The Rudolf Steiner Archive

4. How should the work on the threefold social order be continued?

[ 1 ] Rudolf Steiner: Ladies and gentlemen! What I have to say in these introductory remarks will, of course, deviate somewhat from the customary practice of these evenings, for the simple reason that I have, so to speak, dropped in unexpectedly, and it is therefore not possible to pick up exactly where we left off last time. So perhaps the focus today will have to be on the discussion itself, in which I ask you all to participate in large numbers.

[ 2 ] When we began here in Stuttgart ten months ago to popularize the ideas underlying the threefold social order, this endeavor was very much conceived in light of the events of the time. At that time, as members of the Central European political, intellectual, and economic spheres—immediately following the terrible blow that the horrific events of the past four to five years had dealt to Central Europe—we were faced with all the questions that had to be raised from the perspective: How should we conduct ourselves as people of Central Europe who were now—to put it bluntly—precisely “the vanquished” at that time? And this had to be based on the view that—in light of the terrible experiences, not so much the events of the war as the outcome of the war, which, though in a different context, are no less horrific than the events of the war themselves — it was necessary to foster understanding among a sufficiently large number of people for those ideas of social restructuring that, emerging precisely from the ranks of the vanquished, could have led to a reconstruction of European affairs.

[ 3 ] When one is engaged, my dear friends, in promoting any idea, one very often hears the phrase that these are far-reaching ideas. It is said that one might perhaps hope that such far-reaching ideas will one day be realized in the distant future—and depending on the degree of optimism, longer or shorter time frames are then specified—that one can only work toward humanity drawing closer to such ideals, and so on. But the circumstances at the start of our work did not actually call for thoughts moving in this direction. The intention at that time was that the most immediate necessity lay in fostering understanding in as many minds as possible for the impulse toward the threefold social order: for an independent spiritual life, for an independent political or legal life, and for an independent economic life. One might have hoped that the bitter events of that time could have fostered this understanding among people. However, it has become apparent that, at the very time when it was necessary, this understanding could not in fact be fostered in a sufficiently large number of people—for reasons that need not be discussed further today. And today, the question is rightly being raised from many quarters: Can this idea of threefold social order actually be cultivated in the same way as it was back then? Have we not already progressed too far in the dismantling of our economic life?

[ 4 ] However, anyone who truly understands the nature of today’s economic life cannot simply—and I say “cannot simply” on purpose—answer this question in the negative. For, let us suppose for a moment that back then, when we began our work in April of last year, thanks to the cooperation of a sufficiently large number of people—who certainly could have brought about a change in circumstances—we had in fact achieved the necessary success: then, of course, our economic life today would be based on an entirely different foundation. It may seem presumptuous to some when I say this, but it is nevertheless true. And the various articles that have appeared in our Threefold Order newspaper can certainly serve as proof, as evidence of what I have just said.

[ 5 ] While we, who are working in a close-knit circle on the continuation of the ideas of the threefold social order, firmly believe that this work must continue, we are also thoroughly convinced that the path that has just been embarked upon—convincing a sufficiently large number of people of the necessity of the threefold social order—cannot lead to success quickly enough today. That is why we must now consider immediately practical undertakings, the form of which is already to be presented to our inner circle in the near future. We must consider achieving our goal through certain institutions that can replace what would have been accomplished through the cooperation of a sufficiently large number of convinced people. We must at least attempt, through economic institutions, to create initial model institutions that will demonstrate that our ideas can be put into practice within such economic institutions. These can then serve as examples to be emulated, in the sense that people will come to believe—based on the facts—what they previously refused to believe in the words that seemed convincing to us. On the other hand, these model institutions may indeed have such economic consequences that some of what has already occurred in terms of economic enslavement can be reversed. In fact, a large number of people in Central Europe have reached the point where they are completely indifferent as to where their profits come from. Under certain circumstances, they will allow the victors to provide them with directives and even the factual, material documentation, if that merely enables them to secure corresponding profits. The way in which some circles today conceive of improving their economic situation in Central Europe is downright shameful. We must therefore aim to create practical institutions based on the very idea of the threefold social order itself—institutions that will be able to demonstrate—even under conditions that have already become quite difficult—that this idea of the threefold social order is in fact not a utopian one, but a practical one.

[ 6 ] You see, when we began our work, we were often asked: “Yes, can you provide us with practical guidance for individual institutions? How should we go about doing this or that?” — Those who raised such questions usually completely overlooked the fact that the issue was not about preserving one institution or another—which had just proven its uselessness—through good advice, but rather about bringing about a complete social reconstruction through large-scale transformation, which would then underpin the individual institutions. This would not have required advice on this or that specific matter, but rather it would have required that the ideas be understood in the broader sense—that is, by a sufficiently large number of people—for, in the end, all institutions are made by people.

[ 7 ] So today we are already facing a kind of change of course that has truly not been brought about by our belief, for example, that we were mistaken in our ideas. Ideas of this kind must always take current trends into account. And if humanity does not respond to these contemporary phenomena, then the ideas must change; they must at least take a different course. In this way, we have pointed out that our threefold social order movement—which is by no means old—actually already has a history that is deeply rooted in today’s circumstances and speaks volumes—a history that might, after all, be instructive for some, if only they were willing to take notice of it.

[ 8 ] I would like to illustrate what I have just said with an example: Anyone who reads through the book *The Key Points of the Social Question*—which was written a year ago—with a focus on the economic sections will find certain observations regarding the organization of economic life, which is to attain a certain necessary independence, which must not be dependent in the future on state institutions or state administrations, which must be firmly grounded on its own foundations, and which must be built upon its own foundations based on the principle of associations. Of course, I can only outline a few points today; perhaps the discussion will provide further insights.

[ 9 ] What, exactly, is the purpose of such associations in economic life? The purpose of these associations is, first of all, to bring together professional groups that are in some way related, that must cooperate on a practical level, and that manage their economic affairs completely freely and independently, without being subject to any government administration—to bring these groups together. And then these associations of professional groups are to associate, in turn, with the corresponding consumer groups, so that the economic exchange that takes place—first between the related professional groups, but then also [secondly] between the producer and consumer groups—is in turn organized into associations. The current system of economic administration should be replaced by that which arises from the free interaction of economic associations.

[ 10 ] Of course, this fabric of economic institutions—in terms of economic activity—also includes everything that functions in the legal sphere, in public life, and in intellectual life. Intellectual life as such stands independently on its own two feet, but those who are active in intellectual life must eat, drink, and clothe themselves; they must therefore, of their own accord, form economic corporations that, as such, must integrate themselves into the economic body and associate within it with those corporations that can in turn serve their specific interests. The same must happen with the corporation of those people who are engaged in public life. Thus, economic life will encompass all the people who are part of the social organism—just as, in the other two members—public life and spiritual life—all the people who belong to the social organism are encompassed. It is simply that people are included in the three members of the social organism from different perspectives. What matters, after all, is that the social organism is not structured according to estates but according to perspectives, and that every individual is included in each member of the social organism along with its interests.

[ 11 ] What can be achieved through an economic life based on the principle of association? — What can be achieved is the elimination from economic life—and thus from human life in general—of the harms that have gradually arisen as a result of the modes of production of the past centuries, particularly the 19th century. People experience this damage today—first and foremost, I would say, in their own bodies—and it has arisen because, over the course of recent centuries, conditions related to production in economic life have changed from what they were in the past.

[ 12 ] If one looks back at the period from the 17th to the 18th century, one certainly finds that the way in which production took place was still, to a certain extent, connected to human beings and their organization itself. One sees that back then, when prices were determined, they did not depend on the factors on which they depend solely today, but rather, for example, on people’s abilities—namely, to what extent a person is capable of working a certain number of hours a day on this or that production with a certain degree of dedication and joy. The price was thus determined by the close connection between the individual and his or her production. Today, however, this is still the case, at most, in certain branches of intellectual life. If someone writes a book, one cannot dictate how many hours a day he or she should work and offer a wage for a certain number of hours a day. If, for example, an eight-hour workday were introduced for writing books, something wonderful would come of it, because it could very easily be the case that you are supposed to work eight hours and receive a wage for them, yet for four hours over three weekdays, nothing at all comes to mind. Just as there is a close connection here between human abilities, between the human mind and the products it creates, so it was also the case for much more material branches of production—indeed, the further back we go in human development, for all material branches of production. It is only in recent times that the connection between the product and the producer has been severed. Viewed comprehensively, it is, in essence, utter nonsense to try to maintain this separation of the product from the producer. This can be clearly seen in individual branches of production. Take, for example—from a purely economic perspective—book production. Books must be written; this cannot be subject to the laws of remuneration as advocated, for example, by today’s social democracy with regard to production. Nothing would come of it. But books must be printed, and the person who sets them can indeed rely on the principles of today’s social democracy—on the trade union principle. For typesetting requires no further thought; it does not require a more intimate bond between producers and production. But if one goes back to the sources, one will find everywhere that precisely the kind of work for which such a bond is not needed would not exist at all if it were not for the prior existence of those tasks on which all this external work depends. If there were no master builder, all the wage laborers who build the houses would be unable to work. If there were no book writer, the typesetter could not set books. These are lines of thought that are not pursued today, but which must, in the most fundamental sense, form the basis of economic analysis.

[ 13 ] I couldn’t go into detail about all the life experiences that went into the “Key Points,” since they are, after all, intended for thoughtful readers. And I can assure you that it’s quite useful today to think a little while reading a book, rather than always saying: “This is so hard to understand—it really makes you think; it should have been written in a much more accessible way.” — But precisely because the events have been illuminated from a wide variety of perspectives in the articles of our threefold newspaper, the bond between producers and production has been loosened more and more. And it is precisely because, in recent times—under the influence, above all, of materialistic thinking—attention has been focused solely on the mode of production rather than on the constitution and capacity of the producer that the view of abstract, socialist agitators and thinkers has even arisen: that production as such is, in fact, what governs all of history and all of human life. This view arose because, in fact, modern technology and certain other social conditions have led to the product’s domination over the people who produce it. So one can say: Whereas in the past, up until about three centuries ago, many other aspects of human life were dominant, [since then] in social life the economic man has become the one who [today] appears to be decisive—the economic man and the economic process. People such as Renner, for example—who even rose to become Austrian State Chancellor—have explicitly stated that one should no longer speak of the “homo sapiens,” who haunted people’s minds in recent centuries, but that one can now speak only of the “homo oeconomicus”—that this is the only reality. Well, since the 19th century, however—because things in reality undergo transformations according to their own laws—not even “homo oeconomicus,” the economic man, or the economic process has remained the defining factor; rather, we can say that from around the year 1810 onward—to set a specific date—the banker has become the dominant figure. And more than one might think, in the 19th century the banker—the money changer, the one who actually merely manages money—became dominant in the economic life of the civilized world. All events that have occurred since that time have been more or less influenced by this historical shift: in the context of the national economy, the “homo oeconomicus” and the economic process have gradually given way to the banker, the money changer, and above all the lender; and the public social process has given way to financial administration and monetary management.

[ 14 ] But money does have certain distinct characteristics. Money represents various things, but money as such is the same. I can acquire a sum of money by selling a piece of music—a product of the mind. Or I can acquire a sum of money by selling boots. The sum of money may always be the same, but what I sell can vary greatly. Money thereby takes on a certain abstract character in relation to the real process of life. And so, under the influence of the global banking system, the concrete interactions in human social relations were eradicated—the concrete interactions [between the product and the producer—and in their place arose] the exchange of the mere representative, money.

[ 15 ] But this has very specific consequences. The consequence is that the three most essential components of our economic process—land, means of production, and means of consumption—which by their very nature play entirely different roles in the economic process, are placed under the same authority, not merely in theory but in reality, and are treated in the same way. For those whose sole concern is to acquire or manage a certain sum of money, it makes no difference whether this sum represents land or means of production—that is, machines or the like, which serve other forms of production but have been manufactured by humans—or whether it represents consumer goods, items of immediate use. All that matters to such a person is that they receive a certain amount of money for something—or, if they already have it, that it yields interest, regardless of the source. Thus, this perspective had to come to the fore more and more, erasing the interests people have in individual products and branches of production, and replacing these interests with the abstract interest in capital—which obliterates all these distinctions—that is, in money capital. But this gives rise to very specific consequences.

[ 16 ] Let’s take land, for example. Land is not just any old thing; it is located in a specific place and has a relationship with the people of that place, and the people of that place have interests in this very land that can be described as moral interests—interests of a spiritual nature. For example, it may well be an important matter for the general interests of culture and humanity that a certain crop be grown on this land. I want to paint a somewhat radical picture of the circumstances—they are not, of course, so radical in everyday life—but the essential point at stake can be illustrated in this way. Anyone who has become deeply connected to the land through their entire way of life will have an understanding of how, let’s say, the production of this or that from the land is connected to their entire way of life. They have gained their experience through their connection to the land. Whether, for example, it is good to clear an area of trees or not—questions like this can be significant, and they can only be properly assessed if one has become deeply rooted in the local conditions of a region.

[ 17 ] One can only gain such insights through experience. One can certainly see that it is beneficial for the general welfare of humanity if a piece of land is utilized in a very specific way, but yields only a certain return from that utilization. These considerations disappear immediately when the principle of monetary capitalism replaces the human being connected to the land. The issue then is that land can simply pass from one hand to another as a commodity. But the person who acquires land simply by paying money has only an interest in ensuring that the money yields a corresponding return. An abstract principle is poured over everything that was once a concrete human interest. And the person in question, who has only a financial interest, asks himself whether—under the conditions that the other person, who has grown up with the land, recognizes as necessary—the venture yields a sufficient return for him; if not, then the land must be used for something else. In this way, the necessary human relationships are destroyed solely from the perspective of monetary capitalism.

[ 18 ] And so the principles of monetary capitalism have been imposed on all aspects of human life. In the national economy, they have diverted people’s attention from what can only flourish when people are connected to production, connected to the land, and connected to the consumer goods that circulate among people in any given region. This was, however, present in earlier centuries. It has already disappeared under the influence of the “economic man,” but most of all under the influence of the banker in the 19th century. While, up until about 1810, the national economy depended on merchants and industrialists, in the 19th century—even if they did not admit it—merchants and industrialists became essentially dependent on the national and international monetary economy, on the bankers.

[ 19 ] It is only through this type of monetary economy that one can be driven entirely into economic egoism. But this type of monetary economy should not be confused with mere capitalism, as is often the case today. Mere capitalism—you’ll find this explained in more detail in my “Key Points”—is intended to ensure that only those who are capable of managing large masses of capital, whether in the form of means of production or money, and who are representatives of the means of production—and who, precisely for that reason, grow together with production—can hold such capital. And they should remain connected to production only as long as they can apply their abilities in the service of production. This “mere capitalism” is absolutely necessary for the modern economy, and railing against it is nonsense. Abolishing it would mean undermining the entire modern economy. What matters most is looking at reality—for example, recognizing the difference between the management of a large complex of land and forest, where the integration of forest and land may well be necessary, in the hands of a capable person, and the situation where someone separates the forest from the land, then subdivides the land, breaking it up into small holdings, and so on. This may be beneficial for certain regions, but in others it would ruin the national economy. Everywhere, it depends on the specific circumstances. And we must finally find our way back to those specific circumstances.

[ 20 ] But this [lack of concreteness] is not only evident in the national economy, in individual national economies; it is becoming increasingly apparent in the nature of the international economy. It becomes apparent—and this is quite clear to anyone who studies these matters—that people, even if they are capitalists, when they are left to their own devices and supply various branches of production according to their abilities, do not interfere with one another but, on the contrary, work in harmony with one another. The trouble only begins when people, in one way or another, grow out of their interconnectedness with the branches of production. I will cite just one example where this became particularly evident under the influence of the monetary economy of the 19th and 20th centuries: the formation of trusts and cartels. Let us assume that a number of branches of production join together to form a trust or a cartel. What is the consequence?

[ 21 ] A trust, a cartel, must surely serve some purpose, and that purpose is, of course, that people gain more from the trust than they would without it. But they can only do so if they set monopoly prices—that is, if they sell at prices above the normal competitive prices that would otherwise prevail. One must therefore create the possibility of raising prices—that is, agreeing on prices that exceed the usual competitive prices. Yes, such prices can be established, and indeed they have been established many times. But this did not lead to [sound] production. For one cannot produce in a sound manner under the influence of this kind of profit. Isn’t it true that, if one does not want to create a disparity with the costs of the facilities—which would become far too expensive if one produced only what is sold above the competitive price—then one must produce enough [more] to cover the costs of the machinery and the entire facility, namely as much as one would produce if one were to receive only the competitive price? But one can sell only as much as is sold at monopoly prices. For if one were to produce at competitive prices, one would sell much more—and consequently would have to produce much more—than one sells at monopoly prices. This is a well-established fact of economics: one sells less when selling at monopoly prices, but one cannot produce less, because otherwise production would not be profitable. What is the consequence? One must go to a neighboring country and secure sales there; there, one sells below the cost of production. But now one enters into international competition. This international competition has played an enormous role. If one takes into account only the price-setting dictated by the monetary economy, one creates competition that would not otherwise exist by selling at different prices: in the immediate sales area [above the cost of production] and in the neighboring country below the cost of production. This is possible; if one calculates accordingly, one can even earn more and more, but one harms the corresponding producer groups in the neighboring country. If one were to investigate the causes of the sentiments that led to the causes of war in the West, one would find the causes in these matters. Then one would discover what a tremendous step toward [social] harm lies on the path from capitalism to the formation of trusts, to the formation of cartels, to monopolization by cartels. The capitalist as such—who produces at competitive prices—has never had any interest in protective tariffs. Protective tariffs are also a factor that played a role in the causes of war. There you have the damage caused by the monetary economy in international life. All of this is so crystal clear to anyone who studies modern economic life that, in fact, no objection can really be raised against it. The question must therefore inevitably arise: How do we overcome these harmful effects? We can overcome these harmful effects in no other way than by reconnecting the human being with the product, by directly reestablishing the bond between the human being and production.

[ 22 ] This is the goal of the economic concept of social threefolding: What once existed as a bond between individual people and production under entirely different circumstances can today be brought about only by those engaged in similar production joining together, and by people united within professional circles, in turn, forming circles—associations—with the other branches of production and the corresponding consumers. In this way, the associations—the united groups of people—will know how to bring production into circulation—not merely the money that pours over production as a homogeneous entity. This, in turn, could bring about, in a very fundamental way, what makes a thriving national economy possible for humanity once again.

[ 23 ] You see, it was necessary to take a thorough look at reality today, because all that socio-economic stuff that’s been chattered about in recent times has, after all, been said without any regard for reality. Certainly, individual people have made apt remarks about one thing or another. But most of what has been said—and especially all that which has influenced the development of modern global capitalism on the one hand and wage struggles on the other—this cancerous affliction of modern life has arisen because people no longer truly looked into the lawful interrelationships of economic life, and that—as people lived within economic life—they no longer even had a clear picture of how the threads run back and forth, because money has obliterated everything. But once the associations are in place, it will once again be clear and evident how one thing or another must be produced. Then the person who has something to produce—because the associations exist—will find customers among the people who are members of the relevant associations, [and it will be discussed and determined] whether a certain amount of this or that can be produced. Then, without a command economy or Moellendorff’s idle chatter, something can emerge; then—as one person is informed by another through free exchange—everything can be organized in such a way that consumption truly is the determining factor for everyone.

[ 24 ] That was the crux of the idea of the threefold social order: to speak to humanity directly from the fullness of reality. Because people today are so unaccustomed to approaching reality, that is why it is so difficult to understand; people are unaccustomed to approaching reality. What do people really understand about economic life as a whole? The master builder understands something about building, the master carpenter understands something about carpentry, the shoemaker about shoemaking, the barber about cutting beards—everyone understands something about the specific economic activity with which they are connected. But everything these “practitioners of life” know in any way about economic life is, after all, connected only to their own lives and not to those of others. That is why it is so abstract. At some point, it was necessary to speak to humanity from within the real context of social life as a whole. Because people have become unaccustomed to using life experience as a guide, they regard precisely that which is born of reality as utopia. But that is precisely the point: that this idea of the threefold social order be recognized as the antithesis of all utopia, that it be recognized as that which is born out of real life, and can therefore also take its place within real life. And that is the only thing that matters: that people come to understand these things. Then people will find that everyone—no matter what their background—will correctly understand the idea of the threefold social order, precisely when they understand something of the connection between their own production and the entire economic process of the world. This idea of the threefold social order does not shy away from close scrutiny by those who, through their entire relationship to life, understand something of economic life. But today, not many people understand anything at all about economic or social life; they go with the flow and are happiest when they themselves do not have to participate in any [decisions regarding the social] order, but rather when the government takes care of that for them. That is why people arrive at such convoluted ideas that they regard what is a reality of life as utopian. Admittedly, the situation today is somewhat obscured by the fact that, through their victory, the Western powers have fought to secure the opportunity to avoid rising to the level demanded by the times. What is called for today in the idea of threefold social order is what the times demand. Human development has now reached this point. The victory of the Western powers means nothing other than that they have fought for a reprieve, allowing them to remain under the old social conditions. The Western powers can afford this luxury; they have fought for it. The Central Powers, however, cannot afford this luxury; they are compelled to meet the demands of the times. If they meet them, it will have an effect on the entire world. If they do not, they will perish.

[ 25 ] This must be stated once and for all in no uncertain terms today, because today it is a matter of either/or. That is why it is so frivolous when, time and again, very intelligent people come forward and say, for example: “Now there will once again be a disagreement between the French and the English.” For the English, out of their old traditions, do not want to form a militaristic alliance with the French; nor do they want to grant loans; nor are they entirely in agreement with the French intentions regarding the Rhine border and so on. — This is a continuation of what already had such devastating effects during the war and before the war. Back then, people were always speculating: “Now the enemies are at odds once again; perhaps we can conclude a separate peace with one of them.” — With this kind of diplomacy, they have finally managed to turn almost the entire world against them. If today people of this caliber continue to corrupt people’s ideas and keep speculating that the French and the English are once again at odds, then that is nothing but a fantasy; it is not a grasp of reality. This is a continuation of that old diplomatic mindset that Czernin so beautifully described in his book, in which he insists that the extraordinary importance of diplomats must be recognized. But this extraordinary importance of diplomats consisted in their ability to mingle in the appropriate salons, observe the mood there, and then write long letters about that mood, and so on. During the war, this practice continued quite nicely, as far as possible, though the mood was assessed more through back channels. It was precisely this pre-war assessment of the mood that helped bring about the catastrophe of the war. And now people are once again beginning to speculate in the same way. But when people wake up, they will see that, in reality, they have only managed to end up caught between a rock and a hard place. People speak of a deep chasm opening up between the French and the English; even the most intelligent people talk about it today. When people wake up, they will see that while this chasm certainly exists, the people [the French and the English] are in agreement across it, and they themselves are sitting right in the middle of the deep chasm. That this way of thinking—so disastrous for humanity—be replaced by one grounded in reality: this is the very foundation of the impulse toward the threefold social order. And when people come to realize this, they will turn to this threefold social order out of an inner necessity.

Following Rudolf Steiner’s opening remarks, the discussion begins; various figures take the floor:

Georg Herberg believes that, in light of the price increases in recent years—he cites as an example the price of a metric ton of iron, which used to cost 13 marks but now costs 1,700 marks—it is necessary to examine the price issue more closely. In doing so, particular attention must be paid to the counterpart to consumers, that is, the producers’ side.

Before the actual discussion begins, Siegfried Dorfner would like to draw the attention of those present to three fundamental points that can be regarded as typical of the entire situation in the work on the threefold social order: First, party leaders had been invited for this evening; however, they are not here. Second, even when they do come, they usually remain silent during the discussions; no one asks to speak. Third, one very often observes the following attitude among followers of anthroposophy: “I like anthroposophy, but I don’t like the threefold social order.” And so the lack of success of the entire threefold social order effort is hardly surprising. Carl Unger would like to return once more to what was said earlier and points out the significance of trusts in today’s economic life. The example of iron has been mentioned; one must simply assume that in this field we are dealing with a steel trust. German sugar factories also occupy a similar monopoly position; although there are countless beet fields in Germany, the price is inflated in comparison to this large supply.

Walter Johannes Stein believes that the situation in the German sugar industry points to a central problem: the relationship between land and the means of production in general. The question arises, he notes, as to whether, for example, a cow is a means of production or whether it belongs to the category of land. However, the matter becomes even more complicated when the cow is eventually slaughtered; does it not then take on the character of a commodity? He therefore asks Rudolf Steiner to elaborate in more detail on the relationship between land, the means of production, and commodities.

[ 26 ] Rudolf Steiner: My dear friends! With regard to the distinction between land and means of production, the essential point is that land is a finite resource—it is not elastic—and in a certain sense cannot be increased, whereas the means of production, which are themselves created through human labor, can be increased; and it is precisely through the increase in the means of production that production itself can be increased.

[ 27 ] Well, when making such distinctions, the point is that one often has to start from different perspectives, of course. By distinguishing land from means of production, one refers to that which is already there and has not been produced by human hands as “land.” From an economic perspective, a cow—which humans do not produce themselves through their labor—simply belongs to “land” as long as it is not slaughtered; once it is slaughtered, it is, of course, a commodity. But then it appears on the commodity market in a very specific way, and we are faced with two facts: first, the fact that it is withdrawn from the productive power of land, and second, the fact that it appears as a commodity; the cow is, in a certain sense, a marginal product. Such marginal products exist everywhere. But the point is to, so to speak, capture what one has in mind by deriving the terms from the respective characteristic representative.

[ 28 ] Isn’t it true that, in the economic process, we are dealing first of all with what is necessary for production but cannot itself be produced? This includes land itself and a few other things; these are simply grouped together under the term “land.” Second, the economic process includes everything that serves to produce other things but must first be produced itself, such as machinery. Viewed in an economic context, the process of labor—the work that must be expended to produce the means of production—is eliminated in the case of land. This is the essential point in economics: means of production are to be regarded from the perspective of the labor equivalent only until they are ready for use as means of production. The moment the means of production are available, they actually enter the economic process in exactly the same way as land. As long as one is working on the means of production and must draw upon the national economy in order to do so, a distinction must be made regarding how the means of production and land are positioned within the national economy. The moment the means of production are finished, they fall under the same economic category as land. As long as I am still in the process of manufacturing the locomotive, I must assess the economic process in which the locomotive’s manufacture takes place differently than at the moment when it is finished. When it [as a finished means of production] stands on the tracks and is operated by people for further production, it is just as much a part of the economic process as land. The difficulty in making this distinction lies in the fact that the finished means of production actually belongs to the same category as land. The amount of labor required to create a means of production is the essential factor—and this is present in means of production but absent in land. This, of course, is related to the following. If land were elastic—if it could be multiplied—then it would either have to grow on its own, or people would have to be able to produce it. However, I do not wish to discuss this question further. The fact that land exists in a finite quantity is precisely what distinguishes it from the means of production. It can only be utilized to a greater or lesser extent, which in turn makes it similar to the means of production.

[ 29 ] Now, of course, we must also consider the third element to some extent: the commodity itself. It is characterized by the fact that it is consumed. As a result, in the economic process, it is something fundamentally different from the means of production, which are not themselves directly consumed but merely wear out. This means, however, that a commodity is also different from land, which is equally not intended for consumption but, at most, must be improved, and so on.

[ 30 ] Thus, these three things must be distinguished as fundamentally different within the economic process: 1. land, which [exists] without any human labor having been expended on it; 2. the means of production, which come into being when human labor has been applied to them; both—land and the means of production—are not intended for immediate consumption; 3. the commodity, which is intended for immediate consumption.

[ 31 ] But you see, the thing is that this whole matter is, in turn, also a question of time. For the moment you consider that means of production—such as machinery—are consumed within a certain period of time, at that very moment the means of production appear to you as commodities—merely as commodities that simply take a longer time to be consumed. When one makes distinctions in life, these distinctions have the characteristic of being highly inconvenient; they are never such that one can categorize them strictly. One must remain flexible in these matters. For in fact, the means of production do, in a certain sense, also possess the character of a commodity. Land does not possess this commodity character—in the sense that the means of production can—in the same way, which is why one must again make a stricter distinction here. It is sheer nonsense, in general, to ascribe the character of a commodity to land from a purely monetary-capitalist perspective. So you see, when applying anything to reality, one must not get stuck on abstract concepts. This is precisely the objection people raise when reading *The Key Points of the Social Question*: they want neatly packaged concepts. Then what they read is pleasing to them; then, after reading half a page, one knows exactly what one has read. In reality, however, a means of production can only be understood if one realizes: it is not consumed at first, but if one makes use of it over a longer period of time, it is equivalent to a commodity. So one must bear in mind that the means of production possesses both the characteristic of being consumed and that of not being consumed, and the concept must correspond to this.

[ 32 ] One must have flexible concepts. People today don’t want that; they want rigid, boxed-in concepts. They have no desire at all to think beyond the confines of their own minds and into reality. Otherwise, things like this wouldn’t happen—for example, people saying: “I quite like anthroposophy, but I want nothing to do with the threefold social order.” — Anyone who speaks this way is much like someone who says: “Yes, I’m interested in the spiritual, but the spiritual must not encroach on the political; the spiritual must be independent of the political.” Yes, my dear friends, that is precisely what the threefold social order aims to achieve. But because the spiritual realm is not independent anywhere today, it is an illusion to believe that you can be interested only in purely spiritual matters. In order for your abstract ideal to become concrete, so that you have something in which you can take an interest without it being influenced by politics, the threefold social order must first fight to establish such a realm—so that there is a realm in which one need not be interested in politics. The threefold social order is fighting precisely for that very realm in which the sleepy souls wish to feel at ease, yet which exists for them only as an illusion. These sleepy souls—oh, how one would love to wake them up!—they feel so immensely at ease when they are mystics at heart, when they grasp the whole world inwardly, when they discover God within their own souls and thereby become such perfect human beings! But this inner life has value only if it steps out into life. I would like to know whether it has any value if, now, at a time when everything is pressing, when the world is in flames, people cannot find a way to have a say in public affairs. That is a fine kind of interest in anthroposophy—one that wants to be interested only in anthroposophy itself and cannot even find a way to have a say in the very matters that anthroposophy seeks to inspire. Those anthroposophists who wish to be interested only in anthroposophy itself—and not in what anthroposophy can become in relation to life—are like a person who is charitable only in words, but who otherwise quickly closes his wallet when he should truly be charitable. That is why what is found among people who wish to be interested in anthroposophy only in their own way is nothing but anthroposophical chatter. The reality of anthroposophy, however, is that which flows into life.

This is followed by a discussion with the leaders of the local groups about future work on the threefold social order. There are three main questions up for discussion. First: Is it permissible to make compromises? Second: Should we participate in elections? Third: In what form should we promote the idea of the threefold social order?

Paul Kretschmar, from Cologne, argues that we should try to influence the existing works councils and the parliament. The newspapers would play a significant role in this regard. We should therefore establish a kind of journalistic office to write articles for trade journals. It is also important to train competent speakers; they must be able to draw on a kind of “Threefold Social Order primer”—similar to the “Soil Primer” published by Damaschke. Establishing our own publishing house is also necessary to effectively support the newspaper campaign. In fact, participation in the elections should even be considered.

Mr. Klug, also from Cologne, warns against running in elections entirely on our own. At most, it is debatable whether we could join forces with other independent parties. Furthermore, it is essential to discuss whether consumer associations could be formed.

Hermann Heisler believes that, in fact, there really ought to be a kind of “Catechism of the Threefold Social Order”; this would serve as a guide for how the Threefold Social Order should be integrated into practical life, particularly into economic life. In the current situation, three questions in particular arise. First: How could the threefold social order, if it were actually realized in Central Europe, counteract the expected European famine? Second: What goal must now be set for the working class? Third: To what extent is it permissible, in the practical activities of political parties, to commit to the objectives of the threefold social order?

Siegfried Dorfner is convinced that the best means of promoting the threefold social order is to leave the party.

Walter Conradt believes that, as far as press relations are concerned, one must assume that a decentralization of opinions has taken place on the opposing side. As for dealing with the proletarian party, however, the events of the past year—particularly in connection with the “poster campaign”—have shown that the proletariat has, so to speak, been “displaced” for a year now, meaning it can no longer be counted on for the time being.

Richard Seebohm notes that it has certainly happened before that a newspaper has addressed individual issues, but one must not forget that, even though state supervision has now been lifted, the newspapers are still subject to the pressures of the industry. Nor should it be overlooked that, after all, there are also advocates of the threefold social order who wish to have nothing to do with anthroposophy. For these reasons, it is important to support the existing Threefold Order newspaper.

Paul Kretschmar mentions the Cologne-based “Generalanzeiger,” which could certainly also publish articles on the Threefold Order.

Ernst Uehli mentions a friend abroad who confirmed to him that the press cannot be won over to great ideas; in general, it can be observed that the idea of threefolding is heavily criticized in the newspapers. The pursuit of true “humanity” and the press industry are incompatible, as the German philosopher Karl Christian Planck had already noted.

Emil Molt points out that the Federation for Threefold Social Order intends to hold a course for campaigners—a course for public speakers—under the direction of Rudolf Steiner.

After the discussion concluded, Rudolf Steiner was asked to comment on the various questions raised during it—despite the late hour.

[ 33 ] Rudolf Steiner: Ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would just like to say that I will be forced to speak in brief remarks, and I ask you to please take this into account. It is therefore no longer possible to speak at length about the individual questions that have been raised. Perhaps we can do that next time.

[ 34 ] First, let's focus on the most important question, namely:

How would the threefold social order play out in the face of the coming European famine?

[ 35 ] I would like to say—even though this may seem strange to some—that behind this question lies a completely different one, which makes it difficult to answer. But in general, the following must apply in response to this question. Isn’t it true that—let’s say—ten years ago, the world did not experience what is called a famine, at least not the kind of famine that could occur in the near future and, since people are complacent, will likely occur. But we must nevertheless consider the following points, however simple and basic they may seem: There are no fewer raw materials in the earth than there were ten years ago; there are no fewer fields than there were ten years ago; and there is essentially no fewer human labor available than there was ten years ago—millions have perished in the war, but not only as producers but also as consumers. So, in general, the economic possibilities and economic conditions are exactly the same as they were ten years ago.

[ 36 ] It was perhaps eight weeks ago that a letter written by the well-known politician, the Russian Prince Kropotkin, appeared in the newspapers, in which he makes two remarkable statements. One is that he is now working on a treatise on ethics—it’s interesting that he is now beginning to write a treatise on ethics. The other announcement is that the only thing that matters now is that food is being delivered from the West to Russia—that bread is being delivered. Of course, it’s only natural that when there’s no bread, you take it from wherever it happens to be available. Well, other people sometimes hold similar views as well. Fourteen days ago, I received a letter from a lawyer and notary in central Germany. The letter sounded very much like something a lawyer or notary would write—because it was crude and stupid. But it also said that you couldn’t lure a dog out from behind the stove with any kind of idealism these days; what mattered was fighting for bare bread.

[ 37 ] Well, you see, everything I have just explained does not take into account the simplest and most basic aspects. For whoever considers these will know that what really matters is to bring people into such an organization that the antecedents—both those that exist now and those that existed ten years ago—can and will be put to use. This will certainly not be achieved if people are fobbed off either with what the old “Czernines” regard as state and popular wisdom, or with what the old “Bethmänner”—spelled with or without an “h”—propose, nor with what the old Social Democrats, that particular breed of “negative Bethmänner,” advocate; but what matters is that people are once again given goals, that they see what we are working toward. And this can be provided precisely through the threefold social order movement. What matters is that we do not say what many say today—even if it is relatively correct—that we will not have a famine or that we can overcome it if people start working again. Yes, if! But if people face the hopelessness of work that results from the old programs and old machinations, then they will not want to work. But if we bring something into humanity that ignites a spark, so that people see before them something that can lead them to a dignified existence, [then they will want to work], and then bread will also be able to be produced. This is a fundamental prerequisite for the production of bread: trust in humanity. If we do not gain this trust, then famine will certainly come. But for this trust to arise, the threefold social order is necessary. I can only hint at this in this context. But if you follow this line of thought, you will see that famine can in fact be prevented in essence only through the promotion of the threefold social order. However, one necessity remains: that this idea of the threefold social order must, above all, take root in as many minds as possible, so that these minds do not fall for all manner of things that are merely a continuation of the old system. This continuation of the old system is spreading very, very widely—only in a seemingly new form. For you see, in certain respects it is as if the leading figures today had set themselves the very task of bringing about famine. Today, the prices of all sorts of things are rising at a fantastic rate. But prices only make sense when they are relative to one another. The prices of the most essential foodstuffs are currently being kept artificially low. I am not saying that they should go up, but they must not be out of proportion to the prices of other goods. This imbalance will soon make it impossible for anyone to want to engage in the production of raw materials or foodstuffs in any way. Creating a famine has thus become a government policy in its own right. This must be seen for what it is.

[ 38 ] Second, it must be emphasized that this is indeed an international matter, and the question may be raised:

Can anything be achieved in Central Europe simply by introducing the threefold social order—or whatever else one might call it?

[ 39 ] Here I must refer to what I have written in the *Dreigliederungszeitung*, time and again and from a wide variety of perspectives: If only we could truly muster the courage to promote the threefold social order—even under the most unfavorable circumstances, even during a famine—that would have an impact if people in the western or eastern regions could see something positive in us.

[ 40 ] Thus, we still stand today at the same point where the world stood when the peace proposal was sent out to the world in 1916—a time when nothing concrete was said to the world, only one empty phrase after another. Just imagine what effect it would have on international affairs if one were to present something that makes sense, something with substance and content—such as the idea of the threefold social order. At present, we can see, for example, how British statesmen are growing more and more fearful from week to week about what is happening in Germany. It is, in fact, something utterly unfamiliar to them. And because they cannot make sense of it, they are gripped by the fear that an even worse form of Bolshevism might arise here than in Russia. But if they knew Bauer, Ebert, and Noske better, that would actually be a good way to allay their fears. For the truth is this: nothing is happening here; in reality, month after month passes without anything happening. Just imagine what it would look like in international life if something substantial were to come out of Central Europe. Only when one is clear about these things can one approach a question such as how the threefold order will function in the face of an impending famine; with regard to everything else, that is not an issue. The fact is that the threefold social order alone is capable of bringing about an organization in which work can resume and trust can be restored. Then the famine can be prevented.

[ 41 ] To have an impact on the international stage, however, the idea of the threefold social order must take root effectively in people’s minds. Then I would not be concerned that it would fail to have an impact in international relations. As long as negotiations are conducted solely out of chauvinism, we won’t get anywhere. If anything of significance were to be developed here in Central Europe, it would certainly gain international recognition. If sound ideas take root here, international barriers will fall away of their own accord; for people act in their own interest and take what is good wherever they can find it.

[ 42 ] And I wanted to offer you a few more thoughts on the issue of newspapers: I do not deny that some of what has been said is very important. And it will be commendable if one or another of our friends manages to get an article published in a newspaper here or there. But the most essential point remains that just as one cannot achieve anything by kowtowing to the political parties, one cannot achieve anything by kowtowing to other newspapers. One can do it, but it is essentially the same thing, just in a different guise. I do not criticize it; I am perfectly fine with it if it happens. But I would see the positive aspect in the fact that our newspaper, our Threefold Order Newspaper, would be promoted by our friends—as much as possible. You might say: Fine, but the newspapers in which we want to place the articles are ones people already have; they would have to subscribe to the Threefold Order Newspaper in addition. They would simply have to subscribe to it. Not everyone will do it, but a number of them certainly will. Then we’ll be able to turn the Threefold Order Newspaper into a daily. Only then can we publish the articles we want to publish; that’s when it will be effective. So the point is to work so hard for the Threefold Newspaper—which is still a weekly—that its own revenues will enable it to be transformed into a daily newspaper. Then we won’t have to “crawl under the table” of the others; that’s what matters. Why shouldn’t it be possible to put something of such eminent importance on its own two feet!

[ 43 ] Various other points were also raised. Regarding participation in elections, I would just like to say the following: Of course, in the abstract, one could certainly argue that participating in an election, entering parliament, and working there supports the current state. — But one cannot simply say that. I do not even wish to take a strong stance for or against it; whether one participates in the election or not depends on the various concrete circumstances. But if one takes a strict view of the threefold social order, it is, in principle, not entirely correct to refrain from participating in parliament. What would be correct in principle, if the threefold social order were thought through consistently, would be: to participate in elections, to have as many people elected as possible, to enter Parliament, and to obstruct all matters relating to spiritual and economic life. That would be a consistent application of the threefold social order. The point is to separate out the middle part—political life. This can only be achieved by casting aside what lies to the left and right. The only way to do this is by actually standing for election, entering parliament, and obstructing everything that is debated and decided in the realms of spiritual and economic life. This would be a logical conclusion in the spirit of the threefold social order. This idea is something that must be thought through consistently and can also be applied consistently to concrete circumstances, because it is derived from reality. — That is what needs to be said regarding the most important questions.

[ 44 ] With regard to the new goal that is now supposed to be given to the workers, I must say that, based on my experience with the works councils, this is more of an academic question to me. The issue will have to be addressed differently; [we must ask] whether such a goal should be set at all. The issue of works councils has been raised. Every possible effort has been made, and attempts have been taken everywhere to get the works councils off the ground. The workers promised everything under the sun and delivered nothing. At first they showed up at the meetings; then they stopped coming. The same thing would happen again with the next new goals if they were introduced into the current workers’ organizations.