. I would like to speak purely on a personal level, not a political one, because from a political standpoint I do not consider this demand to be a good idea—namely, because it would amount to nothing less than demanding that the government dismiss itself. For such a government, without discrediting itself, would not appoint the representative of modern thought without first resigning. Since that would be irresponsible, and since such a significant movement should not arise from something that is [from the outset] doomed to failure, I have never concealed these reservations and regret that such a resolution was adopted at all. However, that should not prevent us from extracting what is useful from this misguided demand. As far as I know, Dr. Schmucker is in the Ministry of Labor. During the war and afterward, we had ministers who had not been there before; these are signs that the old bureaucratic state, the old servile state, has not come to master this immense economy that has been emerging for 60 years—an economy that must seek other forms, whether we like it or not, because these forms have now, in fact, suffered a fiasco. The states themselves have shown that it is impossible for them to organize themselves as economic states in this manner. That is the meaning of this catastrophe.

Now, all of you gentlemen—and especially Dr. Riebensam—have quite rightly assumed that we are in an extremely dire situation in which the entire structure could collapse. We are in a transitional phase and must, for the time being, focus on the issues that are currently relevant and require immediate attention. These are not intellectual questions, but economic ones. Mr. Molt has earned the trust of his workers; however, they are not part of the metalworkers’ union. The latter, in fact—as we hear—have already reached a point of nihilism that poses the gravest dangers to Württemberg. One of these dangers, Dr. Riebensam, is that you view the matter too narrowly from a purely industrial standpoint, because you forget that the state of Württemberg does not consist solely of the 8,000 [Daimler] and 5,000 Bosch workers, but also of farmers. And if they get involved, we will have a civil war. I do not know what will happen then.

The question arises: If the workers—and not only the workers, but also the civil service—make unreasonable demands based on nothing, if they adopt the perspective of mere consumers, [what happens then]? We would have to make the attempt and now say to the workers, in the spirit of the threefold social order: You metalworkers—from all companies—should now come together and form a production cooperative—this is something entirely new—you bring all the material assets of your company, your labor, and a new organization will emerge. I am not saying that this is necessary, but I can imagine that workers could be persuaded to advocate for the abolition of wages as the equivalent of labor, without it being necessary to make a final, definitive decision, for a single state can hardly abolish wages on its own. If these businesses—which are significant in Württemberg—were to form such a production cooperative and thereby reassure the workers, we would have gained time to implement Dr. Steiner’s ideas. This union would be an organized association, taking the form of some legal structure. In your case, Dr. Riebensam, this could be organized differently than in small businesses.

And now the other question: Can a small state, a medium-sized state like Württemberg—which belongs to a self-contained economic area [with its own currency]—even establish such a structure on its own? Will foreign countries supply raw materials to such cooperatives? The danger lies in the fact that foreign states—which are much larger and stronger “capitalist states” than Germany is at present—will decide not to enter into economic relations with such an entity. But we cannot feed ourselves. So the question must be examined: Where do we begin with these organizations?

[ 37 ] Rudolf Steiner: Wouldn't it be going too far if I were to go into the details of the previous summaries? I'd rather address the questions.

[ 38 ] That would not yet count as a concrete realization of what is meant by the threefold social order, even if, for my sake, all metalworkers in Württemberg were treated in the manner you described, although it could certainly be carried out in a formal sense. But when I speak of the threefold social order, I must expressly emphasize that I regard a one-sided separation of economic life from political life—while spiritual life remains within the realm of political life—as the opposite of what is sought, because I consider a twofold division to be just as harmful as I consider a threefold division to be necessary. If such measures were to result in the separation of a single branch of the economy, I would by no means regard that as being in the spirit of the threefold social order. Formally, however, something like this could indeed take place within a social organism that is working toward the threefold social order. Well, wouldn’t it be a fundamental test of the principle if one could even contemplate such things?

[ 39 ] As a side note, I would simply like to point out that the abolition of wages, when thought through consistently, by no means leads to the view that an individual state cannot abolish wages, because the economic relationship between such a state—which abolishes wages—and the entire external economic world need not change at all. Whether, domestically, the worker earns his income in accordance with economic liberalism or whether he earns it in another form—for example, from the proceeds of what he produces, in which he is already a partner with the manager—this does not alter the other economic relations with the outside world. It is therefore not correct to say that a single state cannot abolish wages. Nor, however, can the view be sustained that a small or large state cannot carry out this transformation on its own. On the contrary, in a small or large state, you certainly cannot socialize in the sense that the old socialists envisioned. I believe, in general, that socialization in the sense of the old socialists can lead to nothing other than the absolute isolation and constriction of a single economic region. If one draws the extreme consequences of the old concept of socialization, a single economic area is, in essence, nothing more than that which is governed by a single ledger. This will never lead to a positive trade balance, but only to a gradual, complete devaluation of money. Then you can abolish money. Then the possibility of any external connection ceases altogether.

[ 40 ] So all these factors formed the basis for conceiving this threefold social order, because it is the only way to ensure that each individual sphere—the economic, the legal, and the spiritual—can carry out its respective tasks. External relations will not change in any other way than that it will no longer be possible, for example, for political measures to disrupt the economy. The economic sphere will conduct its affairs externally, and situations like the one in the Baghdad Railway affair—where all three interests were tangled together—will no longer be able to occur, so that in the end the Baghdad Railway affair became one of the most important causes of war. There you see these three things tied together.

[ 41 ] I would like to point out once again that the threefold social order is conceived in terms of foreign policy—that is, it was conceived to offer the possibility of conducting economic life beyond political borders according to purely economic criteria, so that political life can never interfere with it. This means that in areas where the threefold social order is not implemented, there would be negative consequences; however, there would initially be no real reason for the [separated] economic sphere to assume that foreign countries would not engage in [economic relations] if the economic activity is otherwise profitable for them. This will be the sole determining factor, even if an economic sphere is not independent but is entirely driven by political forces; for all these matters that affect foreign countries are not affected by the threefold social order.

[ 42 ] Today, the major concern is this: Let’s consider a specific case. Suppose Bavaria were to implement its socialization now; then, with such a bureaucratically and centralistically conceived socialization, a great many free connections between domestic enterprises and foreign industry would be rendered impossible and undermined. In contrast, through the threefold social order, labor is removed from the economic sphere, which thus gives the worker the opportunity to approach the supervisor as a free partner. As a result, however, the worker is able to truly share in the profits generated within the economic sphere, provided that everything is no longer mixed together. Today, we no longer really have objective prices; instead, we have the wage relationship within economic life. If you remove this, you have, on the one hand, eliminated the unrest caused by the workers. And if you now remove [on the other hand] the capital relationship—by having the spiritual organism in place that must always ensure the capabilities of those who are to be there to manage the enterprises— In this way, you have removed the two main stumbling blocks from the economic system, and yet you have not affected anything that takes place in economic relations with foreign countries. Therefore, there is no reason for foreign countries to react negatively, for they lose nothing; they can conduct economic life exactly as before.

[ 43 ] This reorganization [by the works councils] is conceived specifically from the perspective of economic life. When one thinks of Germany, a vast network of intricate connections with other countries will be organized in one fell swoop, across all enterprises. In fact, there is no alternative but to carry out a restructuring of social life that makes it possible for commodities to regulate themselves through other commodities in the future, so that there will be a precise index around which commodities are grouped according to their value. This creates the possibility that what the individual produces will have the same value as all the products he needs to sustain his life. In our society based on the division of labor, all socialization must ultimately amount to this: what each individual produces over the course of a year must equal what he needs to sustain his life. If we eliminate the wage relationship and the capital relationship, we arrive at the pure commodity relationship. This, however, is something one must resolve to think through completely. Once one does, one will find that it is quite simple.

Dr. Fritz Elsas: I am not opposed to the spiritual organism governing itself; I am simply saying that this will take longer and is not urgent.

[ 44 ] Rudolf Steiner: It is urgent because we need to lay a foundation specifically for the education of intellectual workers, whom we are not producing with our current state-sanctioned spiritual life. That is, after all, the terrible thing today: that our state-sanctioned spiritual life is completely detached from real practical life. Even at the universities, people are educated in such a way—they are trained not practically, but only theoretically—that they are out of touch with real life. Isn’t that right? For example, I imagine the school system of the future in such a way that the practitioner—the one working in a factory or a business—will be particularly well-suited to be a teacher, and perhaps, I think, these [teachers] will continually alternate [between school and the workplace].

Dr. Stadler: I happened to be here today by chance, and I would like to take the liberty of expressing my opinion as a guest. What you are doing here is currently being done in a similar way in many parts of Germany, far and wide. What I am witnessing in Berlin at the moment is an unprecedented intellectual struggle by the German people to grapple with the problems of the revolution. In Berlin, there are countless circles, organizations, associations, and loose groups, all of which meet in much the same way as you are tonight to discuss this matter. For in Germany, we are witnessing not only political and economic collapse, but also the intellectual disintegration of the entire old system. And in the midst of this collapse, the German people have already reached the point where they are attempting to forge their own independent path. The practitioners are taking the place of the theorists. They pose difficulties and, with their practical questions, thwart the theorists’ goals. They are also right, for they live in the realm of practice. The difficulty lies in the fact that throughout Germany, long-term goals are being set that would require one or two generations of work to achieve, while we are in the midst of an actual collapse. When, in contrast to Rudolf Steiner and others, I observe that Dr. Steiner has actually conceived an idea with which a large portion of those present can intuitively agree, but with which the pure practitioners cannot be satisfied—I say “practitioners” because one is a state councilor [Dr. Schmucker] and the other a leading entrepreneur [Dr. Riebensam]— for they must ask themselves: What is the path forward tomorrow, since this won’t get us anywhere? The solution cannot be found [so easily]; it is so extraordinarily complicated that one remains stuck in the realm of the unreal with a system of thought, and it no longer fits the solution of real-world problems. All these action plans repeatedly encounter one form of resistance or another from industrialists, politicians, and lawyers. The fortunate thing in Germany is that people are actually thinking and searching, in contrast to Russia, where there was virtually no thinking at all throughout the entire revolutionary period. Thus, Russia is indeed in decline—both politically and economically. I suspect that, despite our many intellectual efforts, the same will happen to us in Germany, because the course of events makes it impossible for us to arrive at a political synthesis in time. There are simply theorists who cling to some system, while there are practitioners who put the brakes on; it can therefore only happen by force, because between these two extremes, German politics merely drifts along and lets everything happen. Our party politicians have no idea about intellectual matters. I have the honor of knowing leading statesmen personally. I walk away with the sad conviction that they possess nothing of the spirit of the times, carry no faith in the future within them, and think only about how they can just barely hold on to the helm from one day to the next.

[ 45 ] However, you should consider whether there might be ways to link what you are attempting here as quickly as possible with similar efforts being made throughout Germany, so that you do not feel isolated. It would be wise for you to realize that Germany is not limited to the small circle currently gathered here. If you fail to form a united front, this endeavor—because it can only be a local one—is doomed to failure. You cannot bring about change in Württemberg or implement the threefold social order if the whole of Germany is going to hell. You cannot introduce works councils if the political establishment as a whole does not go along with it. Either you unite to form a movement for spiritual renewal and refrain from engaging with the day-to-day realpolitik—in which case you must accept ruin, chaos—or, if you wish not only to strive for renewal but also to act practically and in terms of realpolitik for today and tomorrow, then you must form a phalanx with all the like-minded forces of the German people and make concessions to the realities of life. That means, for example, you must begin to work out a very concrete works council system and make concrete proposals on foreign policy. Please excuse me for offering criticism as an outsider, but my intentions are good toward you and the German people, whose preservation is close to my heart.

[ 46 ] Mr. Jaeger: I’ll keep this brief. During the discussion, I’ve gotten the impression that there is a fairly widespread tendency to ask: How do we, in practical terms, begin to follow the path that leads to the goal Dr. Steiner has laid out for us? This question is on all of our minds. If even the establishment of works councils, as Dr. Steiner advocates, presents such difficulties, we must not forget that this is only a very small first step. To shape economic life, we need not only works councils for the factories, but an entire council system. But when we speak of this today, we must be clear that no council system exists yet, for what has been practiced by the councils in our country so far is not a system at all; it is a lack of system. We would first have to discuss individual issues and make an effort right now to get started and begin with these councils.

[ 47 ] And now a specific question: There has been a great deal of discussion by the representative of Daimler-Werke about the works council there and the relationship with the workers. Dr. Riebensam asked how he should proceed in order to truly connect with the workers at Daimler and gain their trust. I believe that if one wants to achieve a major goal, one must first look at the small things by taking a practical step, as Mr. Molt has done. [So I would like to ask]: Wouldn’t it be possible for Dr. Steiner, together with those who support this suggestion, to get personally involved with the workers at the Daimler plants in order to inspire others through the success achieved there? We need not only the trust of the workers, but also the cooperation of the industrialists and plant managers who are [initially] opposed to such things.

[ 48 ] Rudolf Steiner: This question can only be answered if this practical experiment could actually be carried out—and it certainly could be—but I would say that one would first have to be inside the Daimler factories.

A panelist: Once you’re on the inside, there’s simply a lack of trust—that’s the difficulty. Leaders have a hard time gaining trust. Those who are elected by the workers are, after all, opposed again as soon as they reach an understanding with management. The point is to explain to the workers: Through this threefold structure, we can achieve practical goals; we simply want to serve as a link to bring you together and show you the way.

[ 49 ] Rudolf Steiner: The only way to achieve this is, for example, by winning over the workforce to the idea of a common goal that can be realized outside the walls of the affected company. If one were to want to go further—and that is what would give it a purpose in the first place; after all, it must be possible to lead the workers toward this goal—one would have to try to accomplish something oneself in some way. That would simply lead to the management of the Daimler plants throwing me out. I was told that it was highly unusual that I’ve gained the workers’ trust, and that I actually do things quite differently from how they’re usually done. This different approach is based on the fact that, fundamentally, I don’t promise the workers anything, but merely explain the processes to them and so on. That is the big difference: In fact, I promise nothing—I can, after all, actually do things with the workers at the Daimler plants exactly as I am doing now—but I cannot promise anything, because I know for certain that if I make promises, management will throw me out. We must not forget that today we are not dealing with some vague abstractions like “all of Germany” or “that which converges,” but rather with ensuring that each individual point is truly understood, so that work can proceed from that individual point. If, just once, a true understanding were awakened in a single point regarding the demands inherent in truly real conditions and their fulfillment, then the prejudice would not keep cropping up: “This is something generally idealistic; it has nothing to do with practice.”—If one were to take the trouble to study the actually practical impetus of this principle—which is not a principle of thought but of life—then we would make progress. What is harming us today is that this so-called system—which is not a system at all, but rather something else entirely, rooted in real life—is treated everywhere as nothing more than a system of ideas. I can do nothing other than what is grounded in real conditions. Yet this alone would already provide the proper impetus today to win over the entire workforce at the Daimler plants. The next step, however, would have to be to achieve something in collaboration with management. But they would just kick us out. And that makes it impossible for those on the outside to accomplish anything. It is essential that we work to bring these matters to a genuine understanding. Then we will make progress. I do not believe, however, that we will make any progress with mere abstractions. It is also an abstraction to say that a practical attempt should be made when there is no foundation for it at all.

Mr. Jaeger: I must insist that, once the workers’ understanding has been gained, management would not dismiss the individual; rather, once the individual has earned their trust, these proposals would be accepted by both sides. This is not a matter of promises, but simply a matter of the works council first reaching an agreement within management and fostering understanding between management and the workforce.

[ 50 ] Rudolf Steiner: The whole endeavor is doomed to failure unless there is an understanding of the true threefold social order. Today, you generally find this understanding among the working class, for the reason that these people are not attached to anything carried over from old social conditions, but possess nothing other than themselves and their labor. However, this understanding is still lacking among other [people] today; they may only be forced—by falling on hard times—to let go of what consists solely of clinging to the old conditions. In fact, you find a widespread understanding of the threefold social order among the working class today, even though the leaders of the working class are by no means capable of thinking in a progressive way, but in fact think in a much more bourgeois manner than the bourgeoisie itself.

[ 51 ] When people say, “Yes, these things can’t be understood; they’re too far-fetched,” it stems from the fact that people have forgotten how to understand something based on life itself. When it comes to these matters that pertain to life, people must respond with their life experiences. Today, they respond only with what they’ve gleaned from party judgments and concepts. But if someone has none of that, and instead draws only from the full breadth of life, then people say: “That’s impractical; it doesn’t answer specific questions—we’d like to have specific, concrete questions answered.” My “Key Points” were not written to steer [the social question] into the realm of theory or philosophy, but to start somewhere. Once you start, you will see that it goes further.

Dr. Riebensam: I don’t think Dr. Steiner would be fired by me—I have the final say, but the business management also has a say—but the current workers’ committee would probably fire Dr. Steiner. It seems as though, with my practical concerns, I wanted to thwart Dr. Steiner’s ideas. That was not the goal or the intention of my statement. I simply wanted to discuss the whole matter here. My view is that we need some way today to avoid conflict with the workforce as much as possible. Now, it is a fact that Dr. Steiner has gained the trust of a large number of workers today. And that should be enough in Stuttgart to take further steps. This could also pave the way for a path that might lead us forward for a while without conflict. The workers are willing to go along with this, even with the plant managers. It would be a grave mistake not to pursue such a path. That is my personal view.

Mr. Reitz: How can this be done?

Emil Molt: To answer that—that is why we have gathered here. Now that Dr. Riebensam has spoken such significant words, now that the path has been clearly laid out for two classes to come together as one humanity, now that these clear paths have been laid out here, it is now up to each and every one of us to actually follow that path. The problem with all of this is always that there is much more talk than action. Dr. Stadler is right: if we merely come together and talk without taking action, time will pass so quickly that events will sweep right past us. We all agree that in three to four weeks the great collapse will come, and we must be ready to act in order to bring about the new. For this, we need every single person, so that these ideas can be put into practice in daily life, hour by hour and minute by minute. That is why we earnestly ask you, in the interest of the people and of humanity, not merely to ask what Dr. Steiner thinks about this, but for each individual to be fully aware that the path is already laid out within them and that they need only follow it. It was this failure to follow the path that led to the downfall of the old Germany and will lead to the downfall of present-day Germany. I believe that when we go home today, we should do so with the firm resolve to move from mere contemplation to action, even if it cannot be perfect—imperfect action is still better than very clever thinking, which only keeps us on the surface and prevents us from transforming things in reality, for the transformation of things is what matters today.

Perhaps there is still a need to discuss the cultural aspects of these issues. We would like to create an opportunity for that soon; perhaps individual topics could be addressed separately or collaboratively. I would like to hear your thoughts on this so that we can reach a conclusion.

Dr. Weiss: I am very much in favor of continuing a discussion along these lines. However, I think it would be better if the individual areas were not addressed separately; for us, who are neither businesspeople nor tradespeople, it is important that we delve into all the issues. We should create the opportunity to address all issues together, even at the risk of seeing our ranks thin out. We should not only speak out but also try to make an impact through the press. To that end, we should have a very loosely organized press committee that takes a stand in the various party publications—not to fuel polemics. There should also be a special body within the Federation for Threefold Social Order ready to review the manuscripts before they are sent to the relevant editorial office, so as not to complicate subsequent proceedings. Of course, the Federation for Threefold Social Order should not restrict freedom of expression, but we must establish such a system; everyone should use their connections with the press to take a stand on the relevant issues, but the articles should be submitted in advance so that we can proceed in a coordinated manner.

Emil Molt: That is exactly what we are striving for; we should really be commenting on this every day.

A panelist: We have gathered here today for a discussion. It would be desirable for a number of industrialists, representing the owners, and plant managers and employees, representing the employee committees, to come together to exchange views.

Emil Molt: In my opinion, this really should be tried; it would be the first step toward establishing a functioning workers' council.

Dr. Riebensam: I think we should take a slightly different approach; your works councils should invite our workers' committees.

Emil Molt: You can do both; the workers would have to see that the initiative comes from the factory owners.

Dr. Riebensam: It would have to come from the workers' committees, not from the factory owners.

Emil Molt: But otherwise the factory owners wouldn't come; let's discuss this later, though.

A panelist: Couldn’t we, so to speak, issue certain guidelines so that manufacturers have a framework to work with? That way, management at large companies could address the issue and discuss it with the workers’ committees. This might provide a way to expedite the whole process.

When asked whether they wanted to meet again next Thursday, they decided to gather again that day at 7 p.m.