The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear attendees, At our last meeting, we spoke at length about the threefold social organism, and I believe that you are essentially aware of what this threefold organism should consist of and that the only way to achieve real socialization lies in this threefold organism. Because, you see, at present the main thing is that no one really knows anything about the nature of socialization, especially not anyone who is still so influential today. This can best be seen from the laws that have been passed and that are supposed to be in the spirit of socialization. I am referring in particular to the law on works councils.

You may know that in Berlin, in particular, the word [...] was coined: “Socialization is marching!” — I don't think it's possible to say today that socialization is marching. It's not even plodding along! One might even be of the opinion that socialization is hiding. Well, in the future it will be important to really understand that the impulses of the threefold organism do not contain something utopian, something ideological, but that they contain the seeds of what can become deeds.

The essence of this threefold organism is that economic life, legal life and spiritual life are truly and distinctly set out. However, since we are in a transitional period, some kind of beginning must be found. As you can well see from the circumstances, this can be found today, initially in economic life, for the following reason: the proletarian is part of economic life, and the proletarian knows from what he has experienced in his body and soul the necessity of socialization. It can truly be said that apart from the proletarian, hardly anyone can form such a truly full and valid concept of what socialization is. Of course, some of the intellectuals can do so as well. And they can be counted on. But the point today is not for a few people to realize that this or that is right, but for as many people as possible to recognize what needs to be done and bring about a new social order that is truly social. Therefore, in my introduction today, I would like to say something about what is important for our progress in this matter. Further details can then emerge in the discussion, based on the questions that I hope will be asked by a large number of you. Therefore, in my introduction, I would just like to give a few very brief suggestions. What must happen, above all, is that we get people with whom socialization is possible. But these people must really be genuine representatives of the broad masses of the proletariat. They must, in a sense, have a mandate from these broad masses of the proletariat. Now, the impulse of the threefold social organism is so practical that it can be applied everywhere. You can start working from any point. Today, the question of works councils arises as a very important starting point. And we would like to discuss this question, about which you have already heard something from the previous speaker, in detail today.

When dealing with the question of works councils, it is now important that these works councils are initially, I would like to say, set up in such a way that they only arise from economic life. We must tackle the tripartite organism in such a way that we first do something really practical in one of the three links. Of course, something practical must then also be done in parallel in the other two links. We can only do something practical if we have first, so to speak, set up those people who are suited to work in a practical way. For this we need the works councils, which must emerge from the individual companies.

Now it so happens that these works councils can emerge from the individual companies in the most diverse ways. It is only necessary that the works councils that emerge from the individual companies have the absolute trust of the workers and, to a certain extent, as far as possible, also the trust of the intellectual workers of the company concerned. Therefore, it will be a matter of the actual workers of a company and those in the managerial positions who are really able to go along with it, initially setting up this works council based on the circumstances of the individual company. The circumstances can be very different in the most diverse companies. For example, in one factory the election or appointment – or whatever you want to call it – of a works council may be carried out in one way, and in another factory in a different way. The main thing remains that those who are appointed have the trust of the physical and intellectual workers in the respective factories.

But then we will only have the basis we need for practical work. These works councils will then exist as such and will form a works council. This works council must be clear about the fact that it must be the body from which the recovery of our economic life must initially emerge. Today it is not a matter of taking half-measures or quarter-measures, but of actually working from the ground up. This can only happen if we have people who are inclined to work from the ground up. Do not be beguiled by the idea that there are not enough educated people among the working class. This will prove to be the biggest mistake, perhaps even the biggest nonsense. Because it is not a matter of getting people with a specific technical education, but of getting people from the direct practice of economic life who have the trust of those who work in it. Then the rest will follow if there is real seriousness and goodwill to create something new from the ground up.

So once we have set up works councils in the individual companies, we will have a works council system. Then we need a plenary assembly of this works council system. And this works council system must, regardless of what is fabricated as a law on works councils by certain bodies, give itself a constitution based on the experiences of economic life. It must see itself as a primary assembly. This works council must negotiate the powers, the tasks, and the entire position of the works council itself. This can only be done by first discussing in this plenary assembly what actually needs to be done to restore our economic life. So it is not a matter of us now theorizing a lot about what the works councils have to do. That must arise from the plenary assembly of the works councils themselves.

Let us first state: you cannot socialize a single company. That is complete nonsense; you can only individualize companies. You can only socialize a closed economic area. Therefore, we do not need any general regulations on the functioning of works councils in individual companies, as is once again expressed in the laws, but we need an inter-company constitution of the works council. A fine works council over a closed economic area must be a whole. When this plenary assembly, this original assembly, has given itself a constitution, then it will be able to have an effect on the companies.

In a next step, a committee must then be elected from this plenary assembly of the works council, which could be called: works council director or central council of the works council. The election would have to be conducted according to an electoral system that in turn emerges entirely from the works council itself. Once this central council of the works council is in place, a significant step will have been taken. Because what we need in the future within the economic body is something like an economic representation or, if you like, if we want to use the old word, something like an economic ministry. These things cannot come about in any other way in the initial transition period than by seeking representation through the aforementioned assembly, the plenary assembly of the works council. And in order to have a basis for a socialist social order in the future, we must create a central office from this works council that is capable of forming what could be called a ministry of economics at any time. We must therefore prepare in this direction for what a truly appropriate administration of economic life from within the social society can be. If we do not work in this way, then the moment, which will surely come, when socialization is to be tackled, will catch us unprepared, and it must not catch us unprepared! That is a fundamental question today. The moment must not catch us unprepared. Those who have the power – and you see that this is a question of power, albeit a reasonable one – must know what they have to do. That was precisely the characteristic feature of November 9, that the people who came to the top did not know what to do. It must be ensured that the people are there who know what they have to do.

On various occasions, I have emphasized in my lectures that works councils alone are not enough today. Other councils will be needed as well. But that is not something we need to worry about today, because the point is that we first start to work practically at one point. The impulse for the threefold organism is not there to be used for further theorizing, but to move on, to move directly on to real practical work. The time when this practical work is needed need not be so far off. For if certain circles imagine today that with any peace agreement - some peace agreement must come about after all - an end would come, then that is complete nonsense. A peace agreement today does not put an end to it, but it marks the beginning of a period that we will have to go through and in which socialization must take place in the civilized world simply out of an inner necessity, but made by people.

We must take two things into account, and I would like to mention these two points in my introduction today. You see, in many gatherings – and I have now attended quite a few gatherings and discussions – capitalism is talked about in the same way as it was talked about before this world war catastrophe. Of course, all the evils of capitalism are just as valid today as they were before the war, but the fact of capitalism has become quite another as a result of this world war catastrophe. Consider only the conditions in Germany itself. Capitalism has indeed undergone a change through the war economy. The war economy has, in a sense, raised capitalism to its highest level. And it was able to do so because it was completely divorced from the real needs of the people, because it only produced for the war. But because capitalism has been driven into this crisis, because only unproductive things were created, the whole of capitalism has actually entered into a completely different relationship with the working class than was the case before. Today, capitalism is not in the same position as it was before the world war catastrophe. And what is actually at hand is that one should become aware that this capitalism no longer stands as such. For this capitalism, even if it is not so evident today, has simply ruined the economy of a large part of the civilized world, undermining it. It has already done so much to its own destruction that this destruction must come, not in “some time,” as was said earlier in socialist circles, not in “a distant future,” but in the immediate future, capitalism will point out to the civilized world that it was able to continue to work under the old regime and to enter into the relationship with the working class that you are so familiar with. But this relationship cannot be restored. That is why the question is so urgent today: what will the proletariat do at the moment when, as a result of capitalism's self-destruction, it is faced with the task of reshaping the world? Capitalism was able to continue operating under the old conditions. It can no longer do so. It cannot do so at all. It would lead to utter chaos and confusion if capitalism were to continue to operate in this way.

Let us assume that some kind of peace were to come about, even if those who now want to reject it do so. Something must come of it. But whatever comes of it, it could only be – and I ask you to bear this firmly in mind – that with the help of the not yet completely crushed Entente capitalism, Central and Eastern Europe would be trampled to death, because we would have enslavement as far as the Rhine, especially for the working people. That could only be if Entente capitalism were not crushed. For what might then happen? Any practical person can see that clearly. For the following would happen: Let us assume that peace were to be established, this peace, which is actually a peace of the already ruined capitalism of Central and Eastern Europe with the Entente capitalism, because the proletariat has not yet been called upon anywhere, despite the socialist government, to somehow participate in the fate of the world. Assuming that this peace is established, it would only make sense if the German proletariat were willing to rebuild capitalism by settling for a terribly low wage. If it accepted this terribly low wage, at which it would gradually starve, then German capitalism could rise again through this low wage, and it could be paid, so to speak, at the expense of the working class, what Entente capitalism demands. That is the one case.

The other case is that, which you probably will not believe, it occurs that, for example, the American and English proletariat decide to work as cheaply as possible, with the lowest possible wages, so that means of production can be supplied to Germany, which Germany can initially only pay for if the proletariat works almost for free. In either case, the German proletarian will find himself in a terrible situation. Only a genuine socialization, one that places social life on a completely different footing, can free him from this situation. If, as has often been stated, capitalism is removed from the social order in this way, then the peace, compromise or understanding that comes about cannot be something that is concluded between the capitalists of Central and Eastern Europe and the Western capitalists, but can only be something that emerges from a society that is becoming more and more socialist. And that alone can bring about healthy conditions in international relations. Because then it will be the case that, precisely as a result of the peace agreement, the Central and Eastern European capitalism, which is no longer on its feet, must actually withdraw from the scene. And that will have the consequence that capitalism can also be fought in a real way in the Entente states. Because if there is no capital in some place and yet productive life and productive power prevail, then one must approach such a productive economy in a completely different way than if one hopes that capitalism will regain its strength and pay war reparations or something similar. You see, I only say the latter so that you do not believe that something is being postponed to a distant future. It is about the very near future, it is about the fact that the time that begins with the necessary understanding between nations or with the conclusion of peace will either be the beginning of a terrible situation for the proletariat of Central and Eastern Europe or the beginning of a real socialization, which must arise out of your courage, your strength, and your insight into necessity. That is what I wanted to say beforehand.

I believe that we should talk about works councils today, but in such a way that it leads to real action, so that we do not just talk but see how the impulse for the threefold social order consists in the fact that it contains ideas that can be put into practice, that can become action.

Discussion

Debater Biel objects to the law on works councils proposed by the government and to an article in the newspaper about the coalition government.

Debater Lange asks: If the works councils are to be elected or appointed, has consideration been given to the fact that employees and directors, technical or commercial directors, should also have a say in the election? It is surely important that the laws or regulations that are made should really be made by people who have an overview of the whole context.

Rudolf Steiner: This question is extraordinarily important. The point is to bring about something that can work. Of course, in the present economic system, we cannot work without spiritual leaders. The economy would be driven into a dead end. Production would come to a standstill after a relatively short time if we could not win over the technical leaders for it. As you know, in Russia, due to the different circumstances – which it would be interesting to discuss at some point – it was not possible to win over the technical managers to the real idea of socialization, so that there one was faced with the fact was faced with the fact that on the one hand there was perhaps even a sufficiently large proletariat of manual laborers that could have taken up the idea of socialization, and on the other hand it was not possible to win over the masses of the so-called intellectual workers for the idea of socialization. The consequence of this was what must be most regretted for Russia: the sabotage of this intellectual labor. This sabotage of the intellectual workers must be avoided at all costs. That is to say, every effort must be made to overcome the obstacles within the intellectual workers. Let us not misjudge the serious obstacles that exist.

You see, I have already spoken about this here. We are faced with the fact that the proletariat has been politically educated to a certain degree through a long process of training. The proletariat is politically educated, even if this does not apply to every individual. Political education does not consist of knowing one or two details, but rather of having a certain basic disposition of the soul that is political. The proletariat has this, but those who belong to the circles of the so-called intellectual workers do not. These intellectual workers have become accustomed to cultivating what might be called a sense of authority. Whether this authority is a state authority or a factory authority is not decisive. What is important is to know that a deep sense of authority prevails in these circles. Of course, the individual may inwardly revolt, but mostly he does it with his fist in his pocket. But the intellectual workers are not dispensable for real socialization. That is why I say: It is necessary to win over the employees and also the plant managers and, above all, to win over those among them who have a sense and a heart for real socialization.

We must not let it come to the point where, when the time comes, a kind of Ministry of Economic Affairs is set up in such a way that? this ministry is forced to set up five or six or twelve armchairs as the top level, and the whole apparatus continues to work in the old spirit. But there is something else we must not let come to either. Mr. Biel has already given a good indication of what would be at stake if something like the works council system were to be included in this unfortunate law that is now being proposed. I have already told you that it is an essential fact that we are now at a point in time when capitalism has actually ruined itself and cannot rebuild itself from within. If a reconstruction is to happen, it must be done by the working people. The capitalists cannot continue. That is what proves that we must seize the moment. Such laws as the one that is to become reality are designed to help capitalism, which cannot help itself, to be nursed back to health with the help of the misled working class, and to regain its old dominance. The working class should form such works councils that, by the very nature of how they are set up, will help to resurrect capitalism. We can only counteract this if a works council is created from the bottom up by the working people themselves and gives itself a constitution, that is, if it does not concern itself with what basically wants to be a continuation of the old capitalism because it cannot imagine the world as anything other than capitalist.

We must be quite clear about the fact that our first task is to set up the works councils at all, and that we need the intellectual workers in these works councils as well, as far as possible. Those who have no sense or heart for socialization, we can't use there. It would hardly be a matter of having as many directors or top people in it as possible, but above all those who really have to do intellectual work. Then it is possible to accomplish something like socialization through such a works council. But if you endorse a law like the one currently being drafted, then you have done nothing more than rename the old labor committees. It is only a renaming, and of course – because the two cannot coexist – the old workers' committees are to be abolished. The old workers' committees were unable to eliminate capitalism, and the new works councils to be established under the law will not be able to do so either.

So, we must establish a works council as far as possible, and it must be able to run the factories by itself. We must not think only of agitation, but we must think of the practical work from which the enterprises can be newly shaped. It is not enough to advocate that production should be socialized, but it is important to know as precisely as possible how it should be socialized. This will happen when we really get the intellectual workers into the works councils. That must be our aim. Therefore, the apolitical attitude of intellectual workers must be eliminated. And we must not lose sight of what is being waited for today either. Today, under circumstances that the intellectual workers are perhaps sufficiently familiar with, the non-proletariat is waiting for not just any socialization to come about, but for the proletariat to be overcome. Do not forget, there are statements like that of a German industrial magnate who said: We big industrialists can wait, and we will wait, until the workers come to the gates of our factories and ask for work! This attitude is not uncommon. They are waiting to see if the workers will not let themselves be beaten. And that is what must be prevented by reality. That is what matters. This must also be borne in mind when considering the question of how to win over intellectual workers to our cause. At the beginning of what is to be revived as an act among us, there must first be the setting up of works councils, and secondly, as far as it is possible today, the intellectual workers must also be included.

A speaker asks: What do the works councils actually have to do? And what must be done in the very near future?

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to emphasize that what I have said is not for the near future, but for the very near future. I have already emphasized: today is not the time for us to think much about how to get well-educated works councils; instead, the first thing we need to do is set up the works councils and come to a plenary assembly of works councils. What is most necessary is that we have people from the business world itself who will then take it from there. Today, it cannot be about saying, with regard to individual situations, that the works councils have to do this or that, but rather, I see it as being very practical. Of course, among these works councils there will be some who already know how to proceed in this or that case with regard to socialization, while others will not know. But if there is real goodwill, it is not that difficult to identify the real tasks for the immediate future.

There are, of course, different approaches to the way forward. Let us assume, for a moment, that socialization cannot be limited to Stuttgart, so let us assume, for a moment, that it is limited to Württemberg. One approach would be to go around the whole country, going from workers' circle to workers' circle and talking to the individual groups about what is most necessary in terms of threefolding, where one is usually met with the reply: These are aims, but not ways! Although it is precisely intended to point to the right way. That would be the one way, because today we can achieve nothing without having a really large number of people on whom we can rely. But we do not have the time to go down this road, bearing in mind that it is not a matter of working for the immediate future, but for the very near future. So we have to think about the other way. We have to get those people, and that is what the works council wants to be, who, by having themselves elected or appointed as works council members, are fully committed to the work of socialization. Then I really don't imagine that it is so difficult to deal with such a cohesive body that has the trust of the broadest masses.

Once we have these works councils, the question of whether people already know exactly what they have to do is no longer so important. After eight days they will know. The only problem is finding the people. The problem today is not that it is terribly difficult to know what needs to be done first, but that there are so few people with the good will and desire to do what needs to be done. So, if we have those people who feel an inner responsibility to work on socialization because they have been elected by the trust of their colleagues, then we will have created the basis for the very next practical step.

As for the practical work that lies immediately ahead, let us not let ourselves be put off by saying: We must first educate. Those who say today: Socialization takes a long, long time, because every individual must first be educated. That is not the point. The point is to create a body of people who have the trust of their colleagues. Then it will be possible to continue working with them, and because they have a direct sense of responsibility, you will not constantly face the problem of having difficulty in reaching the masses. Because, you see, you can hold as many meetings as you like, there will always be some who have reservations about such meetings, such as: Today the sun is shining so beautifully, we are going for a walk, or: On Ascension Day it is not possible to attend a meeting — and so on. The work that lies ahead of us is enormous. We will not succeed if we proceed by educating each individual, so to speak. We must have responsible people who then take on the tasks completely. With them, the work can be carried out in the very near future.

Discussion speaker Mittwich proposes that the works council election be held separately for salaried employees and wage earners and that delegates be elected from each side.

Rudolf Steiner: I just want to say a few words, since I agree with everything essential that the esteemed previous speaker has said. But I would like to come back to an important question that he asked, namely the way in which the works council, which will of course consist of individual works council members, comes about. I also believe that the number he has given is sufficiently large for the individual companies. Of course, one or the other view can be gained from the different practical circumstances. But what I think is important is how this works council is set up in the first place. Don't think that when I said “by election or appointment” I meant an appointment from above or something similar. Rather, I was thinking, of course, of the fact that today, in the beginning, there are the most diverse conditions in the individual companies, and it is certainly very true that today there are numerous companies in which the workforce knows exactly: this is the right works council for us – where there is no need for long debates, but where it is clear simply from the trust: this is the right one. And I would like to point out the extraordinary importance of this existing trust being expressed in the election of the works council, so that the people who come into the works council are precisely those who have the trust of their co-workers. That would be similar to an appointment.

Of course, the election must be carried out in a practical and technical manner, but care should be taken to prevent the election from resulting in any kind of random composition. Only those personalities should be elected to the works council who have the trust of their employees. This is necessary because, above all, we need people who feel responsible for what they do. That is one thing.

The other thing is that I don't think it's right to ask how the number of works council members should be distributed between salaried employees and workers. I don't think it's possible to set up any kind of regulation today. I therefore fully agree with what the previous speaker said, namely that employees should not elect their works council on the one hand and workers their works council on the other, as this would lead to something monstrous. In that case, we would have an unworkable works council from the outset. Rather, it must be elected jointly by employees and workers as a unified body. And as to how many then come from the circle of employees on the one hand and on the other from the workers, we want to leave that to the election. It goes without saying that anyone who comes from the intellectual workers, for example, into the works council must be such a person who has the trust not only of the employees, but must also have the trust of the workers. The workers must accept him as an intellectual worker as well. So, for example, if in any enterprise, let us say, five manual workers and one intellectual worker are elected, it must also be possible for three intellectual and three manual workers to be elected elsewhere. It must be left entirely to the workers' own discretion. Intellectual and physical workers must elect those who are to be members of the works council as a unified group, based on their trust. In this primary election, every social distinction between intellectual and physical workers must be eliminated.

I cannot imagine that the one demand that we elect physical and mental workers together should lead to anything other than the fact that the person elected as a mental worker also has the trust of the entire workforce, regardless of whether they are a physical or mental worker. If we were to organize the election in such a way that we were forced to elect so-and-so many works council members from the ranks of the intellectual workers and so-and-so many from the physical labor force, then it would no longer be a free election based on trust. If we think that among the intellectual workers in the factories there are not so many who deserve trust, then people would be admitted to this primary assembly who are not needed! The election itself must not only be carried out in such a way that mental and physical laborers are considered without distinction, but that they have the power to elect together and elect together the one they want, and as many from one side or the other as they want. The mental laborers must be clear about the fact that they can only get into the works council if they have the trust of the entire labor force. This is the question that I consider to be of the utmost importance. I have come to this conclusion on the basis of my extensive experience. Today we must really make sure that the works councils are set up. In eight days' time, they will be in a position to provide a sound basis for socialization, stemming from the trust of the entire working class. Even if they are not completely ready, they will be ready enough to serve the purpose I have described.

Plenum: The assembly adopts a resolution containing the demand that works councils be set up everywhere as quickly as possible before the law, which is only a half-measure, comes into force.

Rudolf Steiner: I must confess that I cannot really connect the question, which arises very often: What means of power are available or do you want to give? I cannot really connect it to a practical sense. You see, it must be a matter of the works council, as I said before, really coming to form something in some central council or the like, which can really be a kind of economic ministry in an emancipated economic life. Now I ask: if it can be a real economic ministry, then only because it has the masses behind it. I would like to know who could resist such a central council or economic ministry if it had the masses behind it, if it had really emerged from the trust of the masses. By doing so, you give it power. Today, power can consist of nothing more than everyone wanting the same thing and having it carried out by individuals, so that there is really something behind such a ministry that makes it impossible for it to be shot down and the like, while at the same time enabling it to stand on firm ground, based on the trust of the broad masses. There is no other way to gain power. But this power is then there by itself, when the body is there. The question of what means of power I want to give such a body can only be seen as extraordinarily abstract. I don't know what people think about such a question. Do they think that regiments should be deployed or that proposals should be made to draft so-and-so many people so that when this body meets, it can function against the will of the others? I don't know what is behind such a question. Because if what comes into the works council comes from the trust of the masses, what happens then? Then the Central Council or the Ministry of Economic Affairs will be able to bring about real socialization, and the broad masses will then agree to it, because it is, after all, flesh of their flesh.

So, I think that by really putting something real on a healthy basis, power comes naturally. It did not come on November 9th because what was about to happen did not come from the trust of the masses and they did not know what to do up there either. All the other power is useless. There are no other means of power than those that lie in the matter itself. That is why I have always regarded it as a highly peculiar, quite abstract philosophical question when people today say: You tell us nothing about the way to get power. That is precisely the way to power: to find representation based on trust and then to shape that representation in such a way that it appeals to those who have given that representation their trust. That would be a practical way. Self-appointment and the like can only lead to the glory coming to an end soon.

In the way we are speaking today, we are discussing the question of power, and it would be a great mistake to lead the matter onto a side track by raising the question of what means of power should be given to those who already have the power because they came into their position on the basis of trust and not on some other basis. I ask you to bear this in mind, because I see confusion arising again and again over the weeks from the fact that on the one hand people say: Yes, that's all right. Such goals may be achieved one day, but first we need power. - We must gain power by placing ourselves with these objectives in the place where, when we go about implementing them, we actually win the understanding of the broadest masses. That is the way to real power, to real socialization. Any other way will lead to disappointment and to a repetition of what happened on November 9 and in the period that followed.

Radio commentator Funk asks: How should we act if the employers ignore or do not recognize the workers' councils?

Rudolf Steiner: Certainly, one can raise the question of how to deal with the matter when the works councils are in place and not recognized by the employers. But, you see, the way the matter has been presented to you this evening, everything possible has already been done to prevent such an eventuality. We do not think of this works council in such a way that it depends on whether the employer recognizes it or not. That is why this dreadful changeling of a works council should not be created, which is supposed to consist of the works councils in the individual companies in turn throwing dust in people's eyes, in order to reassure the workers by saying: We have works councils. We want a works council that extends across the entire economic area and from which a central power gradually emerges. This central power will be supported by the majority or, as I have repeatedly said, by the broad masses. Now I ask you: if this works council system leads to the establishment of a future economic government, what significance will the opposition of the various entrepreneurs have? These various entrepreneurs will simply be unhinged by this works council system as entrepreneurs! The works council system should do something. If it achieves its goal, it will no longer be confronted by the business community at all. Recently, I have often come across this in a wide variety of discussions: on the one hand, people want socialization, but on the other hand, they say, “Once we have socialized, what will the capitalists say?” Yes, if we get involved in this question, we will never achieve real socialization. But if we seriously tackle socialization, then the position of the capitalists is not important. That is precisely what “socialization” means: that in the future it will not depend on them, on the capitalists. They will be eliminated by not continuing to listen to the lies of individual works councils that are recognized by the capitalist authorities. We don't want to continue to work with them. That is why this law must be fought. We must actually take socialization seriously. If we take it seriously, then this question will fall away by itself. If the question, “What do the capitalists say?” continued to exist, then we would not have socialized. But we want to accomplish socialization! Therefore, we must not be discouraged by such questions, but we must gain clarity, must create a will in us that can take decisive action because it is based on healthy impulses. Then we just want to ask: How do we do it in order to push through this will without taking this or that into consideration? – and not: What could come? What do we want to do? – that is what matters.

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear attendees,

In order to have a fruitful discussion about the establishment of workers' councils, I would like to say a few words to set the scene. I believe that it is essential to grasp the socialization task of the present time in the right way from the outset when setting up workers' councils. This means that, in setting up these works councils, we are carrying out a real socialization effort or, better said, making a real start on socialization. You know that the impulse for the threefold social order is intended to achieve what can lead to such a comprehensive real socialization. Now it must be said that the establishment of works councils in particular immediately shows how little understanding there still is today for the real social movement. Should not certain people, who mainly represent the interests of employers, think about how it has come about that today, in such a loud voice, precisely the working class is raising this call for socialization? When a specific issue arises, such as the question of works councils, then you immediately notice on this side, I mean on the side of those who represent the interests of the employers, how little understanding there actually is for such an institution. One can say: The resistance that comes from this side shows how difficult it will be to implement a true socialization rather than a false one. You have the leaflets in front of you, which were written at the suggestion of the Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism for the appointment of works councils.

Now, what do we hear from the other side, from the representatives of the employers' interests, in the face of what is expressed in these leaflets? You see, the first thing they say is: Yes, if it is as it is explained in this leaflet, then the workers are taking the law into their own hands! The people who speak in this way do not consider that basically the working class has only ever resorted to self-help when it was urgently necessary to do so!

In my lectures, I have explained on various occasions how the non-proletariat, how the ruling circles in modern times have missed every opportunity to respond sympathetically to the social movement. And I have also described how even the small crumbs given to the workers in the form of insurance, pensions or the regulation of working hours or the prohibition of child labor and the like, I have described how even this all only became possible because the workers resorted to self-help. Today, however, things are somewhat different. What I have just enumerated is rather a trifle in relation to the great task of socialization that is now at hand. In the past, the workers resorted to self-help in relation to trifles. But now there are bigger tasks to be tackled, which means that now, for once, we have to take a big task and take steps to achieve it by self-help. But in doing so, one must always bear in mind that, from the employers' point of view, the slogan “the workers are taking up self-help” always acts as a red rag. Because, you see, the employers are now once again striving to instill trust and a desire to work in the companies, even though they could have seen how unsuitable the representatives of the employers' interests are to justify this trust and this desire to work. It is precisely because of the way these leading circles have proceeded that trust and the desire to work have disappeared from the factories. And now they want to say: It is not for you, it is for us – when what is necessary for production and for social life is to be taken into the hands of those who have personally experienced the work of the employers.

They will know from the flyer and perhaps also from the last few meetings, if you were there, that it is important first of all that there are works councils, works councils that have really emerged from the totality of of all those who are involved in working and organizing in the economic life, and that it is important that the people who have been elected now also really have their say, can express themselves about what should happen. The old economic structures cannot simply be continued, but something new must be created from the very foundations. And we can only make progress by electing works councils in the individual companies today and then, emerging from a larger coherent economic area, say Württemberg, a general meeting of works councils is convened and that this then gives itself a constitution based on the experiences and knowledge of the works councils, thus defining what the works councils have to do and what their rights and duties are. In this way, what is necessary for economic life must arise today from economic life itself, from independent economic life. So something must first come into being through the works councils. We cannot create today, out of the old institutions, what should actually be achieved through the truly new works council.

You see, that should actually be the aim of the broadest sections of working people today: Through the trust that the person who is to be elected has in the company, through this trust he should be supported. And then he should unite with the works councils of a larger contiguous economic area, let's say Württemberg in this case, in order to determine and define the tasks of the works councils together with them. Today, that should be the view of the broadest circles of working humanity.

This is now contrasted with what is being demanded from the other side – to my amazement, however, also by very many circles of the working class. This is that, initially, in the old way, as it has always been done, a law should be passed by the old state that determines from the outset what rights and duties the works councils should have. If we proceed in this way, I believe that we will not only make no progress, but, in view of the times, we will even take quite a few steps backwards. We have clearly seen what might come from this quarter. What, then, are the demands that are coming from this side? For example, it is said that the state, the entrepreneur and the workers must get their money's worth. That the state, which today is still basically conceived as the protector of capitalism, should get its due, that can be sincerely meant. And I don't doubt that the entrepreneur should also get his rights. But what people mean by the fact that the worker can get his rights when they make such laws, I think that needs a closer look, because these people usually confuse the interests of the worker with how they can best use the worker in their own interests.

So these people come up with strange words, words that are basically always used to throw dust in people's eyes, a dust that usually has a very strange purpose. This dust is supposed to turn into a little gold when it falls back on those who scatter it. People say: the works councils must serve the whole, the whole of the state. They are not there to obtain advantages for the individual worker either, but to serve the flourishing of the whole enterprise. – Now I ask you what that actually means when one says something like, “the works councils should serve the flourishing of the whole enterprise”. That means nothing other than that what it is actually about is veiled in an abstract way. What are enterprises in the world for at all? They are there to provide something for people, and all people are individuals! Factories exist only to ensure that what is produced in them becomes a consumer good for individuals. And to speak of a flourishing of the factories in a different sense, as the individual coming to flourish through what is produced in the factories, that is not speaking from reality, but covering reality with smoke.

It always sounds so terribly beautiful when one says that the whole should be served. In the economic sphere this has no meaning, because: What is the whole there? It is the individuals all together! So one should not say “the flourishing of the companies”, but “the flourishing of all those who are involved in the companies and in the economy in general”. Then the matter would be presented correctly and the facts would not be covered up by deception.

You see, it is often said that the impulse for a tripartite social organism is an ideology. But in truth, this impulse wants to eliminate all the smoke and mirrors, which have not only been talked about enough but have been used in the service of oppression, and to replace them with the true reality, with the human being and their needs. Now you see, what are people demanding? The people demand that the powers of the works councils be regulated by experts after a thorough examination of the circumstances – that is what people always say when they don't want something – and the experts named are employers, employees and social politicians. Now, the concept of the employer – you can see it from my earlier lectures and also from my book on the social question – the concept of the employer, must actually disappear as such in a real socialization. For there can only be an employer if there is an owner of labor, and there must not be any owners of labor. There can only be directors of labor, that is, people who are active in the organization of labor in such a way that the physical worker also knows how to best use his or her labor power and the like. Of course, in a company, work cannot be done in such a way that everyone does what they want. There must be a management, the whole enterprise must be imbued with a spiritual purpose, but these are not employers, they are work managers, that is to say, workers of a different kind. The greatest importance must be attached to the fact that we must at last grasp the real concept of work, because an employer who does not work himself does not really belong to the enterprise at all, but is a parasite on the work.

People today have very strange ideas about these things. The day before yesterday I was in Tübingen, where I spoke to a meeting. There were also professors there, and you see, one of these professors seemed to be particularly upset by the fact that I said that the worker has now finally realized that the old wage relationship must end, because under this old wage relationship the worker has to sell his labor power as a commodity. Well, one of the professors then objected as follows: Is it really not humane to sell one's labor? What difference does it ultimately make whether the worker in the factory sells his labor or Caruso sings for an evening and gets 30,000 to 40,000 marks? Has he not also sold his labor? You see, people still have ideas like that today, and we still have to fight against them today!

But what is being demanded today? Employers, employees and social politicians should first consider what the works councils should do. Well, the social politicians are the very gentlemen who represent the similarity of the work of the factory worker and Caruso. These gentlemen should therefore have the most weighty vote. But the point today is that we should finally come to the conclusion that these people have cast their votes for long enough, and precisely by the way they have cast their votes, they have shown that they have no say in the matter. The social politicians can be dispensed with to a large extent. I am convinced that we can achieve something much more sensible if we elect shop stewards for the works council from among the workers in the factories, from among the physical and mental laborers, than if the social politicians get together, who have thoroughly proved that they can ruin everything but cannot build anything. And because this has been recognized, the impulse for the threefold order has, above all, realized that something can only come out of a general assembly of works councils. And if it were asked today who has a say in this, then I would say: above all, not those who still cling to the old concept of the employer, and not those who are theorizing social politicians, they had better stay out. There are people who then say: This requires detailed studies, as carried out by socialization committees. You see, a real socialization committee is exactly what the works council would like to have, one that arises from the real trust of the people. On the other hand, however, these people say that the most serious damage is to be expected from violent interventions by the works councils, which, without prior legal regulation, give themselves their powers and form a central council in the sense of the leaflet. It should be clear that perhaps serious damage to the old capitalism is to be expected, but that such damage will prove useful in the service of truly active humanity.

Then there is another phrase that is used again and again today and that is also used in employer circles, namely that the establishment of works councils can only fulfill its purpose through extensive education and training of the workforce and entrepreneurs. Yes, some of this kind of training has already been implemented. The purpose of this type of training is, after all, to prepare people thoroughly so that they can best serve the ruling classes, and not to teach them anything worthy of human beings. The aim of the training is to thoroughly expel from their minds everything they have learned through life and what they would like to express from their souls in view of the current conditions. The intention of establishing and strengthening the trust between employer and employee is associated with this training. As I said before, after doing everything to thoroughly eradicate this trust, it has been realized that this trust can be restored by training people in this trust. In this case, that means nothing more than training people to feel comfortable in the service of capitalism.

Something else must be taken into account, namely that the state also wants to profit from the working class. Recently, in the city where the headquarters of the highest intelligentsia in Württemberg is located, a professor of constitutional law said: Yes, we are heading for sad times. People will be very poor! —The gentleman may be right to some extent. But then he said: We will have large, large expenditures. How will these large expenditures be covered? The people will have no money to cover these expenditures. The state will have to step in to cover these expenses! — Now, ladies and gentlemen, I must say that this is a fundamental proof that, once and for all, the intellectual life must also be put on a different footing, when an outstanding representative of the intellectual life asserts today that the state must stand up for the poor so that it can pay the large expenses that we will incur. I would just like to know how the state can do this without first taking the money out of people's wallets? So one speaks of the state as if it were a real personality. If people were to talk about ghosts paying their debts today, they would naturally laugh at you as a foolish fellow. But this state, as it is spoken of, is nothing more than a ghost. After all, you can't get ahead in the real economy by printing one banknote after another, because these notes only have a value if they are redeemed through labor!

You see, people today also like to say: Until it has been determined, with the help of experts, what powers the works councils can have without destroying our seriously ill economic body, and until the laws to be created by the government have established the rights of the works councils, wildly elected – I emphasize wildly elected – works councils can only cause harm. Yes, these spontaneously elected works councils are supposed to be those works councils that are only set up by the trust of the working population. They are to be opposed to those who are placed in the factories by telling them: This you may do, this you may not do, this you must refrain from doing. Yes, of course this leads to nothing but the preservation of the old conditions. It does not lead forward, but a few steps back, because it was already a disaster when the economy was still flourishing that people thought of workers' committees in this way. Now that the economy is on the ground, it is an even greater disaster if the works council does not arise from the working population itself and if, when something like this occurs, it is said that it is a wild-grown humanity.

Well, after seeing what is to be planted by the other side, one must resort to the wild-growing ones. That will be the healthier, healthier than that which is to be planted in the ornamental gardens of those who so much want to remain stuck in the old conditions. I would like to mention another nice sentence that has also emerged in recent days against our efforts to elect works councils. Namely, various fears are expressed about these randomly elected works councils. Among other things, it is said that the one-sided exploitation of the companies by the workers contradicts the idea of socialization. But I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I am racking my brain to come up with something to go with this sentence. What is meant by the workers' one-sided exploitation of the factories? You see, when the workers have their due share of responsibility for the factory, then they will know that if they do not take care of the factories on their own initiative, the factories will quickly be in such a state that they can no longer exploit them. One should not assume that the clever representatives of the business community expect the workers to be so foolish as to try to get everything out of the company, only to throw themselves out on the street afterwards. After all, the workers have learned well enough what it means to be put out on the street by others. I don't think that they will imitate this themselves, because they have seen enough of this practice with others.

And then the statement that the idea of socialization is being contradicted. Yes, socialization should be: calling for cooperation in the social order in the spiritual, legal and economic life of all those who, as working people, are involved in this life and who, as working people, are really at work. This is to be achieved by the working population electing the works council – as the gentlemen say – “wildly”. Well, that is supposed to contradict socialization. So I also agonize over the second half of that sentence and just can't figure out what is meant by it, because the fact that works councils are elected from among those who run the companies and ensure the prosperity of the entire economy is supposed to contradict socialization. Perhaps it could mean that those who work in the factories participate in the fructification, while those who previously only participated in the profits in various ways get a raw deal. That is to say, those who make their living purely from capitalism will fare badly. So I would have to interpret the sentence as meaning that the one-sided selection of works council members, as we want it, contradicts the eradication of the actual capitalists. Then I would have to think that in the mind of such a person the thought may arise that the eradication of private capitalism contradicts socialization. I can even imagine that some people understand socialization to mean that, by contradicting the interests of private capitalists, it is not a true socialization. But then we have to admit that we ourselves have to develop ideas about socialization, that we truly cannot let people impose on us the ideas of true socialization or of what contradicts this socialization. No matter how much we scream about laws, we will not gain a true concept of the works councils. That is why we must decide to create these works councils as a true concept of works councils, and not be deterred from doing so by the fact that we are opposing the wild-growing works councils to the ornamental gardens of the system of today's economic order. We must take courage and say to ourselves: From the institution of those works councils that we now establish through direct election – the details of which can be discussed later – a works council system should emerge that is now suitable for creating a basis for socialization. Then it may be that socialization will really march, whereas so far, only those people who are known to understand by real socialization a capitalist specter in a new form that is supposed to gorge itself with all sorts of parasites, talk about the march of socialization.

If we can penetrate this, then we will be able to ignite the courage within us to finally send this wild forest of works councils out into the world, so that not everything will be corrupted again by the ornamental plants of those who understand nothing about socializing.

Discussion

Fran Bühl: She distributed the flyer of the union about the creation of works councils in Calw and learned that the workers there show little interest in the creation of works councils. She therefore asks Dr. Rudolf Steiner to give a lecture there to shake people up a bit.

Mr. Armbruster is not satisfied with the course of events and, like the “Social Democrat”, finds Dr. Steiner's comments “soft as a plum”. He also finds that socialization is nothing new. He hopes that a new government will help.

Rudolf Steiner: Yes, the fact that the “Social Democrat” admitted that my remarks were “plum soft” did not mean anything to me at the time. I said to myself: There have been so many statements about all kinds of socialist and social programs that tasted like sour plums, so it doesn't seem so out of order to finally bring the plums to maturity; then, as everyone knows, they are soft.

But one thing that the previous speaker said is very close to my heart, because I believe that it is perhaps not so much directed at our intellect as at our will. It may be true to say that if, when the revolution occurred in 1918, people had spoken of threefolding and socialization in the way that is being attempted today, and had striven for them, we would be further ahead today. You see, I did not appear myself at the time, there were reasons for that, because I finally thought that the others, who had always been in the party, who had always been inside, could do it better, and I also waited to see if they could do it better. Now the honorable speaker before me has said that we have not actually achieved anything in particular. It may perhaps appear justified in the light of the facts that, after those on whom we relied have achieved nothing, we then get involved in the matter. What is important – if the previous speaker really means that we would be further ahead today if this had been tackled back then – is that we say to ourselves: Well, then we want to at least tackle it today, so that when we are again as many months after today as we are now after the revolution, we will find ourselves in the reality that we want today. So I would like to express this as an appeal for the will and courage to socialize. And here I do believe that we should rely a little on experience.

Please do not take it amiss if I say that the saying “When we have a new government, it will do it” has actually been heard again and again under the old regime. Yes, there is even a cute example where roughly every few months it was said: “When we have a new government, things will get better.” That was in Austria in the decades before the war. Every few months a new government was formed and relied on. But now we should have learned from the facts that we should not rely on any government in such a way. That is why the works council is to be created precisely for the purpose of enabling the broad masses of the working population to be creative with regard to socialization. It seems to me that one thing in particular – as I have said here before – has not yet been grasped, but should be, and that is that there is a difference between ruling and governing. In the future, the entire working population will have to rule. In the past, the people in power and the government were confused, because it was believed that the government should also rule. In the future, governments will have to learn to govern. To govern means to express what the working people actually want. This is a difference that must first be learned.

The new government has learned far too much from the old governments, which were governments of domination. It has appropriated far too much of what was always said before, namely that the government will do the right thing. I think that, with regard to the problem of socialization, a significant step forward will have to consist precisely in the fact that what the government does can be properly controlled by the people. The government will have to give its direction, so that one does not rely solely on ballots, but on real life, which basically points the government in the direction of its actions every day. But this will not be achieved if we always say: if we only have a new government, then things will go better, it will socialize. Rather, it is now time for every person to work towards socialization. That is precisely the meaning of our time, that every person feels that they must work together. And we must learn to understand that if we want to socialize, the first thing we must do is socialize domination. Domination must be socialized. It must not be continued in the old forms. Therefore, I do not want to hear any more talk about “the government will do it,” but I would be more satisfied if it were said by the broadest sections of the people: We will do it, even if not only the government but all the devils were against it.

A participant in the discussion reports that the clothing and maintenance office in Feuerbach is about to elect its works council. The commanding officer has expressed himself to the effect that he is not averse to the election of works councils, but must emphasize in advance that these works councils may only have an advisory vote and not a deciding one.

Rudolf Steiner: What the esteemed previous speaker has said is to be avoided by the special way in which the works council is meant here. Of course, if the works councils are to be set up in accordance with the law, which is to be made in the old spirit, they will of course be straw dolls. And so that not straw puppets arise, but real works councils, should, well, let's say, first these wildlings are elected against the plants of the others. And so it will not interest us particularly at first, when it is said: Well, I want to agree to the election of works councils, but they may only have an advisory vote.

We would like to see works councils in place to start with. And I said that we would then strive for the works councils to feel that they are a legislative assembly from which a kind of central economic council will then emerge, and that this will then take over the functions of those who currently want to create straw dolls. We want to arrive at a system of works councils precisely through this special approach and thus prevent this law from becoming reality. To do that, it is necessary that the workers really stand behind this subversion of the works councils. If the workers really stand behind it, there is no need to fear that some law that turns the works councils into straw dolls will be passed. That is what it all comes down to.

I must say that I was quite astonished the day before yesterday when I heard a very interesting personage, who spoke in favour of the socialization of all conditions, but kept saying, “Yes, but you have to bear in mind that now, finally, since November 1918, everything has been achieved. Württemberg has become a free people's state in which everything can be achieved. This People's State of Wuerttemberg will even give itself a wonderful school law, and it will also manage to get a law that properly establishes the works councils, and one should not tamper with the law. So it will be a matter of finally realizing that mere calls for power achieve nothing, but that this power must first be created. But how is it created? It will be created by people no longer believing in things as I have described them, but by more and more people coming together to perform a truly free deed. The power will consist precisely in people becoming more and more aware of this power of theirs. If they only ever talk about this power should come from this or that quarter, then this power will never be attained. This power will be attained when people become aware that they must act on the basis of their own understanding. When there are enough people who understand how to go from the working population to socialization, then I am not at all worried about power.

In a lengthy discussion, in which trade union issues are also touched upon, the speakers unanimously emphasize that, where this has not yet happened, works councils should be elected as quickly as possible despite the resistance of employers and the management of state-owned enterprises.

One speaker refers to the work of Professor Abbe of Jena, who, although under the favorable conditions of a monopoly operation, has done good preparatory work for socialization. He also refers to the ideas of Friedrich Naumann and Walther Rathenau.

Debater Grosshans, Heilbronn: Unfortunately, I was unable to attend Dr. Steiner's lecture, but I heard him speak in Heilbronn once. My 39-month imprisonment in Russia gives me cause to say a few words to you in order to explain my experiences of the various problems that the revolution in Russia has brought with it. When the Bolsheviks' second revolution began in Russia, it was the case that these Bolsheviks made the biggest mistake by chasing away all the technical management and all the officials. They wanted to take their fate into their own hands. I think this is right, but given that the situation in Russia is such that 60% of the population is illiterate, how can they be capable of running the factories themselves? Experience shows, then, that it was fundamentally wrong to chase away all the officials, technical managers, etc., and to want to take the fate into their own hands. In my opinion, these are the thoughts that Dr. Steiner probably presented to you this evening as well, according to which the aim should be to work towards the independence of the entire working population, in order to achieve the long-desired power of the working, the creative people.

What I would also like to discuss are the major mistakes that have been made in our country since November 9. I disapprove of the fact that the war with Russia is still being continued today, even at the behest of the Entente. But do not forget: if we had sought an alliance with Russia, the Entente would not be able to confront us as it is doing today. In Russia and Siberia, I myself have seen colossal quantities of coal lying on the surface, which do not even need to be mined, because they are on the surface. There are colossal copper mines on the Murmansk coast, as well as mercury and all the raw materials that we could so urgently need in Germany today. Furthermore, I saw how in Samara in the Volga valley, colossal grain stocks from 1912, 1913 and 1914 are still lying today, that is, in July 1917, they had not even been threshed. They were piled up in heaps as tall as a three-story house. If our government after the revolution – I don't want to go back to the old system, which has been swept away, because we don't need to devote any more words to it – if we had sought an alliance with Russia after the revolution, if we had worked towards an understanding with Russia, we would have different times today and would not be at the mercy and mercy of our enemies, whom we face powerless.

And I would like to add the following: When I look at what has happened in Germany since November 9, I come to the conclusion that it is high time that we came to an agreement. We, the entire working population, the manual laborers, the intellectual workers, the employees, must trust each other, must be able to rely on each other and not let ourselves be drawn into the party and union barriers again and again. I am convinced that a large number of our leaders have long since been overtaken by the new times. These proposals for socialization prove this to us. When we read through the individual paragraphs, we and our works councils are ultimately nothing more than a token. We may be works councils, but we have no rights; we are only there so that we can sit in the company.

In fact, if you look at this program of our government, it is well over 50 years old, and I believe that this program can no longer be our guide today. Therefore, I ask you, who are here today, to carry these ideals, which Dr. Steiner presented to us, out to the broad masses of the working people. See to it that we come to an understanding and that we introduce the works councils as quickly as possible, because time is pressing. It is high time that our economic life was finally uplifted for the benefit of the whole working people.

Rudolf Steiner: Our main task today was to discuss the importance and necessity of works councils, so that with these works councils we finally have the positive, the actual basis from which further work can be done. I can certainly understand when it is said here that it would have been desirable for us to have made significant progress today. Of course we all wanted that, but we needed this work in order to at least get to the point where we have now achieved the result that we can look more clearly towards the establishment of this works council. I think it is a great step forward that we have been able to tell so many of those present how far the matter has progressed, and that we have even dealt with the matter with regard to the elections and will deal with it even more in the near future. I believe that we can see from this how necessary it is, first of all, to prepare the ground for these works councils and at the same time to see that, if you only have the good will, you can really make progress with it.

There will be hard work associated with what I have called a kind of legislative assembly that arises from the works council, and it seems to me to be of particular importance that we do not harbor the illusion that we can anticipate anything to this primal assembly of the works council. The very issues that the gentleman from Heilbronn mentioned, in connection with the nature of the distribution of goods and the like, will be an essential part of the work of the assemblies that the workers' councils will have to hold. All these matters should be discussed there in terms of the basic conditions of our economic life, so that the appropriate foundations can be laid. I recognize that many good beginnings have been made, such as that of Professor Abbe. Many others have been made as well; in England, in particular, a wide range of experiments have been carried out. It has been rightly pointed out that Abbe was only able to achieve as much as he did because his business was of a very special nature. On the other hand, it has always been shown, precisely where the matter has been pursued further, that these things cannot, after all, lead to a certain end. And then one must raise the question: why is that so? Well, the reason is precisely that these things have been tackled again and again by well-meaning people, like Abbe, in a very individualistic way and not really socially. This is what I ask you not to underestimate and to fail to recognize: that we now really want to take the matter in a social way, that we actually want to create what is then tackled in individual companies, from the social sphere of the whole economy across a closed economic area. Württemberg would come into question here. Only then, when one has worked in this direction, which can probably happen relatively quickly with good will, then one will see how individual operations cannot actually be socialized at all, but that the socialization of the individual operation can only result from the socialization of a closed economic area. Only then will we have the opportunity to truly implement what socialism has always demanded, namely that production should not be for profit but for consumption.

You see, with today's structure of society, there is actually no other way to produce than with a view to profit. The principle of producing to consume must first be created! And whether ways can be found to distribute goods in a corresponding way will depend on this principle. It will depend a lot on finding, I would say, an economic unit cell over a large area.

This economic unit – I would like to say a few words about it – what is it? If we start not from production but from consumption, from the satisfaction of needs, then we must first arrive at a practical conclusion as to what leads to an appropriate pricing in terms of satisfying needs. Today, this is done in an anarchic and chaotic way by supply and demand, and that is why it is so impossible to get anything at all these days. The formula of supply and demand will not help us to achieve the goal of producing for consumption. No, to reach the goal, it is necessary that what I produce must be worth so much compared to other goods that I can exchange it, no matter how the exchange is organized, all those goods that satisfy my needs up to the point where I have produced a product the same as now. In this calculation, everything that one has to contribute for those who are currently unable to produce directly themselves must be included, i.e. for children who need to be educated, for those unable to work, and so on. So what we have to start from is to be clear about this economic unit. Only by doing so will it be possible to achieve a fair pricing system on an economic basis, so that in the future, when more is earned on the one hand, more does not have to be spent on the other, because things naturally become more expensive under the influence of the extra income.

Today, people still complain time and again that there is an unnatural relationship between the price of goods and wages. Socialization will have to solve the big problem of eliminating this difference between the price of goods and wages altogether, because wages as such must be eliminated, because in the future there must be no wage earners, but only free comrades, free collaborators of the spiritual worker, the spiritual leader, because the relationship between employee and employer in its present form must become an impossibility. Only when it is possible to eliminate everything that exists today and that contaminates the pricing process, only then will it be possible to achieve real socialization.

Today, people don't just buy goods, but rather, they buy goods, rights, and labor. You buy rights when you acquire land. The fact that land can be exchanged for production goods today creates an impossible situation, which is due to the fact that land is subject to the same pricing mechanisms as other goods on the general market. Furthermore, the means of production today also cost something after they have been completed. You know that in my book it is assumed that the means of production, when they are completed, are no longer for sale, but are to be introduced into society by other means. In the future, a means of production must only consume labor until it is finished.

If you ask today's economists: What is capital? you will get very different answers. The best economists are ultimately those who say: capital is produced means of production, that is, completely produced means of production that one can own and that can then be sold. Yes, precisely when you look at capital as corresponding to the produced means of production, then capital proves to be a fifth wheel on the wagon. You know that in my book I have listed as the basis for all future distribution of goods that in fact the means of production may only devour labor until it is completed. A locomotive, when it is finished, may only be brought into social circulation through measures other than purchase. We therefore need to be clear about the fact that, with regard to the means of production and land, completely different measures must be taken than have been taken so far. Only by doing this – and there is no other way – only by allowing the means of production to consume human labor only until they are finished, can we truly establish labor's rights. After all, what is money? Money is nothing. He who possesses a great deal would have nothing if he were not in a position, through the existing power relations, to cause so and so many people to do work for his money. They will no longer be able to do so if we set the prices of the means of production in such a way that these prices cease altogether when the means of production are ready. A further problem is that of the distribution of goods:

The gentleman who raised the issue of the distribution of goods must bear in mind that our entire distribution of goods has become one that is entirely in line with capitalism over the past three to four centuries and must therefore also be socialized. This can only happen when we have a primal assembly of people who are truly willing to develop the courage to develop new and necessary forms of pricing against all odds. It will be hard work, and it will be accomplished all the more quickly if we do not take the third step before the first, but decide to really take the first step. Today everything depends – and it is no small thing – on our first step being the formation of this workers' council. This workers' council should not draw up programs and the like, but should start by creating facts.

I just wanted to hint at how difficult the problem of the distribution of goods is. We will only overcome it when we have the foundations, and the foundations are the people who have the trust of their fellow human beings to come together as they have never come together in the world before, not to undertake small atomistic experiments, which are also called socialization, but to really socialize from the whole.

Various names have been mentioned, including that of Rathenau. The name Rathenau reminds me of something that is not at all unimportant for the present. Yesterday the latest issue of “Zukunft” was published, containing an essay by Walther Rathenau entitled “The End”. This essay “The End” is a perfect example of how the capitalist is truly at a loss when it comes to judging current events. Walther Rathenau is more sincere and, in a certain sense, more honest than the others, but he does not go any further than those who do not form their ideas out of social thinking but out of capitalist thinking. I would like to say: What Walther Rathenau says in this essay 'The End' is all too well founded. He says: Well, for a long time we have only heard what was false from all sides. Our first demand should be that people should not be told what is not true, but what is true. And he rightly asks: What if the current peace treaty is not signed? Well, then another one will be made, and then another. But what if it is signed after all? Rathenau says: Rantzau can then do nothing but declare the National Assembly dissolved; he can declare that it no longer makes sense for Germany to have a president, a chancellor, and so on. So there is nothing he can do but place all the sovereign rights of the former German Empire in the hands of the Entente and ask them to take care of the 60 million people in Germany. Yes, that is the truth from this point of view. It is the truth that those people who have steered the destiny of the country so far are now at the end of their tether with regard to Central Europe and have to admit to themselves: We have brought it to the point where we can actually do nothing but offer the Entente: take over our entire government and take care of us! – He is even justifiably a little proud of those who say, “Better to die than to sign the treaty!” – by pointing out that one cannot imagine that 60 million Germans will die at once.

What is there to say about this? Only one thing: what has taken place between Central Europe and the West is a game between capitalism and capitalism. And as long as it is a game between capitalism and capitalism, it will lead to nothing but its end. A new beginning can only be made when work is done from below, that is, when the working population works on a truly serious social reconstruction. [...]* And because we need a beginning for domestic and, above all, foreign policy reasons, this impulse of the tripartite social organism has emerged, which alone is capable of helping a realistic production of goods to its right. At the same time, it is important to find new ways of distributing goods, which will prevent the emergence of what has so far been capital-forming and what has also caused our international conflicts. Therefore, the most important thing today is to recognize that socialization must begin with us having a base of socially minded people. These will make it possible to find the way to such a distribution of goods as I have just indicated, and to arrive at a new way of dealing with the problems associated with land and the means of production. It is not enough just to make demands. Socialization of the means of production is good. But the main thing is to find ways and means of fulfilling these demands. There is no other way than to get down to work. Today it would be quite interesting to talk about how we distribute goods in all sorts of ways. But the first thing that is necessary is that we are finally able to talk to people who are willing to undertake a different distribution of goods. We do not need words that are programs, but words that put people on their feet. Programs will never be of use to us. Today we need people who are truly aware of their power and who put into practice what the words are meant to be the germinal thoughts for.

I ask you not to take this as meaning that it would be good if we had made more progress and already knew what needed to be done. People like Naumann always know what needs to be done; but I would not worry so much if I knew what was to be done in Naumann's sense. Then I would know that these are fine thoughts to enjoy, but they do not socialize. The impulse of the threefold social organism differs from other impulses in that it does not introduce a new program into the world, but merely seeks to show how people in the world must come together, how they must find each other, so that realities and not utopias or programs arise. In this sense, it is a source of satisfaction to me that so many of our friends have already proclaimed how far things have already come. I would ask you not to slacken, to continue the steps that have been taken and to take them faster and faster. Because if we have the councils, everything else can be achieved with their help. Those who today are truly taking what has been said to heart should have understood that. They should have understood that it is essential that we first have people who really want socialization. That is the first actual socialization program. And the first step towards socialization will have been taken when the works councils in the local economic area have been elected. And then we will be able to say: Now we want to take the next step. Because for that, they must first be there for us to take the next steps. For socialization, we need the people who want socialization. And the works council will probably be seen in the future as the first step towards true socialization.

According to the chairman, it has just been announced that four works councils have been elected and that the election of six further works councils is in progress.

Chairman Mr. Lohrmann: I open today's meeting. Unfortunately, it is very poorly attended, which is probably very much due to the fact that the parties are beginning to fight our cause. This is based on an error. I have also argued with various party members. They see in the matter of threefolding a fragmentation of the working class, of the proletariat, in the struggle that will lead to the liberation of the proletariat. For this reason, the party fights the threefolding of the social organism. We can still discuss today what position we must adopt in future, especially with regard to the parties. I believe that this matter can be raised later in the discussion.

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear Participants, I will be very brief in my introduction because I believe that the main thing should be dealt with in speech and counter-speech. The chairman has just drawn your attention to the fact that there is a strong counter-movement against what the “Federation for Threefolding” wants here. And you have also heard the reasons for this counter-movement. I would even like to say that one could express the matter quite differently, that is, what is said about the reasons for which this counter-current asserts itself. If this counter-current were really based on the assumption that a wedge could be driven into the party system, then it would be based on completely false premises. I cannot understand how anyone can maintain that there should be any intention on our part to drive a wedge into the party system. Because, you see, the situation is like this: the parties have their program, and they also have the intention of doing this or that in the near future. They are not prevented from doing this or that! The only thing is that members of any party - they can stay in their party context and go along with what the party context demands of them - are offered the opportunity to take on something positive that can become action. There can be no question of this being connected with the intention that the personalities of the “Federation for the Threefold Social Organism” themselves want to take the places that party members want to take.

You see, the situation has arisen in such a way that it has been seen that with the party program, nothing can be achieved at present with regard to the most important question, the question of socialization. You have experienced the so-called revolution of November 9. You have seen that the party men have taken the lead in the government. But they also experienced that these party men knew nothing to do with what was really at hand, that they had power over it to a high degree. They could experience a great disappointment, yes, I would like to say, I am convinced that they really experience it, if they would not at all respond to something like the striving for the tripartite social organism. You might experience the disappointment that after the second revolution other party members come to the fore who, not out of any ill will but simply because party programs are powerless, after some time produce nothing positive. They may experience disappointment again. The “Bund für Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus” has set itself the task of protecting them from these disappointments, these new disappointments, by pointing out what is needed in the present time and what can actually be implemented.

Parties always have the peculiarity that they gradually depart from what originally inspired them. Parties have a strange destiny in general. Since I did not pluck the impulse for the threefold social organism out of thin air, but rather grasped it on the basis of a truly intensive experience of the social movement over decades, I have also experienced many things. For example, I experienced the rise of the so-called liberal party in Austria. This party called itself liberal, but stood on the ground of monarchism, as was natural in the 1860s and 1870s. So it was a liberal party. But when this liberal party wanted to assert itself within the existing Austrian state, this liberal party acquired a strange designation: “Your Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition”. That was an official epithet for the opposition in the Austrian monarchy.

I have given this example to show that in certain situations the parties are sometimes deprived of their actual impact. But there are even more telling examples. In North America, for example, there are two main parties, the Democratic and the Republican. These two parties got their name right a long time ago: one called itself Republican because it was Republican, the other called itself Democratic because it was Democratic. Today, the Republican Party is no longer Republican at all and the Democratic Party is anything but democratic. The only difference between the two parties is that they are fed by different consortia from different election funds. Parties come into being, have a certain lifespan, which is relatively short, then they die. But they remain, so to speak, even when they are already dead, still alive as a corpse; they do not like to die. But that does no harm. Even if they have lost their original meaning, they are still a rallying point for people, and it is still good that they are there, so that people do not stray. Therefore, if you are not a theorizing politician, as party politicians often are, and if you do not want to be an ideological or utopian politician, but want to stand on practical ground and are aware that in political life you can only achieve something with united groups of people, then you have no interest in fragmenting the parties. We would be doing the most foolish thing we could possibly do if we were out to split the parties, or even wanted to found a new party. We couldn't do anything more foolish. So, that's really not an issue at all.

So one wonders: where is this resistance actually coming from? You see, I would say it comes from people's conservative attitudes. In my many lectures, I experience it again and again that the following happens. Discussion speakers stand up, and when they speak, one has a strange experience. They have only heard what they have been accustomed to thinking for decades. Much of it is correct, because the old things are not wrong. But today new things must be added to the old things! The strange thing that one can often observe in the speakers is that they have not even heard the new with their physical ears. They have only heard what they have been accustomed to hearing for decades. Yes, this is based on a certain inner dullness of the present human mind. One must become familiar with this inner inertia of the present human mind, and one must fight it.

But what is difficult for me to understand is when a certain side says: Yes, we actually agree with what Steiner says about fighting capitalism, as well as with the threefold social organism, which must come. But we are fighting against it! We must fight against it! — Anyone with a certain common sense must find this strange. And yet this point of view exists!

We are now facing the establishment of works councils. Yes, these works councils are an extremely important thing, for the following reason. Today, works councils can be set up in such a way that they are nothing more than a decoration for a mysterious continuation of the old capitalist system. They can be set up in this way, but they will certainly become nothing more than that if they are set up in the sense of the bill, which you are of course sufficiently familiar with. They will certainly become nothing more than a mere decoration if they are appointed on the basis of another bill. The only way to save them is to establish the works councils, as I have often said here, out of the living economic life, that is, to have them elected out of the economic life itself and to join together within a self-contained economic area. Here, because we have to keep to the old national borders, it would be Württemberg. This must be a constituent assembly that creates out of itself what the others want to make law. The rights, the powers, everything that the works councils have to do, must arise from the works council itself. And we must not lose the courage to create the works council out of economic life itself. But you see, as soon as you start at one end, as soon as you really take it seriously, to take the one link of the tripartite social organism as it is to be taken in the economic cycle, then you have to stand on the ground of the tripartite social organism. Then the other two links must at least somehow participate and be set up in parallel, otherwise you will not make any progress. Today it is easy to prove, simply on the basis of the facts, that what the threefold social organism wants is needed. Because, whatever is said about that socialization experiment that was carried out in the East, the important thing is always not emphasized.

If you have followed the reports carefully, you will have heard from the ministerial side in the local parliament in recent days that Lenin has now come full circle again, namely to seek help from capitalism because he doubts that socialization as he wanted it can be carried out in the present day. Such things are indeed noted with a certain satisfaction even by socialist governments today. Let them have their satisfaction. But you see, what matters is that we must ask ourselves why this Eastern experiment has failed. It is because – it really is possible to see this, you just have to have the courage to fight your own prejudices – it is because, above all, no consideration was given within this Russian, Eastern, socialist experiment to establishing an independent socialization of intellectual life. This link was missing, and that is why it failed. And when people realize this, they will know how to do things differently. We must learn from the facts and not from the party program spectres that have been haunting our minds for decades. That is what matters, and I can tell you: either the works councils are set up in such a way that they are the first step towards what is planned on a large scale in the sense of a social organization of the human community, so that something can emerge from the works councils that amounts to real socialization, or it is not done that way, and then real socialization will not be achieved. If we wait until the continuation of the old system of government sets up works councils on the basis of a law, if we always start from the idea that those who want to take practical action are fragmenting the party, then we will get nowhere.

One question must be asked again and again. You see, when we started talking about things here in terms of the tripartite social organism, we and our friends from the parties relatively quickly gained the trust of the working class, the trust of a large part of the working class. At first, they apparently watched this with composure, because they thought, well, as long as a few people are fooling around, it is enough to say: don't worry about these utopians. But then they saw that it was not about utopia at all, but about the beginning of actually doing something practical. The utopia and ideology thing didn't quite work anymore. But then, when we tried to work for the works councils, the accusation of utopia could no longer be maintained at all. And now they are saying that fragmentation is being carried into the party. Yes, but they had to come first and say that; they had to tell the people first that fragmentation was being carried into the party. We did not introduce it. But those who say that they themselves introduced it. Where does the fragmentation come from? There is only one answer to this question: you do not have to talk about it the way you do, then there would be no fragmentation. Well, the matter of the works council is just too serious for such things not to be discussed today. And so I hope that from these points of view, one or other of you will talk a great deal more about the various things that are necessary at this unfortunately poorly attended meeting.

Actually, I am very surprised at the opposition that arises here when I take a closer look at some things. The parties, for example, they all actually need a certain going out beyond themselves, namely a going up to something positive. Yesterday I received the “Arbeiterrat” (Workers' Council), the organ of the Workers' Councils of Germany, whose editorial office is held by Ernst Däumig. In this you will find an article entitled “Geistesarbeiterrat und Volksgeist” (Intellectual Workers' Council and National Spirit) by Dr. Heuser, KPD. It discusses a number of issues. In this article, you will find the following, among other things, which I consider so important that I would like to read it to you. So, the article is by Dr. Heuser, a member of the KPD: “However, it is a condition of life in the socialist state that the intellectual element in the life of the people be given its due consideration. There is a great danger that the one-sided consideration of the materially active part of the people will stifle the spiritual conditions of life in the socialist community and transform the state of the future into a material entity in which spiritual forces have no leeway and thus no freedom. The purposeful working class rightly demands: All political power to the workers' councils – all economic power to the works councils. We demand: All spiritual power to the intellectual workers' councils!” — Please, a member of the KPD! All intellectual power to the intellectual workers' councils! “We demand, in addition to the body of workers' councils (political body) and that of the works councils (economic body), a body of intellectual councils (intellectual body), in which the intellectual element of the people can make itself heard at any time and which, to balance the enormous political and economic rights of the overwhelming manual laborers, sufficient influence over the filling of the more important positions in the community with intellectual, capable personalities, since otherwise there is no guarantee that these positions will not be filled, as has been the case so far, in a spiritless manner according to power-political or material-economic considerations. The militaristic Hohenzollern regime collapsed because it failed to understand the social demands of our time, just as the capitalist sham democracy will collapse despite its 'victories'. A socialist state that unilaterally favors the interests of manual laborers and neglects the interests of the intellectual element of the people is just as untenable: it will create a new class antagonism, new oppression, and new struggles.

Now I ask you – there is no mention here of reading my book – but I ask you: what is this other than threefolding? And now an especially important conclusion:

"However, the spiritual element of nations alone is capable of shaping the international understanding of the future and creating a league of nations that is not hypocritical. Let us assume that in the new socialist state the political workers' councils or the economic works councils have the decisive say – where would that lead? Foreign policy would then either be decided according to (political) power considerations – the cabinet wars of earlier centuries are already a sufficient warning for us – or politics would be decided by economic interests; the world war we have just experienced is a terrible example of this. If, however, politics is guided by considerations of spiritual humanity, then this alone will ensure that a permanent barrier is erected against the temptations of human lust for power and possessions. Only then will civilized man return to justice towards himself and others."

This, you see, is an article by a member of the Communist Party on the “Workers' Council,” which is edited by Ernst Däumig. So, those who see things not only through the party glasses, but see them as they are, confirm what has been said here often, namely that the threefolding of the social organism is in the air. It is strange that more people do not think of it. But here you have the whole story of the threefold social order without our movement being mentioned. In my book, of course, it is fully substantiated and developed in detail. You can already find it hinted at in the appeal “To the German People and to the Cultural World”.

Unfortunately, however, it is still the case that people today cannot rise to the great issues that are really necessary. Therefore, they will not be able to establish even the smallest institutions in the sense that they correspond to the great reckoning in which we find ourselves. Therefore, it is necessary that we really know today that a cure for economic life can only come about if we first set up an independent economic body – at least we have to start with that. That must be the works council. The other things that have to come will also grow out of the works council: the transport council and the economic council. From these three councils, it will follow that the works councils will deal more with production, the transport councils with the circulation of goods, and the economic councils with the consumer cooperative in the broadest sense. Everything else, such as forestry, agriculture, the extraction of raw materials, and above all, international economic life, can then be incorporated into this council system of economic life. It must be clearly understood that economic life does not present the difficulties which are always mentioned in order to create a bugbear. It is only necessary, when one socializes economically, to record the passive trade balance, that is, the surplus of imports over exports, on the consumption side. Then the right thing will come out by itself.

All this is contained in the system of the tripartite social organism, and when people say they do not understand it, it is only because they do not want to take the trouble to really draw the appropriate conclusions, but believe that you first have to draw up a program. Yes, reality is not a program; reality needs more than what can be said in a program. Anyone who talks about reality must assume that people think a little, because reality is very complicated. And I ask you, when it comes to the important question of works councils in a practical sense, not to really imagine the matter as simply as many do today. The future social economic order will have to start from the principle that has been proclaimed for decades, and quite correctly: Production must be for consumption, not for profit. The question is: how do we do it? This question cannot be answered in theory, but rather by you electing works councils and then these works councils coming together in a works council federation. If you proceed in this way, the question of production for consumption will be answered from within people. There is no theory about it, but the solution will be what the living people who come from the economic life have to say, each from their own needs, and what they contribute to the solution.

Things have to be tackled in such a way that you don't call it practical when you say that this or that should happen, but when you put people on their feet who should now figure out the right thing through a living interaction. On the surface, it can be said that it is easy to understand what is related to consumption, because the statistics everywhere tell us how much pepper, how much coal, how many knives and forks and the like we need. And if you have the exact statistics, you will simply have to produce as much as these statistics indicate. Yes, even if the statistics are not too old, they would still be completely useless for the present moment. And even if they are new, they are only valid for this one year, and by next year they will already be outdated. What needs to be said about consumption must be continually grasped and approached in a living way. For this you need economic councils. They must be in constant motion. Because it is not that simple. We cannot rely on literature, but we need a living council system that covers the entire economic system. But you have to have the courage to do that. We need living people in place of what capital has done in an egoistic way, so that the reorganization of economic life is done in a social way. Otherwise we will not get anywhere. This is what must be seriously considered today, especially with regard to the question of works councils. In practice, this means nothing other than that the works councils are elected and then meet in a plenary assembly of works councils. Then this works council will have to be supplemented by the transport council and the economic council. In this way we will move forward.

How the fact that a practical way is now being indicated to lead to the fragmentation of the parties and to a confusion of minds, that is something that another person can see more clearly than I can. I cannot see it. The parties should not be harmed by this, certainly not if they want to form a united phalanx. They may do it. That will be much better than if the people go their separate ways. We certainly have no interest in people going their separate ways. But we do have an interest – especially when we see that nothing positive can be done through mere programs – in the positive being carried into the working class. Our aim was never to found a new party, but the intention underlying the founding of the “Bund für Dreigliederung” was to help the proletariat achieve a truly social position. And this can only be realized when class rule ceases. But then the question is not what small or large numbers of members adhere to a party program, but rather to ask oneself: What has to happen? And because it is increasingly recognized that the proletariat will never achieve its goal with the old party programs, that is why the impetus for the threefold order is there.

I wanted to say this by way of introduction. Now I hope that we will have a lively discussion about the works council question and other related issues. If the works council election is to be the first step towards real socialization, then it can only be good to keep looking at socialization from a different, higher point of view.

Discussion

Chairman Lohrmann: It is very important for us in the present time and under the present conditions that, as Dr. Steiner has read, a communist leader writes that threefolding must be undertaken. When we talk to our comrades, we are dismissed with short catchwords. This is the stumbling block in our work for the election of works councils! We have convinced comrades as leaders in the factories, but they are influenced by the party against our cause, so that they are not even interested. They dismiss the matter without looking into it. Our main work will be to overcome this resistance. The parties fear that the threefold order will create a rift in the working class that will weaken the proletariat in the struggle against capitalism.

But I have also spoken to many comrades who think our cause is good. However, people do not want to appear in public so as not to compromise themselves with regard to the party leaders and comrades. This is the great cancer in our movement. Everyone who has grasped the cause should freely and openly profess it.

At Bosch, we have set up a works council, but only as a provisional measure. This is another problem, because if we now have a provisional works council, the people are not appointed by the workforce, and so not all of the workforce is interested in the matter. Our main task is to interest the whole proletariat in the matter, in order to show the present government, which supports capitalism, seriously, what we want.

Mr. Huth: When I look at the empty hall, I have to say to myself that those who have to bear responsibility as members of the working committee should also have the courage to stand up for what they have recognized as right. And those who recognize the threefold order as right, as their strong applause always showed, also support it. It is said that the threefold order means fragmentation of the working class. Let us take a look at the working class. It is so torn between different parties that they fight each other fiercely that it is almost impossible to fragment it even further.

We need the unification of the proletariat, but not just under any slogan, such as “All power to the councils,” as it is given by the communists, but no one knows what they actually want to say. It is just a slogan, and we need action. When we utter such slogans as “The dictatorship of the proletariat”, it is necessary that we can imagine something under this slogan.

What exactly is the “dictatorship of the proletariat”? Should it come from above or from below? If we wait for the government to create a works council law that meets our needs, then we probably won't see it, and if we want to wait for some proletarian party to give us the guidelines we need to achieve unity of the proletariat, then I am convinced that we will never achieve unity, just as we will never achieve true socialization. Today everyone clings to the words of Karl Marx: “The emancipation of the working class can only be the work of the working class itself.” And when they do start, people say: Leave it alone, you don't understand it, until we tell you what to do. The fact that every party wants something different is what causes the fragmentation. We need a revolutionary act in which every worker, regardless of which proletarian party they belong to, can participate. And one such act is the creation of workers' councils on a truly revolutionary basis, as Dr. Steiner showed us. What Dr. Steiner read as the words of a communist are actually exactly the same as what Dr. Steiner tells us, namely threefolding.

Let us read the brochure in which comrade Däumig's speech at the USP party conference is printed, and let us apply it to practice. He doesn't say “threefolding,” but what he says means threefolding. For example, when he explains that a strict distinction must be made between the political and economic tasks to be solved, and that a special council system must exist for both branches. He only mentioned this briefly because he was not fully aware of it. It will be necessary for the members of the workers' committee who agreed with what Dr. Steiner said not to be deterred by the appearance of the parties, who now see themselves excluded from the truly revolutionary work, and not to be deterred by the clamor that the world, but to consistently continue to implement what they have found to be right, namely to hold elections for works councils in all companies and to have these works councils meet to form a works council that will create the laws itself, which we need.

We have elected the works council in our company, and I would now like to ask all the works councils that have already been elected to register with both the “Federation for Threefolding” and the Action Committee of the United Proletariat. This Action Committee has issued a flyer for the election of the works councils because this Action Committee also wants the election of the works councils to be carried out on the basis of how it has been characterized. It is therefore necessary for the works councils to come forward so that we can get down to the real practical work. It was asked earlier whether the action committee still exists. Yes, it still exists, although the party has called on its members to resign from the action committee. That is an assumption on the part of the party. The members of the action committee have been elected from within the factories, against the parties and against the leaders of the parties. Only if we can go beyond the parties can we achieve a healthy party life. The parties have driven us apart; they cannot bring us together again. They have fought each other so fiercely that, as they themselves say, they refuse to sit down at the same table. But when I, as a member of the USP, talk to a member of the KPD today, we are in complete agreement. This unity can only be embodied in an organization that is supported by the trust of all workers. We must have the courage to tell the leaders what is necessary and right. If they reject the threefold order without having given the idea any thought at all, then it is, yes, I can't find a suitable expression, almost a meanness to simply expect the worker who has familiarized himself with the train of thought of the threefold order to go away and to put him on trial before an inquisition because he considers something to be good and true based on his conviction. If the labor leaders act courageously, we will also be able to convince the workers who are organized in the parties that the threefold order must come. They themselves, the members and leaders of these parties, unconsciously provide us with the weapons to beat them themselves. Read the article in “Spartakist” about the threefold order. You can see that they completely agree with the threefold order but still fight it. Why? If we show the article from the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” to our leaders, I am convinced that the workers who are organized in these parties will also be convinced that the threefold social order must come and that it is a revolutionary act when we work for it and stand up for it. It is only the conservative thinking of all these leaders who want to be revolutionary that prevents them from really understanding the threefold order.

So I would like to ask that in the companies where there is some kind of beginning, where a small start has been made towards the works council election, the committee members should not be misled, but should consistently continue and always take a stand again at every works meeting on the works council election. We must achieve the unification of the proletariat at all costs, and nothing is more important. We will never achieve unity through the parties. The working class will become more and more fragmented, and the socialization of the entire economic life, including intellectual life and political life, would never be realized. In this sense, I would like to ask those present to no longer raise the question: What power do we have? – This is a completely secondary question. We should only come forward and go to the heart of the matter, and we should have the courage to defend the threefold social organism to the parties. Only if we speak with courage and self-respect to those who are too comfortable to embrace a new opinion will we make progress.

Mr. Sander: I have heard all of Dr. Steiner's lectures and have never seen the matter through party glasses, but rather considered it an ideal matter. Now the parties are coming and saying that the path of threefolding is a new party. However, I do not yet consider the matter feasible because we do not yet have humanity for it. We only have party people who quarrel with each other and who have not yet entered into a spiritual life at all. Since the worker has no spiritual life at all, he cannot live with the matter. Only material interest plays a role for the proletariat. In this respect, the proletarian is no different from the capitalist. He also never gets enough. Only through threefolding can things improve; only through it can a recovery of the whole of life come about, for the whole of social life is suffering from the confusion of the three spheres. But the proletarians have often been disappointed and are therefore mistrustful. They are always afraid: Stop, that man and that man - there is something else behind it. They think that Dr. Steiner could also be in the thrall of capitalism. They cannot explain it differently, they just think: the man has been paid! — That, of course, is out of the question. I have also noticed in meetings and lectures that many people clapped so enthusiastically that others said: Why are they clapping like that? — People become so mistrustful as a result of their great disappointment.

In the last Sieglehaus lecture, a USP agitator said that people who support threefolding should simply leave the party. — This is an assumption on the part of the party that must be denounced. The matter of threefolding has nothing to do with the party. The parties themselves fragment the masses. The Action Committee of United Proletarians was a party too, and that was a big mistake. If it had not been a party, then unity would have been much more easily achieved.

The question of works councils is a very serious one. Whether the system of councils adopted by the National Assembly will be developed is another question. But if we set up the works councils now, we will encounter difficulties with the government, which is of the opinion that it is up to us to accept the laws that we present to you. And for the time being, we have to abide by that. Works councils can only be set up when the parties or trade unions order it. I would also say that works councils should have been introduced long ago, and we must thank Dr. Steiner for telling us what a works council looks like. No one has yet stood up and said what a works council is and what its duties and tasks are. We could only learn this from Dr. Steiner. I think the others either conceal it or don't know about it. Even if it cannot yet be put into practice, it is still a tremendous step forward for our time that we have finally received guidelines, that at long last a movement is taking place in the innermost heart through Dr. Steiner. He has gained a deep influence over inner human feeling and thinking. Anyone who has been to the lectures will have to admit to themselves, even if they do not confess it publicly, that the man is right after all. Mr. Sommer from Munich-Pasing: I came here to find out how conditions in Bavaria could be shaped in the future. Bavaria has a very special interest in emerging from the revolution with a profit. The government that now exists in Bavaria has not yet brought a solution that the Bavarian people and also the other German states need. To make it easier to understand what I want to say, I would like to point out that I am a senior civil servant. In my job, one of the things I have to do is procure documents for the very large projects that are now being discussed everywhere, including outside Bavaria, and that are to be carried out in Bavaria. These projects are concerned with major water connections between the Rhine and the Danube. Bavaria is, relatively speaking, extremely favored in Germany. According to recent studies, if everything were done in the best possible technical way – which of course will never happen, it is only the highest limit, the theoretical one, that could be achieved with technical means – one could obtain about six million horsepower from water power. Walchensee project, Middle Isar project and so on. (Interjection: To the point!) I am interested in hearing and being educated in lectures by Dr. Steiner when such great things are being prepared, how this should be done in the future. Is it more expedient to maintain the course that the relevant government in Bavaria has taken so far, or is it more correct and better for the welfare of the people to take the course proposed by Dr. Steiner? On the basis of what I have learned here, I have come to the conclusion that it can only be in the interest of the people's welfare if work is carried out on the basis of Dr. Steiner's proposals. Dr. Steiner's ideas must be disseminated in all circles. I believe that unfortunately relatively very few of the middle and higher officials who have now been drawn into the tow of the existing government and who, in very many cases, at least as advisers, are consulted when drafting laws, are informed about the matter. One reason why things are progressing more slowly than one would like, knowing the seriousness of the matter, is that people are afflicted with fear. I am speaking here in Stuttgart today. It is questionable whether I would be allowed to say what I am saying here in my home country without risking this or that. But in the here and now, we must rise above fear of man and only look at what is best for the general public.

Mr. Pfetzer: We must not believe that we can persuade capitalism to help the working class. This can only be done through violence, through struggle. We can elect the works councils, but what function and what role do the works councils have vis-à-vis the current government, which is completely in control? The government is working closely with capitalist society! The fragmentation of the parties really exists, but I am clear that the workers are united in their plight. But we all have selfishness on our minds, and that is also present in the party leaders. I am convinced that the parties think of nothing but: How can I get a ministerial seat or a seat in parliament? We should elect representatives who can be removed if we have reason to believe that they are harming the general public. Then I am convinced that we will not have parties in charge.

Mr. Lange: There is far too much mystery in the threefold order, in Dr. Steiner's work, and people are adding this and that that he did not say at all. We should simply try to grasp the new for once! One of the speakers said that if you want to buy a place, you have to have money. But Dr. Steiner says that money must be introduced into the economic cycle, and the soil is a means of production; that is what matters. In the new order, everyone who has the desire and love for it must be able to find their place. The gentleman from Bavaria was right to say that we cannot exploit the economic and technical possibilities as much as we could. Why not? Just because of the tiresome money and because money has such a position today as it has? As the previous speaker said, making your body available is not that important. The practical thing is not to let yourself be shot dead. Then you are no longer there and cannot work anymore. You have to realize: I have to be there, I have to be the carrier of the right ideas, I have to really work and not think, that I have to let myself be shot dead. That the parties, like the dear church, are falling out over it: How is the matter likely to be accurate to a hundredth of a millimeter? - and can't come to the right one, you can see that. Schiller said: I don't belong to any church - out of religiosity. - So today you can say: I don't belong to any party. But many then swing back and forth between the parties.

The issue today is to create works councils, and so the question is: What will the government say? — We don't care what the government says, it doesn't matter at all. The main thing is that we set up works councils. People will then make the laws. We first need to have people who can represent the economy. Now they are still scattered. There is no one who would really be the champion of practical fulfillment. People always say: That is theoretical, you can't understand it. — I recently spoke to commercial employees. I said: Now we want to have pushed through our salary and wage demands [...] Yesterday people were talking about it, I wasn't there, but they understood without further ado: We must have workers' councils, we must have people who can really determine what is to become of economic life. It is essential that these people, who are immersed in the economy, do what is necessary. Then people will no longer ask, “What will the government say?” or “What will happen to us?” Nothing will happen to us, but we must simply recognize how simple the matter is and not read into it anything that is not there.

Dr. Unger: The subject of today's deliberations is, first and foremost, the question of works councils, and second, how we can respond to the attacks that have been made against the goals of the “Bund für Dreigliederung”. In this context, it is surely our duty to refer to something that I said publicly last Tuesday at the Siegle House regarding the strong resistance from industry against the election of works councils. Now, please note that these industrialists have more or less decided to reject the works councils as a matter of course. But secondly, those industrialists who are active in the “Federation for Threefolding”, for example, or those who want to join forces with the other productive forces to form works councils, are also rejected. A heresy trial is held by the industrialists over such members of the “Federation for Threefold Order”. So on the one hand we see parties that declare that those who want to propagate the threefold order of the social organism must now be asked whether they can remain in the party or not. On the other hand, we see industrialists doing exactly the same. They see the use of force from both the right and the left against something that can take hold of the mind, the heart, the head, the whole human being as a way out of chaos. Against this, the law asserts itself, which violently seeks to suppress the emergence of an idea. [Some critical remarks about the attitude of the parties and leading business circles follow. The remarks conclude with the words:] I would like to relate something that happened last week. We had a meeting at which a communist said: I followed Dr. Steiner's appearance with great interest. But then I had to tell myself that such theories do not mean very much in the end. Now, however, I see more and more clearly that this 'Federation for Threefolding' has not remained at the level of theory, but is practically taking up an issue that is in fact a fundamental question of the present day, namely the question of works councils. Since I realized this, I am in complete agreement. I have to admit that there is indeed a determination here to move forward with practical work. Now that was a confession we can use.

Another participant in the discussion speaks up: As a worker, I naturally have the greatest interest in the question of works councils being implemented in practice. The Reich bill for the establishment of works councils still represents nothing more than silhouettes. [...] The parties' aversion to the threefold order is primarily because they feel that the working class is being drawn away from the class struggle. But we are still standing on this ground of the class struggle and we will also know how to represent our interests there. For the time being, we just have to achieve practical results, and that is to elect works councils. The question of works councils is also the question of the class struggle. It is even the most practical question, and we must do everything we can to create works councils as quickly as possible. If the bill passes, then the old capitalism will remain. We must learn our lessons from the overall opposition and the statements from the right and the left. How can we do that? There is only one answer: we elect our works councils despite all the hostility. We are promoting the idea of works councils because it is the only true way out of the chaos that we cannot escape from without practical work.

Mr. Navrocki from Berlin-Friedrichshagen: Dear Comrades! If I may be so bold as to make a few comments, I would like to start by saying that before I came here, the problem under discussion was new to me. But as a proletarian who thinks and feels with the masses, it was clear to me that this problem, if it is to be truly addressed, cannot be treated as a party program, but, as Dr. Steiner said, must be addressed from life itself. [After some critical remarks about the way the parties have proceeded so far, Mr. Navrocki concludes his remarks with the words:] Several speakers have said: We must move on to action. But this action can only be to go beyond the government program and prove that it is possible to carry out our program. The most necessary and important thing, however, is that all those who devote themselves wholeheartedly to this program because they are convinced that only by realizing this program can something meaningful be created also commit themselves completely to it. These can only be people who think and feel proletarian. Only someone who is in touch with the masses and has perhaps gone through the proletarian school of misery himself will also care about leading the proletariat out of misery. He will have to realize that the only direction in which work can be done is to lead all people to lofty human thoughts. It is at this level that thoughts also arise, and we are only those who have to go out to realize this program.

Mr. Jansen: I want to be the first to report on the state of the elections for the introduction of works councils. If a workers' group in our company had not taken a separate position, we could tell you that the election of the works councils took place today. Last Monday, we negotiated with our management about the introduction of workers' councils. We presented the various points of view and said: The purpose of introducing workers' councils is to replace private capitalism. We want to replace private capitalism, and that is why we want to elect workers' councils. At first, the director made a strange face, but he is a jovial and reasonable man and came to terms with the situation. He said: Well, whether we hold the election of the works councils a little earlier than is legally required is of no concern to me. By all means call the election. — This as a message. The one group of us who have not yet been able to bring themselves to comment on it will have to answer for it on Monday, so that the election will take place on Wednesday either way.

From discussions with colleagues and others, it can be seen that people feel that the introduction of works councils is a path that leads into the dark. There are a lot of people who are not used to thinking and acting independently. They do not want or desire to do or refrain from doing something in any way. They want to be presented with the consequences of their actions down to the last detail from the outset. But because the works councils are required to have the obligation and responsibility, after they have been elected, to bring the life of the company and the economy into the channels that should be decisive for the welfare of the proletariat and the entire nation, they shrink back. This is too much to expect. And truly, one can understand this. For years and years there has been organization, there has been leading. We must not overlook this. For decades, the majority of our work colleagues have not been able to bring themselves to think independently or to come to an independent act. They need support and guidance in everything. The resistance and dislike on the part of some of the workers can be traced back to this. A certain lack of interest prevails, combined with a great deal of laziness. With Dr. Steiner, one could also speak of mental laziness. We must fight against this.

The question of wages is still too much in the foreground for colleagues. When it comes to works councils, the first question is: will we get more wages? If we could say, two marks more a day, then we would have nothing but friends. But because we say: colleagues, look ahead for once! If you achieve today through struggle that you get one mark more, tomorrow you have to spend one mark fifty more. It's an eternal screw. One drives the other. Your life situation is getting worse and worse. Suddenly you have reached the point where you can no longer exist.

Mr. Lorenz: All shop stewards and committee members should consider it their first duty to put their will into action as quickly as possible, especially by promoting the idea in those companies where nothing is yet known about it. — A works council has been set up in our company a month ago. Of course, as long as the works councils are only introduced in individual companies, it is futile. We need to gather the works councils here as quickly as possible so that a general assembly can be held.

Mr. Baumann: The parties, especially their leaders, repeatedly make the accusation that Dr. Steiner is not a Marxist. He does not stand on the ground of Marxism. So we cannot deal with him. — This remark seems to me to be made by people who take the view that they are venerating the bones of a saint. It must be said that a great many party members are bone or fetish worshippers because they only want to adhere to the old ways. Marx says in his manifesto: Proletarians of all countries, unite! If Marx could speak today, he would use glowing words to point out that parties should not be fragmented and pushed to the fore, but used as a rallying point so that something can be achieved through them. He would say: If you cannot even agree in Germany, let alone in the whole world, then you are not worthy of anything but the contempt of capitalism. We should not place ourselves in the worship of bones, but in the living effect of thought, in the thoughts that Dr. Steiner has shown us. Marx would say: If someone comes after me who brings something new and his name is not Marx but Steiner, then hold fast to the living spirit and not to the old bones.

Mr. Conradt: Much has been said against the threefold social order, but especially that the idea could not be translated into reality. Since the issue of the workers' councils has been raised and factual objections cannot be raised, more convenient means of fighting have been resorted to, in that untruths have been circulated in the parties. One of these untruths was that those who advocate the idea of threefolding receive money for doing so. The one who said this said that for reasons of purity, the party must expel such people. What should be done with those in the party who have to resort to defamation for reasons of purity? When the speaker in question rebuffed Mr. Gönnewein and said that no one would seek to discredit the other if they had not done so themselves, the speaker used a word that was appropriate in this case: he shouted “meanness!” But the word falls back on him, because he has approached us with such an accusation. So the resistance we experience increases. At first it is unobjective objections, then meanness. We will see what will follow. We absolutely must discuss the question of threefolding with those who have so far avoided discussion. Although the leader of the USP has said that threefolding should not be discussed at every meeting, I still think that we can get things moving in party meetings. That is the right way to justify ourselves, not before the small circle of initiates, but before the general public.

[The following resolution is read and unanimously adopted:]

Resolution

The assembly of many workers' and employees' committees in Greater Stuttgart, which took place on June 14, sees the threefold social order as the right practical way to heal our entire national life, despite all the hostility from employers' associations, trade unions and party leaders.

The assembly recognizes the legally prescribed works councils merely as a shadowy form of the same, which will never be able to gain influence over socialization, and therefore has no interest in the election and establishment of such shadow works councils.

Rudolf Steiner: Today's discussion has only expressed approval. Therefore, I will be able to be quite brief in my closing remarks and only make a few comments.

You see, it is good, when faced with such facts, as they have been discussed many times today and which have a hindering effect on what one wants to do in the sense of the progressive socialization of the human community, when faced with such facts, to really look at the whole attitude, at, I would say, the whole state of mind from which something like this arises. At such a serious moment as the present, we should have no illusions or allow ourselves to be deceived. A few days ago you will have read a strange article. I believe it was in the “Sozialdemokrat”. It talks about “pushing and pulling behind the scenes”. The underlying issue is that a so-called “Daimler-Werk-Zeitung” has been founded. This “Daimler-Werk-Zeitung” is supposed to state that the management has no inclination or trust in conducting oral negotiations with the workforce. That is why they are trying to set up a company newspaper. If you read what one or the other writes, it might be easier to reach an understanding. Well, I read this in the Sozialdemokrat. It reminds me that it does happen that people who live together in a family cannot communicate properly, and then, even though they live in the same apartment, they write letters to each other. But apart from that, it is pointed out that a great deal of work has been done behind the scenes, probably between me – this is clearly stated – and between Mr. Muff, who is said to be a major, and between Director Dr. Riebensam.

But you see, I heard about this Daimler factory newspaper for the first time through the article in the “Sozialdemokrat”. I knew nothing about Mr. Muff, with whom I am supposed to have conferred, until then. I don't even know him. Dr. Riebensam was at various public meetings, and I occasionally spoke to him quite publicly after these meetings. Beyond that, however, I never had a meeting with him. We merely met each other at a few gatherings, which were not exactly the place to conspire against the Stuttgart working class or against the Daimler workers in particular. There were workers from the Daimler factory standing around everywhere, because most of the gatherings were attended by the Daimler workers themselves. You see, these things arise from strange ideological backgrounds, and you have to be very attentive to see the matter in the right light.

Then I would like to point out how strangely this or that point is thought of. I once attended a meeting where socialization was discussed in such a way that ultimately nothing could come of it. I cannot go into the matter itself now. Well, there was also a trade union leader who said: We cannot agree with this matter of threefold social order. I thought that the man would now explain to me his reasons for opposing the threefold social order. But I miscalculated. He knew nothing about it. But he did say, “Yes, you know, you published a flyer with the words ‘Lord’ and ‘Sir’ underneath it, and when you are in such company, we want nothing to do with you.” You see, there is the condemnation, which may have taken on great dimensions now. It comes from very strange ideological backgrounds. I think it would be quite good, precisely in order to muster the impetus to do the things that are important in the first instance, if one were to face such things, which actually arise from quite murky backgrounds – I could also say are washed up – if one were to face such things quite disillusioned. For we are living in such serious times today and need to approach the things we do in such a serious way that we must resolve to believe that progress will only come to those who work with pure means and from a pure mind.

My esteemed audience, unfortunately, a great deal of work has been done all over the world in recent decades with impure means and an impure mind, and the world has ultimately come to the great murder through this way of working with impure minds and impure means. If we really want to get out of what we have gotten into, then we need moral strength and courage. That is what I want to say quite openly, especially because it would give me particular pleasure if those people who have so often worked with unclean means and, by virtue of their social position, veiled this would be to point out to them that those whom they have oppressed and in whom the consciousness of their humanity has now awakened, work only with pure means and want to show them how they should have done it. It would give me great pleasure if it could be said of the German proletariat, in particular, that it can be a model for the world in terms of the choice of means. I believe that a great deal will depend on such things in the near future. If you look at the international situation – you only have to look a little beyond the borders – it is immediately apparent that people around the world are waiting for a different tone to be adopted in Germany than was the case before 1914 and after 1914. But not only those in Germany who are still capable of thinking, but also those in the world, that is, outside of Germany, do not believe in anything positive coming from Germany as long as the continuers of the old ways are on top. These things are very important. And that is why courage must not be lacking, so that, despite the present government and despite all party leadership, those whose names have not yet been mentioned will stand up. That they will stand up, lift themselves out of the broad masses of humanity and say: We are here! — Therefore create a works council in a sensible way, because I believe that the works council can be the first step for new people to come to the surface, who judge from completely different backgrounds than those who are now showing the peculiar spectacle of governing the world.

It is a national and an international matter that is at stake. Look at such a question as that of the works councils from as high a point of view as possible. Try to create something with it that can exist from a high point of view for the first time, then you will have created something great – even if it is only a beginning, but it will be a beginning to something great. We must not be fainthearted and say: We don't have the people, the proletarians are not yet ready in their education, we have to wait. — We can't wait any longer, we have to act, and we have to have the courage to set up the works council so that it is there. Then the people who have not yet been able to emerge will come to the fore from among them. That is precisely the important thing, that we put people in the right places, where they belong. Because those who have come to the fore so far have shown quite clearly that they have had their day. We need a new spirit, a new system of human activity. We must be quite clear about this. We must write this very thoroughly into our souls. If we take the matter bravely in hand, then we shall make progress. Therefore, I would like to say again and again: Let us take the risk, let us set up the works councils! I have no doubt that there will be those in this works council who have something sensible to say about the progress of human development. Because if one wanted to doubt that, then one would have to despair of humanity altogether, and I do not want that.

Chairman Mr. Gönnewein: In the name of the “Federation for Threefolding” I hereby open tonight's discussion evening and warmly welcome you to it. I assume that tonight's evening will take us a step further. In various companies, works councils have already been elected, and this evening these works councils will be given the opportunity to express everything they have to say here, and also to ask questions so that they can be dealt with in detail by Dr. Steiner, so that any doubts can be dispelled. Today's events force us more than ever to take a close look at what the coming period will bring us. I therefore assume that everyone present will make full use of the discussion. I give the floor to Dr. Steiner.

Introductory words

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees! I would like to begin with a brief introduction, as is also customary in these meetings, and hope that everything of importance to be discussed today will come up during the discussion.

We have repeatedly gathered here to discuss the question of the election of workers' councils, and we have tried to make clear in these meetings from which point of view the question of workers' councils is to be treated here, from the point of view of the tripartite social organism.

This threefold social organism should structure the whole of social life into three parts, namely the economic, the legal or state, and the spiritual sub-organism. So what has until now been chaotically merged into a unified state should be divided into its three natural parts. One may ask why this should actually happen. It should happen because historical development itself has been pressing towards this threefold order. Thus, this historical development of humanity shows us that, especially in the course of the last three to four centuries, but particularly in the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century, everything that is human relationships has been pushed together into the unitary state, and that it is precisely because economic conditions have been pushed together with state and spiritual conditions that we have ended up in catastrophes. Until one is willing to recognize that it is only possible to make progress in terms of a recovery of the situation and thus also in the development of humanity by dividing this unitary state into the three parts, one will not be able to make any progress at all, neither with socialization nor with democracy. That is why we have approached the question of workers' councils from the point of view of independent economic life. You can most easily understand the necessity of dividing the unitary state, which has so far been a failure, into three parts if you recognize how everything in economic life differs from actual state and intellectual life. In economic life, on the one hand, everything is subject to natural conditions. These change and vary. The size of the population also plays a role. Then, in economic life, everything depends on people organizing themselves into certain professional branches and professional groups. Furthermore, economic life contains an individual and personal factor, which is the sum of human needs. It is easy to see that the sum of human needs would turn people into a kind of machine for social life if the needs of the individual were somehow to be regulated. That is why you also find it clearly stated in the socialist view, and already with Marx, that in the real socialist community there should be no standardization, no regulation of the needs of the individual. One person has these needs, another those, and it cannot be a matter of some central office dictating to people what needs they should have. Instead, it is a matter of fathoming out needs from life and ensuring through production that needs can actually be satisfied.

If you look at the whole of economic life, you will see that everything in economic life must be based on the principle of contract. Everything that makes up economic life is, or should be, based on performance and consideration within a social community. This fact also underlies the demands of the proletarians today, since it has been established that this fact is still not taken into account at all today, namely that a service must be reciprocated. Today the principle still prevails that one takes from the labor of others what one needs or believes one needs, without having to give anything in return. That is why the demands of the proletarian masses today express the view that in the future there should no longer be the possibility of satisfying one's needs from the achievements of the working population without the latter receiving something in return. It must be clear that in economic life it always depends on the specific circumstances, that is, on the natural conditions, the type of occupations, the work, the performance. One can only manage if one establishes connections between the different types of services. Not everything that is done today can always be utilized in the same way. Services that will only be provided in the future must also be foreseen. Yes, there is still much to be said if one wanted to fully characterize economic life in this way.

Because everything in economic life must be based on performance and consideration, and because these two depend on different things, everything in economic life must be based on the principle of contract. In the future, we must have cooperatives and associations in economic life that base their mutual performances and considerations on the principle of contract, on the contracts they conclude with each other. This contractual principle must govern all of life and particularly life within consumer cooperatives, production cooperatives and professional associations. A contract is always limited in some way. If no more services are provided, then it no longer makes sense, then it loses its value. The whole of economic life is based on this.

The legal system is based on something fundamentally different. It is based on the democratic adoption of all those measures by which every human being is equal to every other in terms of human rights. Labor law is also part of human rights. Every person who has come of age can stand up for this. Every person who has come of age can participate – either directly, for example by means of a referendum, or indirectly through elections or a parliament – in determining the rights that are to prevail among equals. Therefore, it is not the contract that prevails on the legal, state or political level, but the law. In the future, laws will also regulate working conditions, for example. Thus, laws will determine the time, extent and type of work, while what is to be achieved within the legally stipulated working hours will be regulated by contracts within the economic body.

Intellectual life, on the other hand, is of a completely different nature. Intellectual life is based on the fact that humanity can develop its abilities for state and economic life. However, this is only possible if the foundations are laid in intellectual life for the appropriate development of the human faculties, which are not simply given to a person at birth but must first be developed. It would be a great mistake to believe that mental and physical abilities — the latter are basically equivalent to the mental ones — can be recognized and cultivated in the same way as state and economic matters. What relates to education and teaching, for example, cannot be based on treaties, laws or ordinances, but must be based on advice given for the development of abilities.

Yes, these three spheres of life, spiritual life, legal life and economic life, are very different, so that their mixing is not only a complete impossibility, but also means great harm for human development. Our present confusion and social ills have arisen precisely from this mixing. If we now embark on a problem such as the establishment of works councils, we must first understand from which of the three areas of life the appropriate measures are to be taken.

You see, you are right to find in Marxism the view that in a social community everyone must be provided for according to their abilities and needs. But here the question arises: what is the way to provide for everyone in human society according to their abilities and needs? The way to let everyone have their rights with regard to their abilities is through a completely free intellectual life, independent of economic and state life, with the education and school system. And the possibility of letting everyone have their rights with regard to their needs is only given in an independent economic life. In between lies what has been forgotten in Marxism: the legal life, which has to do with what is expressed neither in economic life nor in intellectual life, but which simply depends on the fact that one has come of age and develops a relationship with every adult citizen within a self-contained area. What I do in economic life is subject to the laws of commodity production, commodity circulation and commodity consumption. How I work in the economic life is subject to the law. This distinction must be made in a fundamental way from now on. Only in this way can we go beyond what is today called capitalism and what constitutes the present wage system. Because capital and the wage system are components of economic life, everything that could lead the economic life to recovery is actually undermined. But we should not believe that things are really as simple as many people still imagine them to be. But if we start to do some really positive work, first with the workers' councils and then with the economic councils, it will become clear that this work will be a major, comprehensive undertaking. One of the most difficult tasks within the so-called socialization is to find out how, within the social order, performance and consideration can be regulated in the right way. And the works councils will have to make the first start with this regulation, that is, with the true socialization. This means that the works councils have been given a major, fundamental goal, because they will have to take seriously for the first time what others only talk about: socialization. What people today usually imagine by socialization is, for the most part, not only not socialization, but at best a kind of fiscalization. In some cases, there is a complete lack of clear thought and imagination.

As I said, many people today have a much too simplistic view of the matter, which is also due to the fact that economics and, in general, the science of human coexistence - forgive the expression - is still in its infancy, or not even that, because it has not yet been born. It is true that people rightly say: in the future, we shall not produce in order to profit, but we shall produce in order to consume. That is quite right, for in saying this people mean that it is important that everyone should receive what corresponds to his needs. But a healthy community would not yet have been created. This is only given when the performance is matched by a return service, when people are willing to provide something of equal value in return for what others work, produce and deliver for them. And this problem is very difficult to deal with, as you can see from the fact that current science has no concrete ideas or suggestions on the matter. At best, you will find the suggestion today that the state should be replaced by the economic state, a kind of large economic cooperative.

But you see, this overlooks the fact that it is impossible to centrally manage an economic entity if it goes beyond a certain size and encompasses too many different economic sectors. But people would only realize this when they have actually set up the so-called economic state. Then they would see that it does not work that way. The matter must be settled in a completely different way, namely, in such a way that, even if one adheres to the principle that production must take place in order to consume, nevertheless, the performance must be matched by a corresponding consideration. One can now say: So we do not care about the comparative value of one good with the other. — What some economists say today sounds like this: We only care about needs and then we centrally produce what is necessary to satisfy those needs and distribute them. — Yes, but you see, it turns out that you are forced to introduce the work compulsion. But this is a terrible measure, especially when it is not necessary. And it is not necessary! The compulsion to work is only considered necessary because of the superstition that there is no other means of realizing the principle of performance and reward than the compulsion to work. Furthermore, no consideration is given to the sophisticated means that will be found in the future to avoid work if, for example, the compulsion to work is introduced by law. So, it is not just that the compulsion to work is unnecessary, but it is also that it could not be carried out at all. But, as I said, the main thing remains that it is not necessary if one thoroughly implements the principle that every performance must be matched by a corresponding return. This can now be concretized in the following way.

Do people not have to work, that is, perform some service, if they want to live in human society? By doing so, they produce something that has meaning for others. What a person produces must have a certain value. He must be able to exchange what he produces for what he needs in the way of products from the work of others, and he must be able to do so for a certain length of time. He must be able to satisfy his needs with what he exchanges until he has produced another product of the same kind. Let us take a simple example: if I make a pair of boots, this pair of boots must be worth enough so that I can exchange this pair of boots for what I need until I have made a new pair of boots. You only have a real measure of value when you include everything that has to be paid for people who cannot work, for children who need to be educated, for those who are unable to work, for invalids, and so on. It is possible to determine the correct price of a product. But to do so, the following is necessary: the moment too many workers are working on an item, that is, when an item is produced in too large a quantity, it becomes too cheap. I do not get enough to satisfy my needs until I have produced the same product again. At the moment when too few workers are at work, that is, when an article is not produced in sufficient quantity, it becomes too expensive. Only those who have more than a normal income would be able to buy it. It is therefore necessary, in order to make a fair pricing possible, to ensure that the right number of workers – both intellectual and physical workers – are always working on an article. This means that if, for example, now that we are living in a transitional period, it were to emerge that any given article is being produced in too many factories, that is, that it is being produced in excess, then individual factories would have to be closed down and contracts would have to be concluded with the workers of these factories so that they could continue to work in another industry. Only in this way is it possible to ensure that fair prices are set. There is no other way to do it. If too little of a particular article is produced, new factories would have to be set up for the production of that article. That means that it must be constantly ensured in the economic life that production takes place under consideration of certain proportionalities. Then the wage relationship can cease, then the capital relationship can cease; only the contractual relationship between intellectual and physical laborers regarding the just [fixing of the share due to those who jointly create the product] needs to continue to exist. One actually lives towards this ideal, one hopes for this ideal, one must steer towards this ideal, and everything that does not steer towards this ideal, those are unclear ideas.

What is basically intended by the threefold social order is that people should not be deceived, but that they should be told what the living conditions of the social organism are, that is, how one can really live. And it is possible for the present sick social organism to become healthy. But then one must also really look at the concrete living conditions. That is what matters. But if that is to happen, if the economy is to be managed in such a way that the right prices are created, then this forms the true basis for socialization. The old wage relationships, where people fight for higher wages, which usually results in higher prices for food, housing, and so on, must be overcome. The function and significance of money today must be changed. In the future, money will be a kind of portable accounting, a record, so to speak, of what one has produced and what one can exchange for it. All this is not something that can only be pursued in decades, but can be pursued immediately, if only enough people understand it. Everything else is basically wishy-washy. Therefore, the first thing to be aware of is that it is essential for the works councils not to be based on a law, but to emerge directly from economic life. And so, in a primary assembly of the works councils, the experiences of economic life must be at the center. Then the functions and tasks of the works councils will emerge. That is what must be understood, namely that this system of works councils must arise out of economic life and not out of the old state life, and that this system of works councils must be the first thing to really show what socialization is. You can only socialize if you have socializing bodies in economic life. And the works councils should be this first body that really socializes out of economic life.

You cannot socialize through decrees and laws, but only through people who work out of economic life. Instead of merely fantastic demands, the impulse of the threefold order of the organism wants to put the truth. And that is what matters today. And I believe that today people can learn what is needed. So far, people have imagined various ways of improving the ailing life of the social organism. And how did things turn out?

You see, I have mentioned this before and now I want to refrain from talking about what ideas the previous practitioners of life had in January 1914 until August. But I want to talk about what the practitioners imagined when the misfortune occurred that led us into the present catastrophe: Bethmann Hohlkopf, I wanted to say Bethmann Hollweg, said, it will be a violent but short thunderstorm. - So he spoke of the coming war, and others have said something similar, for example: In six to seven weeks, the German armies should be in Paris and so on. The practitioners always said that at the time, and so it has always been in recent years. And now again, in the October-November catastrophe, what was not said then! Everything that was said has ultimately led to yesterday, which has presented us with hardship and misery. It is now time that we no longer listen to what people predict, but that we finally listen to what is being thought out of reality. Today, there is a lot of talk, for example, on the part of economists and political scientists, but it is never mentioned that the principle that performance must be matched by a return service is based on strict principles of reality. This principle amounts to everyone getting what they need to satisfy their needs for their performance until they have provided a new service.

We therefore want to set up works councils to which we can explain the specific task of socializing the economy. Legal norms will not help here, nor will general socialist ideals. The only thing that will help is what is honestly and sincerely taken from reality. And that is what should be brought into the works council. The establishment of the works council should really be the first step towards taking the socialization of economic life seriously. If we start somewhere, further steps will follow. Then people will also be found who will try to create equal rights for all people and the necessary institutions in which people's abilities are fostered. Today, oppression still reigns, as does the phrase. I have often referred to the phrase “free rein for the hardworking”. However, these words usually conceal very selfish interests. Only through a truly free spiritual life can human abilities develop in the future. And only in a legal life in which every human being is equal to another can political conditions develop anew. And in economic life, fair prices must prevail. Then everything will not be geared towards competition between capital and wages or competition between individual companies. But for this to happen, it is necessary to replace the competition that culminates in the interaction of supply and demand with sensible resolutions and contracts, which must emerge from bodies such as the works council that is to be established.

What do we actually want with the works council? With the works council, we want to make a start on a real, honestly intended socialization of economic life. And it can fill one with deep satisfaction that, despite some resistance, which has of course been amply asserted in certain circles of the local workforce, the idea of works councils has been met with understanding, so that we have already been able to report about twelve works councils and negotiations are to take place regarding the election of further ones. But if something truly fruitful is to come of it, then works councils must be elected in all companies in the Württemberg area. Then the works councils from the most diverse industries must gather, because only through negotiations, through the exchange of experiences and the resulting measures, can what is the beginning of real socialization come about. You can have this socialization tomorrow, but you cannot just talk about it and let theorists make laws; instead, people must be put in place with whom true socialization can be carried out. Because socialization is not something that will be achieved through laws, socialization will come when there are a thousand people in Württemberg industry. We have tried to tackle the issue where the reality is, and the reality for socialization is in the flesh and blood of the people and not in the laws that are written on paper and are then supposed to magically be transformed into reality.

What we want to derive from the reality of people of flesh and blood is called utopia. One might ask: Who are the real utopians? We don't want a utopia! Or is it a utopia to elect a thousand people who can achieve something in the economic field? Are a thousand people of flesh and blood a utopia? Yes, just when it was seen that it was not a utopia, but a number of real people who want to carry out socialization, people started talking about us striving for a utopia. We do not want a utopia, we want the purest, truest and most honest reality! That is what matters to us. That is something that one need only recognize. Therefore, regardless of what is being said by those utopians who have always gone wrong with their utopias, that is, by those utopians who are campaigning against the reality represented by the “Federation for Threefolding”, I ask you to make yourself independent, to rely on your own judgment for once. I believe that any rational person can distinguish utopia from reality. And if people accuse me of merely prophesying something, I think that anyone who has heard what I have said today will no longer speak of mere or even false prophecy. I am not prophesying anything, I am only saying: if a thousand people are chosen from all walks of life, then that is not a prophecy, because what they will do, they will do without prophecy, because they will be a living reality. Enough has been prophesied in recent years. Before November 9, what new victories were always prophesied: “We will win because we must win!” — Those who hurl the word “prophecy” like some kind of slander at those who speak from reality should take note of this. The others have done enough prophesying, that is, the leading circles so far. Now one has to speak to the world in a different tone, one that is already present in the hearts and souls of people. And you elect such people to your works council. Then you will be able to put forward the right thing for true socialization in the world.

Discussion

The chairman, Mr. Gönnewein, thanks Dr. Steiner for his important remarks and calls for discussion.

Mr. Lange: He first speaks of the danger of Anglo-American capitalism taking hold in Germany, thereby enslaving everyone.

We must help ourselves. This self-help consists in our saying: We take the economy into our own hands. The German capitalists do not want to exploit us after all. We have to go together with the German capitalists in a certain respect. There are also people among them who honestly want to work on the reconstruction. But the workers and employees must say: We take the factories into our own hands, we are no longer interested in strikes, but in work, and in work that is truly constructive. And for that we need the works councils. We need raw materials and land. But reconstruction is only possible if the working people come together. As workers, we must stand firm: only work can redeem us. The speaker continues to talk about monetary conditions.

Mr. Roser: Over the past few weeks, we have had various discussion evenings and talked about the works councils and economic councils. Many of you will be familiar with this and will have gained some insight into what the threefold social order is striving for. Nevertheless, one must repeatedly observe that the idea is still not sufficiently understood. But this is of course understandable, because the threefold social order represents a completely new idea, and as with everything new, this idea is also met with a certain pessimism. But at least we can state that the reception in those circles that have an interest in it can appear satisfactory. It must undoubtedly be emphasized that it is precisely this combining of the three organs, economic life, politics and spiritual culture, in the old state system that has conjured up so much of this terrible misery for the German people. When we read Dr. Steiner's book, we can clearly see that if we are unable to fundamentally separate these three organs, that is, to cultivate each according to its nature, then we will inevitably end up in a mess. We should therefore strive with all our might for this threefold order. As workers, we naturally have the greatest interest in economic life, because that is the factor, that is the institution in which we are represented. Therefore, we must also show the greatest interest in the economic sphere. Of course, we must also have and gain some influence in the legal or political and intellectual parliament, but as manual and mental workers, we must deal primarily with the economic body, with the economic parliament.

The question has been raised repeatedly: what area, what work is there for us? This work has been mentioned and discussed many times. It is the formation of works councils. Socialization, which has often been discussed by Dr. Steiner and other speakers, is increasingly being demanded from all sides. Why? Because it is the only way out of the chaos that can lead our economic life back to a healthy path. Socialization means the nationalization of all means of production, the transfer into the hands of those classes that can dispose of and determine them. Therefore, it would be of the utmost importance that we show even more interest in the question of works councils than we have done so far. But it is understandable, given the political circumstances, the political storm clouds that have been hanging over us in the last few weeks, until yesterday's conclusion. All of this has not allowed us to gain proper insight into this issue. I believe that things should be different in the future. We simply have to deal with this question, and deal with it very intensively, precisely because of the circumstances that arose yesterday with the signing of the peace treaty. It is self-evident: if we are not able to take socialization into our own hands, then we will never achieve our goal, but will instead drive our people towards general enslavement and impoverishment. Therefore, we must first and foremost take the question of works councils energetically into our own hands, regardless of anything that stands in our way. If we expect the works councils from the law, then we will get none, but only living paragraphs that actually have nothing else to do than to carry out what the previous exploiters have done with us so far. But they should be nothing more than the tool of the working class, of the whole nation.

We must create the works councils as an institution so that they do not have to dance to the tune of capitalism. The catastrophe of war in particular has given us enough to think about. We, who are active in the working committee of the “Federation for Threefolding”, have clearly recognized that, whatever proposal is made, there is no better idea than threefolding. Threefolding, and with it the independence of the individual corporate bodies, will form the basis upon which our national whole can be rebuilt. We want to strive for something other than the subjugation of the proletariat. Nor do we want to be responsible for the state continuing to use the entire economy for political purposes, only to ultimately sacrifice it to militarism. We must make economic life independent, so that something useful for the whole life of the nation may come of it. I therefore appeal to you: work to ensure that the idea of threefolding is carried to the masses, despite all challenges from right and left. The idea of threefolding is only challenged by those elements who do not want to take it into account and do not want to let it arise for their own benefit. That is why they fight it. I believe that we can only improve the life of our people if we realize the basic idea of threefolding: the independence of economic life, of legal life and of spiritual life. Then we will see whether we cannot count on a better well-being of our people.

Mr. Georg Müller: Dr. Steiner has left some points about the works councils still very unclear. Firstly, you will all agree with me that the establishment of works councils is not as easy as some people imagine. The law has already put a stop to that. If we want the works council system as described by Dr. Steiner, then we will have to fight hard in the future, because we must be clear about one thing: whatever is done by the workers, it will always be undermined by capitalism. Our greatest opponent is still capitalism today. As soon as you come up with practical proposals, you will find that everything you do is undermined. Therefore, I ask: what is the easiest way for us to get past this harassment? Some of you will eventually say that the only way is to strike. But now we are not talking about striking. We have to find more practical ways to implement our ideas. If the workers really want to get together, discuss and work together, we will find other ways, even outside the law. We don't just want a consultative vote, we want a decisive vote in the works councils. Not only capitalism, but also a large part of the bourgeoisie opposes this. It will take decades to push through the works councils as they are meant here. The worker cannot do it alone, and the others will not give up their companies to socialize them. The question now is: how far will the struggles go to achieve this? Above all, however, the workers must stick together more.

Mr. Hahl: As a representative of the “General Association of German Bank Employees,” I would like to say a few words. I can do this based on the experience I have had in my varied life.

I was head of a company in Egypt and as such had the best experiences with involving colleagues, not just giving orders but also educating them about business matters and asking for their opinions. This stimulated business interest. Today's law on works councils puts a stop to the real participation of employees. Above all, this law does not eliminate the feeling among employees that they are still in a kind of slave relationship to the dominant capitalism. Through tripartism, employees are introduced to the secrets of the company and educated about all its branches, so that they can have not only the right but also the ability to throw their vote into the balance when it comes to management. I would also like to say this to the previous speaker: if you have the skills, you will not be so easily taken advantage of by the capitalist manager. In the realization of the works councils in the sense of threefolding, one does not work against each other, but together on the basis of complete equality. The entrepreneurs rail against this and hold fast to the old rule of domination, without realizing that they are running the risk of losing everything. For the rebellion that is arising today in the ranks of the workers against the material and spiritual domination of capital will not cease until the human labor force, which is degraded to the level of a commodity by the circumstances, loses its slave character. This can only come about through the threefold social order and through the workers' councils that it demands. No matter how much the government socializes, it cannot escape the unrest until it tries to solve the problem through threefolding. As long as it only looks at the actions of other people and does not study the motives, it cannot get a picture of what the movement of the proletariat means. Today, the government believes that the proletarian movement is a passing fancy that can be dismissed by posters on advertising pillars with the slogan “Work! Work! Work!” The sufferings that are emerging today, however, are the logical consequences of the mixing of economic, intellectual and legal life. During the war you were able to see how the pastor in the pulpit even had to say what the state prescribed as good patriotism. This is the confusion, hence the disaster. This is the cause of the evil, that is where the lever should be applied, so that the individual areas are made independent, so that the schools and the church no longer have to do what the state prescribes.

The day before yesterday, the new Prime Minister spoke those words about the life and death of our nation. These words can be applied here with full justification. A struggle against the enslavement of the working class is taking place here. And if this slave relationship is not abolished - and it will only be abolished through the threefold social order and the workers' councils it demands - then it could be that we are indeed doomed to die as a nation. Then it could be that the passions conjured up take everything from capital, that we become the battlefield between Bolshevism and the Entente. That is why I consider it the urgent duty of everyone to advocate tripartism and workers' councils. That is why I call on you once again to elect workers' councils in the spirit of the tripartite division of the social organism.

Mr. Münzing: I would like to start by mentioning something that is in the book “The Key Points of the Social Question”. It says on page 78: “Whatever increase in capital from the means of production – after deduction of the rightful interest – owes its existence to the effect of the entire social organism.” “After deduction of the legitimate interest” - I would like to ask you to tell me what I should understand by that. In my opinion, the whole question that revolves around capitalism and socialism ultimately boils down to the words: ‘Money bears interest, capital bears interest.’

If we examine the idea more closely, we can repeatedly find that in reality money differs in such a way that it bears interest without working. As workers, we must be disgusted when we hear that money works. Who works? Not money, surely! Money is used to make others work in order to obtain interest. Today there are views that say: the social question can be solved by abolishing commercial profit and the like, and there are many other recipes for solving the social question. I believe that the solution to the social question could only be achieved if the parties were to prescribe: Interest forbidden! That also affects the war loan and the money in the savings bank. I would like to ask you to think this idea through, even if it is not the topic of tonight's discussion. If a government came today and said that money would no longer bear interest, the whole situation would be postponed immediately. All the speculation is ultimately based on the fact that capital in the savings bank bears interest, that money has to work. I miss this simple demand for the abolition of interest in all the programs. And I would like to ask Dr. Steiner for information in this regard. I am a newcomer, but I have come across this question again and again. Rent also belongs in this question. It should then be paid in such a way that certain wear and tear of a house would be paid for, because a house does lose value through use. And to the works councils: if the works councils are to have real practical value, they must have the opportunity to influence not only wage regulations but also price regulations.

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to respond only to the two direct questions. Mr. Müller is concerned, in a sense, that the works councils could not prevail and that, above all, if they approached the employers with what they assumed to be their powers, they might simply be rejected. You see, in such matters we must also take the actual situation into account, and we must bear in mind that something like the works councils envisaged here has basically never faced the business community. Just consider how, in the course of capitalist development in modern times, the protectionist relationship between the state and capitalist entrepreneurship has grown more and more. On the one hand, the capitalist entrepreneurship supported the state, on the other hand, the state supported the entrepreneurship. This is particularly evident in the various causes of war, especially in the West. But a body that has really emerged from economic life itself, from all sectors of economic life, and that is supported by the trust of the entire workforce, such a body has never faced capitalist entrepreneurship. And I ask you not to disregard this fact. I ask you to compare it with what has already happened historically, namely that when such unified rallies took place, something could be achieved through these rallies. As Mr. Müller said, it certainly depends on whether this unity, this unity, really exists. And the election of the works councils can only take place if this unity exists. It should arise from this unity.

If the works councils exist, then they will be a revelation for the unification of the current workforce, and then we will see what happens when the united workforce confronts the business community in the form of the works councils. It is not only the 'works councils of the individual company that face the individual entrepreneurship, but the entire works council, which is made up of members from all sectors and companies, faces the entrepreneurs of an entire economic area. The individual works councils return to their companies as representatives of the entire works council and now face the entrepreneur not as individuals, but as representatives of the works council of the corresponding economic area. This is a power that one must only become aware of. You can safely take a chance on such a trial of strength; it will have significant consequences. That is one thing.

The other thing is that, as Mr. Müller also said, the works council should not just have an advisory vote. No, it should not even have just a deciding vote, but should be the actual administrator of the company. It should simply manage the companies itself on behalf of the entire workforce. Naturally, certain difficulties arise from this, and they arise in quite different areas than you imagine. For example, initiative within a company must not be paralyzed by the fact that many want to give orders and the like. But all this can be overcome. That is one thing. But then there is something else to consider. I ask you: what is the capital of an economic enterprise basically based on? No matter how much money the capitalists have, this money only has value if people work, nothing else! So, the workers are not opposed to those people who are actually still entrepreneurs, but to those who only have money. And in this context, we must be clear about one thing: if we live in reality, then we do not live outside of time, but we live in a certain time. And I have the feeling that many people from the working class still talk as if things were as they were seven or eight years ago, before we sailed into this catastrophe of war. I don't think many people have thought about what it means economically that when the war ended, some companies were manufacturing all sorts of things and then breaking them up again. Such things were done because no one knew how to maintain production in a natural way. Things have changed, but today we still have the habit of talking about the old conditions from the point of view of capitalism.

You see, in many respects the situation is such that old truths are no longer truths at all today. Of course, the truth of surplus value is a sweeping truth, only today it no longer exists for the most part. It has been blown away, and what is so feared today as capitalism is actually based on terribly hollow ground. This is no longer recognized. You can see this from the fact that people are now thinking: for God's sake, if we could only save ourselves to Entente capitalism, so that we can crawl under there; we can't cope on our own anymore. The time will come when the works council will no longer face capitalism in the old way, but will face the collapsing entrepreneurship and take over what has collapsed. And the time will come when you will say: It was good that we had these works councils, because someone has to manage the factories; the others can't do it anymore, because the business community has largely collapsed, it can't do it anymore. That's what these works councils are for. They may not be present everywhere, but that will be the case. For the most part, they will find abandoned battlefields. It will even not infrequently happen that the entrepreneurs will be glad when the works councils come on behalf of a closed economic area. Now they are still doing so because they believe that they can be covered by the protector state and the laws. They would like to have what they themselves can no longer do covered by the protector state. In this case, strange circumstances would arise. Not only would the works councils be decorative pieces, but the channels would also be found again through which the run-down capital could be restored, through which in turn a variety of things would flow back to where they had gone. People have strange views about this. In Tübingen a professor said: We shall become a poor people in the future. People will no longer be able to pay for schools, so the state will have to step in and pay for them. — The professor was afraid that people would no longer be able to pay for schools. He had only forgotten to ask himself: Where will the state get the money? But only out of the pockets of individuals! In this respect, laws very often only mean that things that have some value end up where they are supposed to be. And under certain circumstances, laws can only be a detour to getting the already crumbling capital back on its feet. A workers' council that emerges from economic life and from the working population will not be one of those. It will know how to stand on its own two feet. Then let it come to the showdown. There is no need to tell us that the workers' councils will stand paralyzed before the entrepreneur. The opposite could also occur due to the current situation.

We do not live outside of time, but in a particular time, and in this time, we know that capitalism is on the verge of collapse. We have to take this into account. We must also be aware that economic life must be rebuilt from the other side. And socialism is helped by the collapse into which capitalism has run itself. For the world war catastrophe was at the same time the collapse of capitalism and will consequently influence the collapse more and more. I ask you to bear this in mind. When considering things that relate to the future, one must take such factors into account.

When quoting something like the sentence about interest, I would ask you to bear in mind that every sentence in my book strives to honestly state what really is the case, and that my book strictly rejects everything that is said to be the result of interest. So, real growth of capital, as is the case today, where capital can double in fifteen years, is impossible if the reality I describe in my book comes to pass. But I am talking about a legitimate interest rate. In this context, I ask you to consider how I talk about capital in my book. Because, you see, it is easy to fool people by telling them: If you abolish all interest, then the right thing will come out. — In all these things, it is only a matter of whether you can do it. And I have only described things that can really be done.

Consider the situation. If the things in my book are realized, money will take on a certain character. I have sometimes expressed this rather trivially to friends by saying: money really starts to stink for the first time in the economic order meant in my book. What does that mean? It means the following: When I acquire realities – money itself is not a reality, but only in that the power relations are such that money is a reality – when I acquire realities, these are subject to the law of being consumed. We have capitalism in the real sense not only within the human world, but also in the animal world. When the hamster hoards, when it lays in its winter supplies, then that is its capital for the near future, only it has the property that it can only be used in the near future, otherwise it would perish. And in our capitalist economic system, we have managed to make money lose the character of all other realities, at least for certain short periods of time. What do we do when we calculate the interest? We multiply the money by the percentage rate and by the time period, and then divide by a hundred. That is how we arrive at the interest. As a result, we have been calculating with unreal, illusory constructs! We have been calculating with what we have presented as representations of reality. What was produced by capital may have long since become unusable, may even no longer exist at all, and yet, according to our power relations, we can calculate: capital times interest rate and time divided by one hundred. [...] In the future, it is important to be aware when founding a company or business – and this must happen again and again, otherwise the whole process of human development would come to a standstill – that past labor is always used in future labor.

You see, when you set up a new business, you have to employ new workers, regardless of whether it is a society or an individual that does so. In the past it was the individual, in the future it will depend on the structure of society. So you have to employ workers. When you set up a business that cannot yet give anything back to society, these workers need to feed and clothe themselves. So in order for this business to come into being, work must have been done earlier. Therefore, it must be possible for earlier work to be used for later services. But this is only possible if, when my earlier work is incorporated into a later service, I derive some benefit from it. Because in reality, let's say, I work quite hard today, and it doesn't matter how, but in ten years some new business will be built from what I work on today. That's added to it. When I work today, I also have to get something for my work. It's just that the work is saved for the next one. And that is what I call legitimate interest, and I have called it that because I want to be honest in my book, because I do not want to have cheap success by calling white black. In economic life, past work must be used for future services. Just as work in the present has a return service, so must it also have a return service in the future if it is saved. Economic life makes it necessary for past labor to be used in the future. Consider that capital is gradually being depleted. Whereas capital has now doubled in fifteen years, in the future it will more or less cease to exist after fifteen years. The reverse process is taking place! As the other things become stinking, so does the money. Thus, capital does not bear interest, but it must be made possible for what was worked on earlier to be included in a future performance. Then you must also have the reward for it. I could have called it [in my book] reward, but I wanted to be completely honest and wanted to express: The purpose of economic activity is to incorporate past labor into future performance, and that is what I call the fair remuneration for interest. That is why I also said explicitly: there is no interest on interest. There cannot be, nor can there be any arbitrary labor of capital. Money gets stinky. It gets lost just like other things, like meat and the like. It is no longer there, it no longer works. If you take the things as they are presented in my book, you must bear in mind that I start from what is possible and what should really be, and not from demands that arise from saying: We are abolishing this and that. Yes, my dear audience, someone might eventually come up with the crazy idea of saying: We are abolishing the floor. Then we would no longer be able to walk! You cannot abolish things that are simply necessary in real economic life or in other areas. You have to take things as they are, only then can you be honest. I do not promise people the earth, but I want to speak about the real living conditions of the social organism. And so I wanted to speak here of what can really be implemented, and that will already be what also brings about what unconsciously underlies the demands of the broad working masses. And it is better to strive to fulfill these demands out of a knowledge of reality than to lull people with mere promises.

Mr. Haupt from Eßlingen: He voluntarily created works councils in his company a long time ago. Among other things, he states:

What does the employer imagine a works council to be? He sees the establishment of works councils as a spectre! It is the worker's duty to also show trust and say: We don't want to tear everything down, that is not our goal. We want to work, but without a knout, freely from our own hearts. If you approach the employer like that, he is also willing. I know for a fact that a large number of Esslingen companies would like to do things this way. But they can't because they have made a compromise with the unions. The union leaders have come up with a collective agreement, so to speak as a last resort, to bring together the masses who want nothing to do with them. This is a mistake that will have bitter repercussions. It will become the grave of the unions. Only the works councils can save us from this mess. The unions have the greatest interest in not doing this. The employers' associations are hiding behind them and are glad that the works councils are not progressing as quickly as they had hoped.

There are three ways to introduce works councils: either the employer in question does it voluntarily – that's what I did – which is probably the most sensible thing. I said to myself: everything is broken, we are clear about that. So let's see if we can find something new to get out of this misery after all. – The second thing is: not so much talking! Action and not talk! Talking is useless. They talk and talk, but the Confederation has made a great effort and said: people, take action. You can't tell, the people are asleep. - The third measure is power. But I say explicitly: power without terror, without strikes, that's important. - By power I mean the ability and the awareness of having the masses behind you. They will push things through. If the matter were organized as I envision it, the union or a corporation of workers' representatives would come together first and listen to the views and contradictions. The corporation would then take advantage of this and approach the employer. You can't get more rejected than that. But if the employers reject this, they have created a poisonous wound; it remains a volcano. Well, that would be the last hand the two can shake. Otherwise there is no other option than ruthless terror. We can come together if we really want to. That's what matters.

The tasks of the works council are not that easy. If you have works councils yourself, you know what curious things can come to light. There are people who are wholeheartedly committed, but there are also those who come with political intentions and the like. We have experienced many things. Finally, I would like to say to you: take action today, not tomorrow. Get in touch with the “Association for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism”. I am convinced that the group in Stuttgart will then take matters into their own hands. They are trying to come to an agreement with the employers after all. And then you stand in front of the employers and say: We declare that the works councils have been elected. - Let's trust each other! Woe to anyone who goes on strike! They must not go on strike! It must be possible without terror, without power, without oppression of the soul and the like.

Mr. Schlegel: I am basically of the opinion that the works councils and the body that brings together the works councils, as Dr. Steiner described them in his lecture this evening, are the only practical way to implement the socialization of economic life, which is to create the material basis for the advancement of humanity. And this evening will probably be the only opportunity to take a step towards socialization in order to save our people and our Reich, our country, from economic collapse. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that one should not wildly establish works councils because the “Bund” wants to do so. The prerequisite would be that the employers do not oppose these works councils. If, for example, works councils are introduced in only some of the companies, how do you then imagine the consolidation, that is, the body of works councils? The regulation of production is the main thing. How does Dr. Steiner think that these bodies will gain power if not all political and state power is concentrated in the hands of the works councils? Is it not impossible to introduce the works councils alone for such a small area as Württemberg? For Württemberg's industry is not yet sufficient to produce all the goods. Württemberg needs the exchange. I ask Dr. Steiner to comment on these concerns.

Dr. Steiner said that it would be impossible to bring the workers' councils into being through legal provisions. I am of the opinion that it is necessary that the election of the workers' councils be made mandatory according to the centralist principle. The only question is what form the law will take. It could also take the form that is necessary. If the entire working class, intellectual and manual laborers, is united and has political power, then it will be easy to gain political power in the state and then take the necessary measures for socialization. I appeal above all to the representatives of the socialist parties to work towards achieving unity.

I would remind you that we could win over large numbers of employees and the rural population to the idea of socialism if only we were united. We need precisely the intellectual proletariat and the peasantry if we want to implement socialization. It is understandable that large masses of workers go to the USP and the Communists, because when people are complaining, they turn to them when they cannot get what they want. Dr. Steiner has already pointed out that the old ideas are still alive among a large part of the working population and that the situation today is the same as it was before the war. He also said that if we tackle socialization, we would very quickly achieve a material improvement for the masses of the working population. That is a mistake! Even if we tackle socialization through the works councils and through the threefold social order, all we achieve at the moment is to save our economic life from ruin for the time being. It will take years of work and, above all, the destruction of the capitalism of the Entente before the fruits of socialization can be seen. In this respect, too, the party leaders must point out the actual situation to their followers.

I would also like to point out that there is actually a tripartite structure to the social organism [interjection: oh oh] and that the task at hand is to reshape it and steer it in different directions [laughter]. The three areas are only combined [laughter], they can only be torn apart. I say this because in many circles there is a view that something new should be created. It is only a matter of reshaping it, and doing so according to the principles that the “Federation for Threefolding” represents.

It would be just as necessary as the creation of the works councils to work more with the workers and employees in a spiritual sense than has been done so far. The ethical goals of socialism have been pushed into the background today in favor of material goals. There should be agitation for this. Dr. Steiner believes that the works councils will bring about the unity of the proletariat. I believe that the socialization and the works councils will bring about the unity of the proletariat. Mr. Haller: I would like to correct some of what the speakers have said. One gentleman spoke of power without terror. If the working masses are still so skeptical of these works councils today, it is because the working class knows full well that nowhere in world history is it written that capitalism will ever voluntarily renounce its prerogatives and place the entire system in the hands of the masses. I think the most important thing would not be to quickly elect the works councils, but to spread the idea among the masses, because the works councils are quickly elected once the ideas have been spread among the masses. It has been said that the election of the works councils is preparatory work. I cannot disagree with that, but I would like to emphasize that we have no interest in continuing the future state in a capitalist form. We have to build something new.

If the workers' councils in the industrial state of Württemberg gain power, it might be impossible to maintain control over the entire Reich in the long term, because the capitalists are united and will also reconcile with the Entente capitalists. If the masses of workers were as united internationally as the international capitalists, we would have been spared this terrible ruin. We must try to get the whole economy under control.

Dr. Steiner said that many have not yet understood socialization. The workers do not understand what it means. There is still a lot of education to be done. And the intellectual workers have not yet been aware that they depend on the entrepreneur just as much as the proletarian manual laborer. It has been said that a bridge must be built between the manual laborer and the intellectual laborer. I have not yet seen much of such a bridge being built. If the leaders are not willing to build this bridge, the intellectual and manual laborers must do what is necessary themselves. If it is said that we would then possibly surrender the battlefield between Bolshevism and Entente capitalism, I must say that the conditions in Russia and Germany are quite different. In Russia, the intellectual workers have been engaged in sabotage. I ask the manual workers to prevent this disaster in this difficult hour. The intellectual workers must stand by us so that we can finally reach our goal. If a works council is elected today and the entire economic entity is in our hands, a director will have no more rights than a works councilor. The works councils are to be the nucleus of economic life. The works councils must realize that they are only the nucleus and say: Mr. Director, you may continue to manage the post under our control and leadership. We are not here to chase people away, but we only want equal rights for all.

Mr. Biel: I actually wanted to refrain from saying anything, but since I am also a member of the works council, I would like to say a few words. I would like to come back to how necessary it is that we seek to create a new economic system. In my opinion, this new economic system can only be found through the threefold social order proposed by Dr. Steiner. You are all well aware that the conditions we face are very difficult. We will have to start with a down payment, and this down payment alone requires a reorganization of economic life. It can no longer be the case that we produce under the old conditions, that we stand there as workers with the so-called minimum living wage and next door is a capitalist who earns millions. We are then always forced to pay out of our own pockets the debts that this old society and the still existing capitalists have incurred. For these reasons alone, everyone should be aware that the old method is an impossibility. I do believe, however, that there is still so much reason in humanity that the conditions of the Entente will be rejected as impossible. I believe it will happen very soon. Let us approach the election of works councils with care and not let what our brothers in the East have achieved slip away again, so that they do not have to reproach us later with: You were shown the way, but you did not want to go it. — They showed us the elementary school, now we want to see if we are capable of passing the matriculation examination.

Mr. Spörr: It is clear to us all that the works councils are a necessity. It is also clear to us that in our entire spiritual life, in all that we think and feel, new paths must be taken. I therefore welcome the fact that Dr. Steiner is able to cast his thoughts into the masses in such a gripping way and also find his followers there. However, one big question remains unanswered for me in Dr. Steiner's statements: How will the employers' resistance to this movement be broken? The employers will take the position of only granting what they are legally obliged to grant. However, the laws that are made today are not made by practitioners, but by party bigwigs. We need men who can create laws that can be used. And we must act quickly, otherwise we will be crushed by Entente capitalism. It will take a long time before the Entente's workers have come to understand what necessity has taught us.

I believe that there is only one guideline, namely that we work as quickly as possible to ensure that intellectual workers get involved in areas where organized labor is involved. That was the curse of the revolution, that precisely the educated masses were not politically mature. Here the “Bund” has the task, above all, of educating. When we look at bourgeois circles today and see that the people who owe the working class their freedom of speech are willing to shoot this working class, these are factors that make us think. I do not think it is right for the government to be able to hold on only by arming itself. Above all, education must be carried out here.

Mr. Gönnewein: Most speakers rightly stated very clearly that enough words have been spoken and that they want to see action. This can only be underlined. If we cannot take action today, it is not because the people are not mature, but because they are not united. I believe that the people are actually mature. At least one might assume that they have been brought to maturity during these four years. But attempts are being made from all sides to divide the people, because people do not want anything to come from other sides, except from the so-called party leaders themselves. If we do not yet have workers' councils in various enterprises, especially in large enterprises, it is not because the people are not ready for them, but because efforts are being made from all sides to prevent them. We are willing to do this. But because it was Dr. Steiner who came up with the idea of threefolding, and not those who believe they are called to do so, it is not the right thing. I recall that when Dr. Steiner gave his first lectures to the workers, they cheered him and declared that something had come that could free the workers from their misery. After examining the matter, the party leaders came to the conclusion that if they paid too much homage to the matter, it could go awry for various reasons. So they dragged the matter through the mud, so that many approached the party bigwigs to stir up sentiment for them. It is not the work of the party bigwigs that is dangerous, but that of their satellites, because they allow dogma to be imposed on them. That is an unhealthy relationship. As long as this is not understood, we will not get out of the mess.

It has been rightly pointed out that people are only trying to make inflammatory speeches. They can go anywhere. Every day, there is an opportunity to hear all sorts. Today it would have been appropriate and a particular satisfaction if these gentlemen had come to the discussion evening and told us clearly that they have something better than Dr. Steiner's idea. We try at every opportunity to invite the gentlemen to finally come up with something better. But that has not yet happened.

It has already been pointed out that capitalism will not give up its privileges, of course not. We are aware that this is an invincible opponent for us. We know full well that it can only be brought down through intensive struggle. But we can no longer speak of such capitalism. After such misery, there can no longer be any talk of capitalism on this scale. Today it is imperative that if we do not want to fall into misery, we must start to unite all of humanity in order to emerge from the ruins. There can be no question of not being able to declare one's solidarity with intellectual workers. One speaker said that the bridge between manual and mental laborers has not yet been built. Certainly, there are manual laborers who have the good will to build the bridge. But I would like to remind you that it is precisely those who have not yet seen the bridge who prevent us from doing what is necessary. If you talk to an engineer or a higher-level employee, for example, they will shout after you: “Look, this worker traitor! He's cuddling with capitalism!” How are we supposed to build the bridge to bring about an agreement? There is no doubt that more thought needs to be given to this.

If we say that we must take up the fight against capitalism and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and then introduce the threefold order, we are aware that if we do not have the power, the matter must fail because of the spirit of the entrepreneur. But I have come to the conclusion that it will not remain so, but that the coming time will already give us something. We would have to be out of our minds if we did not see from today's situation that something new must come. But then it is necessary that we do not fall into the same mistake as on November 9, when we were cheated of the whole story, of not approaching the matter consciously enough. Today we must occupy ourselves with the idea of wanting to put something tangible in place, so that when we have the power we also know how to make something out of it. When the Communists say to me: We want everything in the way we think about it -, then I call out to them: I hear the message well, but I lack faith. One must ask: If the people are not ripe for socialism, how then should communism have a place? Unfortunately we have not yet come so far, therefore we occupy ourselves with that which gives us the opportunity to ascend to the light. And here I must say that threefolding is a step by which we can ascend to socialism. It is therefore unjust that we are constantly criticized for declaring our solidarity with the capitalists who have descended to the proletariat in order to do something together with the proletarians so that humanity can survive. Today, we cannot look at everything as we did in 1913. Someone should come along today and explain to us a better way out of our misery! Until that happens, it is unseemly to drag this idea through the mud in the newspapers and elsewhere. Today would be the opportunity for these gentlemen to stand up and show a better way. I call out to you: do not let yourselves be put off by these gentlemen! If you have joined the idea of threefolding, do not let them tell you: it is not the right way – but choose for yourselves! Do not let yourselves be counted among those who allow dogma to be imposed on them, but go the straight way as militant and class-conscious workers in the parties! But here too, in the “Association for Threefolding”, you can find inspiration for absorbing an idea. Here, the proletarian and the class-conscious fighter have nothing to forgive each other. Therefore, whenever you are approached by the party, you must say that it is an injustice to restrict you when you go where your conscience sends you, where you can learn something.

On July 2, there will be a continuation of the discussion here. I would like to ask you to bring with you people who still have no faith in the threefold social order. Those who have pricked up their ears this evening will already have realized what it is about. We do not need to do any more training courses, we do not need to explore what the “covenant” wants, but we do want to strive to carry the idea of threefolding into other circles and tell the leaders that they should sit down on their behinds and read Dr. Steiner's book. Then they will come to a different opinion. Shout it in the faces of the gentlemen, so that they finally understand, for they are slow of comprehension.

Rudolf Steiner: I have only a little more to say to you, but this little will be necessary.

First of all, it has been said that in principle the only practical possibility for solving the socialization question lies in what the threefold social order wants in relation to works councils or similar. But it has been criticized that the “Bund für Dreigliederung” wants to have the works councils elected in a wild way. Yes, I don't really understand what is meant by the fact that this one is a wild election. Under certain circumstances, one might even be of the opinion, if one studies the draft of the law for the works councils quite impartially, which was in the press some time ago, that this one is a wild thing. So it is important to try to see the matter really impartially. Then it will become clear that if what we as works councils envision comes about in economic life, a good deal of what must be conquered in the future as real power will indeed be achieved. When people keep saying that we are not getting anywhere if we don't have this or that, and that economic power is of no use to us if we don't have political power, and the like, then you have to say in response that it's a matter of starting somewhere, and that you can't always be deterred by saying that this is of no use and that is of no use.

You see, I can well understand when someone says: Even if a small area like Württemberg elects works councils, not everyone will do so; the whole of Germany should vote. Yes, of course it would be best if the whole world elected works councils. But I think that since we cannot do it all over the world right away, we should start where we can do it. We have to take into account the circumstances that exist, and first of all we have Württemberg as a closed economic area. If we just start somewhere, then if the project is successful, it will also be possible to continue. I think that we should not be deterred by all the objections. If it is not possible to set up works councils throughout Germany right away, then we must think about what would be fruitful for Württemberg. What is important is to recognize this threefold nature, to see that the matter must be taken in hand in each of the three individual, independent areas of the social organism. I must say that the esteemed speaker who spoke of the wild works councils – because they emerged purely from economic life – has not yet fully understood the threefold social order, otherwise he would not have been able to say that this threefold order is actually already there and that the threefold order is just mixed up. Of course these three members of the social organism are there, but the fact that they were mixed up before is what was wrong. Therefore we want to separate them. It is not important that they are there, but how they are formed or should be formed. And the “Federation for the Threefold Social Organism” would certainly not have been formed if it were not important to present these three elements in a correct way, side by side, in their independence. The fact that the three elements are presented in the right way in life is what is important.

Some other things have been said, in particular by the gentleman who, with a slight smile, touched again on the subject of the “idealist”. But what he said was entirely informed by a certain abstract idealism. For example, he said: practitioners must arise. Yes, we must bring things to the people as they are, then one is a practitioner, not when one calls idealistically: practitioners must arise. We do not want to wait, but we want to take such measures that the practitioners can assert themselves. That is what we can do. The call “practitioners shall arise” is an abstract idealistic call. Nor should we say, “A struggle will arise.” That will not create practitioners; they will arise through the liberation of intellectual life and the other areas. Because whenever it is said that we need development, and a sense of pessimism is introduced into the whole thing, I would like to draw your attention to the fact - although I have also pointed this out in the relevant places in my book - that certain things cannot be done overnight. But after all, works councils can be set up overnight, so to speak, and then things will move forward. It is not a matter of always just pointing to development, but of getting down to what can really be done in the short term. I would always like to call out to those who talk about development that they seem to me like a person sitting in a room where the air has become bad and who, before he faints, could open the window to improve the air, but he would have to do the next step. He should not wait for development to improve the air. That is what we should finally understand, that where human action is concerned, people must actually take action. We cannot wait until the Entente workers can come to our aid. Let us do what the workers are supposed to do here, then there is a chance that we will make progress and address the most pressing issues. That will do us more good than devoting ourselves to abstract ideals.

Now I would like to come back to one point in particular. It is always said that socialization can only arise from the unity of the proletariat. It can just as well be said, and this will be the really practical thing, that the proletariat should try to devote itself to one great task! What causes the disunity? It arises from the fact that one does not set oneself the right tasks, that one talks past things, that one does not talk much about what matters, not about where the shoe pinches, but that one makes party programs that one can vary at will. Then one can say this and that. But in really factual things, the proletarians agree. They need only remember that it depends on the issues. Therefore, try to establish a body that emerges from the trust of the workforce, in which one negotiates on substantive issues and the objectively necessary. You will see that there will be agreement, because you will talk about something that really is, and not about something that is a mere party program and the like. Party programs are mostly there to avoid talking about the real issues. Try to make a start with this works council and use it to talk about the factual things themselves, and perhaps unity will come about as if by magic.

Mr. Gönnewein, you have the last word, and I would like to say to you: Take to heart what has been said! Carry it to your colleagues, so that it may bear fruit for the good of the tripartite social organism. — The meeting is hereby closed.

The chairman, Mr. Roser, opens the meeting.

Introductory words

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees! I will keep this short today as well and hope that you will make active use of the discussion, so that we might be able to discuss one or two details today. As events are increasingly pushing for a reorganization of the social order, it would not be good if the efforts that are intended to bring about such a reorganization, such as the establishment of works councils, were to be completely abandoned. Because, my dear attendees, there are people who would be quite happy if the works council movement were to die out. All the more reason for us to make an effort not to let it fall asleep. At the last meeting, I spoke about the threefold social order and its connection to the works council question. Today, I would like to say a few words about how an understanding of the works council system can be brought about with regard to the threefold social order.

You know that we initially want to create works councils simply from the individual companies. We want works councils to be elected from the individual companies that are simply there and then form a works council for an initially self-contained economic area, say Württemberg. In a general assembly of this council of works councils, everything would then be determined that concerns the tasks, competencies, etc. of the works councils. In this way, economic measures would arise for the first time independently of the other two institutions, i.e., intellectual life and state or legal life, from the personalities involved in economic life. These measures would first be decided upon in the general assembly of the council of works councils. Only then would the tasks arise. Then the individual works councils elected in the companies would return to their companies and take on their tasks there. At the same time, the demands that can only be made for general socialization would then also be on the table. If there were real unanimity - because power lies in that unanimity - any government, whatever it might be, would have to comply. I believe that some people already have a clear sense of what it would mean if these works councils were elected in all companies and formed a general assembly across a unified economic area, and if this general assembly in turn were to adopt resolutions that were then supported by the confidence of the entire workforce in this economic area. That would be real power, because no government, no legislative body, can in the long run contradict a power that is based on its own judgment and on unanimity and trust. In this way, one can think of a very concrete path. But at the same time, this would be the first step towards real socialization, a socialization that can only emerge from the provisions and measures of the people who are managing the economy themselves. Perhaps only when the decisions of such a works council are in place will we know what socialization actually means.

Now, however, it must also be clear that the election of the works councils must be handled very sensibly, because this works council will have to take completely new economic measures in many respects and set completely new impulses. I have often said, when speaking about these things in connection with the threefold social order, that what we need most of all at the present time is a real change of thinking. And I imagine that precisely at the moment when, for the first time within a closed economic area, the primary assembly, supported by the confidence of the entire working class, unanimously takes such an economic measure, a change of thinking, a re-learning, could come about. But we must realize how much of today's economic thinking needs to be revised. Therefore, in order for you to be able to orient yourselves regarding the difficult tasks of the works councils, I would like to describe an example of the old way of thinking.

You see, this old thinking is not just a collection of thoughts, but it is the expression of the economic order that has existed so far and that has come to an end as a result of the world war catastrophe. But what people thought still extends into more recent times, and that is what must be thoroughly removed from people's minds. I would now like to give a characteristic example of this. An essay has just been published by a very famous teacher of political economy of the old regime, that is, by a man whose ideas reflect much of what the old regime, what the so-called private capital regime that must be overcome, has produced. I would like to cite what is said by Professor Dr. Lujo Brentano as an example of what prevails in the old regime. These thoughts of Brentano's refer to the entrepreneur of the old regime, and he is making a sincere effort, as far as he is able, to form a concept of what the private entrepreneur actually is. You can see from Brentano's closing words that he does not at all regard this private entrepreneur as a superfluous element of the future economic order. He says:

"Many today believe that private enterprise is coming to an end. They see the absorption of all private enterprise into a single, large-scale enterprise by the banks, which control so many large-scale enterprises, as the beginning of the absorption of all private enterprise into a single, large-scale enterprise, and in this the transition of all enterprises into state-owned enterprises. We are only at the beginning of a development that opens up private enterprise to hitherto untouched parts of the world, and experience to date has shown that the various nations emerge as winners in the competition for this development, the less they leave to the state and the more they leave to private initiative. The more the national economy of the individual nations becomes a world economy, the greater the scope for private enterprise, and the greater its future. It will not only solve its task all the more successfully, but also all the more consistently and thus all the more advantageously for itself, the more unreservedly it recognizes one of the fundamental principles of today's economic order, personal freedom, also in the shaping of the employment relationship and the more she seeks to earn money by working, not by increasing the value of the means of production at the expense of the needs of the products they are intended to serve, but by satisfying those needs as fully as possible while using the means of production as economically as possible. As long as she is guided by this principle, there is no end in sight to her success.

So you see, a true representative of the old economic order says here that private enterprise is not only not at an end, but that it is only now really beginning to flourish, because without it the economic order that is to develop in the future would not be possible at all. We are therefore dealing with an opinion that still dominates many circles today, namely that the abolition of private enterprise is out of the question because it has a future. Therefore, if one approaches the question of the replacement of the old entrepreneurial system by the works councils seriously and not merely in an agitative way, one must deal a little with the thoughts that are haunting people's minds. You have to be prepared, so to speak, you have to know what people are thinking and what they will say when it comes to arguments between the representatives of the past and the representatives of the future, that is, those who want to stand up for the works councils.

Now you see, the concept of the entrepreneur is what this economics teacher wants to clarify for himself and present to people. He asks himself the question: What is an entrepreneur? Yes, he now gives three characteristics of the right entrepreneur. First, “that he combines in his hand the right of disposal over the production elements necessary for the manufacture of a product.” But first of all, it must be made clear what this gentleman actually means by “production elements”. What he understands by this is made perfectly clear in one of his sentences. He does not even make this sentence up himself, but borrows it from Emil Kirdorff, one of the most successful men in practice to date. He says: “We directors of joint-stock companies are also employees of the company and have duties and responsibilities towards it.” And now Mr. Brentano has discovered that directors like Privy Councillor Emil Kirdorff are also among the “production elements,” that is, the entrepreneur must have the right of disposal over the “production elements,” which also includes directors. The entire workforce, right up to the directors, are all “production elements.” First, then, an entrepreneur is the one who has the right of disposal over the “production elements”; these also include the directors. And a man like Kirdorff sees quite well that he is actually not a human being, but a “production element” in economic life. You have to realize what kind of ideas are in people's heads. That is why I have repeatedly emphasized that it is necessary to rethink and relearn. So that was the first quality of a real entrepreneur.

The second is that “he gives these production elements the purpose of serving a specific production purpose and disposes of them accordingly.” Here one has to bear in mind that all people in production are meant; so he must give them a purpose. That is the second quality.

The third is that “he does this at his own risk and expense.” So now we have all three characteristics of a true entrepreneur in the sense of the old regime, that is, the entrepreneur who, in the sense of the old regime, must continue to exist in order to maintain the future economic order and who should have an even greater significance there than he has had so far.

You see, if you are not wearing professors' or entrepreneurs' or other blinkers, then you have to admit that people with these three qualities will not tolerate the facts that are now to be created in Europe because after all, we have come so far in our consciousness that the future cannot depend on a small number of entrepreneurs who determine the 'productive elements' of the far greater number of people, that is, the masses. But that is exactly what is required. Now, however, let us follow the train of thought of this representative of the old regime a little further. It is actually extremely interesting. You will probably think I am making a joke, but the following is really in this essay; I am not joking. After initially presenting the vast majority of workers as “production elements,” Brentano strangely includes the workers, the proletarians, among the entrepreneurs! He says: “If the worker is not the producer of a consumer-ready product, he is nonetheless the producer of an independent good that he brings to market at his own risk and expense. He too is an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur of labor services.”

So you see, my dear audience, we now have the concept of the entrepreneur before us, as presented by a contemporary economic luminary. This concept of the entrepreneur is so confused, indeed it is just that you are all entrepreneurs as you sit here, namely entrepreneurs of your labor, which you bring to market at your own risk and expense. Yes, and now there is something else. Brentano says that the evil of which people are always talking does not exist at all, since everyone is an entrepreneur. Therefore, he had to find out what it actually is that makes the great masses of people not satisfied with being entrepreneurs at their own risk and expense through their labor. He says: “Once upon a time, the worker was not that, a time when he was absorbed in the business in which he was employed. He was not yet an independent economic unit, but nothing but a cog in the economic enterprise of his master. That was the time of the worker's personal bondage. The master's interest in the progress of his own economy then led him to awaken an interest in his performance in the worker he employed. This brought about the gradual emancipation of the worker, and finally his complete declaration of freedom.” That's nice, except that the damage lies in the following. There is another nice sentence, which reads: “But the capitalist entrepreneur has not yet found his way into this transformation from a gentleman into a mere labor buyer.” So the only harm is that the entrepreneur has not yet found his way into this role, that is, no longer being a gentleman in the old sense, but a buyer of labor. With that, Brentano is actually saying the following: If the worker sells his labor to the entrepreneur for his own account and risk, then everything is in order. It is only necessary for the entrepreneur to learn to understand what it means to be a buyer of labor. It is only because he does not yet understand that there is still damage. So it is only necessary to hammer it into the entrepreneur: you just have to learn to understand how to buy labor on the labor market that the worker sells to you as an entrepreneur of his labor.

Yes, it is of course a strange testimony that the gentleman gives to the entrepreneurs. The proletariat is now at the point of saying that it is above all important that labor should no longer be a commodity. But this gentleman gives the entrepreneurs the testimony that they have not even risen to the realization that they are buyers of labor. So this star of political economy thinks that today's entrepreneurship is very backward.

But what does all this actually mean? You see, you just have to face the full gravity of this fact. Lujo Brentano is one of the most famous economists of the present day, and one of those who have perhaps put the most ideas into the heads of those who speak as intellectuals about economic life. Yes, we have to look at things clearly today. Today, we often indulge in a belief in authority that is much, much worse than the Catholics' belief in authority towards the princes of the church ever was. People just don't want to admit that. That is why we have to be clear about things, and we have to learn from such things what a great task this works council will have. Above all, it will have to show what economic life really is, because what has emerged from the circles of the intelligentsia as a result of reflecting on economic life was, after all, just cabbage. But what is this cabbage? Let us just look at it in terms of its reality. Why is this cabbage there? People haven't even thought it up. If they had thought it up, they would have come up with something even bigger. They did not even think it up, but simply studied the conditions as they are now, and these conditions are confused, they are a chaos. Very gradually, this thoughtlessness of supply and demand in all areas of economic life has led to chaos. The first act of real socialization must be to start to shape it from scratch. We need, I would say, this sense of the seriousness of what the works council is supposed to be. And I would like to speak of this seriousness again and again and again, because in some circles of the proletariat, too, there is so little of this seriousness and awareness of the magnitude of the task.

You see, when one speaks of the threefold social order today, what is one speaking of? We are speaking of what must be done to satisfy the demands of the proletariat, which have been around for decades. But what do we get in return? Yes, there is another article in the Tribüne. It is entitled “Dr. Steiner and the Proletariat”. It says, for example, that the threefold social order is only concerned with ideas and that there are already enough ideas floating around in the air at present. That is what I would call a careless assertion. Then this gentleman should just point out the ideas that are now swarming through the air in such masses. He should just prove the existence of one fruitful idea! It is precisely the lack of ideas that plagues the present day. That is the case, and here it is carelessly asserted that ideas are just swarming around in the air. And then they say: “What helps the worker - I am speaking only of the physically laboring - to improve his life is not sophistry, but an energetic realization of socialism.” But what is the realization of socialism? You see, if you just keep saying socialism, socialism, then you have a phrase, a word! But you have to show the way! When someone says: What helps the worker to improve his life is socialism —– then it seems to me as if someone were to say: I want to go to Tübingen —– and I say to him: Well, you can take the train, there are trains at such and such times. — I tell him exactly how to get to Tübingen, just as the path to the threefold social organism indicates exactly how to achieve socialization. He says: It is sophistry that you give me the minutes of the trains; I say to you, if I want to come to Tübingen, then I only come by moving over to Tübingen. — So roughly one can say: I do not want a certain, concrete, individually characterized way, but I want socialism. — I want to come to Tübingen by moving over.

Now, the article continues: “Every individual who is concerned about public life will very often have to deal with political and economic issues together in one sentence.” Yes, but this happens because everything has been mixed up. But it must be separated. Then it says: “Therefore, no ‘threefold social order’, but the realization of socialism!” So again: I want to come to Tübingen by moving across.

Yes, we must face the fact that there are obstacles to such a real marking out of the way, as we are trying to do in relation to the now often discussed question of works councils, based on the ideas of the threefold social organism. What really hinders us from marking out the way is that people are always willing to be deceived. But you will achieve nothing by being deceived, however beautifully it may be spun, unless you take definite action, as in the case I mentioned at the beginning of my talk. Let us elect members to the factory councils who are there as human beings and not as ideas whizzing through the air! These people can then decide, on the basis of their economic experience, what is necessary for the recovery of our economic life. Today it is necessary for us to go beyond mere talk and gain insights into economic life and to penetrate from these insights to further development. That we cannot rely on the luminaries, on the authorities, I have shown you today. I have presented one of the most famous to you on the basis of his latest statements. I presented him in such a way that you could see the value of what the followers of tradition say: Yes, the famous Mr. So-and-so said that, you can't counter that with anything else. Of course, if you always point out what this or that person has said about current events, you still don't know what the facts are, even if this or that person is famous. But if you look at things where concepts are in confusion, where concepts are falling apart, then it becomes clear that we have to rethink and relearn in the present. And so I would like to say again and again: if not through something else, then surely the necessity will bring about this rethinking and relearning. Even those who still resist today will have to change their minds, because many things will still happen in this poor Central Europe in the coming years and decades, and many things will have to happen if, for example, one third of the population of Central Europe can no longer be fed, if the old conditions persist in the form they still have as a result of this terrible Treaty of Versailles, the so-called peace. A third of the population of Central Europe would have to die out or be killed if the old conditions were to be maintained.

The reason for the reorganization today is, of course, that the old conditions cannot continue at all. But the fact that the imminent prospect is the death or extermination of one-third of the population of Central Europe should convince people today that they can no longer remain in their old, complacent position and say: We are practical people, such ideas are just ideas, you can't get involved in them! — No, people are just too lazy to get involved in something really practical. Today, this practicality must be comprehensive, must not be limited to just one or two areas, but must embrace the whole economic sphere. And if we do not want to abandon this complacency of thought in the face of circumstances, we will not make any progress. Now, with these words I wanted to point out to you how we must move forward, and now we can enter into the discussion.

Discussion

Mr. Roser: From Dr. Steiner's comments on Brentano's article, one can clearly see where the course is headed. It is now up to us to show that the proletariat does not remain at the point of view, as the luminaries of the economy imagine, but that it takes its fate into its own hands. Our first duty is to promote socialization by setting up workers' councils in line with the threefold social order, otherwise we are heading for chaos on a scale that we cannot even imagine. We must make the economic sphere independent by its own efforts. This does not mean that it must be done by force; that is not necessary. Especially Dr. Steiner's proposals, especially the idea of making economic life independent in the sense of threefold social order, must be the way for us to work in practice in the first place. There can be no doubt about it: If the works councils are properly elected by popular vote, with perhaps a thousand members in Württemberg, do you think that the government would have the means or the courage to break up these works councils? — I find that hard to believe, because the workers who elected these works councils to do practical work will also provide the necessary support for the works council to be able to function. We must uphold the idea of setting up works councils at all costs, because that is the only way out of chaos that can lead us to the establishment of the works councils and the works councilors, and then actually to a legislative body riding together to carry out the socialization in the sense of the tripartite division. Only in this way can we be saved from destruction. The idea of threefolding is so great, so powerful, that every single person should grasp it, out of their own interest, because as a proletarian they must say to themselves: my future is at stake, I have a duty to do everything I can to push this idea through. With this in mind, I ask you to join the discussion. Speak up.

Emil Leinhas: Dr. Steiner has presented you with an article by a luminary of political economy today. As it happens, I also have something with me in which a luminary of practice expresses his views on socialization. It is the Privy Councillor Deutsch, the chairman of the board of directors of the General Electricity Company. The fact that this statement by this great practitioner on the socialization is considered desirable for the broader public is evidenced by the fact that the venerable Berlin Chamber of Commerce is publishing this memorandum, with the following introduction. The Chamber of Commerce writes:

“In connection with the investigations we are conducting into the probable effects of socialization under the law of March 23, 1919, we have received from our member, Privy Councillor Deutsch, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the General Electricity Company, and explanations of the ratio of the share of labor and capital in the profits of a larger number of industrial enterprises, which we hereby submit to the public as a contribution to the assessment of these issues."

The Chamber of Commerce is providing additional copies of the memorandum to those who wish to help by distributing it. And what does this luminary of practice say about socialization? I will read you a few passages; they speak for themselves:

"Why is it that the word ‘socialization’ has taken root in millions of brains with an ineradicable tenacity and why do workers in particular see it as a panacea that would put an end to all their ailments and dissatisfaction with their economic situation in one fell swoop? This dissatisfaction and the hostility of the workers towards the capitalist system of production are constantly fueled by the provocative idea that a small number of capitalists take up by far the largest share of the profits from industrial labor, while the working class has to be content with a small share. This idea is as false as it is provocative, and as long as we do not succeed in convincing the workers of this, a beneficial and peaceful collaboration between the two factors of economic production is impossible in the long run.

[E. Leinhas then continues to speak about Deutsch's remarks. Since he himself announced that more details would soon be published in print, his further remarks were no longer written down.] Mr. Stecher reports on the Haushahn company: We have often discussed the question of threefolding among our colleagues at work. I was able to ascertain that on this question the entire workforce, with the exception of those who only do propaganda for party purposes, are sympathetic to the matter. This morning, at the invitation of the “Bund”, I contacted our company regarding the works councils as chairman of the workers' committee with the employees' committee. The chairman of the employees' committee explained to me that he also sympathized with the matter, but then he said: “The good should come from the government after all.” A few days ago, Dr. Steiner gave a lecture in Weil that made a tremendous, deep and unforgettable impression. People flocked there from far and wide. I call upon the workers' and employees' committees present to join together and discuss the matter of threefolding everywhere they have influence. They can request speakers from the Federation for Threefolding to promote the cause. The speakers will find willing ears and willing hearts among the workers. Business circles are also taking an interest. A manager in our company told me that he is also looking into the matter, because it is known that if things continue as they are, we will face bankruptcy. Something new must come. Unfortunately, the employees are not yet interested in the burning issues. But if we do not gather and work together, we will not make any progress.

Mr. Conradt: The Federation for Threefolding is often accused of wanting to break up the parties, similar to the syndicalists. That cannot be the intention of the federation. I have heard the accusation dozens of times. Particularly when one professes the idea of threefolding, one can easily see what is fruitful in the parties and that something is alive in the parties that only intervenes in our national life in a supportive way when the impulses living in the parties are not carried out one-sidedly. There are, of course, currents in the parties that belong to an ascending culture and currents that belong to a descending culture. The good must be brought to life in the right way.

[The stenographer did not transcribe Mr. Conradt's further remarks word for word. A brief summary is given below: “Mr. Conradt then goes on to say that in the threefold social order, social measures can only be taken in the economic sphere, that democracy belongs only in the life of the state or of the law, but that in the sphere of spiritual and cultural life one can speak of anarchism if one divests the word of its evil meaning."

It is also reported that a new works council has been formed in the Faber company and that the following motion has been put forward by the workers' committee of the Julius Faber company:]

"Today's meeting of the employee and worker committees requests the previously elected works councils to form a works council in the near future, and instructs this provisional works council to take all preparatory measures it deems necessary to propagate the idea of a works council everywhere and to give the works councils the influence they deserve. Signed Glatz, Chairman of the Works Council and Chairman of the Workers' Committee at Julius Faber.

Mr. Glatz: The motion put forward by our workers' committee and which has just been presented to you speaks for itself. We have now been together in a number of meetings without actually achieving any practical result. As things stand now, we have every reason to work as quickly and intensively as possible to achieve what we are all striving for in practical terms for the working class and for humanity as a whole. We must not allow interest to wane instead of increasing. First and foremost, it will of course be necessary to encourage the establishment of works councils in companies where they do not yet exist. Furthermore, the agitation must also be taken to the countryside.

The principal of our company has himself drawn our attention to the lectures by Dr. Steiner. The gentleman has very liberal views and plays a role in business circles. After we had concerned ourselves with the matter of the threefold order and were striving for the works council election, he then took the opposite point of view and said: The employers had decided to wait with the works councils until the matter was regulated by law. He could not recognize us as a works council. Nevertheless, we went ahead with the election. The decision was unanimous; the employees also joined. The election was held with great enthusiasm in the factory itself. It is gratifying to note that almost all employees and workers exercised their right to vote, despite the company's resistance. Even if the company does not recognize the works councils, they have still been elected. And since the works councils also belong to the workers' committee for the most part, they must still be heard.

I would therefore ask you to support the motion so that the matter can be properly addressed.

Mr. Roser: I would like to announce that twelve works councils have been elected so far. I would also like to express the wish that the works council be formed during the course of this week or at the beginning of next week. Of course, we don't just need works councils in Stuttgart, but the idea must be spread throughout Württemberg. I would therefore like to make a special appeal to those present to show even more interest in the idea of works councils than they have done so far. Furthermore, I can report that new works councils are in the process of being formed. We will notify the individual works councils next week when they are to meet. Then they can make the necessary decisions among themselves.

Mr. Jansen: I would like to present you with a document that deserves to be made public. I won't mention the company's name; that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I just want to characterize the overall train of thought:

“The undersigned officials have not officially declared, either in writing or orally, that they have been elected by the staff as works council members. As has already been said, our position on this matter is as follows: firstly, the election by the workers has been challenged and this challenge has been upheld by the management through a corresponding announcement. Accordingly, the validity of the election is in doubt. Secondly, according to a paper by Dr. Steiner, only those persons can be considered as works council members who are in a completely independent position, dependent neither on the boss nor on the business. Since this is not the case with us and we civil servants are in a distinctly dependent position, our election is also questionable. Thirdly, according to a gentleman, socialization at the... has already taken place, in that all surpluses after payment of the guaranteed interest of five percent are transferred in full to the municipality and thus to the general public. From this point of view, the supervisory board has rejected a works council. Efforts are being made to ensure that a joint meeting of all committees is held to discuss the works council issue. Fourthly, we take the view that works councils should be elected if the law requires it. We know that Dr. Steiner plans to socialize companies in such a way that the employer, the management and the supervisory boards and all shareholders are to be eliminated and that the so-called works council or all employees are to take their place. Since this amounts to an overthrow of the existing order and the existing laws, we hereby declare that we do not support such efforts and therefore cannot accept election as works council members.

This is truly a document of world-historical significance! Here are people who, thanks to the revolution, have finally escaped from dependency after half a year, and they declare: We are not allowed to participate because we don't want to get rid of capitalism, because we are, after all, in the service of capitalism. They have an interest in keeping the sacred capitalism alive and in being the employees who want to help support this idol so that the golden calf does not fall over. The logic in this document is a sign that there is still a huge amount of work to be done to hammer out the stupidity. To do this, the iron fist of the proletariat will be needed to carry out this work. However, I will seek a connection with these instances and try to find out to what extent the document corresponds to the facts and to what extent the gentlemen are revolting against any economic reconstruction.

Rudolf Steiner: Regarding this document, which is very interesting, I would like to make the comment that there are, after all, employees at present who are able to develop the following idea: the law on works councils is not yet a law, but only a draft. So there is no law on works councils yet. But, according to the four sentences, the gentlemen take the view that it is not just a matter of an overthrow – that could be discussed, but we do not need that – of the existing order and laws if one finds some existing law bad , but the gentlemen take the view that it is already an unlawful subversion if one violates any law that is not yet there, that they do not yet know, or a law that could come out, today. So, the gentlemen undertake to assure all laws that may be imposed on them of their obedience from the outset.

Mr. Nagel, Dresden: Anyone who has followed Dr. Steiner's comments on Brentano's essay no longer finds it incomprehensible that the government can approach us with a bill like the one on works councils. We cannot be concerned with getting works councils like that; instead, we have to get our hands on economic power. Unfortunately, the movement is still very small here in Dresden, but it is well known that Dresden has been fifty years behind the times. However, I hope that after studying the conditions here, I will be able to give enough impetus in my report back home to enable fruitful work to be done there as well. It was very encouraging for me to see that so many workers in Stuttgart already support the threefold social order.

Mr. Dorfner: As much as we have heard that is encouraging, I do miss one thing: I am often asked about this and that regarding the threefold social order and works councils. I always say: come to the discussion evenings, where you can ask questions that Dr. Steiner himself will answer. But hardly any questions are asked here. Those who do not like to do so orally can of course do so in writing. - I have also been asked the question: Won't the works councils make the workers' committees superfluous? - I would like to ask Dr. Steiner to answer this question.

Rudolf Steiner: The workers' committees have their tasks primarily in the individual companies. But the point of setting up works councils is to tackle real socialization. If the works councils are elected now and then come together as a works council, then this original assembly of the works council can take the first steps towards real socialization. Then the workers' committees, if they are to continue to exist, will presumably be able to receive a task for the individual companies, or, which is much more likely, the workers' committees will no longer be needed as such, but the works council will take their place. However, the works council may have to co-opt personalities from the current workers' committees for its further work, since it will not have enough people available to carry out the tasks currently performed by the workers' committees if it only has seven or eight members.

These specific questions will only be fully answered when we have a complete works council. The workers' committees were originally set up differently from the works councils. The works councils are intended to be the real leaders of the companies. A real works council would either have the current entrepreneur, if he agrees, as a works councilor, as well as people from the ranks of the employees, the intellectual workers, and the physical workers, or the entrepreneur would have to withdraw. It must be made perfectly clear that the works council is intended to be the real director of the factory, so that all entrepreneurship in the modern sense disappears alongside this works council. The workers' committee, however, is still intended to reflect the old form of entrepreneurship. I ask you to consider this difference carefully, that is, the difference between something that still exists from the old order, such as the workers' committee, and what should now form the first step towards a real reorganization. You must consider this difference, otherwise you will not be able to think about the tasks of the works councils in a truly comprehensive way.

Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the question of the continued existence or reorganization of the workers' committees can only be answered when we have the founding assembly of the works council.

Then there is the question of how things should be organized with regard to the works council in a state-owned enterprise. In this regard, I must say – and this has already been mentioned – that there should be no difference in the election of works councils between a private or state-owned company. In a state-owned company, too, an attempt should be made to overcome all prejudices and to elect works councils, so that these works councils will then also have their place in the works council when the so-called statute of the works council is being drafted. Then it will follow that the state's usual absorption of such enterprises will naturally not continue. These enterprises will have to be transformed into independent economic organisms. But this demand will first have to be formulated.

You see, the things that underlie the impulse for threefolding are indeed intended as practical demands, but they must first be formulated. They have to be put forward by an individual in his book, and also by a “union” advocating them; but that is not enough. On the economic plane, these demands must be put forward by the economic actors themselves, and they must have the confidence of the entire working population behind them.

Furthermore, the question has been raised as to how the socialization of the state railways and the postal and telegraph systems can be carried out from the point of view of threefolding. Of course, people today still have great prejudices in this regard, and it can be readily admitted that the upheaval would be very great indeed if these economic enterprises were also to be transferred from the present state to the administration of an independent economic body. But this must be done, because postal and telegraph services, like the railways, are an integral part of economic life and can only develop properly in economic life if that economic life is independent of state or legal life. |

The fact that it is difficult to imagine these things today is due to the following. We have become accustomed to thinking of things as they have always been. We say, “These are facts.” But, my dear audience, facts are things that have been created, created by people, and they can just as easily be re-created, changed. That is what we must bear in mind. It is absolutely essential that everything that belongs to economic life is also really placed on its own free economic ground. The reason why these things are so difficult to imagine today is that today money, which in any case is no longer really money in a large number of European states, is actually based on a very false foundation. Naturally the transition will be difficult because through money humanity is dependent on England as the leading commercial state and because we cannot simply dissuade the English and Americans from the gold standard overnight. In foreign trade with these states, we must of course have the gold standard until, under the pressure of circumstances, the gold standard will also cease. But for the threefold social organism, the aim must be that the state no longer lends value to money, but that money acquires its value within the economic organism. But then money is no longer a commodity, as it is today. Even if it is hidden, today money is in fact a commodity, and only because the state attributes its value to it. But in the threefold social organism, money will only be present as a means of circulation in the sense that it is, so to speak, a flying bookkeeping. You know from what I said eight days ago: everything in the coming economic life will be based on real performance and counter-performance. For the performance, one gets, so to speak, the note, which means nothing other than: on the general credit side, what corresponds to my performance is available to me and I can exchange it for what corresponds to my needs. If I give the note, it means the same as if I were to enter in a small business today what is on the left side to balance what is on the right side. So monetary transactions will be the flying bookkeeping for the economic organism. Such things are actually already in existence today in their beginnings. You know that there is already a kind of credit entry, that is, credit balances that can be transferred without having monetary transactions in certain areas. In fact, most of what the threefold social organism demands is already there in germinal form and present here and there. Those people who today speak of the impracticality of the threefold social organism should see how, here and there – albeit on a small scale, so that it is sometimes not useful but harmful – how, here and there, what exists in combination and stylized on a large scale will give the threefold social organism. Today, the state railways are almost conceived as a state piece of furniture, and one thinks of the upheaval as something terrible. But one must only consider that what matters in the future, namely the administration of economic life by works councils, by transport and economic councils – they are added on top of that – that these changes are entirely related to a real socialization and that all the fears are superfluous. It is therefore important, for example, that the railways are managed in a sensible way and not in such a way that the bureaucratic state is behind them.

If you look at things in detail, you will see that practical solutions can be found everywhere. If people keep coming to me and saying that they do not understand what is in my book, then I must say that I understand that today, because I would have to be very surprised if, for example, Professor Brentano, whom I have told you about, and his students, who are very numerous, would understand the “Key Points of the Social Question”. Because I do not think they can understand the book. But it is precisely these people, whose thoughts have not been corrupted by this education, that I believe can understand what is in the “Key Points” if they just overcome their habitual ways of thinking a little.

Mr. Roser: The individual points that came up this evening were mainly related to the economic field. It is understandable that this economic field is of the greatest importance in our discussion evenings. But in all this, we must not forget that economic life is only one part of that great problem, that great idea of the threefold social order. We must not lose sight of the fact that economic life alone is not viable and cannot function if we do not also look at the legal and spiritual life in an appropriate way. The reason for this is that our present circumstances are so chaotic because the three areas have been mixed up. This must always be our guiding star, that above all we strive to finally separate these three areas. These must then work together again in harmony, but not in the way it is now or has been the case, for example, that the constitutional state claims and abuses economic life or that economic life exploits intellectual life. Only when intellectual life also comes to full bloom, only then can a healthy economic life, indeed a healthy national life, come into being. Only through the threefold order can the whole life of the nation be seen in its true light.

Mr. Lange: He says that the doctor today is degraded to the level of a craftsman because he cannot prescribe medicines and the like freely, but must follow the instructions of the health insurance companies. Here, too, there is an all-round restriction through state laws and state authority. Furthermore, the mistake is made today that one always wants to press the new into the old. But in this way one does not move forward.

Mr. Kühn: The fact that the meeting today is not well attended is not due to a certain lack of interest, but to the fact that a large meeting is taking place at the same time in the Dinkelacker Hall. A lot of detailed work has to be done to establish the works councils. It's a long road. At the individual meetings in the factories, it becomes clear how difficult it is to convince individuals. It should not really depend so much on individuals, but more on the understanding of the masses. Then individual companies will simply be carried along. We have various speakers or lecturers who are constantly available to speak at meetings. From my experience in individual companies, it must be said that factual objections to the threefold social order are almost never heard. The workers almost all agree, only the employees are usually a little more hesitant, as can be seen from the interesting letter that was read out earlier. In many cases, people do not have the right feeling for the matter.

It would be desirable if the works councils elected to date could meet more often, including those from outside. Here, during these discussion evenings, would be such an opportunity to meet, but unfortunately not even all the works councils are here, apart from the fact that those from Esslingen and Heilbronn cannot travel here every time. The various sectors should be represented; an agreement should be reached on this, and I will now read out which sectors and industries are represented: a leather factory, several machine factories, trams, a cigarette factory, a cardboard box factory, a shoe factory, a measuring instrument factory, a state agency, a typesetting machine factory, and an optical instruments factory. I should also mention that the works council in the state-owned company is the only one that was set up with the approval of the superior. As you can see, we have a whole range of different industries. A works council is still being formed in a shoe factory in Kornwestheim, and in four or five engineering works; these are the most prevalent. But there are still some sectors missing, such as the textile, paper and printing industries, which is a shame. The food industry is not represented either. The current works councils are not yet sufficient to do real work. I would therefore like to make the suggestion that the works councils attend these meetings as often as possible or even regularly, and that the workers' and employees' committees, which come here anyway, are all converted into works councils. If you all go to the polls and not just listen to what is being said, you will all soon be works councils, so that we can soon fill this hall with works councils, although I do not mean, of course, that the workers' committees should disappear; they will probably often be part of the works council. If these question and discussion evenings are to be organized in such a way that the details are discussed, for example how this or that business can be transformed, then this is already a certain preparatory work for the later work of the works council. And so these evenings would be interesting.

Rudolf Steiner: There is not much more to say in today's closing remarks either. I will first answer a question that has been asked. This question is: The great mass of the proletariat, still thinking in materialistic terms, expects the activities of the works council to improve its material needs. What measures would have to be taken to quickly and fairly balance needs and wages during the transition period? You see, there are things that cannot be easily achieved from cloud-cuckoo-land. If it were not the case that works councils are absolutely necessary and are finally beginning to do real social work, the proposal to set them up would not be made at all. Therefore, such a view of improving the situation before the works councils start working cannot really be considered very significant. Today, there are many people who come up with strange questions when it comes to asserting the really practical points of view that will now lead humanity to more salutary conditions than we have today. In the last few weeks I have repeatedly experienced people asking: Yes, but now it should be socialized. What will happen to a small shopkeeper on the street after socialization? Or another question: How will the university custodian be socialized if threefolding is to be introduced?

Well, if you listen to these questions, they all actually boil down to one, namely, how do we actually bring about the great upheaval in such a way that not everything remains the same? That is what one type of person asks. The other type of people would like to see a great upheaval, but they do not want to do it that way; they do not want to intervene, they want easier measures. And this tendency underlies our question to some extent. One can only answer: With this other, easier form, even for the transition period, nothing can be achieved. Therefore, it is important that those who want improvement are prepared to take the measures that can bring about that improvement. You cannot ask: How do we bring about improvement in the run-up to the establishment of works councils? — But you have to say: In order to bring about improvement, we want to have works councils as soon as possible. I am even afraid that a miracle would not help here either. So don't rely on miracle cures, but take the practical route; the sooner the better.

Look, this “Tribune” has just come out, and it contains the essay about me and the proletariat that I mentioned earlier. In the same issue, there is another essay by a university professor who refutes the entire threefold social order point by point. It cannot even be said that what he presents this time is not true, but it is true for a very strange reason. You see, the man does not understand anything about the threefold social order. He is not at all in a position to really understand any of the ideas in my book about the key points of the social question. Because he does not understand this, but is still a university professor, he must understand everything. Because he does not understand, he makes up his own threefolding. That is a terrible mess. If you put together everything he describes as a threefolding, it makes a terrible mess, an unworkable, ridiculous, dreadful mess. And that is what he is now refuting. It is terribly easy to refute what he has concocted. But that is what the essay consists of. It contains nothing of what it is actually about. So the man cannot imagine why this independent economic entity should actually exist. I told you the other day: the independent economic entity must exist in the threefold social organism because everything in the field of economic life must arise out of expertise, out of being involved in economic life, out of the experiences of economic life, and because one cannot decide on economic life in the field of general law, where every mature person has to decide on what makes him equal to every other person. It can only be a blessing for economic life if it is decided by experts. Professor Heck cannot imagine this. He cannot imagine anything different from what he has already seen and experienced and in which his habits of thought are rooted. When it comes to such things, I always think of something I heard recently. Someone — I think it was a professor — said to me: I know the aspirations of the threefold social organism. — I asked him: Does any of it make sense to you? — Not so far, he said. You see, that “not so far” was all he could think of. What has not been so far does not seem to be open to discussion; he could not say anything more about it. You just experience things like that. You encounter objections that are not really objections. Not so long ago, someone even raised the objection: Yes, the idea of the threefold social order is, so to speak, based on a moral point of view, and taking a moral point of view is a big mistake. Yes, this objection has also been raised. The objections are all very strange. One of the most common is: Yes, it would be all very well with this threefold social order, but other people are needed for it. You cannot introduce the threefold social order with the present generation of people. Well, the person who says this does not understand that much of what is expressed in the present generation of people is precisely a consequence of our social conditions and that it will be different the moment our social conditions improve.

Well, people never look at things from a truly objective point of view. I will give you a drastic example, which I may have already given here. Was there not a terrible bureaucracy, especially within the civil service in Germany, before this world war? Now, the necessity of not only letting civil servants manage the economy, but also increasingly appointing merchants and industrialists to public offices, so that they could apply their practical wisdom to increasing the war economy, was recognized by the war economy. Then the strange fact arose, which is very interesting. The merchants and industrialists became much more bureaucratic than the bureaucracy had ever been before! So, they have adapted wonderfully to bureaucracy. Anyone who has observed this also knows what it would mean if people were no longer surrounded by unhealthy, i.e. bureaucratic, conditions, but by the kind of conditions that the impulse of the threefold social organism speaks of. In this way, just as industrialists and merchants have been transformed into dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats within the existing bureaucracy, people would adapt to healthy conditions, and it would no longer be possible to say that one must first have better people in order to establish a better social order. It must be made clear that it is precisely by improving social conditions that people will be given the opportunity to become better people. But if you demand that people must first be better people, then we do not need to improve social conditions at all. If people had not become what they are at present because of social conditions, then social conditions must be good, then they must be all right. You can see from this the necessity of rethinking and relearning. This is what is fundamentally necessary above all else. And if people could only place themselves a little in reality and think from that basis, then we would already be one step further.

You see, a very well-meaning young man writes — one would like to help him so much — he writes: Yes, he cannot help but say that perhaps the threefold social order would be a solution if people were different from what they are now. And now I ask you: Don't you think that this man carries in the depths of his soul the view that the others are not better people, but he, who realizes this, is, at least in terms of his nature, this better person? — If you go to the next person who says the same thing, then he in turn sees himself as the better person and a third probably as well. So everyone should say to themselves: if everyone thought like him – and actually, you have to take into account what other people are like – so if everyone thought like him, then the better people would already be there! You see, it is not a matter of thinking in an abstract, logical way, but of being rooted in reality with one's thinking, so that one does not say something that, as a thought, is constantly doing somersaults. But this is precisely what has such a terrible effect in the present and strikes us, that people continually stumble over their own thoughts, which are actually non-thoughts. Therefore, it must be emphasized again and again that not only is a change in our economic life necessary, but also a change in the spiritual structure of our social life. We have been driven by what has happened so far into a crisis of intellectual life in particular.

If we look at the world today, what strikes us most? Yes, in the last four to five years, what strikes us most is that basically the truth has not been told about any world affairs, but all world affairs have been distorted, presented in a false light, from reports of battles to the goals of nations. From the motives for war to those for peace, everything has been presented in a distorted way. Everywhere, phrases prevail that do not correspond to the facts in the world. But this lives in everything that has developed from the previous cultural and social conditions. This lives on into the individual activities and institutions of human life. Therefore, we must say that all those who view the social question one-sidedly do not have humanity at heart. One is only honest about humanity when one says to oneself: economic life has led people into crisis, so it must be placed on a different footing. The legal sphere has shown that class privileges and class disadvantages prevail in the individual jurisdictions, so it must be placed on the basis of universal human rights. It has become clear that we call something law that which can only be supported by force, and this has continued to this day. And it has become clear that in the spiritual life, people's thoughts are warped. In the three fundamental spheres of life – economic, legal and spiritual – we see humanity in crisis. Those who are sincere about progress must realize that in each of these three areas, progress must be made independently, because the crises result precisely from the intermingling of these three areas. Therefore, I can only say: If you take decisive measures in any particular area, as you are now doing in connection with the works councils, in the sense of a comprehensive social reorganization, that is, in the sense of the threefold social order, then you are acting in the direction of progress for humanity towards a real social order. Consider this connection between an individual measure and the measures based on an overall view. Only then are you doing your duty today towards humanity and towards yourself. Individual measures have no significance today, only what is conceived in the great social context. The smallest must be thought together with the greatest. Be aware of this: if you succeed in really bringing about the works council, then you will have done something of historical significance for all of humanity that follows, because this is connected with the greatest problems that are posed to humanity today. Therefore, do not ask about small steps, but stand on such ground that really forms the basis for moving forward to action, because action is what matters. And if we add deed to deed to what we understand from the threefold social organism, then we will be able to create what gives us hope of emerging from the terrible situation into which the previous spiritual life, the previous so-called legal life and the previous economic life have led us.

The chairman, Mr. Roser, opens the meeting. He then announces that it is intended to introduce study evenings at which explanations of the idea of the threefold social order are to be given and at which, in particular, the book “The Core Issues of the Social Question” is to be thoroughly discussed. The first study evening is to take place in the coming week. He then reports that the shoe industry has made progress with regard to the works council issue. They have already come so far that the works councils in the leather industry have joined together to form an action committee that intends to become active within the shoe industry in the near future.

Opening words

Rudolf Steiner: Dear attendees, As on the previous evenings, I will also give only a brief introduction today, so that we can then discuss one or the other specific question in detail. But in view of the waning interest in the works council issue, it may be advisable to make some more general comments at the beginning of this evening.

You see, on the part of the “Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism”, the aim has been to take the first really practical step in the direction that has been outlined by the social movement for more than half a century, by creating a works council. This movement is, after all, like an outcry of the proletariat against its oppression. But this outcry is basically nothing more than a kind of world-historical critique of the capitalist economic order. Due to the world war catastrophe, conditions have now emerged that make it necessary to replace the critique to which the parties of the socialist movement have become accustomed with something else. When people within this movement began to find ways to achieve social renewal, there was hope that, especially among the broad masses of the working class, firstly from their experiences within the capitalist social order, and secondly from the undergrounds that arise because the working class is really much more politically educated than the bourgeoisie as a result of its experiences, an understanding would develop for what should replace the previously merely social criticism of the social order. After the so-called collapse of the German Reich, one could basically only hope for something really decisive from this side, because those who were completely tied to the old state and economic order had nothing to offer that could really lead to a new structure, despite the experiences of the world war catastrophe and its consequences.

One gets quite gloomy thoughts today when, on the one hand, one realizes that the intelligentsia is necessary for a new beginning, and when, on the other hand, one considers the mental and political state of this intelligentsia in today's Central Europe, especially the intelligentsia of those who belong to the leading personalities. From all that has been said here so far, those of you who have been here often will have seen that if we really want to make progress, a new social order must also be found from a new spirit. This applies in particular to the present moment, which clearly shows that Central Europe is in the process of collapse. That nothing can be hoped for from certain circles is illustrated by the following example.

You see, when one speaks of a new spirit with which the future is to be shaped, then one must first ask oneself: where are the manifestations of this new spirit? Now, the political spirit that dominates today, especially the leading classes, I would like to illustrate with an example that could be multiplied a thousandfold. The following words were spoken in Berlin. Please listen carefully, for today it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the spirit of the people. So listen carefully:

"The fact that before the revolution we were generally able to trust in the honest and objective reliability of our government, that in the excellent Prussian civil service we could spare ourselves the need to have a say, is not the least of the reasons for the intellectual superiority that Germany in general, and especially in its scientific and technical development, has demonstrated during the nineteenth century. You cannot serve two masters at the same time. The general politicization is necessarily an enemy of strict concentration and immersion in creative work. May the German mind develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mud back to that glorious state of trust that Prussia gave us in the form of the Hohenzollerns!"

[Interjection: Is that the Oldenburg Januschau?]

Yes, that's what you think, that it's the Oldenburg Januschau! It would be comforting if it were at least him. But you see, these words were spoken by the leading professor of German language and literature at Berlin University. That is the crucial point! These words, spoken by the representative of German language and literature, the leading representative of this subject at the leading German university, are indeed somewhat indicative of the spirit that prevails among those who today have to inspire our youth for what humanity can expect from the future. Is it any wonder that gloomy thoughts arise when one thinks of this future? Basically, this is mentioned as a characteristic because, after all, those people who are leading the way in journalism today, especially in the journalism of the parties, have learned a great deal from these people in terms of their overall thinking, even if they have adopted individual program points. Above all, they have learned to be short-sighted, not to say dull-witted.

In the face of this, it must be emphasized again and again: Unless people can muster the strength to develop a truly new spirit, a comprehensive spirit, things cannot fundamentally improve. That is why it is so regrettable that the idea of founding a works council was drawn from a truly new spirit, that this idea of a works council, which is a truly practical idea, has found so little favor with the masses. Of course, things can move slowly at first, and that wouldn't even be the worst thing, but the way things have happened must be counted among the worst things.

We started our work here with the threefold social order in mind. At first, as I have already mentioned, the people who are always listened to said: Well, that's just a little folly, we'll let it go. But then this folly turned out to have found a following of thousands in Stuttgart and the surrounding area. That made people extremely uncomfortable. Then the practical idea of workers' councils emerged in a truly practical form. Then people became even more uncomfortable, and then this strange fact arose, which must be recorded again and again: that the parties are now raising objections to the threefold social order in general and to the works council issue in particular. On the one hand, we hear: Yes, the threefold order is all right. When our friends Gönnewein and Roser spoke at a public meeting in the Dinkelacker Hall recently, for example, one of the various speakers, most of whom were opposed to us, said: Yes, the threefold social order is all very well; it must ultimately prevail, but we are fighting against it! — Well, it is good and must ultimately be realized, but it is being fought against. - We want something completely different to start with, and then, when we have realized this completely different thing, then the threefold social order will come about by itself.

Now, there can be no question of the threefold order ever arising by itself; rather, it must be worked hard for. It is, I have to say the word, the biggest swindle when people repeat the old word over and over again: We only need to do this or that, it only needs this or that class to gain power, and then a properly ordered social being will arise by itself. No, the properly ordered social organism must first be recognized and then worked out. And it is characteristic that they keep saying: the threefold social organism is all very well, but that is how a social order must be, as the threefold social organism says, but we are fighting it. But if people are to say what they want, then one hears nothing but slogans and

The only thing I found within the Communist Party with regard to its fight against the threefold order is that they agree – as far as one is confronted with it – that the threefold order is quite good, but that it must be fought. In that they agree. And from the other side it has been shown — do not think that I care about anything, but when it comes to fighting for something, then such things must be looked at — that on the occasion of the publication of the first number of our weekly magazine 'Threefolding of the Social Organism', not a single one of the thoughts contained in this magazine was addressed, but it was all just scathing abuse. This is the result of dullness, of the inability to produce even one real thought of one's own. Therefore one can do nothing but rant. Much has also been said from third and fourth parties that aims in a similar direction. Things were always treated in such a way that it soon became clear that all these critics do not raise any real objections. On the one hand, this reveals an inability, an impotence; on the other hand, it reveals stupidity, in that one says again and again that threefolding is good in itself, but must be fought. Now, if these things are not looked at, if the cancerous damage resulting from party activity is not seen, then nothing healing can come out of the struggle in which we find ourselves.

Dear attendees! Today is truly not the time to get lost in such party squabbling, because today we are close to the point where people with the kind of attitude of Professor Gustav Roethe of the University of Berlin, which I have read to you, are gaining the upper hand again in capitalist circles as well. You don't have to be a friend of these ideas, which are only half or quarter ideas and, on top of that, quite impractical, and you don't have to be a friend of Wissell and Moellendorff, but you have to say that from a certain side they had the power to suppress them. If they had been ousted from another side, it would not have been a particular problem, but the fact that they were ousted from that side proves the current seriousness of the situation in Central Europe. It proves that certain circles feel safe again, circles that felt very unsafe relatively recently.

A few weeks ago, just as I was coming from Switzerland, from Dornach, to Stuttgart and we were beginning our work, it was still the case that the business community, indeed the leading circles in general, felt insecure in a certain sense. There was still a very strange mood prevailing in these circles. And so one could certainly have the impression that something can be achieved if a vigorous movement with content and meaning comes along. At that time, those who abhorred the planned economy and the framework laws of Moellendorff did not yet have the courage to come forward as boldly as they do today. But because it was possible to foresee how things would turn out, one idea was put forward again and again here and in other meetings at which I spoke, probably to the point of tedium for many, namely: Action should be taken on the idea of works councils before it is too late.

In connection with the farewell of Moellendorff and Wissell, it should be noted that the Works Council Constitution Act has now been reintroduced to the National Assembly. You can take all these symptoms together, and you will not find it incredible if today someone who has some insight into these things tells you: all this is the systematic work of the other side, the systematic work of former entrepreneurs who had already felt very close to the abyss and who are now gradually paralyzing the social movement in Central Europe. From this side, no means are spared, including going into partnership with the Entente, if it means paralyzing the social movement in Central Europe. If the ideas of those people who are at work today are fulfilled, and that is no exaggeration, then it is the case that all social striving, as you feel it, is an impossibility for many years. Because then it is not a question of how strong capitalism is in Central Europe, but of how strong Entente capitalism is.

That is how things are on the one hand. On the other hand, we have the most savage party infighting, which would have to be swept away in order to arrive at an objective striving. What does this party infighting reveal? Above all, it reveals the necessity for the threefold social organism. In this threefold order, spiritual life should have an independent administration, on the other hand, state or legal life should have its own administration, and on the third hand, economic life. Within economic life, as a purely economic institution, we want to develop the works councils. This works council system would mark the beginning of a real socialization by separating economic administration from spiritual and political life. What would be the safest way to keep economic life at the mercy of capitalism? By continuing to mix economic life with political life! And what is it that squeals out of the foolish party squabbling? It is the wild mixing and merging of economic points of view and political points of view. These modern parties are so harmful because they are based entirely on what has survived as a fusion of political and economic life. That is why we keep hearing from people who understand absolutely nothing about the structure of the social order that you first have to have political power and then economic power. Then they turn it around and so on. All these things show the most chaotic amateurism. The fact that such views are appearing within the parties shows how necessary the threefold social organism is. And in our day, I would say, we should really, as the twelfth hour approaches, consult with ourselves and ask ourselves: Do we really want to be the fools of the rising reaction by blindly following the party slogans more than ever the seemingly well-meaning Catholics follow them? Don't you want to rely on your own judgment? If you had relied on your own sound judgment, then the works council would have been established already. Just think what it would mean if the works council were already a reality and if the economic demands of the proletariat were taken up by the works councils and were to be heard in all that is now happening within the newly strengthened capitalism and entrepreneurship, in what is being driven on the part of the ore mining industry, which is much more damaging than one might think, and in what is connected with the peace treaty. People have repeatedly emphasized that the main thing is to conquer political power.

Oh, my dear audience, nothing strikes me as more ridiculous than such phrases. Of course, you can say such phrases, that you first have to have political power. But when the first step should be taken to gain power at all, as it could have happened through the election of the works councils, then this first step is not taken. It is not taken because people love to speak in grand words and phrases. But they do not love to approach the issue in a truly appropriate way.

The previous draft of the Works Councils Act has turned out to be impractical and unacceptable. Now a new draft is being presented to the National Assembly, after the timid attempt by Moellendorff and Wissell, which also contained rudiments of a planned economy, was thrown into the underworld, along with the two personalities. All this shows the kind of nonsense being perpetrated by a certain faction, which ultimately will lead nowhere. Imagine if our works councils in Württemberg had been in session for the last fourteen days and had sent tangible proposals for real socialization into the world every day! If that were the case, then one could say: the new spirit necessary for a new beginning arises from this proletariat. If there were a thousand works councils here instead of just a few, then we could say: We laugh at what the big industrialist said after the start of the November Revolution and the outbreak of the strike: “We just have to wait!” Because the time will come when the workers will come whining and begging to our establishment and will be satisfied if they are allowed to work a quarter of what they are asking for now. Well, but today we are not yet in a position to look at things with the necessary seriousness. But it is not enough to express this seriousness only in words; it is important that it is also reflected in actions. If we consider that the Central European industrialists will receive support from the Entente in terms of their power, then we must come to the conclusion that this works council system must be created before it is too late. I am not saying that nothing can be done now. Of course, we must continue to work in the direction we have begun, but it would be playing blind man's bluff to close our eyes to the general world situation. We are in it now, and actually we should not have got into it at all without already having works councils.

You see, in times of such upheaval as the ones we are living through, it is of the utmost importance to recognize and seize the right moment. You can't afford to wait four to six weeks for the right thing to happen. Today, many people know that with the great French Revolution at the end of the 18th century and with the following revolutions in the 19th century, only a kind of emancipation of the human being as a citizen was actually achieved. But the fact that individual people have become freer to a certain extent is meaningless for the broad masses of the proletariat. Why? Because those who rose up against the old feudal order may have seized state power, but they failed to remove the economic straitjacket from the workers, even though they were now personally free. Today it is time to realize that merely seizing state power is not enough. As a result of the revolutions, other people came to power, but nothing really new was created. The old framework of the state was retained. And so they continued to work until the catastrophe of the world wars. They squeezed everything into the framework of the old unitary state. Today the time has come to recognize that the proletariat cannot simply imitate the bourgeoisie, which only wanted to conquer state power. The proletariat must develop something new and not cling to the old unitary state. The proletariat must develop the tripartite social organism. Either we understand this tripartite structure or we will end up with an impossible construct like the state of the 19th and early 20th century. It is not enough to keep saying that we want to overthrow the old institutions and replace capitalism with new social forms! One must also know what these new forms should consist of! That is why an attempt has also been made with my book 'The Crux of the Social Question' to present to people something that really gives the longed-for social community an organic structure. It shows how this social community can become possible and how it can develop. What use is it to always say: things must come from themselves!

Well, I could imagine that such fanatics of self-origin still believe that the social order came by itself, even when it actually had to be fought for hard. You see, if the cockerel on the dung heap crows before sunrise, when it is still dark, and then the sun rises, the cockerel can imagine that it was his crowing that made the sun rise. It is quite certain that a new social order will not come about just by crowing about socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It will only come about if a sufficiently large number of people think: we have to work to bring about this new social order. We must choose from among ourselves those in whom we have confidence, so that, on the basis of existing economic experience, something beneficial for economic life may come about, which can then eclipse all the bureaucratic proposals for laws and the like that are being sought from other quarters. I ask you: Are you afraid of such work, or why do you refrain from creating such a works council, which would really be a power factor because it would be supported by the trust of the workers? At the moment, you can be sure of that, when such a works council produces new fruitful ideas, in that moment the works council is the greatest power in certain areas. It is not the crowing of a cockerel on the dung heap, who believes that the sun rises because of his crowing. It is a call to action, but to an action that is known to be the right one.

You see, I believe that the new spirit could flourish out of such a feeling alone. But as long as this new spirit does not live in people's minds, nothing good will come of it. And the current economic situation is such that, above all, we have to think about how we can get our economic life in Central Europe back on its feet to some extent. Thus, new sources of raw materials of the most diverse kinds will have to be tapped, especially in the East. There will be many a necessity that Central European entrepreneurship has not yet tackled. However, sources of raw materials in Siberia can no longer be tapped, because the course of the world does not allow this today; the Americans and the Japanese no longer allow it. Where we can be effective is in the entire European East. But there it will be a matter of finding the right tone to go along with the Russian national soul. That was precisely the worst thing about the industrial circles that have been leading up to now, that they never found the tone to enter into a corresponding connection with other national souls. That is another reason why a new spirit must enter into our economic life. Otherwise the East will slam the door on us, especially if we come with the spirit that our leading circles have developed so far. Above all, we are dependent on developing a brotherhood, an economic brotherhood, with the East, otherwise we will never get out of the situation we have gotten into.

A new spirit is needed in a wide variety of directions! This new spirit may flourish in hearts and minds, for we need it. You will not find the new spirit in what I read to you at the beginning, because it says that “before the revolution, we were generally able to trust in the honest and objective reliability of our government, that we excellent Prussian civil service state, we could spare the need to have a say in it, and it is not least in this that the intellectual superiority that Germany in general, especially in its scientific and technical development, has demonstrated during the nineteenth century, is rooted. ... May the German spirit develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mud back to the glorious state of trust that Prussia's Hohenzollern gave us.

You will understand that one cannot speak in this way today. But, ladies and gentlemen, I will now translate these words into another language and then ask you whether one can speak in this way today: the fact that before the revolution we were able to place our complete trust in the honest and objective reliability of our party leaders, that we the excellent Party bureaucratism we could spare ourselves the need to have a say, and it is not least in this that the intellectual superiority is rooted, which Germany in general, but not in its social-democratic and socialist development, has demonstrated during the nineteenth century. One cannot serve two masters, the Party bureaucrats and the tripartite division. The general politicization is necessarily an enemy of strict concentration and immersion in devotion, in loyalty, in party bonze-hood. May the social spirit develop the strength to work its way through the ugly political flood of sin and mud back to that glorious party system of trust, as the party bigwigs have given it to us Social Democrats. You see, you have applied the same thought forms to something else. Whether you are Professor Roethe and speak about the Hohenzollern in this way or whether you are just an honest party man and speak about the party bigwigs in this way, both are based on the same mental perceptions. It does not make a person freer if he simply worships other idols! One becomes free by relying on one's own judgment, on one's own reason and on one's own perception. It is to this inner perception that we have appealed. I hope that it will yet be shown that we have not appealed in vain, for if we had appealed in vain, then the situation of the proletariat would be dire.

Discussion

Mr. Huch: The speaker fully agrees with Dr. Steiner's remarks and expresses his regret that the idea of the threefold social order is not taken up as it should be. He sees the fault largely with the trade unions. As a member of a workers' committee, he also notes that the business community today is again acting quite differently than it did six to eight weeks ago.

Mr. Fischer: He introduces himself as a trade union leader and defends the work of the trade unions against the previous speaker. He explains that it is the fault of the workers themselves if the union does not proceed correctly. — The poor attendance at today's meeting is probably also due to the fact that the workers are suspicious of everything that comes from philosophers, theosophists and commercial counselors. Regarding the works councils, Mr. Fischer criticizes the fact that the works councils in Germany are also fragmented. If there is now competition between works councils in different cities, independently of each other and based on different industries, then that is a big mistake. The speaker professes himself to be a supporter of the works councils. At the moment when the parties and the trade unions have outlived themselves, they must of course be swept away; the only question is what we put in their place. It must be clear that you can't just throw away the organizations that have had the trust of the masses so far. The speaker cannot imagine how unity can prevail in a works council when people with different economic and political views are represented there. If practical socialization is to be pursued, then one must begin by taking the means of production and land out of the hands of the exploiters and transferring them into the ownership of society, because the power of the capitalists is based on the ownership of these means. The speaker asks Dr. Steiner to indicate how the works councils can accomplish this task. Furthermore, Dr. Steiner is asked to provide information on how, in his opinion, the works councils can be put in a position to determine demand. Because as long as the worker has to ask, “Do I have enough to live on?” he will not concern himself with lofty spiritual problems. The starving masses crave bread, not spiritual ideals. Only when food is available again will there also be mental resilience. The masses will certainly not grovel and beg for work, but will throw society overboard. The proletariat's confrontation with the capitalists will not take the form of fine speeches, but of violence.

Another speaker: Dr. Steiner's idea that we must orient ourselves towards the East coincides with what I also said at a meeting. I also said that the new comes from the East; a new form of society has emerged there, perhaps not yet as it should be, but the new comes from there and we must orient ourselves towards it. What do we experience? Our government has known nothing but to look anxiously to the West and to make sure that nothing happens that the Entente does not like. That is the whole evil we are facing today. German capitalism has simply been replaced by Entente capitalism, and we will have to fight very hard battles if we want to eliminate this Entente capitalism from the world. No one has yet succeeded in pointing the way. If Dr. Steiner succeeds, the workers will follow him.

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to make a few remarks before I return to the words of the previous speaker.

First of all, it was said that the working class is strongly opposed to the threefold social order because it is based on philosophers, commercial counsellors and the like. This is not true at all; in fact, the working class was not very prejudiced at the beginning of our work. On the contrary, it turned out that we found thousands and thousands of supporters for what we were spreading, not as a utopian idea, but as something that is directly the germ of action, as I called it at the time. The workers at that time didn't give a damn whether these thoughts came from philosophers or commercial counselors, but they relied on their common sense and listened. And those who were prejudiced whistled from a completely different direction. And they have managed to ensure that this prejudice has only gradually emerged. So the matter is quite different.

Although the previous speaker has correctly characterized the movement of commercial employees, which is showing some better traits and deserves to be studied in more detail by the rest of the working class, his words nevertheless show that he is completely unaware of what threefolding is in general and what it specifically seeks to achieve with the founding of a works council. For this is precisely what must be most vigorously combated by the threefolding of the social organism, namely, that this fragmentation occurs. It has never been our aim merely to create works councils for any industry or to individualize within the works council. How often has it been said: If works councils are created for the individual industries, this is the opposite of what must be aimed for in the context of a real socialization. We have always striven for a works council that extends uniformly over a larger, self-contained economic area. And only from such a works council should everything necessary for individualization then emerge. The fact that the matter has taken on the form that more zeal is shown in individual sectors than in others has nothing to do with the works council as it should have arisen from the idea of threefolding.

Yes, and then the previous speaker brought up the argument that one would have to start by transferring the means of production and land into the ownership of society. Just try to think through what is actually meant by this nebulous sentence to its logical conclusion! Consider what such a demand means in practice! I would like to take this up again. I once spoke about these things in a town, I think it was Göppingen, and after me spoke a man who actually spoke quite well from a certain point of view. He was probably a communist. He said he was a cobbler. At first he spoke very well, but then something strange happened: he said, “Yes, I already know that since I have not learned a trade, I cannot become a registrar, for that you need intelligence.” Well, excuse me, but that doesn't require much understanding. But a great deal of understanding and insight is needed for what this man wanted to know about the conquest of political power and the like. These things must be faced.

Now, the specific question is how to implement the fundamentally correct demand to transfer the means of production and land into the public domain. Of course, there must also be people available who can properly manage the means of production and land. The thing is this: what has been the capitalist form of production up to now has a very specific configuration; a very specific way of handling it was necessary for that. This must be transformed into a different way of handling it, and this must first be created. Today, before you have any concrete ideas about how to manage the means of production and the land, you cannot simply demand that the means of production and so on be transferred into the public domain! That is precisely what the workers' councils are supposed to do in practice. You cannot revolutionize anything with phrases and theories; you can only do it with people, and these people should have been the workers' councils, and I mean the unified workers' councils, not the fragmented ones. That is what it is all about. We shall make no headway if we keep on saying that the proposals of the philosophers and commercial counsellors come from the clouds, and then contrast them with a so-called practice that has arisen from even more nebulous regions, because then it becomes apparent that it is impossible to say how such things can actually be implemented. But it is precisely this “how” that is at issue. This “how” is explained in my book The Essential Points of the Social Question; it is only necessary to understand it, that is what it is about.

Yes, and then it has been said repeatedly that we must first change the economic order. The spiritual will then arise by itself. — It will not. We already need this new spirit to change the economic system. And it is precisely then that one speaks impractically and nebulously when one says again and again: We change the economic system, then the new spirit will come by itself. No, you need the new spirit to change the economic system. That is why I say to you: For my sake, you can chase the whole of society away with the words of the esteemed previous speaker – but then also be clear about what you have to do when you have chased away the old society. Do you know what you want to do then? You can't do the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't need to chase them away. If you centralize the entire economy and put super-bonze above super-bonze, do you think that will improve anything? I would like to see if something would be better for the working masses if you were to put the highest-ranking union bonze in the top positions instead of the capitalists and entrepreneurs. That is what you should think about. That is what emerged from practical considerations, however much I liked the tone of the previous speaker's comments. But it has not yet been understood what it is really about, because everything that is happening in the optical industry, in the automotive industry and the like is the opposite of what is being propagated here. And so it is not enough just to point out ways; there must be a real understanding among the broad masses of workers, and then these ways must be developed in concrete practice. That is why I feel I must say, when I hear it said, “Steiner shows us the ways,” Steiner shows us the way – that it will be of no use if I show these ways, as long as large masses are repeatedly kept from understanding by the fact that people keep coming who have not yet understood this way and then speak of the opposite, as has just happened again, and then say: If we are shown the way, we will follow it; I am happy to be taught. – But when something is shown, the objection is that it is nothing. No, as long as this is the case, we will not make any progress. We will only make progress if we develop an instinct for what is right. And that is what we lack from the “Federation for the Threefold Social Order”. At first we found a certain healthy mass instinct, but then we had to learn that there is still a great deal of obedience to the old leaders. I will not doubt the emergence of a healthy instinct, but it will only emerge when those speakers no longer appear before the masses who, without sufficiently penetrating the matter, simply talk and prevent the masses from from taking further steps, but on the contrary, lead them back to their old obedience and to dubious ideas, by saying again and again: “Go ahead and form works councils; they will only fragment again.

If what we have been striving for had really been achieved, we would not have fragmentation, but a unified organization of economic concerns within the works council into the future, at least for Württemberg. This would then have a motivating effect on others and could have an impact beyond this economic area.

Mr. Fischer: He states that his criticism of the works councils was not directed against Dr. Steiner, but against the remarks made by the chairman at the beginning... I said: I am convinced that the ideas that Dr. Steiner developed and carried to the masses were different. But something different was propagated than was shown in practice. Dr. Steiner said that the socialization of the means of production is a phrase and that afterwards there would be no one left who would know how to manage the means of production. It would be sad if the workers and employees who have done the work since then did not know what to do with the means of production! What I mean is that the shareholders should be eliminated and it should be said: the shares are no longer valid. The property should become the property of the general public and be administered by the general public. Dr. Steiner puts spiritual ideas above everything. But the workers today only want bread because they are physically exhausted and unable to accept spiritual ideas. I ask Dr. Steiner to address this and show how these ideas can be made accessible to the masses with hungry stomachs.

Rudolf Steiner: That is a snake that bites its own tail. Do you think it is said on the one hand: We can transfer the means of production into the general public. Well, a really concrete body that would represent this generality would be the works councils. But such a body must first be created, it is not there! Certainly, the great mass is weakened by hunger. But should we wait for manna to fall from heaven so that bread can be socialized? This is a snake that bites its own tail. We must, of course, strive for both at the same time, and we will achieve nothing if we do not all work together, because the manna will not just fall from the sky. There is work to be done! We will all have to work, but we will only really want to work if we see what comes out of that work. We will work even with weakened muscles, with hungry stomachs, when we know that tomorrow our work will lead to a result. – But if we are always told that it should be socialized, then we will not be able to work even with an empty stomach, because we know that we will not be full tomorrow if we do not work with practical ideas.

So today it is important that we engage with this and also say: Well, the old society was chased away in droves on November 9 [...] The previous speaker, who said very good things in general, then described very well what happened then. I do not want to examine now how much of what happened there can be attributed to incompetence. I attribute more to the incompetence of those in power today than to their ill will. Because of this incompetence, what should actually be overcome keeps coming to the fore. This must be avoided. Whether or not this society, which was discussed today, is chased away with or without violence, is another question. But those who take its place must know what they want. That alone is practical. And that is the aim of the 'Federation for the Threefold Social Organism': to ensure that November 9th is not repeated and that in a few months' time we do not have to say: 'Now you see, now we have a different regime in economic life, but it is doing exactly the same thing as the previous one'. This must be prevented. But it can only be prevented by setting up a works council and then showing that things are done differently under the new regime. Of course, if no people can be found among the working population, among the employees, who really know how to work, then one would indeed have to despair. But that is not the only thing. It is essential that new forms of socialization then become visible. After all, people are all accustomed to working in some way under the old regime. Therefore, now that power has been gained, those who have gained it must really recognize how to deal with that power. So, it's a matter of really taking a practical approach for once. And the sad thing is that there is no understanding of such a practical approach today, and people keep coming up with old phrases. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that the transfer of the means of production and the land into the community is a phrase as such. That is not what I said. But a phrase, what is a phrase? Something is a phrase for one person because he cannot see anything special behind the words, while for another it is a deep golden truth because he sees something concrete behind it. When, for example, Bethmann-Hohlkopf, I mean Bethmann-Hollweg, says, “Free rein to the efficient!” it is a mere phrase, because he may understand it to mean that, for example, his nephew or someone else is the most efficient. But when someone who has real social insight and a real sense of humanity says, “Free rein to the efficient!” it is not a mere phrase, it is real. If someone simply repeats the old party line about the socialization of the means of production, then it can be a mere catchphrase. But when someone characterizes it as it is in my book, then it is not a catchphrase, then it is an expression of a reality. Therefore, you do not have to believe that when I call something a phrase, it is meant to be absolute. I mean, it is a phrase when there is not the necessary reality behind what has been said. That is what I wanted to say.

Mr. Roser: The previous speaker is mistaken if he thinks that I welcomed the works councils in the shoe industry because they formed separately. I just wanted to state that the leather industry has grasped the tripartite structure of the social organism. I must note that the works councils in the footwear industry have been firmly established on the basis of the tripartite division; only for this reason did I welcome the matter. A start has to be made at some point.

Mrs. Bühl: I would like to tell Mr. Fischer that the union secretary said: Without a law, there can be no works councils; the law must first be created. The main reason why we still have no workers' councils is the fault of the parties. It's a disgrace that when you go to a meeting and express your convictions, people immediately say, “Ah, one of Dr. Steiner's people.” Why can't we express our convictions? And then they always come to us with the “Kommerzienräte”! Why do you always speak in the plural? I only know of one Kommerzienrat in our family, and it wouldn't be a mistake if we had a couple of dozen of them. Just think of all the things that one Kommerzienrat has achieved! First of all, the free school. It's a shame when you hear how the matter is judged. It's good when Kommerzienrats do it that way. I couldn't open a school. It's the stupid mistrust among the workers and the parties. [Shout: Where does he get the money from?] One opens his wallet, the other doesn't; that's the difference. If a person thinks socially and has a feeling for his workers, that's the main thing!

Mr. Huth: Mr. Fischer's comments call me to the scene. First of all, I would like to confirm to him, because I know him, that he is not one of those union bigwigs who move in the spirit of a Legien, but one of those who are active in the spirit of a truly revolutionary working class. But when he criticizes the fact that works councils have been formed and united in the shoe industry, and when he wants to use this to assert that a fragmentation would take place because other occupational branches also have works councils, then I have to correct him. In the shoe industry, when we elected our works councils, we waited quite a long time for the metal industry here to start electing its works councils as well, so that we could form a works council in the sense of the tripartite division together with them. But as time passed, and this was due to the fault of the proletarian parties, and in the other occupations the matter has not yet progressed as far as in the shoe industry, we had to say to ourselves: There is no point in not getting together and doing practical work ourselves. We have to form a works council, no matter how small, and then spread the idea of the works council to the circles of those workers who have not yet taken any action in this direction.

We cannot wait for some government to bring us socialization. The liberation of the proletariat must come from the proletariat itself, and if it is on a path that a philosopher has shown, if the path is good. It has been pointed out that the old slogan: We must first conquer political power - is repeatedly haunting people's minds. This is hammered into the proletarians again and again. This word is actually a phrase, a dishonest phrase of the parties that call themselves proletarian today, but do not know what to do in the given hour. Because they do not know, they always put off the proletariat to the great Kladderadatsch, until we get reinforcements from the West that will give us political power. We had the power, but what did we do with it? We let it slip out of our hands again because we didn't know what to do with it. We must start by conquering not political power, but economic power through the works councils. Then the power will no longer be able to slip out of our hands. The factory councils, which are to be only economic instruments, will then be supplemented by political councils, by a legal organization. But if we do not also associate the spiritual organization with these two organizations, then we will not arrive at a healthy state, as Russia shows. The leaders of the USP have already risen to a two-fold structure. But the cultural part must not be forgotten either!

When I read Däumig or Müller, I have to say to myself: Put into practice, this will lead to a threefold structure, because they have actually only forgotten the cultural part. — I am a member of the USP, but I am not afraid to tell the parties that they do not know what to do. As proletarians, we have to say: if you don't understand how to lead us, then you have to leave the field. Every movement has the leaders it deserves; so do we. The proletariat as a whole has not yet mustered the courage to tell its leaders who they are. Even if it is already quite late, we must nevertheless take up the question of the works councils with renewed energy. Mr. Molt: The person speaking to you this evening has repeatedly mentioned, if I may say so, the old council system. Mr. Fischer, whom I have the pleasure of meeting again, asked me the specific question of where the money I have actually comes from. This money comes from exactly the same capitalism from which Mr. Fischer also draws his money, that is, from the capitalist economic cycle. And the question is only whether one keeps the money that one acquires on capitalist ground to oneself or whether one gives it back to the general public. By their deeds you shall know them! – In the past, it was said: By their fruits. If you found a school to implement true socialism, if you used the money you had saved through hard work – really through work, not through capitalism – to educate the rising generation in ways other than what we were taught, I would call that the practical fruit of a good idea. If it only came about because I was able to fill my stomach a little better during the war and therefore had a good idea, then it's good that at least that's there. The idea seems to be there for real. And if there aren't good ideas everywhere, then at least we can be glad that there are still people who have ideas, and the main thing is that they are carried out.

You see, the question of the works councils, which Mr. Fischer has so thoroughly misunderstood, has really reached a much more serious stage than has been expressed here tonight. It is truly a matter of life or death! Either we create the works councils, and then we have socialism, or we perish at the hands of Entente capitalism, not only the manual laborers, but also the intellectual workers. And this fact, together with a true idea of socialism, can already warm our hearts for the cause, so that we make the works councils a reality and even put ourselves at the service of this cause as a commercial councilor, and we do so because we really mean it. And the fact that one means it honestly is proved by the wonderful fact that even proletarian assemblies want this strange commercial councillor to give them lectures on works councils, not to the detriment of this assembly. That is why I conscientiously stand on the side of the works councils as well as on the side of the threefold social order. These works councils are different from those in the automotive and optical industries, because they are nothing more than political means to strengthen the parties; they are not there to thoroughly socialize economic life on a large and true scale. That is why we at the “Bund für Dreigliederung” are so strongly opposed to the fact that the works councils that come from the parties are mixed up with the ones we want.

You have probably already read in a daily newspaper that this works council law has again been submitted to the government. We are clear about the fact that the works councils cannot be standardized because every company is different. Economic life cannot be regulated by political power or by laws, but can only regulate itself. Once the law is there, it is difficult to oppose it; you have to be a revolutionary. But if they do not even take a serious stand against the drafts, how much less will it be possible once the law is there? Only a few weeks separate us from this law. This time must be used. If it is not used, it will simply be too late for the works councils and for socialization. That is why one so fervently hopes that the working class will finally wake up. It is not right to think that the workers are prejudiced against 'philosophers and commercial counsellors'. The matter is different. Anyone who has read the newspaper and has read what the “Social Democrat” said about this Waldorf school - he says: “The school is nice, but it comes from factory owners, so it is nothing at all” - must say to himself: These are the people who are hindering true socialism and true progress. The party bigwigs of all stripes are to blame for the fact that our honest efforts and the works councils have so far achieved nothing. But the proletariat itself will soon see how it is driven into misery and hardship if it does not pull itself together in time.

This appeal should be addressed to you again today. There is no time to lose! We only have three to four weeks left. If we lose these, it will be over for good. To show you how serious the situation is, I would like to read you a few lines from a letter that I received just today. This letter was written by a German diplomat who is the first to go abroad, and you should hear how the German situation is characterized from that side: “The situation at home is getting worse and worse, and I fear that the catastrophe that was to be avoided by accepting the peace has only been postponed in order to break over us all the more powerfully. What is now called the government in Germany is really just a caricature of one, wavering between party doctrine and fear of the revolution from left to right. The people's morale is completely collapsing. The speed with which our reputation abroad is declining cannot be described; it is impossible to salvage anything.

This is a letter that arrived today from a German diplomat, who is familiar with the situation and knows how things stand, how we are viewed abroad. But things can truly only change if people in working-class circles do not fall asleep and fail to realize that we are only now approaching real misery, and if they pull themselves together in the last hour to arrive at a state of affairs in which our economic life, which is on the brink of the abyss, can be lifted again. And that can only happen if we ourselves lend a hand, if we ourselves want to see an upward turn in our economy through the introduction of works councils. I wanted to make this appeal to you again, so that we do not have to say in three to four weeks: 'Now it is too late.' There is still time, but it is the twelfth hour. It is up to you, not us.

Mr. Jansen: When Dr. Steiner began his lectures eight to ten weeks ago, there was really great enthusiasm for the idea of the threefold social order. But the moment Dr. Steiner and the Federation for the Tripartite Social Order moved on to the practical, and passed over from thought to reality, the moment work and effort were demanded of those who had previously only been allowed to applaud and clap, some of the enthusiasm already waned. The cool attitude of the workers was also to blame for the fact that the enthusiasm for Dr. Steiner's ideas did not go so far as to be able to fight against the leaders. All of us who were involved in the agitation know what it is to speak out against this apathy. Dr. Steiner also experiences the apathy of the masses. The idea of workers' councils, in the face of capitalism, which was not all that secure a quarter of a year ago, has evoked the last dormant forces within him. He has tried to kill off these workers' councils by denying their validity and feasibility. And the so-called educated caste of our present-day society and the even more vulgar press of all shades have managed to drag the true idea of the threefold social organism and the works councils as it is in the newspapers. |

Half a century has passed since Karl Marx died of starvation, and today people are arguing about how to implement socialization. And it has been more than half a year since the Jena of the German workers, the November Revolution, broke out, and still no one knows how to implement socialization. We should be grateful to a man who has taken the trouble to seek out a practical way, a way by which socialism can be introduced in a relatively short time. The opposite is true! It can be put down to jealousy on the one hand and stupidity on the other. I have already illustrated this a few weeks ago with an example: People talk about killing the lion, capitalism, but they are afraid of the little mouse, the representative of the factories, the director, and of the union and party officials and the like.

Mr. Fischer spoke of commercial counselors, professors, doctors who support the idea of threefolding. Don't we also have professors and doctors in the parties? Do we also say that their ideas are therefore worthless? And if they weren't in the party, the stupidity of the masses would have long since destroyed the parties. One more peculiar little chapter: Mr. Molt, whom I welcome as a colleague and whom we have asked to speak in an informative way at our meeting tomorrow about works councils, this gentleman has money. We have a great many people in the party who also have money, who had it earlier or who have made money through their work in the party. These men, who call themselves party comrades, party leaders, keep their money to themselves. They do not make it available to the party! They buy themselves villas and settle up there nicely. Therefore, let's not be too quick to reproach them: “The man has money.” We have to see what the people below us do with their money. It has been said: “Hunger must be eliminated first so that people are even open to spiritual food.” A communist recently said: Hunger is the worst revolutionary. Once hunger is raging, there is no stopping it, and what has been suppressed for so long breaks through. What are strikes if not hunger revolts? And because hunger is a good incentive, it would not be good to eliminate hunger today. Let us ensure that we abolish mass hunger by abolishing mass exploitation. Socialism is the way to do this! Hunger is an incentive to finally implement socialization.

Mr. Kühn: As managing director of the “Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism,” I would like to say a few words about what has been asked. We intend to call the works councils together for their first meeting next week. We will also begin the study evenings next week. Mr. Roser has already spoken about this. Perhaps I may say a few words about the discussion that took place with Mr. Fischer this evening. Unfortunately, Mr. Fischer has already left. I wanted to tell him in front of the meeting that I definitely know that he has never, neither here nor anywhere else, attended lectures by Dr. Steiner. The only time I met him was at a meeting to discuss the question of the works council, which was convened by employees and where he heard something about threefolding from some speakers. Dr. Steiner was not present. That is how people who know nothing about the matter judge it; they imagine all sorts of things and want to dismiss the matter out of hand. However, Mr. Fischer told me this evening that his union or association wants to hold meetings in the near future to discuss works councils and to set up trial works councils in the factories. You see, people come along when they have heard something here and there and make something out of it. That is what we want to avoid and what we must fight against. We must not make common cause with those who do not want to know about the threefold social organism and do not work towards it. Works councils that are not created on the basis of the idea of the threefold social organism will never be able to realize socialism. The works councils we wanted to introduce would have been the first step towards socialization in the sense of the threefold order. We must reject everything else. It is a pity that Mr. Fischer has left and can no longer discuss the threefold order with us.

Time and again, objections to the threefold order come from people who know nothing about it, but also from people who have already heard many lectures on the threefold order. I would like to tell you an example. There is a communist leader who has a fairly great gift as a speaker and captivates large crowds. He appears at almost every meeting. This man has heard a lot about the threefold social order, but has not grasped any of it. For example, he says: Yes, the threefold social order leads to a three-class system, because if you create three parts, then there is a class in each part, and so we get even worse conditions than today; today we only have two classes. If one wanted to draw conclusions about classes from the organizations, then one would have to say: Today we have a unified state, so there is only one class. So today there should only be one class! This man does not understand such things and comes to such a prejudice. We want to put the social organism on a healthy footing precisely in order to eliminate class rule. There is no question of a three-way division of the classes. The same man also asserts the same thing that Mr. Fischer asserted, namely that the threefold order protects employers. Anyone who has read Dr. Steiner's book knows that today's type of entrepreneur will disappear altogether. But the most beautiful objection of this communist leader was that he said: You cannot separate the economy from politics. You see it all the time in the Reichstag or in the National Assembly, how people represent their economic interests; just think of the industrialists in heavy industry! They cannot help but represent their economic interests. So people cling to the old, to this idol of a unified state, because they do not see that this is precisely what we want to fight, what we want to abolish. It is economic policy that has driven us into this disastrous catastrophe. People readily admit this in private, but they are unable to muster the strength to take measures that would no longer make such economic policy possible. There are the party leaders, above all, who have ruined the works council system for us. We must get rid of these people. The proletariat cannot see socialism realized before that.

We have also encountered an incredible prejudice among the employees, whom we have also called upon. I would like to give an example of this: a person whom I respect very much, who is a leading employee in a factory, said to me: I don't yet know whether capitalism is so wrong. In any case, I insist that it is better today than it will be. I will stick to my views and go down with them rather than introduce something new. I know that I am alone in this and that I may soon be out on the street, but I would rather it be so. I will remain honest and consistent. I have been told that this man has a heart for the proletariat, and that is why he speaks in this conservative way. When I told him he was conservative, he got terribly angry. He said it was just honest. I told him: It's just the same as when you take a train. At one station, the train driver comes in and says the train will derail at the next station, and you then say: I'll stay on the train anyway; I'd rather be injured than get off. I said: I would get off as quickly as possible and see if the train could be moved to another track where it would not derail. — So we have to pull ourselves together at the last moment and do everything we can to get the works councils together. We must present and defend the approach that we see as practical, and not be afraid of being too strongly attacked by the party bigwigs. Actually, word of mouth should teach people again and open their eyes to the philistinism of their party leaders.

Rudolf Steiner: The question has been raised: How can what is healthy in syndicalism be related to the threefold social organism? - Well, it would of course be taking us very far if we were to talk about the essence of syndicalism today at this late hour. But I would like to say that there is much that is genuinely healthy in syndicalism, as there is in other contemporary endeavors. Above all, the healthy aspect of syndicalism is that many syndicalists are dominated by the idea that, regardless of the eternal insistence on the rule of law in the state, economic gains for the broad masses of the working population must be achieved in direct competition with entrepreneurship. The idea that something for the future can arise out of economic life itself through a kind of federal structure lives as a healthy thought within syndicalism. Syndicalism has emerged particularly in recent times within the French labor movement, and it is somehow significant that it has emerged most strongly there. The French have a very strong sense of state. But just at the moment when people in France who were well-disposed towards the state wanted to found a particular labor movement, they came to the conclusion that this could only be useful if it operated exclusively on an economic basis. The federative structure of economic life, as envisaged by syndicalism, even shows certain similarities to what is sought through the associations based on the idea of threefolding.

You see, in the threefold social organism we have an independent spiritual life, then an independent state or legal life, and further an independent economic life. This independent economic life, as I have often said, will have to be built on corporate cooperative foundations, that is to say, associations will be formed on the one hand from the various occupational groups and on the other hand from certain connections between production and consumption. One of the objections raised, for example, by Professor Heck in the Tribüne is based on the fact that he says: Yes, but how will it be possible, for example, for craftsmen and small traders to be knowledgeable about the concerns of big industry if economic life is to be structured in the future as Dr. Steiner wants? Well, this shows that Professor Heck has not understood what is meant either. Of course, one cannot be knowledgeable in all fields, nor is it necessary, because if a federal structure is really established and the individual associations work together intensively, something fruitful for economic life will come of it. It is simply not possible for everything that must develop on a purely democratic basis, such as labor law, to be represented or administered in the same way as purely economic matters. This view is also encountered, at least to some extent, in syndicalism. In the Anglo-American labor movement, the principle of Anglo-American parliamentarism still prevails very strongly. Since this is based on a certain system of counterweights, namely power against power, the Anglo-American labor organizations are also aligned according to the same principle, namely, labor power against corporate power is played off against each other, just as the liberal and conservative parties face each other in parliament. We encounter a different form within the labor organizations in Germany. There is a certain centralism, I might even say a certain military system, based on command and obedience. I don't know if you will entirely agree with this, but I can assure you that I have attended several trade union meetings and that I was always unpleasantly affected by the fact that whenever different opinions arose, the chairman of the meeting stood up and said: Children, it's no use! — So, this centralized-military system is the second; and the third is what is meant by the federal structure, by the structure of independent bodies, in which there will be no majorization or centralization, but objective negotiation. In syndicalism, this appears as a good impulse, but here too a further step is necessary, as is aimed at with the idea of the threefold social organism, namely that the progressive factors that have yet to enter into the thinking of contemporary humanity are actually taken into account. And here I believe that an understanding of this may perhaps develop from syndicalism itself. But this should not be understood as if I were only singing the praises of syndicalism. However, I do believe that threefolding can be better understood from this side than from any of the other directions.

Now, I have little to add to what the last speakers have said. I would just like to make one comment, namely that I and the friends of threefolding have recently become very aware of what one speaker said about the apathy of the masses. Yes, in the place of the phlegm, one would need fire, because if we really want to make progress in this day and age, we need not only insight – this, of course, in the first place – but also fire. You see, when it is constantly being said that the spirit is not really needed, that it will come with economic transformation, then I ask you: Yes, the possibility of moving forward was there to a certain extent. On November 9, the National Assembly was elected. But is there any sign of a new spirit in this National Assembly? There was now a whole new group of voters who had not previously been entitled to vote: women. But it is strange that the spirit has obviously not yet descended on these women either, because the National Assembly shows absolutely nothing of what we really need for the future. But for that, enthusiasm and fire will be needed.

In this context, I ask you whether it is not rather short-sighted to refuse to see that a certain socialization has already begun – and this before the official socialization? Do we want socialization only on paper? Is that what it takes to satisfy you? Imagine if the commercial counsellor who devoted himself to the threefold order had done so like the other commercial counsellors. Then it would have come about that at the moment when socialization was to take place, there would have been no commercial counsellor at all! It would have come about that at some point this Kommerzienrat would have been expropriated like other Kommerzienräte, and then there would have been no more money for real socialization or better schools and the like. And now I ask you: Is it a great sin for someone to take money from another before humanity is ready, to give his money for socialization? Is it a sin if someone does not always trumpet the message that the means of production must be handed over to the general public, but does it of his own accord? I fear that those who always trumpet the phrase that the means of production must be put at the service of the general public will not apply it as sensibly as those who do something out of their own insight beforehand. This is socialization before the official socialization. This is worked out from the spirit that we are currently longing for as the social spirit of the future. And to raise the accusation that someone has the social spirit before, that is, before he is in any constitution, means not being able at all to penetrate into the spirit that can only save humanity, but only shows the longing for the written word. The law you give, you can confidently carry home. We need the spirit out of which socialization is done. Therefore, one should not fall into the trap of saying: The Waldorf School is nice, but it is done by a commercial counselor; we don't want to know anything about that! It would be wiser to say: Take him as an example, and as socializers in the future become like him, then it will be good. The things that are constantly being said from this corner against titles and the like only testify that, despite everything, one clings to words and phrases more than to action. And until we can bring ourselves to act and to acknowledge the deed, no matter where it comes from, we will not move forward; we must be convinced of this. And when we are convinced of this, then we will look only at whether someone is a reasonable person inspired by social feelings, and we will not ask about anything else. As long as we ask about something else, we will not move forward. If this does not become clear, all talk is in vain. Because the beginning must be made by those people who understand something of what is to happen, regardless of whether they play this or that role in the present order. All of us who live today, whether capitalists or laborers, naturally have what we live on out of capitalism. And we cannot change anything if we do not look to what lives in the spirit and must come about out of the spirit. We must finally overcome the phrase, we must move on to what can really become action.

Mr. Roser: As chairman, he thanks Dr. Steiner for his presentation and draws attention once again to the next event. He asks those present once again to study the book “The Core Points of the Social Question” so that they are able to talk about the book and the threefold social order in the circles in which they move.

Introductory words by Rudolf Steiner

Dear attendees,

Today, as we have the aforementioned agenda before us, it will be of some importance that we once again fully clarify what is actually meant by a works council in terms of the threefold social order.

First of all, we hold to the view that, in the way we are now approaching the setting up of the workers' council, we are striving above all to initiate the actual beginning of a real socialization with this workers' council. When one hears people speak of socialization today, one always gets the feeling that they do not really know what they want with socialization. Most people understand socialization to mean nothing more than the nationalization of existing businesses, existing branches of production, and so on. You know that the threefold social order is about clearly separating the three areas of human social life, so that in the future we will have the overall administration of spiritual life, preferably of education and teaching, as a member of the threefold social organism. Administration will only be carried out by those organs that are part of this spiritual life, in fact by the spiritual life itself. Thus, on the part of those personalities who will be involved in the spiritual life, the bodies will be organized that have to administer the spiritual life. Secondly, there will be the actual state, the political body, which is to be built on a completely democratic basis, so that everything that is to be regulated democratically belongs to the sphere of this second link in the social organism. The third link would be economic life. In this economic life, only economic activity is to be carried out. That is why I have often had to explain that actual legal issues should not be decided within this economic administration. These actual legal issues should be decided within the democratic life of the state. For example, labor law is to be decided within the democratic life of the state; the length of working hours and other rights that one working person has over another working person are to be decided. Everything that relates to such rights is to be regulated on a democratic basis in a kind of parliament, or whatever you want to call it, that emerges from universal suffrage.

Economic life is separate from this, and is supposed to be managed entirely by itself, in which it is merely to be managed. And on the basis of this economic life, we are now trying, I would like to say, to set up a kind of works council, as a kind of transitional measure.

How do we do that? We have already begun, and some of the members of the works council are already present today. We are proceeding in such a way that first a certain number of members of the works council are elected from the individual enterprises. Who can be elected to the works council? Anyone who is a manual or mental worker can be elected to the works council, and also, since we are in a transitional period, if they join the ranks, the former entrepreneur or the management of an enterprise. It should be noted here, however, that no one has a privilege, so that even an entrepreneur who is elected to the works council joins the other works councils. This works council is therefore a body in which everyone has absolutely equal rights and should count for as much as they understand in economic life in their field. So these works councils emerge from the individual branches of production. But we will only have something fruitful for the reorganization of economic life when we have many more works councils than we have now. Today we only have a small number of works councils, and hopefully after today's meeting they will work in such a way that a works council system will gradually come about. So, as I said, we initially have a small number of works councils. These works councils have emerged from individual companies. What we really need is for works councils to be formed from all companies in a self-contained economic area, that is, initially in a provisionally closed economic area, let's say Württemberg. You see, for the kind of works council that we have to think of, you need works councils from all companies, from all sectors. These works councils then form the works council for a self-contained economic area. And socialization should begin by establishing such a body over a self-contained economic area, with the aim of placing itself on a firm footing in the sense of rebuilding economic life. That is to say, this body should feel that it is the leading economic entity in the area concerned. It should feel that it is the real source of the management of all types of businesses in this economic area. This council should therefore see as its ideal a future in which no individual entrepreneur is responsible for the individual businesses, but rather that everything that is done in the businesses is done, so to speak, on behalf of this body, this original assembly of the council. If we keep this firmly in mind, we will have created for the first time what the demands of the social parties have always, more or less consciously, been striving for. The demands of the parties are usually formulated negatively, for example when one speaks of the abolition of capital and so on. Yes, but little is achieved by abolishing. By abolishing, all we do is gradually disintegrate our economic life! But how the tripartite social organism should work is precisely the opposite: it should build up. But to build up, one needs a constructive body.

Whether the works councils are elected or delegated in this or that way in the future is a question that must be decided within the works council itself. Today, we have the task of establishing the works council in the only possible way for the time being, namely through elections in the individual companies. The point is that one step must be taken before further steps can be taken. When the works councils have been elected – smaller companies can, of course, join together for the purpose of the election – then their first task is to create what could be called a complete overview of the entire economy in the self-contained economic area in question. This then means that the first tasks for the works councils will arise from this. These works councils – perhaps five in one company, three in another, and so on – form, so to speak, the atoms of the works council body. This body should already be prepared by the first task. So let us assume that company A has elected its five works councils. These five works councils would now initially have the task of drawing up a kind of inventory of the entire economic operation for their company. This inventory would then have to be brought to the first assembly of the works council. So you would have to know how much capital is in the respective company, how it has worked so far, and so on. You would also have to know what business connections exist in terms of the utilization of products, the procurement of raw materials, and in general with the outside world. At the same time, one would have to ensure that the best possible cooperation is established in the individual companies. Gradually, one would also know which entrepreneurs support the cause and which do not, because in the companies where the entrepreneur refuses to cooperate, the works councils would be prevented from being able to obtain information about the company, or these works councils can only come to the original meeting with as much information as is possible. On the basis of the information that the individual works councils can present from their respective companies, an overview of the economic life of the economic area concerned would first have to be created in the primary assembly. This is the first thing that is needed. Then one can approach the actual tasks.

Here, one must first take into account the fact that the structure of the tripartite social organism differs significantly from what is thought within, for example, the parties about the continuation of economic, political and intellectual life. The task at hand must therefore be regarded as an eminently economic one, that is to say, on the basis of what has been obtained as provisional material, what must first be determined is that which leads to a real stipulation of normal prices for the various goods produced. That is the first task in the course of future socialization, that we find out how much, according to the economic situation, for example, a pair of boots, a skirt and so on, may cost. I have often mentioned the basis for the price regulation in my lectures. Accordingly, in the future, each person will receive enough for what he produces himself to be able to satisfy his needs until he has produced an equivalent service. In other words, someone produces a pair of boots – the following also applies to services that cannot be clearly defined – and these boots should have a value comparable to that of other goods, so that what I get for the boots can serve to satisfy my needs until a new pair of boots is finished. That is what the individual price ranges stipulate. Of course, everything that has to be raised for the education of children, for the disabled, for widows and for those unable to work must also be included. The correct price emerges from all this. Setting this is the first act. But this is a very large task. The work of the workers' councils, if it is not to end in wrangling over empty phrases, must begin with the determination of price levels for what is produced, otherwise we will never be able to achieve true socialization. It is self-deception to believe that by setting wages from other bases we will achieve true socialization. That is simply nonsense, because you can increase wages at will according to the principles by which they have been paid so far. You can even double the amount you receive in wage increases, and this will be offset by the fact that housing and food will become more expensive again if you do not have a natural standard for pricing that arises from the economy itself.

Once this standard for pricing has been found – the works council will have a few weeks to deal with it – then we will have to move on to finding fair prices. This will then create a basis for what is to be created in the future, and we will know what we can count on. Then the so-called labor contract used up to now can be replaced by a distribution contract between the spiritual and physical workers. Of course, the present employers, with their experience, can also become spiritual workers when they join. Essentially, the contract will be concluded in such a way that it is based on the joint work of the manual and spiritual workers; nothing else comes into consideration. They work together on some product, and this product has a certain price. Taking into account the respective circumstances and possibilities, this price must now be distributed between the spiritual leaders and the workers by contract. So it is no longer a matter of paying the worker somehow, but rather, if one produces goods or manages the production of goods, then one receives the corresponding share according to the distribution contract. This can only be done when everything that is labor law has been established.

Now, of course, with the works council, one can only create economic institutions in the sense of the threefold social order. In the future, however, alongside the economic organization, which is primarily concerned with the fair determination of prices, there will be the parliament of rights, in which every person will find the opportunity to determine his or her relationship to other people. Of course, what happens in the legal parliament is not without effect on economic life. Those who now have to run a business in economic life will have to run it in such a way that they observe what is determined in the legal parliament on the basis of democratic principles regarding the value of work and working hours.

You can read about what intellectual work is, and how the administration of the means of production will essentially be assigned to the intellectual members of the social organism in the future, in my book “The Core of the Social Question”. However, it is still the case today that those who have so far held the intellectual share of the work have been left behind, that is, they do not want to engage with these matters; therefore, we cannot achieve anything in this field yet. But we have to create the system of works councils on the assumption that in the future there will not only be a right-wing parliament, but also a free administration of intellectual life. The spiritual leaders of the companies will also emerge from this intellectual life, and they will also have a say in the appointment of the works councils, so that the judgment of the spiritual leaders is also taken into account in the works council. This is not yet being considered, but we must remember that it will be considered later.

So it is important that this second task is also solved, that is, that a regulation on price relations is found in a general assembly in which all works councils come together. The first task is to be solved by the works councils within the respective company, that is, to inform themselves and take a kind of inventory of what is happening in the company. Many issues will arise that need to be addressed, such as legal questions, questions of operational disposition, and the like. And it will very soon become clear that the works councils and the council of works councils that is then formed will represent the social force from which socialization will then emerge. But the works councils alone will not be able to carry out comprehensive socialization. Above all, there will also have to be transport and economic councils, which will then also be given their tasks. The constituent assembly of the works council will show what steps need to be taken to organize proper administration, proper circulation of goods, the purchase of raw materials, and so on.

So various types of councils will have to be formed, but above all the three councils mentioned. The assembly of the works council can then decide on the details. Now, when the works council has fulfilled its initial tasks, it can begin to work out something that the state, which has developed out of the old state and which we now call the 'socialist republic', is currently unjustifiably trying to achieve: the law on works councils. The tripartite social organism would not want a works council law like the one the state has so far proposed, because economic institutions have nothing to do with legal institutions. The legal institutions belong to the continuation of the former state. Economic life has to stand on its own. In today's Abendblatt, it is shown how the current – let us say – 'socialist republic' appears to be working in the opposite direction. It is proposed that the goal should be an ever-closer interpenetration of state and economic life. That is the opposite of what is aimed at with the threefold social order. This interpenetration of state and economic life is precisely what is to be avoided! Economic life in itself and state life in itself, each should administer itself, that is the goal. And in state life only that should be administered that can be administered on a democratic basis, that on which every responsible person can decide. But not every adult can simply decide what is the best way to transport this or that product from one place to another; this requires expertise. And only the people from the respective economic sectors themselves have this expertise. Therefore, the entire economic life must be based on expertise and at the same time have a certain federal structure.

Professor Heck, who has said many foolish things, is mainly afraid that if such a form of administration is established in the economic parliament – but there will not be one, there will only be an economic central council – the small tradesman will not understand the big industrialist, the agricultural worker will not understand the scientist. Yes, but such a situation will not arise in the first place because the associations that arise in economic life will join together in a chain and will be properly negotiated from association to association. It is precisely such an objection that testifies that economic life cannot be administered in a democratic way, but only in a federal, associative way. Something can only come about through proper negotiations.

So, let's say representatives of the shoe industry, the metal industry or the textile industry are sitting there, and they all have specialized knowledge of their respective fields. And the assembly is there to ensure that everyone gives their expert opinion on setting fair prices. It is quite a different matter when you listen to the various judgments and everyone asserts their demands, than when you simply vote democratically. This would achieve nothing more than certain economic sectors joining forces and outvoting the others. Then the minority would never be able to get their rights. Such a majority is excluded in the case of a constitution that arises from the factual context of economic life itself. Thus what is now to be brought about unjustifiably by the Works Councils Act presented by the state would only come about through the negotiations of the works council. I ask that this be noted as the most important thing, that the tripartite social organism rejects every state law in this context.

You see, how this tripartite social organism comes about in detail is not so essential now. We must make a clear distinction in this area between sophistry or phraseology and reality. If you say, as I have always said, that the former state should not continue, but only its middle link should continue, so that the government that takes over the previous state constitutes itself as a liquidation government and is only responsible for public security, hygiene, legal life and the like, then the economic life and the intellectual life remain separate. But if it should turn out that the existing state has already interfered so much in the economy that the existing representatives cannot imagine giving up economic life, it can also happen differently, namely that the existing state says to itself: All right, I will continue to run my affairs as an economic administration, but I will leave out everything that is democratic; the legal and spiritual state should be established alongside me. Then, of course, it would be necessary to throw out all the apparent democracy from this economic administration. That would also mean that, for example, in Germany the National Assembly could no longer function as it has done so far, because the democratic has nothing to do with economic life. So, things can be done either way. In any case, in the future the three elements must coexist.

Then, in turn, the constituent assembly of the Württemberg works councils must produce all the necessary regulations with regard to the tasks and functions of the works councils. The works councils then take what has been decided at this original assembly into their respective companies. These people, who are now returning to the companies, act on behalf of the entire works council within their companies. They do not act on behalf of any individual entrepreneur, but feel that they are the representatives of the entire works council of a self-contained economic area. They manage the company according to these principles.

Now, it may well prove to be best for a great many businesses during the transition period to keep the old management, but now as a member of the works council, for the time being, in order to avoid sabotage or making the mistakes that were made in Russia. If the present management is not willing to accept that the works council is the real manager of the company, then of course the management in question, that is, the present management, would have to resign. Then the works council would have to take over the entire management of the company. It is, after all, really taking it over, but it will have great difficulties without the involvement of the former management, since it must act expeditiously.

But it could also happen, and this would be a further step towards socialization, that each individual company no longer has its own management, but that the management works on behalf of the economic entity of the entire economic area. But above all, care must be taken here – and this should be considered when drawing up the constitution – to ensure that the initiative is not undermined in any way. But the works council should not be structured in the way it is still being thought of today, because some of the proposals, if they were implemented, would lead to something monstrous. Just think that there are even proposals such as: in the future, there must be technical control, economic control and political control in every company. — There are probably even five or six such controls planned in total. The underlying assumption seems to be that everyone is actually a dishonest, a bad guy and therefore must be controlled. If this system of five- to six-fold control is implemented, you will produce nothing at all in the future, because this control system is built in the most eminent sense of mistrust. But if you want to build on it in the future economic life, then you will not move forward. You will only make progress if you build on trust, and this can be built on if the rational operation coincides with the egoism of the individual, so that everyone knows in the future that his work will be best served by the best manager being there. And through this system, the best manager can be delegated.

Ordinary voting will gradually change into a kind of delegation. It will be in everyone's interest that the person with the greatest expertise is in charge. This system will reveal who the best leader is, and even those who cannot lead themselves will know it. This system opens up possibilities other than mere democratic voting or a council system, as people imagine it today. Because both would only lead to informers, to pushiness, and in both the worker would not fare better than he does today.

The issue at hand is to establish economic life on an appropriate, not on a previous state basis. When the workers' councils return to their factories with mandates and the corresponding tasks, work can begin in the individual factories on a social basis. That would be the first practical step we want to take. The following must be implemented in practice: the election of workers' councils across individual industries. Then information must be provided about the economic situation of all industries. Following on from this, the workers' councils from the entire economic area would have to be convened. Furthermore, a constitution must be drafted on the basis of the factual circumstances. This constitution of the works council would be the beginning of real socialization. Until this happens, there can be no socialization, because the state cannot socialize through laws. Socialization can only come from within economic life itself. Today, people think that they can socialize this or that branch of the economy, such as the pharmacy system. That is, of course, pure nonsense; it is nothing more than state capitalization. A nice thing happened once. Soon after the founding of the socialist republic, a very clever gentleman gave a lecture on socialization in Berlin. First, he pointed out how impossible it would be to achieve socialization from the immediately given circumstances, that is, to achieve socialization as the socialist party had in mind as an ideal. Therefore, he said, we cannot arrive at real socialism today, nor tomorrow or the day after, but we must create a transition. And he characterized the transition he wants to create as follows: We must, he said, create a social capitalism between our present capitalist economic system and the future economic system. Well, that is nothing more than proof that one does not know how to begin socialization. But you cannot start before you first create a certain social structure, a society. How do you want to socialize if there is no such society, no social community? The inauguration of such a social community is precisely where the beginning should be made, by combining the works councils into such a society. They cannot socialize factories or branches of industry, only the whole. So they must base the whole thing on what can be extracted from society in terms of people, and then they must socialize with these people.

So those who have been elected as works council members will be able to say that they have a great and important task, and it is they who have to provide the basis for future socialization. And I believe that you are now at the stage where you will understand that the way it has been presented here is the only way to create a proper basis for socialization. It is true that people have the most diverse and at the same time the strangest views about socialization. Yesterday, when I read someone a particular view on socialism, a special thought occurred to him. It was an article by Dr. Georg Wilhelm Schiele, which was headed with the following words: “On true, purified” - then came another epithet, which I will not read now - “socialism”. The article then said:

"What is social? The state is social: it is the social. What is communism? The community is communism! And what is more, the family. It is the communism that human society always needs. What is more is evil. We had a state that had a great deal of real socialism in it, the Prussian state; and the other German states and the Reich were built according to its model. This state was the most social thing that has existed in a long time and will not exist again anytime soon.

What was social about this state? Look. The most Prussian thing about it was also the most social, namely the military system, universal conscription.

Now imagine what the ideal of this Dr. G.W. Schiele is!

"Many a father who watches his son grow up is already worried: how can I give my son, when he comes of age, the last education for body and mind, the education of a man, that turns every lout into a young warrior of steel and a handsome lad? Where is the true art of commanding and obeying taught now, which gave every young German the spirit of integration and subordination to a whole and at the same time educated him to be a leader and superior, a recipient and commander of orders, depending on the task? How do we replace this national education, which protected the German people from becoming foolish and simplistic?"

Then the Lord continues:

“For the time being, there is no longer any state with honest taxpayers and honest officials. We will soon see that there is neither state nor taxes. But if there is no longer any state, there is no longer any socialism either.”

The tone remains the same. Then he says:

“The hour will come when we will all sigh, weep and cry out for the social state that we had, for the Prussian state, and then we will try to build a new community according to the model that our fathers have given us.”

When I read this to our friend Mr. Molt yesterday, he thought I was reading from a joke magazine. But it is not a joke magazine. It is the latest edition of the “Eisernen Blätter” (“Iron Leaves”), published by the Eisernen Blätter publishing house in Berlin. It is something completely serious; the entire issue is edited by D. Traub.

That is the view of socialization held by a large number of people. But if something emerges that is not mere theory, but that extends as a works council over a large, self-contained economic area like Württemberg, and if there are, say, 800 people, not just a few as there are today, and if they join forces, it will be a revelation for the entire working class of Württemberg and thus for a large part of the population. That is not theory, that will be a force. But it is essential that this power is first really created, and that is why the 'Federation for the Threefold Social Organism' would very much like to see progress in the election of works councils, now that there is already a small base for the future works council. If this small base were to make it its business to ensure that works councils are elected everywhere, so that we – and this is so tremendously important – do not let the matter go sour, then we will make progress.

You see, it is important that such a thing be done with the necessary speed today, otherwise it will turn sour. In public life, as in the case of certain dishes, things turn sour if they are not enjoyed at the right time. Public affairs should not be left to indifference and lack of interest. They must be carried out with a certain speed. Besides, the Americans and the English will not wait for our slow progress. If we do not get around to saying, by a certain point in the future, which cannot be too far away, “This is how we want to organize things, and we will create a management from those working in the economic sector . Then the Anglo-Americans will pour in funds and join forces with the capitalists still in existence, and they will then run the factories of Central Europe according to the principles of Anglo-American capitalism. Then you will be left empty-handed for a long time. Then you can toil for a new capitalism, which will be much more terrible than the old one. Then you will no longer be able to socialize anything, then you will have to wait until you are so strong that something similarly bloody to what has happened in the last five to six years will give you the opportunity to think of such things. The complete capitalization of the West is already well on its way. In Berlin, the people have issued the slogan: socialization is on the march! It is not on the march. It will only be on the march when the works council system has been established. But the full capitalization is definitely on the march, that is, the penetration of all enterprises in Central Europe by American and British capital. Therefore, what we can risk today does not tolerate a long period of disinterest, but it is important that we act quickly. And if we now succeed in keeping alive the interest that has already arisen here in the tripartite division of the social organism and that has been thwarted, and if we manage to get such a works council to act as a basis for socialization throughout Württemberg, then we will have set an example for our colleagues in the rest of Germany. What the works council is doing here will set an example, and when the others see it, they will follow suit.

Make sure that you set up the works councils within two weeks, then hold a constituent assembly that draws up a constitution in a few weeks, which must be ready before the law is passed. But it would be really great for here if we could move forward with this example. That is what I wanted to remind you of today.

The founding of the preparatory Württemberg works council was unanimously decided. Mr. Huth was elected as the first chairman of the action committee, Mr. Roser as the second chairman, and Mr. Dorfner as the secretary. The working committee of the “Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism” is made up entirely of the members of the action committee. The office is that of the “Federation for the Tripartite Structure of the Social Organism, Stuttgart, Champignystraße 17, Managing Director: Mr. Kühn.

For the purposes of research and reflection in the physical world, it is above all, one might say, a matter close to the human heart to find one's way in the relationships of the physical world - in which one spends one's existence between birth and death - to the higher worlds to which one actually belongs. We are quite clear about the fact that, even if a person's thinking is still very vague, there is still an eminently clear feeling, a distinct sensation, that he must know something about these relationships in some form. No matter how vaguely man may think about the higher worlds, no matter how much despair he may feel for various reasons about the possibility of knowing anything about them, it is natural and appropriate for the human feeling and perception to relate to a higher world.

Of course, it can be objected that, especially in our present materialistic times, there are many people who either deny in some form or other that there is any spiritual world at all, or at least deny that man can know anything about it. But one can also say that one must first learn to have a “negative” attitude towards the spiritual world, so to speak, because it is not “natural” for a person to deny a spiritual, a supersensible world. One must first arrive at this position through all kinds of theories; one must first, one might say, be taught to deny a spiritual world with any degree of seriousness. So that when one speaks of the natural man, one can still speak in a way that is appropriate to his perception, turning the gaze of the soul in some way upwards to the spiritual worlds.

But now, if there is even the slightest possibility that there are people who want nothing whatsoever to do with the spiritual world, there must be something about human nature that makes it difficult to determine our relationship with the spiritual world. And this relationship does indeed seem difficult to grasp. For we see that in the course of history, which we can follow, a great number of all kinds of philosophies and world views have emerged that seemingly contradict each other. But I have often explained that it is only seemingly, because if it were easy for man to determine his relationship to the supersensible world, then the history of world views would not be full of seemingly contradictory world views. From this alone it is clear that it is, to a certain extent, difficult to determine the relationship to the spiritual world. And that is why the question can also be raised as to the origin of this difficulty, what it is that actually exists in the soul of man, that he has a hard time relating to the spiritual world.

Now, if we examine all the attempts that are made outside of a spiritual-scientific world view, say in mere philosophy or in external science, and ask ourselves what these attempts are actually based on, what they are based on, then we have to say: when we look at these attempts, when we see what kind of soul power men chiefly employ to fathom the relation of the physical to the spiritual world, one finds that, again and again, I might say except in isolated cases, men see in thinking above all that soul faculty, that soul activity which, rightly employed, could lead to the discovery of something, to a determination about the relation of man to the supersensible worlds. It is therefore necessary, so to speak, to consider the thinking, the thinking work of the soul, and to ask oneself: What about thinking, about making oneself thoughts, in relation to the human being who lives in the physical world and the spiritual worlds? What about this relationship of thinking to the spiritual worlds?

So the question is: what is the value of thinking for a form of knowledge that satisfies people? — I would like to consider this question today as a preliminary, and then discuss other questions in front of you afterwards. I would like us to prepare ourselves, so to speak, for a worthy discussion by considering the question of the value of thinking for knowledge.

Now, we can, as it were, get behind thinking if we proceed in the following way. In the course of the last lectures we have already indicated that certain peculiarities of thinking, or, even better, of thoughts, are to be considered. I have pointed out how there are many people who see it as a mistake of all scientific thinking when this scientific thinking is not just a mere copy, so to speak, a mental photograph of an external reality. For these people say: if thinking is to have any relationship at all to the real, to reality, then it must not bring anything to this reality from itself; for in the moment when thinking brings something to reality, one is not dealing with a copy, with a photograph of a reality, but with a fantasy, with a fantasy image. And in order to avoid dealing with such a fantasy, one must strictly ensure that no one includes in their thoughts anything that is not a mere photograph of external reality.

Now, with a slight effort of thought, you will immediately come to say to yourself: Yes, for the external physical world, for what we call the physical plane, this seems to be quite right. It seems to correspond to a quite correct perception that one must not add anything to reality through thinking if one does not want to have fantasy images instead of a reflection of reality. For the physical plane, it can truly be said that it is absolutely right to refrain from adding any ingredient of thought to what one receives from outside through perception.

Now I would like to draw your attention to the views of two philosophers regarding the view expressed in what has just been said: Aristotle and Leibniz.

Aristotle, who can be seen as the summarizer of the Greek world view, is a philosopher who was no longer initiated into the secrets of the spiritual world, but who lived in the very first period after, I would say, the “age of initiation”. Whereas before all philosophers were still somehow touched by the initiation when they expressed philosophically what they knew as initiates - P/ato, for example, who was a kind of initiate to the highest degree, but expressed himself philosophically - with Aristotle one must say that he also had no trace of an initiation, but still all kinds of after-effects of an initiation were there. So this is a philosopher who only speaks philosophically, without initiation, without any kind of initiatory impulse, but who, in his philosophy, gives in a rationalized way what the initiates who were before him gave in a spiritualized way. That is Aristotle.

The sentence we now want to consider comes from Aristotle. [It was written on the board:

There is nothing in the mind that is not in the senses.

So let us take note of this sentence: there is nothing in — we can add — 'human' intelligence that is not in the senses.

This sentence of Aristotle's must not be interpreted in any kind of materialistic way, because Aristotle is far removed from any kind of materialistic worldview. This sentence is not to be taken in a worldview sense, but rather epistemologically. That is to say, Aristotle rejects the idea that one can gain knowledge about the world from within, but asserts that one can only gain knowledge by directing one's senses to the outside world, by receiving sensory impressions and then using reason to form concepts from these sensory impressions; but of course he does not deny that one receives spiritual things with the sensory impressions. He thinks of nature as permeated by the spirit; only, he thinks, one cannot arrive at the spiritual if one does not look out into nature.

Here you can see the difference to the materialist. The materialist concludes: there is only material outside, and one only forms concepts of the material. Aristotle thinks that all of nature is permeated by spirit, but the path of the human soul to reach the spirit is such that one must start from the sensory perception and process the sensory impressions into concepts. If Aristotle himself had been touched by an initiatory impulse, he would not have said that; for then he would have known that if one frees oneself from sensory perception in the way we have described, one can attain knowledge of the spiritual world from within. So he did not want to deny the spiritual world, but only to show the path that human knowledge must take.

This sentence then played a major role in the Middle Ages and has been reinterpreted in a materialistic way in the materialistic age. You only need to change a small thing in this sentence of Aristotle's - there is nothing in the world for the intellect that is not in the senses - and we have immediately formed materialism from it. Isn't it true, you just need to make what, in the sense of Aristotle, is the human path of knowledge, the principle of a world view, and then you have materialism.

Leibniz came up with a similar sentence, and we also want to look at this sentence. Leibniz is not that far behind us; in the 17th century. Let us now also take this sentence of Leibniz to heart. So Leibniz says: There is nothing in, we can say again, “human” intelligence - I just add “human” - that is not in the senses, except for intelligence itself, except for the intellect itself.

[It was written on the board]:

There is nothing in human intelligence that is not in the senses, except for intelligence itself, except for intellect itself.

Thus the intellect that man has within him, working, is not in the senses. In these two sentences you can see a real school example of how one can completely agree with the formulation of a sentence, and yet how the sentence can be incomplete.

Now I do not want to dwell on the extent to which this sentence of Leibniz's is also philosophically incomplete. Let us just note for the moment that Leibniz was of the view that the intellect itself is not somehow already grounded in the senses, but that man must bring the work of the intellect to what the senses give him. So that one can say: the intellect itself is an inner activity that has not yet passed through the senses.

If you have followed the last lectures, you know that this inner work is already free of the senses and takes place in the etheric body of the human being. In our language, we can say: There is nothing in the intelligence working in the etheric body that is not in the senses, except for the intelligence itself working in the etheric body; what works in there does not come in from the senses.

But thinking as such is in reality, when it is properly considered in true self-knowledge, this working in the etheric body, and that is what philosophers call the intellect. This thinking is therefore a kind of work, a working, we could say. And because, for our spiritual scientific understanding, Leibniz, even if he is not absolutely right, is still more right than Aristotle, we can say: this thinking - or, better expressed, this thinking activity, this thinking work in man, which is a performance of the etheric body - that is not in the outer reality of the physical plane. For the physical plane is exhausted in what it allows us to perceive through the senses. So, by placing ourselves as human beings in the physical plane, we bring intellect into it, but this intellect itself is not in the physical world.

And here we now come to the difficulty of those philosophers who want to get behind the world riddle through the intellect. People have to say to themselves: Yes, if I think about it properly, the intellect does not belong to the sense world; but I am now in a peculiar situation. I know of no other spiritual world than just the intellect; it is a spiritual world behind sensuality. So what do I get from the intellect? It cannot receive anything, no content, if it does not inform itself through the senses from the external physical world. It only stands there for itself. — But then the philosopher stands before a rather peculiar thing. He must indeed reflect: I have an activity within me, the activity of the intellect. Through this activity of the intellect I want to get to the bottom of the secrets of the sense world. But I can only think about what is out there in the sense world; but these thoughts arise through something that does not itself belong to the sense world. So what do these thoughts have to do with the sense world? Even if I now also know that the intellect is a spiritual thing, I must still despair of being able to approach anything that is reality through the spiritual thing that I have.

Now I will try to approach the matter by way of comparison. In the last lectures we expressed the same thing in a different way. We expressed it by leading ourselves to recognize that in what we achieve through our thinking we have mirror images of reality, that these mirror images actually come in addition to reality and are not realities themselves.

You see, it is the same truth, only expressed differently here in a philosophical way. We had to say: the intellect forms mirror images. These mirror images, as an image of the reality that is being mirrored, are indifferent to reality, because the reality that is being mirrored does not need these mirror images. So that one might come to doubt reality altogether, the whole reality value of thinking, of intelligence, and ask oneself: Does thinking have any real significance? Does it not actually add something to external reality through what it is? Does any single thought have any real value if, in relation to reality, it is nothing more than a mirror image?

Let us now endeavor to properly examine the reality of thought. In other words, we want to answer the question: Is thought really just something imagined that has no real value at all? Or, we can approach the question from a different angle: Where does thought have a reality? — Now, as I said, I will try to illustrate this through a comparison. Here is a watch; I pick up the watch, now I have the watch in my hand. Everything about the watch is outside the muscles and nerves of my hand. My hand and the watch are two different things. But suppose it were dark here, I had never seen the watch and would perceive the watch only through feeling, then I would perceive something of the watch by stretching out my hand and grasping the watch. If you direct your attention to the watch, you will say to yourself, I can learn something about the reality of the watch by holding it in my hand, by grasping it. But if we hypothetically assume for a moment that I only have one hand and not two, I would not be able to grasp the first hand with the second hand as I can actually do now. I could grasp the watch with my one hand, but I could not grasp the hand itself with another hand; at most I could touch it with my nose, but let us not consider that for the moment, shall we? Yet the hand is just as real as the watch. How do I convince myself of the reality of the watch? By taking it in my hand and touching it. How do I convince myself of the reality of the hand? I could not convince myself by touching it if I did not have a second hand; but I do know with inner certainty that I have a hand, that I have what I have on me to grasp the watch just as realistically as I can guarantee the reality of the watch by touching it. Do you notice the difference between the real hand and the real watch? I have to experience the reality of the hand in a different way than the reality of the clock.

You can transfer this comparison entirely to human thinking, to the intellect. You can never grasp that which the intellect comprehends so directly through the intellect itself; just as little as you can grasp the hand itself with a hand. The intellect cannot perceive itself as it perceives the other things; but it is nevertheless convinced of its reality through inner certainty. It is an inner certainty that convinces the intellect of its reality. But then one must understand this intellect, this working of the intellect, as an activity of the human subject; one must realize that the intellect, spiritually speaking, is only a hand that is stretched out to grasp something. All this is figuratively speaking, but they are very real images. And just as, on the one hand, my hand is able to convince me of the reality of the watch – namely, by being able, for example, to feel the weight of the watch, the smoothness of the watch, that is, by being able to experience through the nature of my hand everything that is real about the clock – on the other hand, through the real of the intellect, I am able to experience other things about things than what the senses experience. The intellect is therefore a grasping organ in the spiritual sense, which we must perceive in #»s, not in the outside world.

And you see, here lies the difficulty for philosophers. They believe that if they have thoughts about the world, then these thoughts must come from outside, and then they realize that they do not come from outside at all, but that the intellect produces these thoughts. And since they regard the intellect as alien to external reality, they must actually regard all thoughts as fantasy images. But one must ascribe a subjective reality to the intellect, a reality that is experienced internally. Then one has the realm of reality in which the intellect is perceived. Thus, by examining the actual nature of the intellect, we come to be able to say: Yes, everything that the intellect accomplishes may or need only be a reflection of external reality, but this reflection has been created by the work of real intellect. This is a human activity. Its reality consists in the fact that man works by acquiring knowledge of the reality of the intellect through the intellect. So we can say that man's intellectual activity, which works in man, but it works in such a way that it is quite justified to say that what this intellect works out has no significance for the world in which it works - just as the hand has no significance for the clock; for the clock it is of no importance whether it is grasped by the hand or not – it is something that exists for and in man, that he forms images of things through the intellect. But with regard to the things of the physical plane, everything that this intellect works out is unreal, a mirror image, dead, nothing alive. We can say that the images of the physical world that are worked out in the intellect are lifeless, dead images.

[It was written on the board]:

Intellectual activity - dead images.

Thus, the images that man forms of the physical world are also dead images. One misunderstands the actual nature of this content of the intellect if one ascribes to it something other than the fact that it can be a copy of the physical world.

But the matter becomes quite different when man comes to live with the experiences of his existence in time. When we face the things of the external world and form images of them through the intellect, we get dead concepts; but if we allow these concepts to be present in our soul, then after some time, when the experience of which we have formed an image is long gone, we can, through memory, as we say, bring up the image of that experience from memory. We can say: Yes, now I know nothing of the experience; but when I remember, it comes up. It was not in my consciousness before I remembered, but it is there, somewhere in the depths of my soul, unconsciously, I just have to bring it up from the unconscious.

So the image of a past experience that I have seen in the past is down there in the unconscious. Fine, there it is, I'll bring it up. But down there it is not so meaningless. You just need to take the very ordinary difference between an idea that we receive from an experience in such a way that it gives us joy, lifts us up, and an idea of some experience that has not given us joy. We can now push an idea that has given us joy down into the unconscious, and can push an idea that has not given us joy into the unconscious. Few people reflect on what is to be said about the difference between an idea that gives pleasure and one that causes grief or pain. But there is an enormous difference. And this difference becomes particularly apparent when one tries to ascertain the reality value of such ideas, which have actually already faded from normal memory.

So let us consider an idea that a person may have enjoyed but had no reason to think back to in later life, or an idea that caused him pain and to which he also had little reason to think back. They do not come to his consciousness, but they play a role in the unconscious soul life. If only people would recognize from spiritual science what ideas stored up in the soul mean, even if they are completely forgotten. We are actually always the result of our experiences. The expression on our face, especially in more intimate gestures, is really a reflection of what we have experienced in our present incarnation. You can see this in the faces of people who experienced something sad in their childhood. So what goes on down there, in other words, is involved in the processes of human life. What is repressed into oblivion, into the unconscious, in the form of inhibiting, sad images, consumes us, it cuts off our life force. What we have experienced that is joyful and uplifting revives us. And when you study the fate of our imaginative life in the unconscious, you find how tremendously dependent the present mood, the whole constitution of a person, is on what lies in his subconscious.

Now compare the memories, the images that have already entered the unconscious soul life, with the images that we currently have in our consciousness. Then you will say to yourself: the images that we currently have in our consciousness are dead. Dead images do not participate in our life process. Only when they descend into the unconscious do they begin to participate in the process of life and then become life-promoting or life-inhibiting ideas. So that the ideas, by being pushed down into the deeper layers of the soul, only really begin to live. I have always pointed this out in the lectures I have given in various places on the hidden foundations of the soul's life. Thus, the ideas, which are initially dead ideas, begin to live when they are implanted in our soul life; but they live all the more the more unconscious we become.

If you now follow the process with spiritual scientific knowledge, something very peculiar happens, which I can only describe as [a drawing is begun]:

Let us assume that this is the boundary between the conscious and the unconscious; that this line, this stroke, is the boundary between “conscious”, which is above, and “unconscious”, which is below. And now we have formed all kinds of ideas in our consciousness. I will denote them schematically with all kinds of figures. We have formed these ideas; let us assume that these ideas go down into the unconscious. They go down there [the arrows were drawn].

Yes, you see, when these images that go down there are followed with spiritual-scientific knowledge, then they transform themselves. Outwardly we have recognized that they become life-promoting or life-inhibiting; inwardly it shows through spiritual-scientific knowledge that they become imaginations by sliding down below the surface, as it were. In the unconscious or subconscious, everything that goes down becomes imagination, everything becomes an image. You can have the most abstract ideas in your ordinary day-to-day consciousness: when you go below the threshold of ordinary day-to-day consciousness, everything becomes imagination. That is to say, there is a process in man, a sum of processes, which is always endeavoring — through the dead ideas of the earthly, ordinary, materialistic consciousness passing into the subconscious — to transform all the ideas of consciousness in the subconscious into images, into imaginations, before man comes to imaginative knowledge.

If we want to describe what we have in our unconscious of our imaginative life, if we want to get to know it, then we must actually say: all this consists of unconscious imaginations, and all the ideas that we can in turn raise from the unconscious into the conscious, we must bring them up through an activity that also remains unconscious to us. We must bring them back into consciousness, but we must strip them of their pictorial character, transform them back into abstract, non-pictorial ideas. And when you are in the process of reflecting, “Oh, I experienced something; what was it? and you make an effort – you all know the process – to remember something, then it is the effort that you have to devote to stripping the image that is sitting there of its pictorial character and transforming it back into the imaginative form of consciousness.

From this, however, you will see that the ideas become more spiritual when we push them down into the unconscious. We must therefore say: When we take what the intellect offers us and absorb it into the unconscious, then we must characterize the world of ideas that is there in us and that we have pushed down as a higher, more spiritual world. We must therefore say: the world of possible memories – please note that I say the world of possible memories; not all the images that go down there need to be remembered again, but they are all there below in the unconscious soul life – the world of possible memories actually consists of imaginations, of unconscious imaginations.

[It was written on the board:

World of possible memories – imaginations.

Now, there are times when it is possible for a person's normal consciousness – and perhaps we will be able to talk about other such possibilities in the next few days – to conjure up these images, which would otherwise never pass from the realm of possible memories into the realm of actual memories, into consciousness. Take the experiences sometimes had by people who are drowning! And if you could compare them with the experiences of those who have passed through the gate of death, you would find that even there, some images, where the effort in ordinary physical life is not enough to bring them up again, then arise as if by themselves. But episodes, parts of them, also arise in the ordinary dream world. Even the dream as it presents itself to us is a complicated reality, because what is actually experienced is in many ways hidden behind it. But the ideas that we cover up are taken from memory. So the dream, the experiences of those struggling with death, like drowning people and the like, and experiences that occur immediately after passing through the gate of death, show this world of imagination, which is a more spiritual world than the world of ordinary human intelligence on the physical plane.

But if you take what I have just described, that these ideas, which have passed into the region of memory, work to promote or inhibit life, you will say to yourself: There is some life in it. While the ideas of the ordinary intellect are dead, there is some life in them, but it is not particularly strong. But even here ordinary experience can offer something that can show you that what happens to these images as they descend into the subconscious region can signify an even stronger life.

I have already emphasized the very common fact that people who have to learn something by heart in order to recite it, learn and sleep on it, and that this sleep is necessary to make the memory more capable. This is, however, only a slight hint at something that spiritual science shows much more clearly, indeed completely clearly, namely that our entire world of ideas, as we develop it and push it down into the subconscious, becomes more and more alive in the subconscious, while in consciousness it is dead.

Now, the ideas that come up again are not even those that are most involved in promoting or inhibiting life, but rather those that connect with us much more intimately. Ideas that we often absorb only incidentally, without even paying much attention to them in life, connect with our life-promoting or life-inhibiting powers to a much greater extent. Let us assume that someone is involved in spiritual science. He first takes in this spiritual science as it is worked out by the physical intellect. He has to start from there. We have to tie in with what the physical intellect perceives through the senses. Otherwise I could not speak about the spiritual world at all, because language is for the physical world. But there is a difference in how we, let me say, clothed in life, take in such a world of ideas.

Suppose a person takes the truths of spiritual science seriously and with dignity, so to speak, so that he feels: there is seriousness, deep seriousness. Another person takes in the ideas of spiritual science in such a way that he actually only listens to them theoretically and does not take them very seriously. The one takes them, as it were, in an atmosphere of superficiality, the other in an atmosphere of seriousness. We do not need to be very aware of how we take them in; it has more to do with how we go through life without always thinking about it. Those who are predisposed or accustomed to taking things seriously, and not frivolously or cynically, do not always think about how to take them; they behave seriously and naturally. In the same way, those who are only superficially predisposed take them in superficially; they cannot help it. Thus we accompany our life of imagination with something that we do not imagine, that really is something that goes along with what we are aware of. But what goes along with what we are aware of goes much deeper into the unconscious than what we consciously think. The way we form our ideas goes much deeper into the unconscious than what we consciously think. And when a person is asleep and his astral body and I am out of the physical and etheric body, then this way of forming ideas plays an infinitely important role in the astral body and I. One can say: Anyone who takes on any ideas with the necessary seriousness has these ideas in his astral body and in his I in such a way that they are there like invigorating solar power for the plant. They are truly the most invigorating of forces. And he incorporates into these ideas that which is invigorating, invigorating and going beyond the present incarnation, and creating the preconditions for the next incarnation. It is already evident from the creative soul that you have something in the subconscious that is more spiritual than what can be brought up through the dream.

There we have a world of unconscious mental life, connected with the whole core of the human being. This way of taking life, as it were, penetrates into our spiritual life forces, and it is quite the same as unconscious inspiration.

[It was written on the board]:

World of the unconscious life of imagination – inspirations.

I will then explain to you – today is no longer the time for this – how even ordinary life shows that these unconscious inspirations unconsciously have an effect in the person already in the incarnation in which they are formed, but unconsciously. Then I will show you further that there is still a higher world for the human being. But you can see from what has been presented today that the human soul life has an inner movement, that what is experienced on the physical plane through physical intelligence is experienced further down, that it then ascends into more spiritual regions, into even more spiritual regions at last than we experience on the physical plane. [The arrows were drawn.] So the life of imagination is in inner movement, in ascending movement. And now you remember what I drew for you yesterday: how certain processes in man were shown in a descending movement. So that you can say to yourself: When I have the human being in front of me, there is a descending current and an ascending current in the human being, and they work together. We will discuss tomorrow how they work together.

[Diagram on the board]:

World of unconscious mental life: inspirations
World of memory: imaginations
Intellectual activity: dead images

Yesterday I spoke about a kind of ascending movement that is rooted in human nature. And basically, by contemplating this ascending movement, we have rediscovered everything we already know, namely, at the lowest level, knowledge that is applicable only to the facts of the physical plane, physical knowledge, which is called objective knowledge in “How to Know Higher Worlds”. So today I will call it physical knowledge. We then came to know the next higher stage of knowledge, the so-called imaginative knowledge; but we considered it as archetypally conscious imaginative knowledge; conscious imaginative knowledge can only be present in the human being who tries to work his way up to it in the way described in the book “How to Know Higher Worlds”. The words “physical knowledge”, “unconscious imaginative knowledge”, “conscious imaginative knowledge” were written on the blackboard; see diagram.

But the fact is that the content of imaginative knowledge, that is, imaginations, are in every human being. So that the development of the human soul in this respect is nothing more than an expansion of consciousness to include a realm that is always present in the human soul. We may say, then, that the situation with imaginative knowledge is no different than it would be with objects in a dark room. For in the depths of the human soul all the imaginations that come into question for the human being are present just as the objects of a dark room are. And just as the objects in a dark room are not increased in number when light is brought into the room, but remain as they are, only illuminated, so, after the consciousness for imaginative knowledge has been awakened, there is no different content in the soul than there was before; they are only illuminated by the light of consciousness. So, in a sense, by struggling to the imaginative level of knowledge, we experience nothing other than what has long been present in our soul as a sum of imaginations.

If we look back again at what we were able to understand yesterday, we know that when our perceptions of the objects around us through our physical senses descend into the realm of memory, that is, into the unconscious, , so that we are in a position to be unaware of them for some time, but they have not been lost, but can be brought up again from the soul, then we have to say that we are sinking down into the unconscious that which we have in ordinary physical consciousness. Thus the world of representations that we gain through physical knowledge of the external world is constantly being taken up by our spiritual, by the supersensible; it continually slips into the supersensible. Every moment we gain representations of the external world through physical perceptions, and these representations are handed over to our supersensible nature. It will not be difficult for you to consider this in the light of everything that has been said over the years, because this is the most superficial supersensible process imaginable, a process that takes place continuously: the transition from ordinary perceptions to perceptions that we can remember. So it seems obvious, and this is also true according to spiritual research, that everything that takes place when we perceive the external world is a process of the physical plane. Even when we form ideas about the physical external world, this is still a process of the physical plane. But in the moment when we let the ideas sink down into the unconscious, we are already standing at the entrance to the supersensible world.

This is even a very important point to be taken into account by anyone who, not through all kinds of occult chatter but through serious human soul-searching, wants to gain an understanding of the occult world. For there is a very important fact hidden in the saying I have just applied: When we as human beings face the things of the external world and form ideas, it is a process of the physical plane. At the moment when the idea sinks down into the unconscious and is stored there until it is brought up again by a memory, a supersensible process takes place, a real supersensible process. So that you can say to yourself: If one is able to follow this process, which consists in the fact that a thought that is up in the consciousness sinks down into the subconscious and is present there as an image, one can, in other words, follow an idea as it is down in the subconscious, then one actually begins to glide into the realm of the supersensible. Just think: when you go through the usual process of remembering, the idea must first come up into consciousness, and you perceive it up here in consciousness, never down in the unconscious. You must distinguish between ordinary remembering and pursuing the ideas down into the unconscious. What takes place in remembering can be compared to a swimmer sinking under the water, whom you see until he is completely submerged. Now he is down and you no longer see him. When he comes up again, you see him again! [It was drawn.] It is the same with human perceptions: you have them as long as they are on the physical plane; when they go down, you have forgotten them; when you remember them again, they come up again like the float. But the process I am talking about, which already points to imaginative knowledge, could be compared to you diving under yourself and thereby being able to see the swimmer down in the water, so that he does not disappear when he submerges.

But from this follows nothing less than that the line I drew earlier, the level surface, as it were, below which the imagination sinks into the unconscious, into the realm of memory, is the threshold of the spiritual world itself, the first threshold of the spiritual world. This follows with absolute necessity. It is the first threshold of the spiritual world! Just think how close the human being is to this threshold of the spiritual world. [The words 'threshold of the spiritual world' were written next to the diagram.]

And now take a process by which one can try to really get down there, to submerge. The process would be to try to follow ideas down into the unconscious. This can actually only be done by trial and error. It can be done by doing something like the following. You have formed an idea about the outside world; you try to artificially evoke the process of remembering independently of the outside world. Think of how it is recommended in “How to Know Higher Worlds”, where the very ordinary rule of looking back at the events of the day is given. When one looks back at the experiences of the day, one trains oneself to enter into the paths that the imagination itself takes by descending below the threshold and then ascending again. So the whole process of remembering is designed to follow the images that have sunk below the threshold of consciousness.

But in addition, it is said in “How to Know Higher Worlds” that one does well to trace the ideas one has formed in reverse order, that is, from the end back to the beginning; and if one wants to survey the day, to follow the stream of events backwards from evening to morning. In doing so, one must make a different effort than is made in the way of ordinary recollections. And this different effort of will brings one to grasp, as it were below the threshold of consciousness, what one has had as an experiential image. And in the course of trying, one comes to feel, to experience inwardly, how one runs after the images, runs after them below this threshold of consciousness. It is really a process of inner experiential probing that comes into play here. But it is important to do this review really seriously, not in a way that after a while you lose the seriousness of the matter. But then, if you do this process of looking back for a long time, or in general do the process of bringing up an experience from memory, an experienced world of ideas, so that you imagine the matter in reverse, thus applying a greater force than you when you remember in the usual sequence, then you also experience that you are no longer able to grasp the idea from a certain point on in the same way as you would have grasped it in ordinary life on the physical plane.

On the physical plane, memory expresses itself in such a way – and it is best for memory on the physical plane to express itself in this way – that if one brings up the image that one wants or is supposed to remember, one does so in a way that is true to the context of one's life, one brings it up in the way one has formed it on the physical plane. But if, through the suggested trial, one gradually gets used to chasing the ideas, as it were, under the threshold of consciousness, one does not discover them down there as they are in life. That is the mistake people always make when they believe that they will find a copy of what is in the physical world in the spiritual world. They have to assume that the ideas will look different down there. In reality, they look like this below the threshold of consciousness: they have stripped away everything that is characteristic of the physical plane. Down there they become entirely images; and they become so completely that we feel life in them. We feel life in them. It is very important to keep this sentence in mind: we feel life in them. You can only be convinced that you have really followed an idea down below the threshold of consciousness when you have the feeling that the idea is beginning to live, to stir. When I compared the ascent to imaginative knowledge with sticking one's head into an anthill, I explained it from a different point of view. I said: everything begins to stir, everything becomes active.

Now, for example, let us say you have had an ordinary experience during the day – I will take that – sat at a table and held a book in your hand. Now, at some time in the evening, you vividly imagine what it was like: the table, the book, you sitting there, as if you were outside of yourself. And it is always good to visualize the whole thing pictorially from the outset, not in abstract thoughts, because abstraction, the ability to abstract, has no significance at all for the imaginative world. So you imagine this picture: sitting at a table, with a book in your hand. - With table and book I simply want to say, imagine as vividly as possible some detail from everyday life. Then, if you really let your soul gaze upon this image, if you really imagine it intensely in meditation, then from a certain moment on you will feel differently than usual; yes, I will say comparatively, it is similar to when you would take a living being in your hand.

When you pick up an inanimate object, you have the feeling that the object is still, it does not tingle or crawl in your hand. Even if you have a moving dead object in your hand, you calm down when you feel that this life does not come from the object, but is mechanically assigned to it. It is a different matter if you happen to have a living object, let's say a mouse, in your hand. Let's say, for example, that you reached into a cupboard and thought you were taking some object in your hand and discovered that you had a mouse in your hand. And then, you feel the crawling and tingling of the mouse in your hand! There are people who start screaming at the top of their lungs when they suddenly feel a mouse in their hand. And the screaming is no less when they cannot yet see what is crawling and tingling in their hand. So there is a difference between having a dead or a living object in your hand. You have to get used to the living object first in order to tolerate it to a certain extent. Isn't it true that people are accustomed to touching dogs and cats, but they have to get used to it first. But if you put a living being in someone's hand in the middle of the night, in the dark of night, without their knowing it, they will also be shocked.

You have to realize this difference you feel between touching a dead and a living object. When you touch a dead object, you have a different feeling than when you touch a living one. Now, when you have an idea on the physical plane, you have a feeling that you can compare to touching a dead object. But as soon as you really go below the threshold of consciousness, that changes; so that you get the feeling: the thought has life within, begins to stir. It is the same discovery you have – as a comparison for the feeling of the soul – as when you have grasped a mouse: the thought tingles and crawls.

It is very important that we pay attention to this feeling if we are to get an idea of imaginative knowledge; for we are in the imaginative world at the moment when the thoughts that we bring up from the subconscious begin to tingle and crawl, begin to behave in such a way that we have the feeling: down there, under the threshold, everything is actually swirling and churning. And while it is very quiet up there in the attic and thoughts can be controlled so nicely, just as machines can be controlled, down there one thought follows another, the thoughts tingle and crawl, they churn and roll, down there they suddenly become a very active world. It is important to appropriate this feeling, because at that moment, when you begin to feel the life of the world of thought, you are in the imaginative or elementary world. That is where you are! And one can enter so easily if only one follows the very simplest rules given in “How to Know Higher Worlds”, if only one refrains from trying to enter by the way of all kinds of “practices” hinted at in recent days. One can really enter so easily. Just think that one of the very first things clearly stated in the book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is that one should try to follow the life of a plant, for example: how it gradually grows and gradually fades away. Yes, if you really follow this, you have to go through the life of the plant in your thoughts. First you have the thought of the very small seed, and if you do not make the thought flexible, you will not be able to follow the plant as it grows. You have to make the thought flexible. And then again, when you think of the plant shedding its leaves, gradually dying, withering, you have to think of shrinking and wrinkling. As soon as you begin to think in terms of living things, you have to make the thought itself mobile. The thought must begin to acquire inner mobility through your own power.

There are two beautiful poems by Goethe. One is called “The Metamorphosis of Plants” and the other “The Metamorphosis of Animals”. These two poems can be read, you can find them beautiful, but you can also do the following. You can try to really think the thoughts in these poems as Goethe thought them, from the first line to the last, and then you will find that if you go through with it, the thought can move inwardly from beginning to end. And anyone who does not follow the thought of these poems in this way has not understood the metamorphosis. But anyone who follows the thought in this way and then lets it sink down into the unconscious, and then, after having done this several times, remembers precisely this thought of the metamorphosis – for this is no different from the thinking that you are supposed to follow in 'How to Know Higher Worlds' Knowledge of Higher Worlds?», will sink into the unconscious, and will then, after he has done this often, remember precisely this thought of the metamorphosis. So he who carries this out, who sinks this thought down and then makes the effort to do it fifty, sixty, a hundred times, and a hundred and one times it will perhaps take, will one day bring it up. But then this thought, which he has practiced in this way, will be a mobile one. You will see that it does not come up like a small machine, but forgive me for using this example again, like a small mouse; you will see how it is an inwardly mobile, living element.

I said that it is so easy to delve into this elemental world if you just tear yourself away from the human tendency towards abstract thought. This tendency to have limited, abstract thoughts instead of inwardly mobile thoughts is so terribly great. Isn't it true that people are so eager to say what this or that is and what is meant by it, and are so satisfied when they can say that this or that is meant by it, because it gives them a thought that does not move like a machine. And people become so terribly impatient in their ordinary lives when you try by all means to convey to them flexible and not such abstract boxed thoughts. Because all outer life of the physical plan and all life of outer science consists of such dead boxed thoughts, of nested thoughts. How often have I had to experience that people asked me about this or that: Yes, what about it? What is that? They wanted a complete, rounded thought that they could write down and then read again, repeating it as often as they liked. But the aim should be to have a thought that is flexible within, a thought that lives on, really lives on.

But you see, there is also a very serious side to the mouse. Why do some people scream when they discover that they have reached into a cupboard and are holding a mouse in their hand? Because they are afraid! And this feeling really does arise at the moment when you realize, really realize: the thought is alive! Then you start to be afraid too! And that is precisely what good preparation for the matter consists of: unlearning to be afraid of the living thought. The materialists do not want to come to such living thoughts, I have emphasized this often. Why? Because they are afraid. Yes, the master of materialism, Ahriman, appears once in the Mystery Drama with the expression “fear”. There you have the passage in the Mysteries where it is indicated how one feels when thoughts begin to become mobile. But now, all the indications in “How to Know Higher Worlds”, if followed, lead to getting rid of this fear of the mobile, of the living thought.

So you see, you enter into a completely different world, a world at whose threshold you must truly discard abstract thinking, which dominates the entire physical plane. The endeavor of people who want to enter the occult world with a certain degree of comfort always consists of wanting to take with them the ordinary thinking of the physical plane. You cannot do that. You cannot take ordinary physical thinking into the occult world. You have to take mobile thinking into it. All thinking must become agile and mobile. If you do not feel this within you – and as I said, you are not doing it right if you do not feel it relatively soon – if you do not pay attention to what I have just said, then it is very easy not to grasp the peculiarity of the spiritual world. And one should grasp it if one wants to deal with the spiritual world at all.

You see, it is so difficult to struggle with human abstractness in this field; because once you have grasped this flexibility of thought, you will also understand that a flexible thought cannot occur in any old way, here or there. You cannot, for example, find a land animal in the water; you cannot accustom a bird, which is suited to the air, to live deep down in the water. If you go to the living, you cannot do otherwise than to accept the idea that one must not take it out of its element. You have to keep that in mind.

I once tried, in a very strict way, initially in a small area – I always try to do it this way, but I will just mention it now as an example – with a very important idea, to show vividly, precisely with an example, how things must be when one takes into account the inner life of the thought. In Copenhagen I gave a small lecture cycle on 'The Spiritual Guidance of the Human Being and of Humanity', which is also available in print. At a certain point in this lecture cycle, I drew attention to the mystery of the two Jesus children. Now take it as it is presented there. We have a lecture cycle that begins in a certain way. It draws attention to how man can already acquire certain insights if he tries to look at the first years of a child's development, tries to look back at these things. The whole thing is designed. Then it continues. The part of the hierarchies in human progress is presented - the book is printed, it is probably in everyone's hands, so I am talking about something very well known - then there is a certain connection, at a very specific point, about the two Jesus children. It is part of the discussion of the two Jesus children that it happens at a certain point. And anyone who says, “Well, why shouldn't we be able to take this discussion of the two Jesus children and present it exoterically, even though it has been taken out of context?” is asking the same question as someone who asks, “Why does the hand have to be on the arm, on this part of the body?” They could even say, “Why isn't the hand on the knee?” It could perhaps be there too. He does not understand the whole organism as a living being, he believes that the hand could also be somewhere else, right? The hand cannot be anywhere other than on the arm! So in this context, the thought of the two Jesus children cannot be in a different place because it is tempting to develop the matter in such a way that the living thought is included in the presentation.

Now someone comes along and writes a piece of writing and takes this thought in a crude way and puts it in context with other thoughts that have nothing to do with it! But that means nothing other than: he puts his hand on his knee! What does someone do who puts his hand on his knee? Yes, you can't do it to an organism, but you could draw it. Paper is patient, you could just draw a human figure, supported here, and the two knees so that hands grow out of them. [This drawing has not been handed down.] Not true, you could draw that, but then you would have drawn an impossible organism; you would have proved that you understand nothing of real life! One could also use the comparison: he has placed the eagle, the bird that is meant for the air, in the depths of the sea or something similar.

What did such a person try to do? Yes, you see, what he tried can be done with all things that relate only to knowledge of the physical plane. One professor can write a book by starting with one, another can start with another, and it does not matter so much there: things can be taken out and so on. But there one is not dealing with living beings, but with thought machines. That is the essential point.

A person who does something like this, who tears something out of context and puts it into an impossible context, has proved that he is completely ignorant of the essence that has been the driving force and inspiration of our entire spiritual scientific movement since its inception, because he is trying to apply the very ordinary materialistic scheme to the spiritual as well. This is very essential. It is very important to face these things squarely, otherwise one does not understand the inner significance of higher knowledge. One cannot say everything at any given point. And it is really true with regard to the exoteric, which borders on the esoteric, that Hegel has already said that a thought belongs in its place in context. I hinted at this recently when I tried to make some suggestions in this direction on Hegel's birthday. In this way, one achieves nothing less than to submerge into life with thinking, whereas otherwise one always lives in the dead; one submerges into life.

But through this, something also reveals itself that could not be recognized at all before and that cannot be examined at all on the physical plane, namely, arising and ceasing. You can also see this from “How to Know Higher Worlds.” On the physical plane, nothing else can be observed than what has come into being. The arising cannot be observed at all; only what has come into being can be observed on the physical plane. The passing away cannot be observed either, because when the object passes into the passing away, it is no longer on the physical plane, or at least it moves away from the physical plane.

So one cannot observe arising and ceasing on the physical plane. The consequence of this is that we can say: we enter into a completely new world element when we discover the movable thought, namely into the world of life and that is the world of arising and ceasing.

Occultly speaking, this could also be expressed in the following way: During the old moon time, man was - albeit only in the dream consciousness - in the world of becoming and passing away. It was not that he saw with his senses what was arising, for he had not yet developed the senses to perceive with, but was still immersed in things. He imagined in a dream-like way, but the images that he imagined in a dream-like way allowed him to really follow the arising and passing away. And that is what he must first strive for again by developing mobile thoughts. So the ascent to imaginative knowledge is at the same time a return, only a return to the level of consciousness. We return to something we have outgrown; we return properly.

So that we can say: This imaginative knowledge is the return to the world of becoming and passing away. We discover becoming and passing away when we return. And we cannot learn anything about becoming and passing away if we do not come to imaginative knowledge. It is quite impossible to discern anything about becoming and passing away without coming to imaginative knowledge.

That is why what Goethe wrote about the metamorphosis of plants and animals is so infinitely meaningful, because Goethe really wrote it from the point of view of imaginative knowledge. And that is why people could not understand what was actually meant when I wrote my comments on “Goethe's Scientific Writings”, which, in the most diverse turns of phrase, repeatedly express that it does not depend on the current scientific but to delve into Goethe's scientific knowledge and to see something tremendously outstanding in it, something quite different from current scientific knowledge. That is why I referred to a sentence that Goethe expressed so beautifully and in which he indicates what is important to him. Goethe made the Italian Journey and followed not only art but also nature with interest. When reading the 'Italian Journey', one can see how he gradually immersed himself in everything that the mineral, plant and so on could offer him. And then, when he had arrived in Sicily, he said that, after what he had observed there, he now wanted to make a journey to India, not to discover anything new, but to look at what had already been discovered by others in his way. In other words, to look at it with flexible concepts! That is what is important: to look at what others have discovered with flexible concepts. That is the tremendously significant fact that Goethe introduced these flexible concepts into scientific life.

Therefore, for those who understand occultism, the following is a fact that is otherwise misunderstood. Ernst Haeckel and other materialistic, or as they are also called, monistic scholars, have spoken very appreciatively about Goethe's Metamorphosis of Plants and Animals. But the fact that they were able to express their appreciation is based on a very strange process, which I will also make clear to you through a comparison.

Imagine you have a plant in a flowerpot in front of you, or even better, outside in the garden, and you want to enjoy this plant. You go out into the garden to enjoy it, to enter into a relationship with it. And now imagine that there is a person who cannot do anything with the plant. And if you ask yourself why, you discover: He is actually disturbed by life! And so he makes a cast of the plant very finely, so that the plant is now like the real one, but in papier-mâché. He puts it in his room and now he enjoys it. Life disturbed him; only now does he enjoy it!

I cannot tell you what torments I suffered as a boy when comparing, which is also characteristic of the attitude of people, I often had to hear as a boy that someone wanted to emphasize the beauty of a rose particularly by saying: Truly, as if made of wax! - It's enough to make you want to tear your hair out! But it does exist. It really does exist that someone emphasizes the excellence of a living thing by saying, in his phrase, that it is like a dead thing. It really does exist. For those who have a sense for the matter, it is something terrible. But if you don't have such feelings, you really can't develop according to reality.

Now, the following happened with Ernst Haeckel. Goethe wrote “The Metamorphosis of Plants” and “The Metamorphosis of Animals”, Haeckel reads them and Ahriman transforms what is alive that Goethe has written into mock-ups, into something that is actually made of papier-mâché, and Haeckel grasps that. He actually likes it. So that in what he praises, he has not praised what Goethe really meant, but Haeckel has only translated it into the mechanistic. Ahriman steps between Goethe and Haeckel, transforming the living into a dead one.

Now, as I said, this conscious upward leap to imaginative knowledge is a return. I said at the beginning of the lecture: the imaginations are actually already within us, they have been within us since the time of the moon, and the development on earth consists in the fact that we have covered them with the ordinary layers of consciousness. Now we are returning through what we have acquired in our ordinary earthly consciousness. It is a real return.

And now one can ask: how can one describe the whole thing? One can now say: it is a descent and a re-ascent. Only now is there any justification for drawing this line at all [the words on the blackboard are connected by a line, see diagram]; there would be no sense in drawing it from the outset. And only now can we say: on the level of ordinary physical cognition, there we are below; here is unconscious imaginative cognition, which now sits below in our nature and has to do with the forces of becoming and passing away; and on the other side, in the ascent, is conscious imaginative cognition. [Both were marked on the blackboard.]

If we take Goethe as an obvious example – I will only look at him as an example – we can say that in Goethe's later works, the point has been reached where the outer development of humanity embraces imaginative knowledge, where it is actually introduced into science.

Now one may ask: Now one can study whether or not very strange things are associated with it? Yes, they are associated with it, because basically the whole of Goethe's way of thinking is quite different from that of other people. And Schiller, who was unable to develop this way of thinking, was only able to understand Goethe with the greatest effort, as you can see from the correspondence between Schiller and Goethe at the point I have often quoted, where Schiller writes to Goethe on August 23, 1794:

”...For a long time now, although from a considerable distance, I have observed the course of your mind and noted the path you have mapped out with ever-renewed admiration. You seek what is necessary in nature, but you seek it by the most difficult route, which any weaker force would do well to avoid. You take all of nature together to get light on the individual; in the totality of its manifestations you seek the explanation for the individual. From the simple organization you ascend, step by step, to the more complicated, to finally build the most complicated of all, the human being, genetically from the materials of the whole of nature. By recreating it, as it were, you seek to penetrate its hidden technology. A great and truly heroic idea, which shows sufficiently how much your mind holds the rich totality of its ideas together in a beautiful unity. You could never have hoped that your life would be enough for such a goal, but even just to embark on such a path is worth more than any other ending, and you have chosen, like Achilles in the Iliad between Phthia and immortality. If you had been born a Greek, or even an Italian, and had been surrounded from your cradle by a refined nature and idealizing art, your path would have been infinitely shortened, perhaps even made superfluous. You would have absorbed the form of the necessary into your first view of things, and the great style would have developed in you with your first experiences. Now that you have been born a German, since your Greek spirit has been thrown into this Nordic creation, you had no choice but to either become a Nordic artist yourself or to replace what reality withheld from your imagination by the help of your thinking power, and thus to give birth to a Greece from within and in a rational way, so to speak. In that period of your life when the soul forms its inner world from the outer world, surrounded by imperfect forms, you had already absorbed a wild and Nordic nature into yourself, when your victorious genius, superior to its material, discovered this defect from within, and from without it was confirmed by your acquaintance with Greek nature. Now you had to correct the old, inferior nature, which had already been forced upon your imagination, according to the better model that your creative mind created for itself, and this could not, of course, be done otherwise than according to guiding concepts. But this logical direction, which the mind is compelled to take in reflection, does not go well with the aesthetic one, through which alone it forms. So you had more work to do, because just as you went from intuition to abstraction, you now had to convert concepts back into intuitions, and transform thoughts into feelings, because only through these can the genius bring forth... “

He considers him to be a Greek transplanted to the Nordic world, and so on. Yes, there you see the whole difficulty Schiller had in understanding Goethe! Some people could learn something from this who believe they can understand Goethe in the twinkling of an eye and thereby elevate themselves above Schiller, even though Schiller was not exactly a fool when it came to those people who believe they can understand Goethe so readily!

But the peculiar thing that can be discovered is that Goethe also has a very peculiar and different view in relation to other areas, for example in relation to the ethical development of the human being, namely in the way of thinking about what the human being deserves or does not deserve as reward or punishment.

It is impossible to understand Goethe's work from the very beginning if you do not consider his, I would say his entire environment's, divergent way of thinking about reward and punishment. Read the poem “Prometheus,” where he even rebels against the gods. Prometheus, that is of course a revolt against the way people think about rewards and punishments. For Goethe there is the possibility of forming very special ideas about rewards and punishments. And in his “Wilhelm Meister” he really did try to present this, I would say, in a wonderfully probing way in the secrets of the world. You don't understand “Wilhelm Meister” if you don't consider that.

But where does that come from? It comes from the fact that in the realm of physical knowledge one cannot form any idea at all of what punishment or reward is to be applied to anything human in relation to the world, because that can only arise in the realm of imagination. That is why the occultists always said: When you ascend to imaginative knowledge, you experience not only the elemental world, but also - as they put it - “the world of wrath and punishment”. So it is not only a return to the world of becoming and passing away, but at the same time a climbing up to the world of wrath and punishment. The words “return to the world of becoming and passing away” and “world of wrath and punishment” were written on the blackboard. ]

Therefore, only spiritual science can truly illuminate the peculiar chain of cause and effect between what a person is worthy and unworthy of in relation to the universe. All other “justifications” in the world are preparatory to this.

We have now reached an important point, and I will continue with this tomorrow.

Yesterday we brought our observations on the characteristics of imaginative knowledge to a certain point of view and emphasized that everything that a person consciously brings into their consciousness through imaginative knowledge is actually already within them. I have used the comparison that in a dark room there are various objects, or for that matter people, which cannot be seen with the physical eyes in a dark room. Then one enters with a light, and everything inside is illuminated; nothing is new in it, everything was already there before. The only difference is that the things are seen and perceived afterwards, and not before. It is the same with what imaginative knowledge presents to us. Everything that imaginative knowledge brings to consciousness is present in man, reigns and works in man down there in the hidden depths of the soul; it belongs to what lives and moves in man. And what is especially important for man on the physical plane is that he is continually increased or diminished in his powers in some way through what he absorbs, experiences and lets sink down from his imaginative life into the depths of consciousness.

I shall have more to say to you on this subject on a later occasion, for the process is very incompletely characterized when one says: Here [it is drawn] is the threshold of consciousness; here is an idea that sinks down into the subconscious and is now down there like a living being. As I said, the process is quite incompletely described. But we want to ascend slowly and gradually to the true facts in this area.

What I want to say today is that we are becoming aware of how these imaginative cognitive facts are, of course, - as you can see from the discussion - thoroughly and deeply connected with all the conditions of human life, even on the physical plane from birth to death. But they belong to the unconscious or subconscious conditions of life. So that from what we have considered, we can also gain the important truth that man, as he lives on earth, is dependent on conditions that do not enter into the bright day-consciousness that we have from birth to death, except when we sleep. So we are dependent on life factors that cannot be known with ordinary normal consciousness.

But from the way I have presented it, these life factors that prevail down there – and we said yesterday, in the etheric body – are still quite close to the person, so close that, because they are related, they connect with what the person continually lets sink down from his world of ideas. For man can, so to speak, when he transforms his thoughts into memories, transform his thoughts himself into the substance that is down there in the subconscious. It is, after all, substantively quite the same as what we think. When what we think is down there, it is just as much a seething, swirling world as what lives and moves down there, which is basically a living thought life. But this is the etheric body, which has come into the etheric body from the cosmos. And because it is related to our conscious thought life, it is still very close to the human being. And just as it lives and moves in us today in our unconscious, so it was basically fully present during the old moon existence. This [moon thinking] was - if you imagine it as a dream, if you think that it is completely immersed in dream life - generally proceeding as when you dream, but perceive the living weaving of thought in the dream. That is the old moon dweller's concept of the imagination. It is only during our life on earth that we have to make an effort to have thoughts, to form thoughts through our own efforts. The old moon dweller did not form thoughts through his own efforts. He lived in dream images, which were not as dead as our thoughts, but were living, weaving images, forming thoughts.

You can see from what I have described to you that when we immerse ourselves in the imaginative world, we gain something and lose something at the same time. We lose the reassurance of the peaceful earthly experience of thoughts; we no longer have that in our power because thoughts themselves are living inner forces. In ordinary life we feel that we are the masters of our thoughts; we do not have them in the imaginative world; but in return we also grasp a life that is just life. The thoughts we have in physical life are dead; what we grasp there lives and moves. And so it was already during the old moon existence for people, only they had it in dreams, and not consciously. Then, in the evolution on earth, there is an ascent to consciousness. And from the conscious realization of that which was a dream during the old moon existence, imaginative knowledge emerges as the first step from which spiritual-scientific knowledge must be taken. This imaginative knowledge is therefore still very much related to the human being.

Now, I said, one gains something and one loses something. People would agree with the first part, gaining something, but they do not agree with the losing. And from this, countless errors arise; very, very many errors arise from this. You see, it is not so easy if you do not make an effort to imagine what this dream-like imaginative imagining was like during the moon phase. When we live here on earth, it is inconvenient, because of the physical developmental period, to always have to form ideas and thoughts only on the basis of earthly facts. That is precisely the inconvenience of studying. One must really weigh the facts, judge the facts, and connect the facts, and one must slowly work one's way through one's own efforts into the worlds of thought and imagination, which one masters as an earthly human being with an earthly will. Some people find it much more comfortable to have the living world of thought simply handed to them, so that they only need to wait for it: when they receive the 'enlightenment' from it, it enters into their soul life, and they no longer need to develop thoughts. That is how they think, but it does not take them any further than they are. One stands much higher as an earth human than as a moon human, because one has developed further. Compared to the dreamy moon-imagination, the earthman, who combines facts and forms concepts from life experiences with his rational judgment, stands much higher than the moonman and than the one who longs for this moonman existence, which is supposed to consist of illuminations that have not been worked out through thought.

One can have peculiar experiences there. Not that a person, when he sinks back to this moon-like realization, has no thoughts. He has thoughts, but they come by themselves, he does not need to do the work of thinking. That seems rather comfortable. One can experience a certain, very important, specific experience over and over again, which must be considered if one wants to understand these things at all.

There are people who develop a certain visionary clairvoyance. This dream-like imagining, this visionary clairvoyance, always involves a regression to a lunar nature. For real clairvoyance that can be desired for the earth must be based on a higher level, on an even greater development through the world of thought than the recognition of the physical plane. The regression is not an elevation, not a development upwards for the person, but a development downwards, a becoming less intelligent than one is as a normal earth person. And then the strange experience occurs, which one can have again and again. There are people who have a certain visionary clairvoyance, but are not really intelligent at all. Yes, their clairvoyance is almost directly related to the fact that they shun intelligence, that they do not want to develop the intelligence that one has to develop as an earthly human being. It is precisely this attenuation of ordinary earthly intelligence that is very often associated with a certain degree of visionary clairvoyance, which is a lunar atavistic one. And then perhaps the following occurs: Such people can then make notes of their images. These notes are not thoughtless, but interwoven with thoughts - the thoughts come with the images and within them are interwoven spiritual, very spiritual images. And then the puzzle can arise: Yes, there is a person who describes in pictures, in very beautiful pictures, Atlantis or other things that come to him in a visionary way, and that is absolutely logically intelligent. But I never perceived such intelligent logic in that person when he was supposed to explain things of the physical plane; then he does not have it. He has not become enough of an earth person. But if he is allowed to fall back into lunar intelligence, then the intelligence comes. But then it is not his intelligence, then he is merely a medium for the lunar intelligence, then the lunar intelligence works in him. One can receive beautiful descriptions of spiritual worlds from people who have sunk a little back into the lunar stage, and who, when they want to apply their earthly acquired intelligence, cannot themselves understand what they have actually produced, and in most cases do not even want to do so.

I said: In the ascent to imaginative knowledge one must gain something and lose something, and that people usually do not want to lose anything. I also pointed out that people who have spirit do not want to lose it. These are not the people who love visionary clairvoyance, for they are quite willing to lose ordinary intelligence, ordinary thinking. But there is another group that does not want to lose this intelligence. They want to maintain this intelligence as it is on the physical plane, they just do not want to develop it further. They do not want to work on this intelligence so that the person comes to use the concepts more freely than they are used in the processes of the physical plane. And then such people come to allegorizing, to symbolizing, which is after all again only an activity of the physical plane, because it does not further the thinking, but leaves it standing, and then puts outer thought-capes on it from all kinds of exquisite occult things. It is very important to bear that in mind.

And you see, that was already in the consciousness of those who slowly and gradually worked or wanted to work their way up to the points of view that we must have in spiritual science today. Today, in spiritual science, we really must bring humanity something of clear thinking, combined with the possibility of knowing something of spiritual worlds, but in clear, completely clear thinking. It has taken a long time for the possibility to arise – and hopefully it has now – to see through these things in this way. And many people have worked their way through to this. People of such great clarity as Goethe, for example, have come very close to complete clarity. But many have worked their way through to this. Just think how Jakob Böhme wrestled with the transition points of the materialistic age, with the chaotically writhing, moving, whirling and tumbling concepts. He had already had them, but to really work through them so that what emerged is what stands with Jakob Böhme as a profound illumination of some secrets of the spiritual world.

Another person has expressed a wonderful sentence – I would say, as if illuminating the field of vision wonderfully, as dawned on modern times – from which one can see, or at least from what he has otherwise achieved, one can see how he was not able to penetrate with a completely clear view to what spiritual science should be today, but he was still able to come so far as to represent the most important nerve. The man I am talking about realized in the 18th century that if you want to know the human being, you have to penetrate through the darkness, through the confusion of external material knowledge. Even if you are at the first stage of imaginative knowledge, this is necessary. Because we have seen what weaves down there in the depths of the soul, you can't reach that with physical knowledge. You have to penetrate through the darkness. But that is not the only thing you have to do. You also have to penetrate through the confusion of ordinary concepts to knowledge, you also have to dispel these confusions. So you also have to get beyond the ordinary thinking that works on the physical plane.

And then this man coined a very beautiful sentence. The first part of this sentence is readily followed, the second part is almost never followed. But it is important to follow it. You see, most people today who want to become or be mystics in some way or other admit that one must strip away the sensual, the material, that one must strip away the confusions of the material in order to penetrate into the spiritual. But that one must also discard the forms of the spiritual that adhere to conceptual thinking, very few people admit; for they would like to take them with them, would like to manage them in the same way as on the physical plane, would like to find the thought down there in the subconscious as a possibility for remembrance in exactly the same form as it has up there.

But it would be a mistake to believe that the clairvoyant, when he looks into the human mind, finds the thoughts there in exactly the same form as the person who has them in his head. That is not true. Down there they are transformed, they are living entities, an elementary world. The world of thoughts that man has here on the physical plane is not found in the spiritual world. That is why that man coined a beautiful sentence that I want to write down for you, because it can really be seen as a kind of trial in one's own mind: how can one possibly get to know something about the worlds that lie outside the earthly world? He said, [it was written on the board]:

Dissipez vos ténèbres matérielles ei vous trouverez l'Homme

With this part of the sentence: To disperse the material darkness and confusion - people who want to be mystics agree. But people today still hardly understand the second part of the sentence. [It was written on the blackboard]:

Dissipez vos ténèbres spirituelles et vous trouverez Dieu

whereby we have to imagine the whole content of spiritual science for “Dieu”, because that is still colored by religious ideas. Not true, he could not yet find the expression that can be found today.

Now you can surely imagine that when someone reads the sentence today: “Dissipez vos ténèbres matétrielles et vous trouverez l'homme”, they think: Yes, fine, that's how I enter the spiritual world, that's what I want. But when he reads, “Dissipez vos ténèbres spirituelles et vous trouverez Dieu,” he says, “Yes, but what will remain for me then? I will have nothing?”

Yes, what remains there? Precisely that remains, which is the content of today's spiritual science. This is necessary: the content of knowledge of the physical plane, which is usually believed to be the only correct one, must be dispelled just as the material darkness is dispelled. Now notice how this is taken into account in our spiritual science... [space in the transcript].

This sentence is a sentence of the so-called “philosophe inconnu”, of Saint-Martin, who saw himself as a disciple of Jakob Böhme. Thus, we already find in Saint-Martin a deep longing for that which is to come to light in spiritual science. But he calls himself “philosophe inconnu”, unknown philosopher, because what he carried within him remained foreign to those who saw him, of course, saw his nose, saw his hands, heard the words he spoke. The actual philosopher Saint-Martin remained unknown to them, quite unknown.

So, after the discussions we had yesterday, the appropriation of imaginative knowledge is a return, a conscious return to the way in which man had his relationship to the world during the lunar time. So that we can say - you remember, we have already presented this from a different side here in lectures: In man, today, still prevail, but supersensibly, as spiritual-supersensibles, the events, which are not actually normal events on earth, but were normal events during the moon time. He has preserved these moon events; he can fall back in a certain sense. Then he produces knowledge in a completely different way than the earth man can produce such knowledge. He can have visionary clairvoyance, have subdued intelligence and pose the very riddle I spoke of earlier, namely that if one were to induce him to work reasonably scientifically, or even to make reasonable conclusions about the most ordinary, everyday events, he cannot do it, that he does not succeed; but when he writes something out of the vision, even about the events that took place at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, he only writes pictures, remains in the moon life, but still writes terribly cleverly. And what he writes does not match what is otherwise known about the person. So, theoretically he can do nothing, but he writes very cleverly in a mediumistic way, so that one can be amazed at the cleverness. But that is not a further development, that is a regression of the human being. Of course, that does not exclude the possibility that truths can come to light through such a person, because he is, after all, in an earthly existence and connected to the earthly existence and, in addition, has this lively moon life in him.

I have tried to depict the different types of people in the Mystery Dramas, and also to draw a character who falls back into the lunar, who is therefore unintelligent on the physical plane and yet can reveal correct things, who is therefore below the level of the normal earthly human being: that is Theodora. Theodora is a figure who is meant to be a regression into lunar consciousness. That is very clear. I would like to say that it is very clearly indicated there, as it is, by saying at the one point where Theodora appears: “Theodora, a seer. In her, the will element is transformed into naive seership.” Naive seership means, of course, naive visionary. It is a naive seership, and that is how the character is developed. And for this reason, it is also that in the last mystery, Theodora herself can no longer appear, but only her soul, because she cannot go through certain things. These Mystery Dramas should be taken very, very literally. Perhaps some of you will one day realize that hardly anything that has happened here in recent days could not already be read in the Mysteries in some form or other. If one had read it as the things were meant to be read, we would not have needed these confusions.

So let us remember: what is experienced as the imaginative world is still relatively close to the human being. What can be experienced as the inspired world, on the other hand, is much less close to the human being. For when one first enters into the inspired world, it encompasses those facts that did not take place during the moon's existence but already during the old sun's existence and that the human being has also retained. So you penetrate into even greater depths of the human soul when you work your way through to the inspired world. And the inspired world that you encounter first has a certain peculiarity.

You see, when a person works his way through to the imaginative world, he encounters facts that took place during the old moon's existence. If you imagine the old moon in the phases when it was separated from the then sun (you can read about this in “Secret Science”), then at certain times, man lived on this moon that was separated from the sun. And what the human being experienced there is what one encounters first when one returns with the old, dream-like, imaginative clairvoyance. But when one enters the inspired world, then one experiences in the return not a being split off from the sun, but a being directly inside the sun; thus the facts that the human being experienced together with the sun. One experiences truly correct solar facts. And these solar facts, you see, are actually no longer related to man. Because the way man is now, during his earthly existence, if he does not look into the depths of his soul, does not look at what is in the deeply hidden reasons of his soul, he is actually, through what he is on earth, really more of a shell. It is not a real human being, it is more of a shell. First of all, there is the physical form itself, which has been created during the earthly existence as it appears to us on the physical plane. But there are forces at work within it that cannot be seen and that are not even sought by current science.

A friend of ours has been encouraged to search in this direction with the biological material at his disposal. The friend is putting a lot of effort into it and perhaps after some time - such things require a great deal of study - will be able to come up with a way to bridge the gap to these hidden parts of human nature. But for this it is necessary to search out those biological facts that are not taken into account by present-day science, that the present-day researcher, who experiments, leaves lying, as it were. So one has to search through the preparations for what does not interest the other researchers at all, what they leave lying. Of course, a lot is still missing, and a lot of new research has to be done. It is quite possible that it will take many years of work before it can be completed. But it would be an eminently important work because it could show us what can still be achieved by physical science of what lives in human nature from the old moon. It will result in a completely new embryology, a new part, a new side to embryology. It is necessary that this be done. But that is really all; more cannot be found by looking at the human being from the outside. For what can be found today in the human being from the outside is actually not older, not even as old as the oldest time of the old moon existence. But from such research, of which I have just spoken, conclusions can be drawn about processes of the old moon existence. These will correspond with what is described in “Occult Science”. But, as I said, we do not get very far back when we look at human beings as they are today; not even to the beginning of the ancient moon existence, let alone to the ancient sun existence.

If you want to go back to the old solar existence, then you have to take much, much less material in the human being than can be taken in the science I just spoke of. Because what it is about is that something actually penetrates into human nature, which man on earth can bring to revelation, but does not have to bring to revelation. He can, but he does not have to, bring it to revelation. When, for example, an artist or poet is truly inspired, then these inspirations come from the spiritual world of the existence of the sun. They really come from the spiritual world of the existence of the sun. It is just that our time is so terribly poor in spirit that what comes from the inspirations of the existence of the sun is rejected, and people actually only ever want to create in a naturalistic way, to stick to the model, that is to say to the earthly, while what can come from the model is only the material for what one should actually create. The arts that protect the individual artist from becoming attached to the model, from falling back on the material, are architecture and music. Architecture cannot reproduce anything; it often does it quite badly. And music cannot reproduce anything either, because it is not real music if you reproduce bird calls and cat meows, as you reproduce models in painting and so on. In music, only the very highest material of sound can be used. But it should be the same in every art. Just as much as the musician takes from music, the painter must take from the model. What the tones are for the musician, the form and color must be for the painter. The model should not give him more than the material. So the artistic cannot be taken from the model, but arises from inspiration, which leads back to the ancient solar existence. Hence the strangeness to the earth of truly great works of art. I said that man can live without artistic inspiration, he can, he can indeed bring it in, but he does not need to bring it in. The Botokude, doesn't he say: Man can also live without art.

But now you can – and those who experience things in a deeper sense will do so sooner or later – you can raise an important, crucial question: Yes, if we have a Saturn existence, a Sun existence, a Moon existence, an Earth existence, all with certain facts, and in imaginative knowledge, to the sun in inspired knowledge, and from this it follows that we return to Saturn in intuitive knowledge; yes, if this is so, that we do not have new facts but return to the old facts, why then does man need further development at all?

Someone might ask this question: Why further development? Why the whole earthly existence, which detaches us from the facts through which we have developed, so that the insights are pushed down into the unconscious, and we must first recognize them again? Why the whole thing?

Yes, you see, it is only through this that we become true human beings, because only through it can we truly perfect our true nature. And this can also be seen outwardly if one really studies those personalities who had something of the flexible concepts, of this conceptual mind, as I have mentioned to you in the examples of Goethe's “Metamorphosis of Plants” and “Metamorphosis of Animals”. Such natures must be studied. And such natures show at the same time that they, when they are completely true to themselves inwardly, stand in a very definite relation to yet another world of the soul. This is especially evident in Goethe. Study “Wilhelm Meister”, study all of Goethe's poetry, and you will find that in his work there is a remarkable way of judging and passing judgment on the world. If you look into these things, you will find that in the same measure as Goethe's idea of metamorphosis develops, so does a truly genuine, magnificent inner soul tolerance. A wonderful tolerance develops in his soul, a remarkable way of relating to the world and to life, a soul tolerance! And this is connected with very deep facts.

You see, if we look at the animal world, this animal world has the most diverse forms. If we compare, for example, the hyena, which has its carrion-craving written all over its face and which carries its nature in its entire posture, with the lion, with the wolf, and if we in turn compare these animals with the eagle and the eagle with the vulture, then these animals in comparison with turtles, snakes, worms, the various insects, if we take all these different animal forms, we must still ask ourselves: How does this relate to the spiritual world?

This can only be studied by studying the old moon existence. Because why? You see, during the old moon existence, man did not yet exist in his present form. The corresponding forms that existed at the human level were the angels. The Angeloi, the angels, had very different judgments and a very different way of thinking [than we have today]. The angels were at the same level back then that people are at today, but they were not in a physical body like the people on earth today. They had a very soft, flexible body, because the spirits of form had not yet been involved in forming a solid body. Now, these angeloi thought in terms that were much more alive compared to our earthly concepts, and this was not during their time on earth but during the time on the moon. These concepts, however, have something very peculiar in addition to their liveliness. They were steeped to a high degree in impulses of feeling. Inspired by the archangels, the archai, the spirits of form, the spirits of movement, and so on upwards, the angels grasped the concepts during the lunar time. But these are living, impulsive concepts; much more impulsive than we find the concepts in today's people, who alternately become either “rapture nickels” or “poison nickels” when they put their emotions into how they judge life. There are such people, and they can be the best of people, but they will alternately be enraptured, enraptured about something, or be quite pronounced “poison nickels”, so that the whole soul is in what they express and the whole goes out in the concepts, doesn't it. Now that was present in a much higher degree - directly creative - in these angels on the moon.

Imagine a moon dweller who thinks in this way! He says to himself: Yes, I must now grasp a concept. Inspiration gives me: Wretched creature, who carries his back rising from behind to the front, who makes a repulsive face out of longing for carrion! - That is how this creature came into being, condemned to be a hyena. The creative concept is there. The forms of the animal kingdom are intimately connected with this creative thinking, which creates according to the principle of good and evil. And the whole animal kingdom in its various forms is such a manifestation of good and evil.

The people [of Earth] were not supposed to learn this. One who did not want to let go of the culture of the moon seduced people into recognizing good and evil in the way he had experienced it during the lunar period. The... [gap in the transcription] judged thus; but people should learn to judge differently. This strong identification of the emotions with the concepts should not go down into deeper psychological levels. That had to be discarded, that had to give way to a more objective, more relaxed form. Therefore man had to progress from lunar to earthly development. And if he continues to progress, he will become even more tolerant. A lunar angel, yes, he hated the hyena in an incredible way because for him it represented evil. He hated the snake, hated everything that was ugly and loved everything that was beautiful. Good and evil belonged to the realm of creative life. Man had to unlearn this. Man could not develop an earth science if he were to classify animals, as the moon angels did, into beautiful and ugly – no, we classify differently, according to objective terms – into decent and indecent animals, into playful, into cunning animals, and so on. The moon angels had all that. But it would not be scientific today, for example, if a learned book were to say: “The weasel - characteristic: cunning.” This may be the case in a satirical poem, but in science today this must be suppressed; it cannot be so today.

So in order to make progress in this field, one must be able to rise to a level at which one regards the animal kingdom without emotion in the same scientific way as one regards the natural world when one has the most intense emotions in one's earthly life. And we can see this in this peculiar distillation of Goethe's mind. For him, human life is to a much greater extent a calm stream, which he observes like natural phenomena. That is precisely the wonderful inner serenity of Goethe's view of life, that for him part of human life also enters into the stream of natural facts. This is how he was able to be so objective.

Now, from this point on, we have to take up the matter again and continue the deliberations tomorrow.