The Rudolf Steiner Archive

9. Today's Economic Crisis

Emil Leinhas opens the meeting and calls on Rudolf Steiner to speak.

[ 1 ] Rudolf Steiner: Ladies and gentlemen! If things in political life—indeed, in public life in general—were as many people today believe them to be, one would actually have to despair of being able to work toward the improvement of social conditions through personal intervention and direct human action. In this context, it is particularly important to remember that there are quite a number of people today who believe that economic conditions unfold almost like natural phenomena. They believe that economic events unfold in sequence with a causal necessity that can certainly be compared to the inevitability with which, for example, a substance of a certain composition begins to burn when it is brought into contact with another substance in a specific way. This is how a great many people think. They believe that if a favorable economic cycle has developed in economic life for some time, then something like a crisis must simply emerge from that favorable economic cycle itself. This would then be followed by a period of poor business conditions with declining economic conditions, until a sort of recovery sets in and, so to speak, an upswing in economic life takes place. Such views have recently been put forward in particular by theorists of economic thought—by economists—who prefer to explain everything solely through the sequence of external causes and wish to completely rule out the intervention of human will. It has even been claimed, for example, that the significant economic crisis of 1907 was bound to follow, as a matter of necessity, from the economic upswing that preceded it. One might suppose that the examination of such processes—which span broad areas of economic life, such as favorable and unfavorable business cycles—has little bearing on the individual. But that is not the case. And especially those who wish to undertake any venture at any given time must always be mindful of the economic conditions into which they are entering.

[ 2 ] It is only too understandable that such a belief in a necessary causal relationship in economic matters has developed as a consequence of the entire scientific way of thinking over the last three to four centuries. As you know, it is particularly the Marxist theoretical view of society that revels in such ideas and seeks to base its practical actions on them. To many people today, it seems quite amateurish to oppose such ideas, for scientific thinking is regarded as an ideal, and it is even seen as an achievement that this scientific way of thinking has extended into practical life. This is where Spiritual Science must intervene in a corrective manner, for only from these perspectives—which have always been advocated here—can a healthy social way of thinking emerge. And Spiritual Science can intervene in a corrective manner out of its very essence, for it has absolutely none of the theoretical, abstract character that the materialistic, scientific way of thinking of recent times has adopted. This way of thinking, however, leads people not to look at the facts of life, but to allow these facts of life to be obscured by all sorts of theories.

[ 3 ] In my *Key Points of the Social Question*, I emphasized how the contemporary proletariat, in fact, adheres most of all to a thoroughly theoretical worldview. This simply stems from the fact that this contemporary proletariat, whose aspirations are misunderstood by a bourgeoisie that is becoming increasingly materialistic, has received only the materialism espoused by this bourgeoisie as its worldview; consequently, it believes in this materialism as if it were an invincible gospel and simply cannot break free from it. Spiritual Science must not adhere to theories; above all, it must not incline toward any form of fantasy. For if, as a spiritual scientist, one harbors a tendency toward fantasy, then one will distort everything one observes in the spiritual world, turning it into a caricature; one will be able to arrive at nothing but a completely distorted world. Spiritual Science demands, as a necessary foundation, that its adherents train themselves to embrace the real—and, I would even say, to a certain degree, the sober. But precisely by training oneself, especially in the spiritual realm, first toward clear, rigorous logic and second toward an appreciation of the facts, one is fully capable of carrying this training into ordinary practical life and allowing the facts to speak there as well in the proper way, with all their weight.

[ 4 ] What does an economic theorist do—and what do all those who study under such a theorist do—when, for example, they want to study something like the economic crisis of 1907? They first study what happened economically in 1906, finding that it was a year of favorable economic conditions. They then try to find, within this preceding period, the causes of the subsequent economic collapse. If one proceeds in this way, one can get away with all sorts of nebulous concepts and is therefore completely incapable of thinking correctly in social life. But if one has been educated in the Spiritual Science, one looks for the economic facts, and then one discovers, for example, regarding the crisis of 1907—one could also choose another example—that there was a powerful group of financial magnates in America that owned over thirty banks, over thirty long railroad lines, and many other assets. This powerful consortium quietly bought up a certain speculative security—which was also traded on European stock exchanges—in such large quantities that almost all of this security was in the possession of this consortium of financial magnates. Then, through all manner of economic speculation, they induced European banks—and European enterprises in general—to buy such securities “on credit.” At that time, they managed to get a very large number of people to buy such securities on delivery. Now, let us assume that some company entered into a purchase agreement on delivery for such a security with the intention of reselling it; and it so happened that the same banks in America were simultaneously concluding purchase agreements on delivery for this security [on a large scale] with European companies. A European company thus began, on the one hand, to buy these securities and, on the other hand, committed itself to selling them after a certain period of time—but it did not have them, since these securities had all been bought up beforehand by [this financial group], the Morgan Group; it therefore first had to buy them back from there. The European firms had thus assumed a large-scale obligation to deliver such securities. In the meantime—the period between the speculation and the delivery date—those in America managed to drive up the value of these securities enormously, and the result was an extraordinary strain on the European money market, which then triggered that crisis. In other words, pure financial speculation, instigated by a certainly small number of individuals, caused this crisis. Those familiar with this crisis will recall that at that time the bank discount rate in England rose to 7 percent, and in Germany even temporarily to 8 percent—and an elevated bank discount rate is always a barometer of crises. This crisis was, therefore, essentially brought about by the will of those people.

[ 5 ] And it is such facts—that is, very specific, concrete facts of life, not general theories—that one must examine if one wants to understand life, including its social manifestations. It can, of course, be ingenious—incredibly ingenious and impressive—when, for example, Karl Marx derives from economic systems, with a certain inevitability, what people then come to believe. But fundamentally, all of this takes place in the study, and it is precisely a very characteristic feature that the purest product of the study—Karl Marx’s *Capital*—has become as popular among the proletariat as a gospel. But if one wants to get to know life, then one must look at life itself. Then one will discover how the Spiritual Sciences, in particular, lead to a view of life—albeit an uncomfortable one. For, fundamentally speaking, it is much more comfortable to formulate abstract theories than to engage with real life.

[ 6 ] And now you will say: But the things the theorists say—and which the agitators present to the people as plausible—are indeed true—for one need only recall how many figures and how reliable statistics are usually used to substantiate these claims. Our books today on the course of public life, especially on economic views—they’re simply teeming with statistical data, for what could be more correct, of course, than what can be substantiated with numbers? But there are also other statistics that, when viewed from a certain angle, even appear as if they could represent a natural course of human life that can be expressed through the natural sciences. Take, for example, insurance statistics as the basis for a very practical branch of life: life insurance. One calculates how many people out of a certain number of twenty-year-olds will still be alive after thirty years and how many will have died. If the sample size is large enough, this yields very consistent figures: out of so many twenty-year-olds, only so many will still be alive after thirty years. From this, one can then calculate the premium the individual must pay, and one can say: It is certainly the case that, in this instance, statistics actually provide something that can be relied upon to a certain degree in practical life. You may know that there are also statistics on suicide; you know that for such statistics, one need only take a sufficiently large territory and a sufficiently long period of time to be able to say with considerable accuracy: In these years, so-and-so many people will commit suicide in this territory. - But is the person correct who, based on the apparent inevitability that a certain number of suicides will occur in a specific territory over the next five years, now wishes to conclude that human beings are not free, but that—by the same force that causes a stone to fall to the ground—these people, too, must take their own lives? He is not right. The existence of so many statistical “laws” does not negate human free will. There can be no question whatsoever that statistical “laws” can say anything about human free will—not even if it should happen that, as a fifty-year-old, you were to discover that, with the exception of yourself, all those who, as twenty-year-olds, were statistically predicted to die by the age of fifty at the latest have already died— [that does not mean you should go and kill yourself]. Statistics—including suicide statistics—serve a completely different purpose than making statements about human free will. Nor are any economic laws capable of saying anything about the free exercise of human initiative in economic matters. However, there is something else at play here.

[ 7 ] Suppose events unfold as they did at the beginning of 1907. The economic climate in 1906 was favorable; this led a large number of people to adopt certain lifestyle habits. And one can say: When people find themselves in a tolerable situation for a few years, they adopt certain lifestyle habits. And once such habits have developed, those who wish to exploit such a situation can do something like what the Morgan Group did in 1907. They can then say to themselves: Now that people are inclined to do this or that, let’s speculate on it! It is just as if there were certain unfavorable influences in a country that lead people to commit suicide. But even so: people still resort to suicide of their own free will—insofar as one can speak of free will in ordinary life—I have addressed this in my *Philosophy of Freedom*. Now, however, it is certainly the case that what happens afterward does not follow from the preceding constellation of economic life, but rather follows solely from what people do. And if these people do something that can, so to speak, be “calculated,” what does that prove?

[ 8 ] Then one need only look at a situation that will be familiar to all of you. Suppose there is a dog named Tyras, and you hold a piece of meat in front of him; you will be able to predict with considerable accuracy what he will do: He will snap at it. And it will be extremely rare for the dog Tyras not to snap at the piece of meat. But when a person does something predictable in a very specific situation, this merely attests to the fact that his spiritual level has declined; and the more one can predict or causally determine in social life, the more one thereby indicates that people have sunk to a more animal-like level. And so suicide statistics and other calculations—for example, regarding favorable or unfavorable economic conditions—prove nothing other than the nature of people’s spiritual state; however, one must also examine the circumstances of the time and the general atmosphere in which one spiritual state or another is possible. Something like what the Morgan Group did in 1907—which plunged countless lives in Europe into misery—could only have taken place at that time; such a thing, for example, would not have been possible one hundred and fifty years earlier.

[ 9 ] How did it come about that something like this became possible? It came about through the emancipation of the money market from the commodity market. This emancipation dates back to roughly the years 1810 to 1815. It was only during this period that the former economic domination of public life—which had been based solely on the exchange of goods—gave way to domination by the money market. It was only at this time that the banking system truly became the ruler of economic life. And the ability to bring about such economic situations through transactions on the money market alone—on a scale that became possible in a spectacular way in 1907—arose only because money had become a true abstraction. It has become an abstraction that has since simply spread throughout our entire economic life and indeed throughout the rest of our lives as well.

[ 10 ] We think back to times when people were closely connected to what they produced. Back then, money was essentially just a kind of equivalent for the goods produced; people were attached to those goods. Back then, it really did matter what one produced; rather, one became one with the goods one produced. Today, this seems almost legendary, and in the past, something like this could actually happen—which I’d like to illustrate with an example. Once, when I went to Budapest and wanted to get a haircut, I found a barber who still cut hair with genuine enthusiasm and who said: “I’m not after a profit; I’m only after a beautiful cut.” He expressed this in such a way that it truly gave the impression of inner sincerity and honesty. This sense of being one with one’s product has been completely lost today, and people are now driven solely by the desire to earn a certain amount to meet their needs. Today, it’s all about the return on capital or the wage. And just as general, abstract principles spread to every conceivable area, so too does money—which has become abstract—spread to every conceivable area. After all, in the eyes of many people today, it makes no difference at all—if one wants to earn a certain number of marks a day—whether one manufactures shoes or textbooks to earn it. This money, emancipated from the actual reality of life, has made possible the very atmosphere in which events such as those of 1907 could unfold—and yet these events arise entirely from the will of human beings!

[ 11 ] With these words, I simply wanted to point out how the Spiritual Science aims to grasp reality in its true form. Materialism in particular—both scientific and historical—has strayed entirely from reality; it now engages only in theorizing. Spiritual Science must engage with reality. That is why it does not allow itself to be clouded by theoretical views; but precisely through this, it arrives at a genuine understanding of life. It is precisely through this that it will be called upon to effectively promote a social reconstruction in the future.

[ 12 ] A practice has gradually emerged in economics of considering only factors such as supply and demand—or the like—along with market conditions, trade conditions, or exchange rates. In reality, this always refers to something abstract: that which manifests itself as profit or yield. And when people today think about economic issues, they do so in no other way than by focusing solely on the profit factor. As a result, economic life as a whole is viewed one-sidedly, so to speak, because everything related to consumption is excluded. Consumption is simply supposed to result—I would say—automatically from the profit earned on a given product. When you walk into any store, you look at how much revenue it generates, but not at what kind of consumption is associated with that store. The specific quality of the item—insofar as it is a consumer good—is not taken into account at all; from an economic perspective, one thinks only in terms of the revenue side, the production side, and not the consumption side. But if one completely fails to direct economic thinking toward the consumption side, then consumption gradually becomes anarchic, and one gradually loses touch with consumption.

[ 13 ] However, this consumption has a certain peculiarity: It is causally linked to human morality, to the human state of mind; yet, in contrast to production, it is related to the human state of mind in the opposite way. Morality and the psychological state also play a role in production; thus, in that context, the psychological state is the cause. If I produce a good through which I deceive people, this stems from a distorted sense of morality. But the way people live—that is, the consumption options they choose, whether they consume this or that—has a causal effect on their psychological state and on their morality. And this factor is not taken into account in all of modern economics. That is why this economy eludes our grasp. If one thinks clearly, it becomes evident: It is virtually impossible to understand, based solely on the relations of production, why strikes increased by 87% between 1907 and 1919—though some of this is indeed rooted in the relations of production. But one immediately gets a picture of what this is really about when one looks at consumption patterns. Now, in today’s economic life, all these things are interconnected in a specific way. Economists and businesspeople have certainly reflected on this interconnection, but they have not reflected on the real causes and interrelationships, because their calculations were aimed solely at profit. Today’s business manager has very little to say about the connection between any given form of production and strikes, [and certainly nothing about the connection between consumption and these strikes]. Based on his habitual way of thinking, he knows what returns one form of production or another yields.

[ 14 ] For example, if he is a Parisian Cri-Cri manufacturer—let’s take a radical case from the past—he knows that Cri-Cris can be a very profitable product for a few years. These Cri-Cris were particularly small instruments; a steel plate was clamped inside a small metal casing, and if you walked down the street with this instrument in your pocket and touched that metal plate, it would make a hideous sound, so that people on the street were terribly annoyed by it. This was the case in the 1870s; the streets had become downright unbearable because of these Cri-Cris. But the profits for the inventor of the Cri-Cri were enormous; he became a multimillionaire, yet he never considered what impact this would have on consumption. For, of course, it would have been enough for human life if no Cri-Cris had ever been manufactured. But now consider how many people were employed in these Cri-Cri factories; they used their earnings to cover their consumption. The consumption of so many Cri-Cri workers thus arose from unnecessary human labor. All of this has an impact on social life; unnecessary human labor has immense consequences in social life.

[ 15 ] I could also choose another example. Lichtenberg once said: “99% more works of literature are produced in a single year than all of humanity needs for its happiness.” One could certainly say the same about the present day: If 99% fewer books were produced, it would likely be a great blessing for humanity. Just think of the flood of poetry—which, of course, always comes from unrecognized geniuses—where a print run of three hundred to five hundred copies is produced and usually not even fifty are sold; consider how much unnecessary work is being done there. That could be avoided, and it would have an extraordinary effect on people’s consumption patterns. In other words, if one calculates solely on the basis of profits, there is no need to have any connection to the real needs of life; one can seek to regulate life entirely apart from them. This is at the heart of our current major crisis, at the very core of our downfall. For those who calculate according to the old economic model cannot see the connection between unnecessary human labor and human misery.

[ 16 ] This is where Spiritual Science can step in and provide the broader context, because Spiritual Science never focuses on anything one-sided, but rather on the all-encompassing. I do not mean a Spiritual Science that aspires to abstract, mystical heights, but one that seeks to educate people so that they become useful and practical in life. When applied correctly, Spiritual Science serves as a guide for life, for a truly vibrant way of living. Therefore, it will be able to establish an economic theory that recognizes the connection between a reluctance to work and the production of unnecessary goods.

[ 17 ] The idea that such a way of thinking in the field of Spiritual Science might one day give rise to practical undertakings was, in fact, the fundamental concept behind something like “The Coming Day.” Of course, it is not possible to immediately establish such an undertaking on a sound foundation with regard to all specific individual measures. But if such an individual undertaking is led by people who are thoroughly imbued with an education rooted in Spiritual Science, then the practical measures will naturally tend to avoid burdening people with unnecessary work and limit them to only necessary work; one will simply have to take consumption into account in the national economy. Only in this way can that which leads to a new ascent come into being.

[ 18 ] People who are interested only in profits do not care what they produce or what they are paid for; after all, they receive money in return. Money is an abstract concept in economic life, and one can obtain anything in exchange for it. The point is precisely to structure our national economy in such a way that it depends on human will in an honest manner, not in a dishonest one. How does it come to depend on human will in an honest manner? Through associations. When you have associations, what happens in economic life stems from the will of the people participating in those associations. Then negotiations will take place between the individual associations; then living people will negotiate among themselves, and what is produced in economic life will result from such negotiations among living people within the associations. When a factory is to be established, one does not consider it merely from the standpoint that it should yield a certain amount of profit in the current economic climate, but rather one proceeds from an overview of what is necessary. One does not need state directives for this, for that would stifle everything, but one does need the expertise of those who are active in the individual businesses and in the individual industries. Only in this way will one be able to determine whether a business is necessary. And if it is necessary, then production can take place, and profits may also be earned from it. Through the process of associations, everything that could exert a harmful influence will be eliminated. Then it will no longer be possible to act based on purely financial considerations, as the Morgan Group did, for example, because work will be carried out based on purely economic needs. It is remarkable how difficult it is for some people today to engage with the realities of life. Engaging with these realities of life is the most important requirement of our time. One might also ask: Why is it that people today have distanced themselves so greatly from real life?—This is precisely due to materialism, for materialism has the characteristic of fostering abstract thinking. Spiritual Science, on the other hand, has the very characteristic of fostering a focus on the concrete, on reality, and on practice.

[ 19 ] That is what I wanted to bring up in this discussion today. However, it will take a great deal to break free from old habits of thought and feeling. Yet this must happen in order to overcome all the damage that has crept into modern economic life and into modern public life as a whole. Such objective thinking can only be the result of a genuine deepening into the spiritual world. Progress can come only from the spiritual realm, not from merely continuing what we have become accustomed to regarding as correct over the past decades—indeed, almost throughout the entire second half of the 19th century. And anyone today who lacks the will to commit themselves radically to progress in this direction—to relearning, rethinking, and, I would almost say, living anew—will be unable to contribute to a genuine ascent; they will only continue to contribute to our hurtling toward decline. And then, indeed, what people like Oswald Spengler set forth in his *The Decline of the West* will come to pass. Then what will actually unfold is what leads Western civilization into barbarism. And if we do not want to descend into barbarism, then we must seek what can avert this barbarism—and only an intellectual education of the West can avert it. Only such an intellectual education will open people’s eyes to true reality. We need this opening of the eyes. If we achieve it, then we will indeed move forward!

A panelist: While the Cri-Cri workers may have encouraged unnecessary consumption, they would have acted as consumers in any case, even if they had produced other goods. How does Dr. Steiner explain this difference?

[ 20 ] Rudolf Steiner: The question can certainly be asked in and of itself, but when it is posed in this way, the essential point is not fully considered. What matters, in fact, is that one does not merely look at what happens at a specific point in life, but rather that one looks at what the interconnections of life reveal. It is true: These Cri-Cri workers would also have acted as consumers if they had not made Cri-Cris—that is, if they had not performed this unnecessary work. But in that case, they would have performed necessary work, and that has a very significant economic importance. And that is what matters. There are many people who consider themselves practical; they read the “Key Points” and conclude that these ideas are utopian. The truth of the matter is that it is precisely these people who are utopian impracticalists. And because this utopian impracticality essentially dominates the whole of life—which has now brought us into our current situation—people are generally not very receptive to what is, in the true sense, practical thinking.

[ 21 ] But when practitioners focus on practical matters, it’s always a cause for celebration. A practitioner from the north recently told me that the “key points” highlight what is most important: the price problem. Economists are now preoccupied with all sorts of things, but not with the fact that the price of a good is actually something that must not exceed or fall below a certain level. This practitioner recognized that. And as soon as one realizes that the price problem is so important that the issues of wages or capital actually pale in comparison, then one is standing on the ground of sound reasoning. Certainly, the Cri-Cri workers would also have acted as consumers, but one must not consider that in this context. For what economic life entails—and what ultimately relates to the price level of a commodity—is intimately connected to whether necessary or unnecessary labor is performed.

[ 22 ] Once, back in 1902 or 1903, I had a conversation over dinner with an acquaintance about picture postcards. I said that I don’t like to write postcards—in fact, I never write them at all—because I can’t help but think that for every postcard, a mail carrier might have to climb many flights of stairs—just for a single postcard—and I’d like to spare him that work, since postcards aren’t exactly a necessity of life. To this, the person in question replied: “But I know that I bring joy to people with postcards, and I write a great many of them, and that contributes to their happiness; and if, somewhere, one mail carrier is no longer enough to deliver the cards, then another will have to be hired, and that in turn contributes to the livelihood of a second person.” - But the person in question didn’t think it through: For if one hires an additional mail carrier for postcards, this does not produce anything necessary for life. However, if one produces only the goods necessary for basic needs, the scale of this production determines a certain price level. Anyone who then performs unnecessary work will nevertheless remain a consumer of necessities, [which results in a distortion of the price level]. So if someone stops delivering unnecessary postcards, they will no longer increase the volume of unnecessary labor; rather, they will then perform proper work that corresponds to necessary needs, and this will have a significant influence on the entire price structure of the national economy. When it comes to matters relating to practical life, two factors are crucial, though people usually consider only one. First, it matters whether something is correct, and second, whether it is realistic. People think that it is enough for something to be correct; but it must also be realistic, and until this realistic way of thinking takes hold on the broadest scale, we cannot escape the misery of life. So anyone who thinks that Cri-Cri workers act as consumers in every case, whether they are manufacturing Cri-Cris or not, fails to consider that the economy is transformed in terms of necessary versus unnecessary work. That is what matters. This focus on what is important and necessary—that is what we must adopt for social life. This should be initiated, first and foremost, through the “Key Points” and the entire Threefold Social Order movement.

Walter Kühne regrets that no socialists spoke up during the discussion. One might have expected that, when such issues were being discussed, socialists in particular would speak up and get the discussion going, since the question of productive labor and the relationship between production and consumption plays such a major role in the works of Marx and Engels. Tolstoy, too, addressed this issue; however, unlike Marx and Engels, he saw the solution more in the establishment of small organizations. In contrast to these two one-sided approaches, it is the threefold social order that represents the healthy middle ground.

One participant in the discussion believes that, aside from Cri-Cris, there are other objects specifically designed to cause ruin—for example, grenades. The production of such objects—which workers know full well are pointless to manufacture—must inevitably lead to the impoverishment of the workers. Consequently, the proletariat must become stultified, unable to regain its human dignity, unable to find any joy in life, and dissatisfaction would be systematically fostered. Dr. Steiner says that only a shift to a needs-based economy would help us, but that, too, can only be brought about by people themselves. Dr. Steiner places great emphasis on the individual, but with people who have been dumbed down for decades, it is simply impossible to introduce a new economic system in the foreseeable future. Therefore, he would like to ask Dr. Steiner: Is it even possible to establish a new economic system with the current generation?

Siegfried Dorfner: And how could the issue of consumption be regulated in a new economic system? People’s needs vary greatly; some want high-heeled boots, others want picture postcards. Which needs can be prohibited or prevented, or how can needs be regulated?

Mr. Roser: Dr. Steiner has pointed out the underlying causes of the 1907 crisis. At that time, massive lockouts of workers were commonplace. It was said at the time that we workers had produced so much in advance that it was no longer possible to keep industry afloat. Such financial crises can only be prevented if the driving force—capital—is taken away from the capitalists. Crises are caused by the fact that capital is a means of production and because attempts are made to concentrate it in one place or paralyze it in another. I am convinced that, for this reason, new catastrophes will manifest themselves in just a few weeks, and now I am interested to find out what the next crises will be and how they will unfold.

One participant in the discussion asks how overproduction in the field of literature can be reasonably channeled into normal production that meets the real needs of humanity.

Finally, the following question is posed in writing: What are the intellectual foundations underlying the separation of the money market from the commodity market from 1810 to 1815? How do these foundations affect other areas that are not economic in nature?

[ 23 ] Rudolf Steiner: As far as those tall patent leather boots are concerned, I would like to say that there are certainly circumstances in life [where one might want to buy them], but one would certainly see how certain cravings would disappear if simply unnecessary production were to cease. Of course, when one speaks of regulating consumption, one is, in a certain sense, already on a kind of wrong path. It is not acceptable to regulate consumption in a dictatorial manner. But if all economic conditions were designed to gradually eliminate unnecessary labor, this would have a certain effect on the overall context of economic life. The result would be that anyone who unnecessarily wants a pair of expensive patent leather boots would not be able to afford them. And because one thing is connected to another, one must realize that unnecessary needs do not have to be combated directly, because they will inevitably disappear along with other economic conditions. For to do so would make one a tyrant. It is a fact of life that, if one wishes to preserve freedom, one cannot abolish something overnight. But certain things cease of their own accord under the influence of changing circumstances. When a new economic way of thinking takes hold—one that recognizes that unnecessary labor must disappear—then such unnecessary desires will also disappear, or rather, the money to satisfy them will no longer be available. This can only result from an understanding of the practical context of life. Consumption patterns cannot be regulated by any “measures,” but only through a certain progress in life.

[ 24 ] I’d like to say the same thing with regard to literature, although, of course, only social conditions come into play; one can certainly have sympathy for those who would like to see lyric poetry in print. In this regard, I can only point to the example of our Berlin publishing house. It never had books that didn’t sell. It didn’t have many books that were in very high demand, but it never had books that piled up in batches and remained unsold. It always relied on what one might call an intellectual need. A book was printed only when it was known that there were a certain number of readers for it. The work began by bringing the material to the people and finding a readership; such a thing was not achieved through dictatorship. From an economic standpoint, it must be said that it was precisely because of this publishing house that no unnecessary work was done.

[ 25 ] The question is where to begin with work in economic life. If, on the other hand, one starts from an understanding of needs, then only those necessary products are gradually produced, so that production does not continually pile up at the back [becoming congested with essential needs]; production at the front is then organized in such a way that the actual needs at the back can be satisfied. If one speaks only of yields, one is, so to speak, putting the cart before the horse. The point is to look at life and know where work should begin; it is not a matter of “regulating” anything, but of intervening in life in such a way that things take their proper course.

[ 26 ] The current crisis is the final consequence of a long process; it cannot be analyzed in the same way as others, but it must nevertheless be analyzed—not according to theories, but according to the facts. I ask that you consider what has happened in recent years. How much human labor has been expended since 1914, only for us to end up in a situation where ten to twelve million people were shot dead over the course of five years and three times as many were maimed? How much labor has been devoted to this and thereby withdrawn from life as work—labor that could have served life in other ways! I believe one can certainly take the view that: What was produced for the purpose of killing people was “unnecessary” labor—it could have been avoided! Just think for a moment how long it took—as late as 1912—to secure a million for educational purposes—and how quickly the money was at hand when a million was needed to be squandered. Consider what followed: The money that had evolved into an abstraction over the course of the 19th century has now become the highest potentialization of that abstraction. It has truly become the greatest abstraction. Look at how much the printing press spits out every day.

[ 27 ] You really only need [that much money] if consumption is regulated in an artificial way. The reason behind this is that the remaining productive forces from the period between 1914 and 1918 were overexploited. But that will come to an end at some point, and then the crisis will strike. The current crisis has been brought about by the utmost recklessness of people, who believed they could keep people occupied for years manufacturing unnecessary goods and divert them from necessary work.

[ 28 ] And now the question of whether it is really possible to achieve a new structure with the present generation: I have often returned to this question in the *Dreigliederungszeitung* For personal use by Christopher Wietrzykowski (chris.wietro.dds@gmail.com) and have repeatedly described asking such questions as a fruitless way of thinking. What I value in this context is the will—not so much an observational overview of what is—but the kindling of the will. And when I hear, “There’s nothing to be done with the current generation,” I must assume that those who criticize the current generation in this way believe that something can be done with themselves. And since I value will more than observation, I call out to them: “Well then, come on—let’s do something with you!” The number of those who “can’t do anything with the current generation” would already be large enough [to get something started]; therefore, let’s bring them together and work with them.

[ 29 ] The crucial question has also been raised as to what the intellectual foundations of the separation of the money market from the commodity market are. We can only answer such a question if we realize that statements such as those I have made today must be taken in the absolutely correct sense and that they do not merely represent a relatively correct historical critique. When one says that the emancipation of money has created this or that atmosphere—it is, after all, essential to examine this atmosphere. When one considers this increasing abstraction of the money market, where it no longer matters what money signifies, one must point out that this was necessary for the general course of development. In this regard, I have often pointed out how, since the mid-15th century, there has been a drive within civilized humanity to detach individuality from group identity, how democracy has increasingly become the driving force of humanity, how the individual is to be given ever greater prominence, and how that which springs more from within the individual is also to be given prominence. For this entire course of human development, the increasing abstraction of economic life under the influence of money was a necessity. And it is simply a matter of recognizing that everything that comes into being must, after a certain period of time, undergo a correction—or something else must be added to compensate for the damage. For in real life, there is no such thing as something absolutely good; everything in life is only relative. One cannot say that if I have torn boots today, they are necessarily bad; rather, it is the fate of good boots that they become worn out over time. Even in the best economic system, damage occurs when certain functions have run their course. The same is true of the monetary economy. It was not harmful from the very beginning. Consider the monetary conditions in the mid-19th century; they contributed significantly to the emergence of democratic ideas. But then came the time when such an abstraction of money had to reach its limits. I can certainly speak of an abstraction, for one may, for example, quite rightly compare the function of money to the inner mental process of abstraction.

[ 30 ] There is a striking phenomenon, for example, in the Theosophical Movement. This Theosophical Movement, with which the Anthroposophical Movement used to have a certain connection, is actually a materialistic movement. Although it speaks of the higher spiritual aspects of the human being, it really only means—when, for example, it speaks of the etheric body—that this is something more ethereal and subtle than the physical body, and that the astral body is then something even more ethereal, and so on. Thus, they always apply only materialistic ideas, and these materialistic ideas become terribly entrenched in people’s minds. And when the people in the Theosophical Movement once wanted to do something truly intelligent, they began to speak of the “permanent atom” in connection with repeated earthly lives. They believed that something physical must surely pass over into the human being’s next incarnation. From natural science, people had learned that human beings consist of atoms and that upon a person’s death, the atoms would fall into the earth. And so the Theosophists had devised the doctrine of the “permanent atom”: this one atom would not be buried; it would pass through death, and in the next life, the other atoms would then group themselves around this one permanent atom. Here, under the guise of a spiritual movement, we have the most blatant materialism. This is what happens when one becomes completely entangled in the abstract. Thus, in the life of the soul, you have the abstract, and in economic life, you have money as an abstract commodity.

[ 31 ] And because what happens in economic life is merely the outer aspect of spiritual life, this economic life is truly connected to spiritual life. For the view that believes economic processes are the only things taking place “down there,” and that spiritual life is merely an ideology in contrast to them, is mistaken. What is true, however, is this: The economic life of a given era and the spiritual life of a given era—not necessarily the exact same era—relate to one another like the nut to the nut shell: Economic life is always a distillation of spiritual life and derives its form from it. Therefore, once spiritual life has become so abstract, economic life, too, can only become abstract. Consequently, we first have the era of abstract thinking and only then the era of the abstract monetary system. These are connections that should be taken into account.

[ 32 ] If one takes these into account, one arrives at the fruitful idea of the threefold structure of the social organism. One will come to understand how the three aspects of life as a whole interlock and thereby form a unity, while each is granted its own independence. This is, after all, also the case with the human organism. In human beings, we distinguish between the nervous-sensory system, the rhythmic system, and the metabolic system. From a functional perspective, this constitutes the whole human being. These three systems work together, but each is relatively independent in itself, and they must be independent. Nothing beneficial can come of mixing everything together. It cannot be a matter of an abstract unity, as the modern state desires—and as today’s socialist states in the East in particular desire. It can only be a matter of coming to know the conditions of individual life, and then one sees how it manifests itself in threefold form. Anyone who engages with this must recognize that the three aspects of life are, first, independent; second, they interact with one another; and third, they interact best when they have first developed their independence. Then unity emerges as a result—and is not imposed from the outside. An abstract, barren unity destroys itself. But what is formed from the independent aspects becomes a vibrant unity—it becomes that which is capable of living and growing in the first place.