The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Preliminary note: During the first three-week “Anthroposophical College Course” (September 26 to October 16, 1920 in Dornach), at which 30 representatives of various disciplines gave lectures in addition to Rudolf Steiner, Three evenings of conversation also took place, on October 4, 6 and 15, 1920. During these so-called “Conversations on Spiritual Science,” questions on any topic could be asked, to which Rudolf Steiner then responded in more or less detail. The stenographers did not record the conversation evenings in their entirety, and there are gaps in some of them.

Rudolf Steiner: Dearly beloved! I imagine that today, in a kind of conversation, we will discuss all kinds of questions and the like that arise in one or other of the honored listeners in connection with what has been developed here in recent days as anthroposophy. Although, as I have endeavored to arrange, you will be offered a hundred lectures during these three weeks, it is not possible to do more than touch on individual topics in outline. What can be given to you here can only be suggestions at first, but these suggestions may perhaps show that the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science meant here is no less well founded

Asa is more firmly grounded than that which is taken from the external life of today's strict science, yes, that it absorbs all the methodical discipline of this science and also perceives that which stands as a great demand of the time, the demand for further development. This demand for further development arises from the fact that those impulses of scientific life, in particular, which have produced great things in the past epoch, are now in the process of dying out and would have to lead to the decline of our civilization if a new impetus were not to come.

The suggestions that have now been made for such a new impact can certainly be expanded in a variety of directions in the context of a discussion such as the one taking place today, and I would now like to ask you to contribute to this expansion. Please ask questions, express your wishes and in general put forward anything you wish to say. The questions can best be put in writing, and I ask you to make good use of this opportunity.

Mr. Conrad: The question I have to ask relates to a therapeutic area. In his lectures, Dr. Steiner pointed to certain illnesses that are currently occurring very frequently. There are certain mental disorders in this regard for which I would be grateful for an answer about the deeper causes. These are mainly speech disorders. I would like to point out that I am not motivated by personal interests, but am only asking to the extent that pedagogical interests are involved. Teachers have often asked me what to do about speech disorders. However, since this question touches on the field of therapy, I do not want to encourage questions that only concern illnesses. I would be very grateful for an answer because this question seems to be very pressing at the moment.

Rudolf Steiner: Perhaps we can start by answering this question. When something specific like this comes up, we must of course bear in mind that such specific disturbances in the human organism can have the most diverse causes and that it is extremely difficult to talk about these things in general if we want to get to the real cause. In all such matters, my esteemed audience, it is actually a matter of using spiritual science to enable one to assess the individual case in the right way. And here I would like to say something that perhaps has a much more general significance than this question requires.

You see, we live in an age of abstraction, in an age when people love to reduce the manifold world, the multiform world, to a few formulas, when people love to establish abstract laws that encompass vast areas of existence. They can only do so in an abstract way, ignoring the individual. Spiritual science will have to bring about a significant change in this direction in particular. It will indulge less in simplifying the manifold existence and will bring insights about the concrete spiritual. But by approaching the concrete spiritual, one's soul is stimulated in such a way that the ability to observe and judge is strengthened and invigorated. This will become apparent in people's general social interaction. A large part of the social question today actually lies in the fact that we no longer have any inclination to really get to know the person we pass by, because our inner being does not have the kind of stimuli that enable us to properly grasp the individual, the particular. Here spiritual science will achieve something different. Spiritual science will enrich our inner life again, enabling it to grasp the particular. And so our powers of observation and discrimination and all that will be particularly developed. Therefore, we will have less desire for abstract generalizations, but more desire for the particular, the individual. In a sense, we will adhere more to the exemplary than to the abstract. And especially when dealing with something like physical disorders, with speech disorders, one must say: almost every single case is different – it is of course a slight exaggeration, but still generally valid – almost every single case is different, and at least one must distinguish typical ones.

We must be clear about the fact that some of the things that cause speech disorders are, of course, organically determined, that is, in a certain way, based on the inadequate development of this or that organ. But a whole series of such disorders in the present day are due to the fact that the human being's spiritual and soul forces are not being developed in the right way. And it may even be said that if a proper development of the spiritual and mental abilities of the human being can be achieved through education in childhood, at a time when the human organism is still pliable, then organic disorders can also be overcome to a certain extent; they can be overcome more easily than at a later age, when the body is more solidified. Our entire education system has gradually become more and more abstract. Our pedagogy does not suffer from bad principles. In general, if we look at the abstract treatment of pedagogical principles, we can see that we had great and significant achievements in the 19th century. And if you look at today's abstract way of applying how to do this or that in school, you have to say that 19th-century pedagogy really means something quite tremendous. But the art of responding to the individual child, of noticing the particular development of the individual child, is something that has been lost in modern times through the rush towards intellectuality and abstraction. To a certain extent, we are no longer able to strengthen the child's soul and spirit in the right way through abstract education. Do not think that when such a demand is made, it is only to point to a one-sided, unworldly education of soul and spirit – oh no. It may seem paradoxical today, but it is actually the case that materialism has had the tragic fate of being unable to cope with material phenomena. The best example of this is that we have such psychological theories as psycho-physical parallelism. On the one hand, we have human corporeality, which is only known from the point of view of anatomy, which only learns from the corpse; on the other hand, we have theories about the soul and spirit that are imagined up or even only live in words , and then one reflects on how this soul-spiritual, which bears no resemblance to the physical body, how this soul-spiritual is to affect the physical body. Spiritual science will lead precisely to the fact that one will be able to deal with the physical in a concrete way, that one will know such things as those which I already hinted at yesterday in the lecture and whose importance I would like to mention again here: From birth until the second set of teeth has come through, something is at work in us as human beings that we can call a sum of equilibrium forces that organize us thoroughly, and something that is mobile forces, that are life forces. This is particularly strong in our organism within this human age. What is at work in the human being is what really, I would say, pushes out the second teeth, what finds its conclusion in the pushing out of the second teeth, what, for its effectiveness in the organism, comes to a certain degree - it continues, of course - but comes to a certain degree to a conclusion with the appearance of the second teeth. It then transforms into what we can call mathematical, geometric thinking, what we can call thinking about the equilibrium conditions in space, thinking about the conditions of movement in space, what we can call finding oneself in the conditions of life in space and in time. We study what emerges from this, what passes, as it were, from a state of latency into a state of freedom, when it has just been released. There it is, as spiritual soul, as a very concrete spiritual soul, as we see it growing up in the child, when the change of teeth begins and continues into the later years of life. And now we look at this and see: what is spiritual and soul-like has an organizing effect in the body during the first seven years of life. And again, we study the connection between the spiritual and soul-like and the physical organization when we consider what the human being can then experience - albeit consciously only in inspiration - that is, what he experiences with ordinary consciousness, but still unconsciously, in the period from the change of teeth to sexual maturity. It is more of an immersion into physical corporeality, where in its course, first of all, as the most important phenomenon – but there are others as well – it awakens the love instinct, where it marks the end, for example, with the change of voice in the male sex, and with somewhat broader effects in the female sex. What we recognize when we observe the development of the emotional world, and when we observe, for example, something like the development of the sense of music, especially at the time when the emotional world is developing, we study this again as the connection between the soul and spiritual life and the physical organization from the seventh to the fourteenth or fifteenth year.

In short, spiritual science does not ask the abstract question: How does the soul affect the body?, but rather it studies the concrete soul, it knows that one must look at the concrete soul at certain ages and how it affects the body in other ages. Thus it transforms the abstract and therefore so unsatisfactory method of treatment of today's psychology and physiology into very concrete methods. And in the further course, one then comes to the point where one can not only determine in general through spiritual science: in the first seven years of life, equilibrium, movement, and life force are at work; but one can also specialize in how this spiritual force expresses itself in the organs, how it works in the lungs, heart, liver, and so on; one has the opportunity to really look into the human body in a living way. In this way, the knowledge of the material turns out to be quite different from what materialism can [recognize]. The peculiar thing about materialism is that it devotes itself to a false, namely an abstract, a deducted spirituality. The peculiar thing about spiritual science is that it is precisely able to assess the material in the right way. Of course, it also goes in the right way to the spiritual on the other side. More and more clearly should we fight the opinion, which starts from nebulous mystics, that spiritual science is something that deals with phantasms in general talk. No, spiritual science deals precisely with the concrete and wants to provide a view of how the spiritual and soul life works down into the individual organs. For it is only by getting to know the workings of the spiritual in a concrete way in the material existence that one recognizes the material existence. But through such a concrete penetration into the human organism, one gradually acquires — through a kind of imagination, inspiration and so on — an ability, I would say a gift, to really see the individual and then to be able to judge where any particular fault lies, for example, when speech disorders are present. At a certain childlike age, it will be possible to influence the development of the speech organs through special speech exercises. The important thing is to be able to observe what physical disorders may be present at the right age. And although all kinds of obstacles are present simply due to external circumstances – after all, today only that which is officially certified in this direction is recognized and allowed to be practiced in any way – although all kinds of obstacles are present, we can still say that, for example, some beautiful results have been achieved in the case of speech disorders simply by rhythmic speech exercises were carried out, that the particular defect was recognized, and that the person with the defective speech organism was then allowed to recite things in this or that speech rhythm, always repeating them, and that he was then instructed to place himself in the rhythmic process of these or those tones, feeling them particularly. In this direction one can achieve very significant improvements or at least relief from such disorders. But something else is also possible. For example, in the case of speech disorders, one can work particularly on regulating the respiratory process, a regulation of the respiratory process that must, however, be completely individual. This regulation of the breathing process can be achieved by letting the person you are treating develop a feeling between the internal repetition, or perhaps just thinking, but broad thinking, slow thinking of certain word connections [and the breathing process]. The peculiar thing is that if you form such word connections in the right way, then, by surrendering to such a rhythm of thought or inner rhythm of words, you convey a feeling to the person being treated: With this word and its course, its slow or fast course, you notice it in your breathing, it changes in this or that way, and you follow that. In a certain way, you make him aware of what arises as a parallel phenomenon to breathing for speech. You make him aware of it. And when he can then tell you something about it, you try to help him further, so that once he has become aware of the breathing process, he gradually reaches the point where he can consciously snap into it himself, I would even say in word contexts that he forms during this breathing process, which he can now consciously follow in a certain way, in an appropriate manner.

So you have to think of it this way: by first giving rhythms, which, depending on how the matter lies, are to be thought inwardly, murmured, whispered or recited aloud, you cause the person in question to notice a change in breathing. Now he knows that the breath changes in this way. And now he is, in a sense, forbidden from using the very word or thought material that has been given to him. He is made aware that he is now forming something similar within himself, and then he comes up with the idea of consciously paralleling this entire inner process of thinking or speaking or inwardly hearing words with the breathing process, so that a certain breathing always snaps into an inner imagining or inner hearing of words. In this way, a great deal of what I would call a poor association between the processes that are more mental, more soul-like, in speaking, and those processes that take place in the organism as more material, as physical processes, is balanced out. All of this has a particularly favorable effect when applied in the right childhood period. And it can be said that if our teachers were better psychologists, if they really had a concrete knowledge of the human body from the spirit, they would be able to work with speech disorders in a completely different way, especially in a pedagogical way.

Now, what I have mentioned can also be developed into a certain therapy, and it can also be used to achieve many favorable results for later stages of life. But it seems to me to be of particular importance – and here we could already point to certain successes that have been achieved in this direction – that such things can be cured by a particularly rational application of the principle of imitation. But then one must have a much more intimate, I might say subjective-objective knowledge of the whole human organism and its parts.

You see, people speak to each other in life; but they are hardly aware of the, I would say imponderable, effects that are exerted from person to person when speaking. But these effects are there nevertheless. We have become so abstract today that we actually only listen to the other person's intellectual content. Very few people today have a sense of what is actually meant when a person with a little more psychic-organic compassion feels, after speaking to another, how he consciously carries the other person's speech to a high degree in his own speech organism. Very few people today have any sense of what is experienced in this respect when one has to speak in succession with four, five or six people, one of whom is coughing, the second hoarse, the third shouting, the fourth speaking quite unintelligibly, and so on, because one's own organism is also involved; it vibrates along with everything, it experiences it all. And if you develop this feeling of experiencing speech, you certainly acquire a strong feeling, I might say, for defense mechanisms too. The peculiar thing is that it is precisely in the case of such things, which are so closely connected with the subjectivity of the human being as speech disorders, that one then finds out how one has to speak to someone who suffers from speech disorders, how one has to speak to him so that he can achieve something through imitation. I have met stutterers; if you have been able to empathize with their stuttering and then spoken to them rhythmically by name, then you could get them to really achieve something like forgetting their stuttering, by running after what is spoken to them, so to speak. However, you then have to be able to develop human compassion to the point where it is organic. In therapy, an enormous amount depends on the ability to make the patient forget the subjective experience associated with some objective process. And in particular, for example, a real remedy for speech disorders is, if the time between the ages of seven and fourteen is used correctly, by lovingly encouraging those with speech disorders to engage in the kind of imitation just described. It is often the case that one experiences that stutterers sometimes cannot pronounce three words properly without stumbling, cannot say three words

properly one after the other. If you give them a poem to recite that they can become completely absorbed in, that they can love, and if you stand behind it as it were as an attentive listener, then they can say whole long series of verses without stuttering. Creating such opportunities for them to do something like this is something that is a particularly good therapeutic tool from a psychological point of view. It is a bad thing to point out such defects to people, no matter what the reason. I had a poet friend who always lost his temper when someone tactless pointed out his stammering. When someone tactfully asked him, “Doctor, do you always stammer like that?” he replied, “No, only when I am confronted with someone who is thoroughly unpleasant to me.” Of course, I would have had to stutter terribly now if I had really wanted to imitate the way this answer was given.

But then, little by little, one will recognize what a significant remedy can be found in eurythmy for such and similar defects in the human organism. Eurythmy can be studied from two sides, as it were. I always draw attention to this in the introductions to the performances. I show how the speech organism and its movement tendencies can be perceived through sensory and supersensory observation of the human being today, and how these are then transferred to the whole human organism. However, the reverse approach is no less important. For, as has been very well presented to you today from a different point of view by Dr. Treichler, in the development of speech, a primeval eurythmy of human beings undoubtedly and most certainly plays a very significant role. Things do not have the sound within them, as it were, in the sense that the bim-bam theory asserts, but there is a relationship between all things, between the whole macrocosm and the human organization, this microcosm, and basically everything that happens externally in the world can also be reproduced in a certain way in movement by the human organization. And so, basically, we constantly tend to recreate all phenomena through our own organism. We do this not only with the physical organism, but also with the etheric organism. The etheric organism is in a state of perpetual eurythmy. Primitive man was much more mobile than he is today. You know, this development from mobility to stillness is still reflected in the fact that in certain circles it is considered a sign of education to behave as phlegmatically as possible when speaking and to accompany one's speech with as few gestures as possible. It is “considered” a mark of certain speakers that they always keep their hands in their trouser pockets, so that they do not make any gestures with their arms, because it is considered an expression of particularly good speech delivery when one stands still like a block. But what is caricatured here only corresponds to humanity's progression from mobility to stillness. We have to recognize a transition from a gestural language, from a kind of eurythmy, to phonetic language at the very bottom of human development in primeval times. That which has come to rest in the organism has specialized in the organs of speech, and has naturally first actually developed the organs of speech. Just as the eye is formed by light, so the speech organ is formed by a language that is initially soundless. And if we are aware of all these connections, we will gradually be able to use eurythmy particularly well by introducing it properly into the didactic process, in order to counteract anything that could interfere with speech. And in this direction, if there is even a little leisure time, it will be a very appealing task to develop our current, more artistic and pedagogically trained eurythmy more and more towards the therapeutic side and to create a kind of eurythmy therapy that will then extend in particular to such therapeutic demands as the one we have been talking about here. I am not sure whether what I have said is already exhaustive, but I wanted to address it briefly. Of course, as questions accumulate, the level of detail in the answers will have to decrease.

A participant asks how the movement of eurythmy is meant in relation to the ether body, and whether, according to spiritual scientific research, it has the same form as the body. Is the ether body localized at the larynx?

Did the Hungarians, who were recently observed by Dr. Steiner playing cards in a Hungarian border town, themselves fall under the tables or only their etheric bodies? Was this a process that could only be observed in the etheric body?

Rudolf Steiner: Please understand me correctly. Eurythmy is such that it can be performed in the physical body and through the physical body, which otherwise only the etheric body of the human being can perform. The fact that a person as a eurythmist performs the movements studied in the ether body with his physical body does not mean that the person who stands there doing eurythmy when he has some horrible thought is not carrying out this horrible thought with his ether body. He can perform the most beautiful movements with his outer, physical body, and then the etheric body, following his emotions, may dance in a rather caricature-like manner. But those people I characterized the other day as being at the Hungarian border playing cards were, of course, characterized entirely on the basis of their physical behavior. I only said that one could study these passions in the soul and spirit, the passions that led them to do such things above and below the table, and that one could study these passions in the soul and spirit.

I would like to say the following. It is generally the case, when you look at a person at rest, that the etheric body is calm and only slightly larger than the physical body. But this is only because, schematically speaking, the physical body has a dilating effect on the etheric body of the human being in all directions. If the etheric body were not held in its form by the physical body, if it were not banished from the physical body, then it would be a very mobile being. The etheric body has the inherent possibility of moving in all directions, and in addition, in an awakened state, it is under the constant influence of the mobile astral, which follows everything of a spiritual nature. The etheric body in itself is therefore something thoroughly mobile. As a painter, for example, one has the difficulty when one wants to paint something ethereal, that one must paint, I would say, as if one could paint lightning. One must translate the moving into stillness. So at the moment when you step out of the physical world, at that moment the concept of distance also ceases to apply, along with all the things that actually only relate to resting space; all that ceases, and a completely different kind of imagining begins. A form of imagining begins that can actually only be characterized by saying that it relates to the ordinary imagining of spatial things as a suction effect relates to a pressure effect. One is drawn into the matter instead of touching it and so on. This is how it is with the relationship between the etheric body and the physical body.

A participant (also speaking for others): Dear attendees, prompted by discussions with many friends, I would like to ask a few questions that may express some of what has been going through many minds and hearts over the past week. We have heard that young students in particular can hear and learn many things here that need to be carried out into our people to build a new culture. Now, in the midst of all the problems that are being discussed here, the question of the fate of our German people often arises. How must our youth place themselves in the context of the fate of our German people if they want to fulfill their inner duties in the right way and of their own free will? Just as Fichte brought forth great and powerful thoughts a hundred years ago, so too are we receiving powerful thoughts today, the realization of which we long for. In wide circles, at least in those circles that are close to the threefold order, the view prevails today that this threefold order will also be realized without intensive work, that it can thus come about all by itself, so to speak, even if people contribute nothing to it.

Now I would like to raise the question: What will actually be the fate of our nation if this fatalistic attitude prevails in our circles – which is, of course, very easily explained from our overall cultural development – and if it is not replaced by the courageous will that is wanted from here? Today one often hears that it is possible that Bolshevism will spread even further, that it is possible that anarchic conditions in Germany will continue to spread. How should we position ourselves in the face of these questions, when this fatalistic element, which I have tried to describe, is confronted with the courageous, forward-storming will?

A second question: we are talking here about anthroposophy, about human wisdom. Now the question has been repeatedly asked in recent days: what would the whole world view actually look like if one did not start from the point of view of the anthroposophist, but if one started from the point of view of some other consciousness? We know from Dr. Steiner's lectures, but also from other lectures, that the three lower realms, that is, the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms, are actually the brothers of man who have remained behind. How would this now present itself if we were to relate man again to the higher hierarchy, for example to the angelic beings? Is it conceivable that what is presented from a human point of view today as anthroposophy might be presented from the point of view of a higher consciousness, that is, from the point of view of an angelic consciousness - one could perhaps speak of an angeloisophy in this context - and how would the problems appear from this point of view? I ask this question because it has repeatedly come up in our conversations in recent days.

A third question: From the previous remarks by Dr. Steiner, it is clear that eurythmy is extremely important from a therapeutic point of view. Now I would like to point out that if we observe certain things today, things that appear to be trivial, we can see how absolutely necessary eurythmy is from a different point of view. Even in certain children's toys, we can see how certain forces appropriate to the present time want to come out, push towards manifestation. [There follows a reference to diabolo games and toys that were introduced by French and American soldiers in particular.] Do such toys not show certain forces that pull downwards? Is there not something in them that expresses forces that are polar to human nature, perhaps a hint of the devilish? And so I wanted to raise the question: Is it not possible that the harmful aspects of these or other materialistic games given to children today could be overcome through eurythmy? Just yesterday in children's eurythmy we had a living example of how children can respond to eurythmy in an ingenious way and then reject everything that is contained in such games.

Rudolf Steiner: I will try to answer the questions briefly, although each one would require a lecture in itself. However, I would ask you to bear in mind that if one says something in a brief answer to a question, it is of course easy for some inaccuracies or misunderstandings to arise.

First of all, the question of the fate of the German people: it is true that today an enormous sense of fatalism is emerging within broad sections of the German people. This fatalistic mood can be observed on a large scale and in detail. And this fatalistic mood was also, I might say tragically there when we began in April of last year in Stuttgart to seek understanding for the threefold social organism and for the upliftment of what lies in such a terrible way, that comes from this understanding. But on the other hand, it must be said that we have arrived at a very special point in the development of humanity. I must frankly admit that when I was invited by the Anthroposophical student group in Stuttgart to give a lecture for the students of the Technical University in their assembly hall, I was still under the impression of Spengler's book “The Decline of the West”. Yes, my dear audience, we have come to the point where today we can prove the decline in a strictly methodical way. Now, Spengler's book is by no means a talentless book. On the contrary, in many respects it is extraordinarily ingenious. What is presented there testifies to nothing other than this: if only the forces of which Spengler is aware were to be effective in the future – he is not aware of anthroposophy, but, as can be seen from some of his writing, he would probably turn red with rage just hearing about it — if only what Spengler knows remains effective, then the downfall of Western civilization would be absolutely certain well into the second millennium. Just let everything that has developed in humanity be effective — the downfall is certain. Just as a human being ages when he has reached a certain number of years and is heading towards death, so this culture is heading towards death. What people like Spengler do not know is what has developed in the successive cultural periods, which you will find described in my “Occult Science”.

In the first cultural period — I have called it the primeval Indian period — there was a primeval culture based on the wisdom of the time. Some of this has already been characterized in these lectures. From this there was an inheritance in the next age, in the ancient Persian, in the Zarathustra culture; from there, in turn, diluted into that age, what can be called the Egyptian-Chaldean culture, the third period, which closes approximately in the 8th century BC before the Mystery of Golgotha. Then very little goes into the fourth period, where Plato still lets his teaching and his writings be steeped in ancient mystery wisdom, but where naturalism and intellectualism already begin with Aristotle. During this period, in which human original wisdom is already beginning to decline, Christianity is founded. The Mystery of Golgotha is still understood with the last original wisdom. But as this ancient wisdom itself fades, it finally becomes modern theology, which either degenerates into a material dogmatism and church belief or into a description of Jesus as a simple man from Nazareth, in whom the Christ, the Christ-being, has been completely lost. But of course a new understanding of Christianity itself must come. The origin of Christianity extends into this fourth period, and from the point of view of Primordial Wisdom, it extends a little into our fifth period. The fifth period is the one in which Primordial Wisdom disappears, is paralyzed, and in which man must find a new spirituality from within himself. All talk about this spirituality coming from outside is in vain for the future. In the future, the gods must speak through the human soul. Today, the question is not addressed to any other power of the soul than to our will alone. That is to say, today it is a matter for all mankind to thoroughly overcome fatalism and consciously absorb spirituality into the will. This mission has already fallen to the German people to a very considerable extent. Anyone who studies this in more detail, by looking at the great figures of the German people, will notice how this people in particular has the mission to reshape its world, I would say its social world, out of its will, despite all the hardship and all the terrible things that are now unfolding within this people. Only for the time being there is no awareness of the actual facts and the great world-historical context.

I would like to do as I sometimes like to do, not just give my own opinion, but refer to the opinion of someone else, Herman Grimm, who certainly cannot be said to have been a Bolshevik or anything of the sort. As early as the 1880s, Herman Grimm wrote that the greatness of the German people is not based on its princes or its governments, but on its intellectual giants. But it may also be said that this is precisely what has been most misunderstood and most forgotten. Today there is a significant fact that one must only properly observe. Take the general intellectual life, untouched by a real spiritual upsurge. Study it as it lives itself out in popular literature, be it in Berlin, Vienna or elsewhere – I am not just talking about after the war here, but long before the war. study how it is lived out in Berlin, Vienna, Munich, Cologne, Hamburg, Bremen and so on, study it in popular literature, especially in newspaper literature, which can be said to represent the opinions of a very large number of people. Yes, especially during the war, it turned out that sometimes people also remembered that there was a Goethe, that there was a Schiller, that there was a Fichte – yes, even Fichte's sayings were quoted. But the fact of the matter is this: anyone today who has a feeling, a real receptivity for the inner structure, for the direction, for the whole signature of intellectual life, knows that what was written in the 20th century in Vienna, Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Dresden, Leipzig was more similar to what was written in Paris, Chicago, New York, and London than to what a Herder, a Goethe, or a Fichte felt vibrating through their souls.

This fact is widely misunderstood. What Central Europe's greatness is actually based on has been forgotten. Once we describe figures like Frederick the Great according to the truth, not according to legend, then some of it will melt away in the face of the real intellectual greatness in Central Europe. And this must come. We must learn again, not just to quote the words of Fichte, not just to quote the words of Goethe, but to be able to live again in what lived at the turn of the 18th to the 19th century. And we must become aware that only through the individual shaping of the peoples differentiated across the earth can something of what is to be achieved be achieved – not, however, by some unified culture emanating from some side, which is a Western culture, and one that is justified only for the West, has flooded Central Europe, not through the fault of the West alone, but above all because Central Europe allowed itself to be flooded and accepted everything. And this awareness of what is at stake is what must be spread today by those who mean well.

Dear attendees, I knew an Austrian poet; I met him when he was already very old: his name is Fercher von Steinwand. He wrote many important works that unfortunately have remained unknown.

I will just add what I wrote in my booklet [1895] about Nietzsche, a fighter against his time. Right at the beginning, I quoted a saying of Nietzsche that actually deserves to be better known: the saying that Nietzsche wrote down when he served in the Franco-Prussian War, albeit as a military hospital attendant. There he wrote [about the terrible, dangerous consequences of the victorious war and called it a delusion that German culture had also triumphed; this delusion posed the danger of transforming victory into complete defeat,] yes, into the extirpation of the German spirit in favor of the German Reich. In recent decades, when people spoke of the extirpation of the spirit, they understood little of this, if they spoke of the will to let this spirit flow in again.

And when all this is taken into account, it is necessary to recall what Fichte felt and what he expressed so magnificently in his “Addresses to the German Nation”: that the gods serve the will of men, that they work through the will of self-aware men.

And after Herder, Goethe, Schiller, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and others, it is precisely this German nation that should be aware that the will must arise, but that will must be imbued with spirituality. What strange mental wanderings this German nation has gone through. There are many things that can be recalled that are only rarely presented in external history.

I advise everyone to buy the Reclam booklet by Wilhelm von Humboldt: “Ideas for an Attempt to Determine the Limits of the Effectiveness of the State”. You will see how much of it is already contained in the middle part of the threefold social organism, the legal, state part. Of course, the threefolded social organism is not in it, but what can be said about the state itself is there. In this writing, Wilhelm von Humboldt attempts to protect the individual against the state, against the increasing power of the state in the intellectual and economic realms. Wilhelm von Humboldt was Prussian Minister of Education from 1809 to 1819 – one almost dare not say this in view of what happened afterwards.

And so many more examples could be given. What is necessary, above all, is that those who feel this question before their soul really let history come to life in them. My dear audience, as an Austrian, one has a very special feeling for this when one gets to know the school history books of northern Central Europe. In 1889, I came from Vienna to Weimar to work on the publication of Goethe's works at the Weimar Goethe-Schiller Archive. And since I had previously been involved in education and teaching, I was also given the friendly task of guiding the director of the Goethe-Schiller Archive's boys a little. They were then in high school, and it was only then that I got to know their history books a little – I hadn't taken that into account before – starting with the creation of the world and going up to the development of the Hohenzollern dynasty, and only then the actual world history. Several textbooks presented it this way, one being roughly the same as the other. But is it not always a mere radicalism when speaking in this way, but sometimes it is also the right love for the German nation. And the right love, if it can really come through spiritual-scientific stimulation, will in turn give rise to a culture of the will from mere fatalism, and that is what matters. Unless we grasp this either/or, either destruction or ascent through our own will, we will not escape destruction. Of course, ascent will not come, but something quite different. Well, I could say a lot more about this topic, but perhaps that's enough for now. We'll see each other more often.

Regarding the question: What would our world view look like from the standpoint of a different consciousness, for example, an angelic consciousness?

Well, in a certain sense, spiritual science describes completely different forms of consciousness, such forms of consciousness that people had in the earlier stages of development, or such forms of consciousness that one can ascend to through inspiration or imagination. So, in a certain sense, one learns through spiritual science to recognize what the world view of another consciousness is. But as far as the question of an angelic consciousness is concerned, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that we do not choose more abstract questions than are necessary for a certain, I would say elasticity, of our conceptual ability. Because, you see, we do not have our consciousness to satisfy ourselves with all kinds of sensational news from the most diverse worlds, but so that we can go through our overall human development through its development. And the angels have their consciousness precisely so that they can undergo angelic development. And if someone were to ask what the world would look like with a different consciousness, it would be like someone asking me how a person would eat if they had a beak instead of a mouth. It is a textbook example of moving out of concreteness and into abstraction. Anthroposophy is supposed to achieve precisely that, to remain within the realm of experience and to extend it only

extended only to the spiritual world, that one is always ready to broaden one's experience, but not that one constructs all kinds of questions out of pure abstractness. It is not at all necessary for us to speculate in any way about angelic consciousness or mammalian consciousness or the like, but it is necessary for us to simply abandon ourselves to experience. It gives us the input into our consciousness that we need for our orientation and for our further development in the world. And that is what we have to learn from anthroposophy: to remain within the sphere that concerns us as human beings, because that is where we make appropriate progress.

This is connected with the question I heard here just now, which is asked incredibly often: what is the ultimate goal of human development in the first place?

What is the ultimate purpose of human life, or rather of life?

You see, it is precisely in relation to such questions that spiritual science must be approached not in an abstract but in a concrete way. If you had no possibility of getting a timetable for the journey to Rome here in Dornach, but only as far as Lugano, and you knew that you could get a further timetable in Lugano to go on to Florence, and from there on to Rome, one would do well not to refrain from the journey or to speculate about how I have to organize the journey from here to Rome, but to travel first to Lugano, and then see how things go from there. It is the same with human life, especially if one knows that there are repeated earthly lives. If I now tell you something about the goal of all human life here with the abilities that one can have in this one earth life, then it could indeed be something more perfect next time and then one could answer more completely how one gets the timetable to Rome. So one has to take into account what is immediately given in the concrete, and one must know that human life is in a state of perpetual development. So one cannot ask about its ultimate purpose, but only about the direction of development in which one is moving. If you really look into it, there is truly a lot to be done for the physical, soul and spiritual life. And this path to Lugano is not quite close – I now mean the path in the development of humanity – and how that will continue, we want to leave that to the more fully developed abilities of the future. In short, it is a matter of remaining in the concrete, bit by bit, and of getting rid of the abstractness that also gives birth to such questions. Now, something else is needed here about eurythmy:

Can eurythmy, when used correctly, bring important achievements for our folk culture to light?

Yes, dear readers. From some of the comments I have already made about eurythmy, you will be able to see that eurythmy can have a great pedagogical-didactic significance. If you are convinced of this, and if you are not not only believe it but also recognize that it can even help to alleviate disturbances in life through appropriate eurythmic didactics, then there is much more that can be brought into the right channels in social life through healthy eurythmy. But of course one thing needs to be noted in this regard. You see, we should be able to take this eurythmy into children's play. The esteemed questioner spoke of children's toys and asked whether eurythmy could not be used for a lot of things. And it was also asked whether eurythmy can have a healing effect on children aged five to seven who suffer from epilepsy.

It can certainly do so if it is applied in the right way. Admittedly, we are only just beginning with eurythmy. But the continuation of this beginning does not always depend only on the intellectual momentum. For example, we had intended to build a kind of eurythmeum in Stuttgart to begin with, because of course the Waldorf School is there, and later here in the building itself. You really need opportunities if these things are to be developed bit by bit. You cannot pursue these things without practising them, without having the necessary premises and also the necessary connection with the rest of human culture; you cannot pursue these things out of the blue. It would have been terribly expensive to build a eurythmy in Stuttgart and we only had a small sum of money together. Perhaps I may say the following about this. In the first year, through the dedicated work of our Waldorf teachers, which cannot be sufficiently recognized, we really achieved everything possible for the Waldorf School in the first year. Although, in spiritual and psychological terms, everything that could be expected has been achieved – it is fair to say this without being immodest – this year began with extraordinary worries for those who were sincere about the Waldorf School. It is a fact that the Waldorf School had to be enlarged because a large number of children came from outside; the number of children has more than doubled compared to the previous year. We were facing a very considerable deficit, and the fund that we had for a eurythmy school was first eaten up by the Waldorf School. It is only natural that the Waldorf School should take this on, but it means that we cannot build a eurythmy school. What lets us down is people's lack of understanding. Nowadays people are willing to understand anything, except for work that comes out of the truly concrete soul and spiritual life. I do not want to be polemical here, but I could tell you many things that would show you the dilettantism and the philosophical emptiness that is added to it today, as it performs a few somersaults before all possible reactionary powers in the world. We do not easily find the understanding of those who could do something on the material side to help things move forward. And anyone who wants the didactic, pedagogical, and especially the folk-pedagogical side of eurythmy and other aspects of a spiritual-scientific art of education to be further developed must ensure that understanding of what is actually intended is drawn into as many minds and as many souls as possible, with what is asserted here as anthroposophical spiritual science.

Question: It is often mentioned in spiritual science that those or those of the higher hierarchies have gone through their stage of humanity in these or other circumstances. What does stage of humanity mean in this sense, that is, the goal of human development? Is the goal set as the development of the I, of freedom, which freedom is denied to the higher hierarchies? So what is the stage of humanity?

Rudolf Steiner: Yes, I don't know who has denied the higher hierarchies the freedom in its special form of education. What is meant when I speak, for example, in 'Occult Science' or in the other writings of the human stage of other beings, is essentially characterized by degrees, by the different states of consciousness. In spiritual science, the term “stage of human development” is to be understood as follows:

Today, within human development in the broadest sense, we live in a state of consciousness when we are awake, which we can call object consciousness. This state of consciousness can be described as Dr. Stein described it to you in his lectures, according to his activity in imagination, concept, judgment. One can also add perception and the special kind of emotional effect, the volitional emotion, volitional impulses and so on. Then present-day humanity also still knows, but only in reminiscences, in chaotic images, the dream state, but this points back, it is an atavistic remnant of an earlier state of consciousness, of an ego-less image consciousness; this is therefore an underhuman consciousness. And it is preceded by two other states of consciousness, so that we can say: the present state of consciousness is the fourth in the series. It will be followed by a fifth, which we can anticipate today through imagination, inspiration and so on. We can also characterize this progression as future states of the sixth and seventh states of consciousness. The fourth, however, the one we have today, is in the narrower sense the state of consciousness of humanity as it is today. So when we speak of the human stage, we mean beings with object consciousness. Beings who do not perceive through such senses as human beings do, who have a special education, perhaps through very different senses, but who, in their inner being, depend on imagining and grasping and then, in a more or less subconscious activity, connecting perception with ideas and concepts. The higher, fifth state of consciousness would thus be one in which one consciously differentiates between the inner, spiritual realm, which one first grasps in pure thinking, as has been attempted in the Philosophy of Freedom, and then has perception as such as a phenomenon of development in its own right, into which one no longer mixes concepts and ideas, so that, as in the process of inhalation, in inhaling and exhaling, an inner interaction between perception and concept consciously takes place. That would be the next higher state of consciousness.

When we speak of other beings and say that they were at the human stage of development at different times, we mean that they had a perception of the external world in the past – regardless of which senses were involved – which they connected in a more or less conscious way with the inner soul life, so that at that time they were not yet at a stage that humanity will reach in the future, the stage of a separate experience of perception, of the spiritual soul realm, and a conscious synthesis. That is what needs to be said about this question.

Dear attendees, it is now 10 a.m., I think I will collect the questions that have yet to be asked and save them, and we can meet again in the next few days. I think we will be able to discuss the matters on the other notes better and with more focus if we don't rush through it in a few minutes, but instead come together again to answer these questions. I also think you will agree to this, after we have spent two hours having this conversation. So we will conclude today and continue in some way soon.

Rudolf Steiner: There are still a number of questions that were left over from the last time we met here. There are about twenty questions. We will have to take another opportunity to address these twenty questions, some of which are interesting. But I have been asked - and that is why we want to stay a few more minutes - to answer those of these twenty questions today that come from those present who have to leave tomorrow or in the next few days. So I would ask you to point out which questions are urgent.

Audience: I would like to hear about marriage in the light of spiritual science.

Rudolf Steiner: This question really suffers from a certain vagueness because it is not clear what the questioner would actually like to know. Marriage is certainly a phenomenon, an appearance within the whole of social life; it has developed with social life, and in the course of time it has actually taken on the most diverse forms, especially the most diverse meanings, so that one could talk about it: What is marriage in today's rationalistic social life? — or: What is marriage for Catholics? — and so on. So I don't know what the question is actually supposed to mean. Because, right, there is no need to talk about the essence of marriage as such from the point of view of spiritual science. I can't really imagine what it means. The gentleman who asked the question was surprised that nothing about marriage from a social point of view was included in our lecture programs, in our course programs. It could have been, of course, that marriage would have been touched upon in the context of the social lectures. But that is not the case. The fact is that for the time being other social questions are much more pressing than those that are usually linked to the marriage problem today.

For some time now, psychological and anthropological questions, and so on, have been linked to the marriage problem, and when one talks about such a problem at all, it is of course necessary to approach it from some particular angle. One can hardly talk about the problem of marriage without having, for my part, talked about the problem of love. When one talks about the problem of love, the problem of marriage can arise as a consequence. But it is actually hardly possible to talk about such a problem in isolation, because, firstly, what I have said comes into consideration, and, secondly, one must bear in mind that when they ask such a question, most people have something normative in mind, something standardizing, whereas since the middle of the 15th century, people have really become more and more individual beings. So for the immediate psychological understanding of the marriage problem, it is clear that marriage is initially related to the human being himself, to the human soul life, and like any other relationship from person to person, it can also take on a very individual character. And to construct general theories about things of such an individual character would lead us into an abstract discussion, which, when such intimate, individual matters are considered, would basically always miss the point, would not reflect reality.

Now, of course, the problem of marriage can also be viewed from a social point of view. I did that years ago when a member of our Anthroposophical Society organized a printed survey in which he asked people to answer the question about the marriage problem from the point of view of the state. Yes, if you start from such a point of view, then you can talk about it. Then you can state very precisely that we live in a (we do not want to say state community, but that we live in a social community, that this social community has a very definite interest in the child that comes from the marriage or the children that come from the marriage, and that actually for the social community the child problem exists as a special problem. Here one can point out that marriage must be thought of in terms of the next generation and that, in the face of this thinking of marriage in terms of the next generation, individual aspirations must indeed take a back seat, so that the person should feel that they are a member of their social community and cannot then arrange their marriage in a way that suits them personally.

These things are such that they lead into the most individual and that, when they are treated, they actually always lead into a normalizing way of looking at things, which actually destroys the realities in the process. What does one want, after all, when asking such a question? One usually wants to have instructions for life. And it is not the business of spiritual science to give such instructions for life. The task of spiritual science, ladies and gentlemen, is to fill the human being with spiritual and mental content so that he becomes a whole person. And then, when he becomes a whole person, when his soul is filled with what spiritual science can give him, when spiritual science brings from the depths of his soul to the surface all the soul abilities, power impulses in him, so that the human being is able to place himself in life and find his way in life, then that which should not be standardized, but rather what should arise between human being and human being, will also arise.

If you read my “Philosophy of Freedom”, you will find, above all, that it amounts to shaping the human being from within in such a way that he receives the necessary and right impulses for shaping his life, so that he does not want to be regulated from the outside by any dogmatic commandments. This is what must always be taken into account, even when posing such a question. It will be seen that the one who follows the path of spiritual science will find the way in the individual in the right way. To set up theories about these things in general cannot be the task of spiritual science, because that would mean forcing people into a system, into a mold. But to provide templates, general abstractions, that cannot be the task of spiritual science, because it can no longer be the task of our present life either. The task of spiritual science is to place the human being on his or her own individual ground and to make him or her resilient and full of life there.

That is what I have to say about it. It probably does not meet what you meant. But it is this question exactly the same as when someone asks how to act in the sense of spiritual science when choosing a career. Of course, one can say all sorts of nice things about choosing a career, but one cannot say it in general, because it always depends on the individual circumstances.

Audience: Where does the sensation of a sour taste come from after a harrowing experience?

Rudolf Steiner: If we consider the interactions that take place between the soul and spiritual and the physical aspects of the human being, as presented in the various lectures here, then it is indeed the case that some soul-shattering event can permeate the human organism with such intensity that it triggers physical processes that are not perceived directly in ordinary, normal life. When a shattering event occurs, it is not only that something happens in our soul, but the shock to the soul has its organic, its physical parallel manifestation, and in a very specific way. One must only be clear about how complicated this human organization actually is.

In one of my lectures, I pointed out that the sense of balance, sense of movement and sense of life emancipate themselves from within the human being, while at the same time the senses of taste, smell and touch develop, and that when the senses are penetrated, the experiences of smell, taste and touch can precede what we would experience through the senses of balance, movement and life. And I have shown that if you stop halfway, instead of penetrating to the core, you enter into a nebulous mysticism. This can admittedly be very beautiful, very significant, but essentially it is the case that in this inward journey, which stops halfway, you actually stop in the regions of taste, smell and tactile experience. One need only read the sayings, such as the sayings of the poets of the saints, of Mechthild of Magdeburg, for example, and one will be able to grasp, I would say spiritually with hands, how an inward sense of taste, smell, and touch comes about in very beautiful experiences through what I have just described. Now, when a harrowing experience occurs, it usually has to do with the fact that the spiritual-soul, which we call the I and the astral body in our way of expressing it, but which is precisely the carrier of that which has an inward effect on the human being, that this spiritual-soul, as in sleep, tears itself out of the organism. Of course, such shocks to the soul can cause a state of unconsciousness, which is simply due to the fact that the astral, the soul, does not control the etheric and physical bodies because it does not intervene in the right way. Now imagine the process as a living thing. A shock occurs; the astral body and the ego are loosened. They are loosened, but the person still holds on. That is, the astral body and the ego strive to go out, but are held back, and so a continuous swinging back and forth occurs. In this to and fro swinging, the experiences occur that take place in the area in front of the actual interior of the human being, where the senses of taste, smell and touch are located. If a taste, a taste illusion, is then also subjectively experienced, that is, an irritation of the taste organism during this to and fro swinging, then this is a completely natural phenomenon.

A participant asks about the terms salt, mercury and sulfur.

Rudolf Steiner: It has already been said quite correctly that if one wants to penetrate into such concepts as those used by Paracelsus, and also the concepts of sulfur, mercury, salt used by others, one must of course completely disregard modern chemistry. One must also bear in mind that at the time of Paracelsus, this modern chemistry as such did not actually yet exist. The whole way of thinking was different back then. It is interesting to note how modern historians, when they go back to older times, as a Nordic chemist who recently wrote the history of alchemy did, write that only the personalities of the 13th to 15th centuries could make sense of the processes described, but not the modern chemist, who cannot make sense of what is being dealt with at all. This is because the whole way of thinking was different. The thinker before the emergence of modern chemistry did not have the concept of matter at all as we have it today. He followed more the process of how one state developed into another. So he asked more about what the relationship of one state to another is in the material world. So for the external world, for the non-human world, for the outer, organic world, one would have to say the concepts of earthy, watery, airy, fiery or warm. By this one did not mean the substances as they are understood today, but one meant the state of the earthy, the liquid - water was the liquid as such - and so on. And one had a certain feeling for it, in that one distinguished the earthy, the watery, the airy, the fiery, so that the whole context, which one brought into the state of the world, related to the extra-organic, namely to the extra-human. And for the human being, it was not assumed at all that the same kind of state was present in the organism, but rather a different kind of state was assumed. According to the ideas that were held at the time, it was not easy to say how the airy or the earthy occurs in the human being. One saw the human being as a, I would say, self-constructed constitution and attributed what the human being was, for example, as a thinker, to certain conditions of his physical organism. One simply said to oneself: Something is happening physically in the human being by being a thinking being or by being in the state of thinking. This event was seen in a certain congruence or similarity to the solidification of the earthly. It was imagined that the state in which the earthly, the whole earthly, was once in times past, had not yet reached the solid state of the earth, that the solid state of the earth had, so to speak, just solidified from a less dense state. But this same process of solidification, which was thought of in terms of the non-human, was not attributed to the human as such. Instead, when the human was in a state of thinking, a process was ascribed to the human, which was described as the formation of salt, so that these were parallel processes for the external and for the internal: earthification - salt formation in man; cosmic thought formation, the emergence of the solid, that is, the earthy - planetary inner-human thought formation, the corresponding physical process, oversalting. And so everything that was understood by salt was imagined to be related to what is physically present in man when he thinks, when he reveals himself as a thinking being.

Of course, in a sense, what was initially attributed to man was transferred by analogy to the processes that were behind the actual solidification of the planet, the formation of external salt. Some of these expressions have remained to this day. They are still used, but their historical origin is no longer known.

In so far as physical processes take place in man as a sentient being, or, to sum up, if we take the sum of all those processes in man - which are manifest as physical processes - that are the bearers of emotional life, then we have the mercurial in man. And if we consider everything in man that is the bearer of the life of will, then we have the sulphurous in man.

And so such personalities thought of the human constitution, the human organism, as consisting of these three interlocking processes: the salt-like, which to a certain extent kills people, parallel to the thought process - because the fact that we are thinking beings means that we are in a state is related to that which constantly leads us to death, that is, deposition processes, salt formation processes; then the sulfur process, which is, in a sense, what awakens the human being, what constantly permeates him with a new sulfur-like element that inhibits consciousness. And that which rhythmically balances between the two is the mercurial.

When going back to earlier times, one has to simply get involved in thinking no longer with the thought forms of today's science, but with the thought forms that were present earlier, but which were actually based on a very different state of mind than ours today. We can only artificially put ourselves back into the state of mind from which such ideas arose. It is not enough to take up terms such as Mercur, Sal, Sulfur and so on from Paracelsus or Basilius Valentinus and simply look them up in our textbooks or in the encyclopedia. Rather, it is necessary to put oneself back into a completely different way of thinking. Only then can one begin to talk about these things.

Are there any more questions that need a quick answer?

Participant: Isn't the Song of Solomon a song that represents an initiation? I came up with this during my Hebrew studies by trying to approach the text based on Ritter's original texts. Theology offers various answers, but they are unsatisfactory. It seems to me that the Biblical text is deliberately confused so that the esoteric meaning is no longer apparent to the general reader. Is not the Song of Songs a work of initiation?

Rudolf Steiner: You see, in general, when dealing with such matters, one must follow the principle that I have already mentioned here on another occasion: to interpret, but not to underlay, that is, not to look for false things and the like in the texts in question. With such old works as the Song of Solomon, it really does depend on our first completely putting ourselves back into the way of thinking and the state of mind out of which something like this arose. I just mentioned the example a moment ago: If one wants to read the writings of the alchemists, one has to put oneself back into the whole state of mind out of which these people thought about matter and processes – and that is not so far back. For example, it is quite clear that what Professor Beckh said about the oriental texts here recently is true in a sense that cannot be sufficiently taken into account by the translator today. First of all, it must be clear that the abstractness, I would even say rarity of the content of our ideas is basically not that old. If you have lived in the country and know the language of the peasants, you will know that even the language of the peasants had something that did not distinguish material processes from spiritual processes, as the intellectual life of today's civilization does; things were thought more interrelated. Now that has more or less ceased, it is disappearing rapidly, giving way to a general materialism.

Just think of what today's educated person says when they say “night's sleep”. Of course, they have vague ideas, but please analyze the actual content of the ideas you have when you say “night's sleep”. You will certainly pick out one or the other from your consciousness, then glue all sorts of things together and thereby have the concept of “night's sleep” as a modern educated person. But when the farmer spoke of the night's sleep, he spoke of something very limited and specific, only it was not thought of materially or spiritually or mentally, but it was both at the same time. When he spoke of the night's sleep, he rubbed out what he had in his eyes in the morning, and he called that the night's sleep. In this material fact he had at the same time everything that he thought when he said the word “night's sleep” and what he thought of as having been, so to speak, coagulated out of what he had experienced during the night. And that he could then wipe out of his eyes. He had an idea in which the material and the soul were one.

I still remember that in my childhood, when I had such language around me, an expression was used very often when someone forgot to turn off the light in the morning and it had already become light; people would say: You're burning the day's eyes out! — There you have an idea that is given in very concrete images. You wouldn't use some abstractions for something like that: You burn out the eyes of the day. It is something where you have more of a spiritual, but characterizing, material image and have learned the use of language from it. This is something that still lives among us today.

If we go back to ancient epochs, we have to think in very different mental states. And when we now come back to the time when the Song of Solomon was written, when everything was only a derivative of the mystery culture, we have to be aware that something that is translated with our present-day means may have an erotic touch, that within the state of mind of that ancient time it was quite something else. There is no doubt that, to a certain extent, a kind of dichotomy has taken place. Certain word meanings were originally unified, encompassing the spiritual and the physical. Then the spiritual became abstract; I would say it was bifurcated on one side, the physical on the other. This is particularly the case with erotic ideas. Eroticism is basically something that, as we understand it today, makes no sense at all for the time from which the Song of Solomon originates, not the slightest sense, because the ideas on this side were not yet as well-founded as they are today. In this respect, the strangest things are happening in our time. People come and explain to you, for example, about all kinds of sexual sins of children, and when you ask them how old the child is, it turns out to be three years old. This is, of course, complete nonsense, because talking about sexuality before the change of teeth is utter nonsense. The facts are quite different, and only our present time, which, as a certain phase of analytical psychology shows, can only develop in a very one-sided way, attributes these things to everything because it cannot see the real, true conditions.

So we must be careful not to translate something like the Song of Solomon into our abstract language. We can certainly allow it its abundance, but we must be clear that the state of mind of people in those days was different, and that the state of mind of today's people, because they throw everything into one big pot in this direction, is perhaps an erotic product. The state of mind of that era led to completely different regions. In some circles, it is a popular notion to explain the whole mystery, for example, in erotic terms. Of course, this is completely unfounded, because it is completely amateurish and has no idea what the state of mind of people in earlier times was. Therefore, it must always be said: In order to understand such things, it is essential to be able to put oneself in the shoes of the corresponding epoch. This also applies, for example, to our Gospels. Because what we have in terms of translations of the gospels does not at all reflect what is in the gospels, because the translations were basically created from a completely different state of mind and because one has to go back to the state of mind from which these writings were created.

That is what I can say about it. Of course, there is no time to go into details. I will answer the remaining eighteen questions in the next few days.

Preliminary note: At the beginning of the evening's discussion, a question was asked about the third Copernican law. Rudolf Steiner's detailed answer is published in the volume “The Fourth Dimension”, GA 324a, pp. 177-189.

Rudolf Steiner: Now a series of other questions have been asked, to which I would like to refer only briefly, because some of them are nonsensical. Here, for example, this question:

What criteria can a non-clairvoyant use to distinguish whether communications from a clairvoyant originate from spiritual knowledge or from illusions?

Dear attendees, I would actually prefer to eliminate the word 'clairvoyance', which so many people use to do mischief with, like Count Keyserling recently. If such words do not give rise to mischief, then it does not matter if they appear in our literature, but with all that such people call 'clairvoyance', who would rather do anything than set out , which I also characterized in my lecture cycle on the “Limits of Knowledge”, I would rather use a different word for the real seeing of the spirit - seeing brightly, that is, seeing brightly. That is why I have tried to gradually eliminate this word everywhere in the newer editions of my books, which always causes confusion with all kinds of amateurish and charlatan-like stuff.

Now, if it is a single case of someone coming to you and saying that he is a psychic and telling you something he has seen, then you have no way of distinguishing whether he is telling you some kind of illusion or whether what he is saying is based on truth. You can't do that in an individual case; there is no universal guide for that. You can only, as a reasonable person, gain a judgment from the whole context of life, but also an almost completely certain judgment. You see, if some alleged psychic tells you all kinds of stuff and, when he talks about things of ordinary life, talks nonsense, then you can be pretty sure that what he tells you from the higher worlds is also nonsense. But if you find that a person has a healthy sense of external, physical reality, that he looks at external reality with a healthy mind, like other rational people, that he finds his way into it, that he orients himself to external reality, then when he speaks of things of the spiritual world, there is something that speaks for him, that is, not for him as a person, but for the correctness of his view. If, in addition, he presents what he says about the spiritual worlds in such a way that it is logical, then one can test the reality of the context without being clairvoyant. As I said, you cannot draw any conclusions from a single message, but from the context of a whole series of messages, you will, simply through an ability that every person has, even without being clairvoyant, come to understand what is meant by what someone says. Furthermore, a person who deserves to be called a clairvoyant today – but now in a higher sense – when a person speaks about the spiritual world as it must be done here in this place, then, my dear audience, he does not stop at telling things only from the higher worlds, but he always speaks at the same time about the things of this world, in which the higher worlds play a role. He speaks to you, for example, about how what one has experienced in the spiritual can be applied to medicine, to the kind of medicine that really needs to be studied. He does not speak of medical charlatanry, where a person is chosen by some Luciferic or Ahrimanic spirit and then dabbles and cures whatever comes to hand. It cannot be about anything like that. The only thing it can be about is the penetration of that which is physically real, but in which the spirit always lives, with the spirit. For materialism never understands the physical. And I believe that, for example, working in the social sphere could be one of the external reasons for proving the inner justification of what is being asserted here in spiritual terms.

So there is no externally abstract criterion, but only from the whole context of life can one know whether one is dealing with illusions or realities when it comes to the claims of the spiritual researcher. His spiritual research is certainly no illusion if he can descend into realities with them, if he is able to give something to the life that is allotted to man here between birth and death precisely through his spiritual science. For example, when I presented research results about higher worlds, people often objected to me, saying that I was starting from abstractions. Yes, but all that could be mere auto-suggestion, just as there are people who get a taste of lemon in their mouths just by thinking of lemonade, even if they don't get any lemonade. — I could only tell people: Of course, it is true that one can evoke all kinds of illusory hallucinations or visions through thought, but these are just illusions. You can indeed have the illusion through suggestion that you have a taste of lemonade, but whether the mere thought of lemonade will quench your thirst, I would doubt; you would still need the real lemonade for that.

Anyone who is completely involved in things, not outside of them, can distinguish between what is reality and what is merely thought, and for them it is clear that there are just as many differences in life for looking into the higher worlds as there are here in the physical world. I can even reveal to you, my dear audience, the criteria for determining whether something is a lie or the truth, which apply to the clairvoyant as well as to anyone else. The clairvoyant cannot test whether his observations are based on reality better or worse than the person to whom they are communicated, because he too must test them from the whole context of life, which one simply finds with common sense, even if one has common sense in ordinary life. Another person, if they have common sense, can always test the clairvoyant results.

We are not at all afraid of a scientific criticism of spiritual science, especially not if this scientific criticism is carried out with the utmost exactness and precision. What harms us is only the criticism of superficial people, those people with empty thoughts, with thought-shells. Such people, who are afflicted with mere thought-shells, like Count Hermann Keyserling, who has no will at all to go into the matter, then simply end up telling lies. In his latest book, Keyserling makes the very nice claim that Steiner's entire anthroposophy is actually just materialistic natural science elevated to the spiritual; this can be seen from the fact that Steiner started from Haeckel.

Now let us examine this utterly dishonest assertion in the light of what I wrote as a starting point in the introduction to Goethe's scientific writings. You see, dishonesty is actually always the height of mental dullness.

These things must be said, ladies and gentlemen. I always wait a long time before I am forced to say such a thing myself, and I actually only talk about these things when they have not been emphasized by others for a long time. Because after all, these things do not affect me at all. I cannot read Count Keyserling's books because I cannot find any thoughts in them. And I am used to people complaining. But today it is about something else. Today it is about the fact that we are indeed rapidly sailing into destruction if full clarity and courageous clarity are not established in this area. Today it is about the salvation or destruction of humanity, and today the pests must be sharply pointed out who try to drive out the necessary thoughts from people through such filth by saying that it is not necessary to undergo a spiritual development because what one can learn from something like the writing “How to Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds” is not needed by someone who is a gentleman and has a good upbringing.

Now, my dear attendees, at a time when such assertions can be made, the fire is burning, and it must be extinguished!

I would now like to quickly discuss another question:

What is anthroposophy's position on the use of hypnosis in medicine?

Well, dear attendees, all these things, hypnosis or suggestion and the like in therapy, always lead into an area that lies below that which we encompass with our ordinary day-consciousness. If I were to draw you a diagram quickly, it would look like this: (diagram missing)

If ordinary consciousness is here, the anthroposophical science in question strives upwards into a higher consciousness, into imaginative, inspired, intuitive consciousness. But one can also bring consciousness down to a lower level. This is already the case in ordinary dreaming; in deep sleep, in dreamless sleep, it is moved down even further. Now there are all kinds of intermediate states, and such a tuning down of consciousness actually transforms the human being into an Untermensch, in that his soul and spirit are so elevated that they cannot fully engage with the physical body and also cannot be conscious of themselves and the world, because the human being is not yet developed enough to have consciousness outside of the body. In this case, we are dealing with a demotion of the spiritual-mental to the etheric-physical plane, and then all the effects that can be brought about, which you are indeed familiar with, actually take place in a subhuman sphere. You downgrade the whole constitution of the person, the spiritual-soul-physical constitution of the person. And that is why such things are only to be applied when it comes to therapeutic issues. But even in the therapeutic area it is a matter of ensuring that they may only be applied by the person who understands the things – by which I do not want to claim that modern medicine, as it is practised today, is a good guide to understanding these things. But once these things are understood, they can of course be applied to the human organization in the same way as other poisons – because they are poisons.

So, in all these things, we are dealing with the fact that, therapeutically, we can resort to anything that can improve a person's state of health in a desirable way. However, we should not imagine that we are leading people into a higher sphere when we convey something to them where their consciousness, their ordinary consciousness, is completely shut out. Instead, we lead them into the subhuman, into the etheric-animalistic, not into the physical-animalistic but into the etheric-animalistic, if we put him into a state like hypnosis and if he is receptive to such a state. This lowering of consciousness is basically particularly loved today because the upward development into the spiritual worlds is perceived as something uncomfortable.

Here is another question: What is anthroposophy's position on healing magnetism?

Well, my dear audience, this can only be discussed if one can really treat things seriously. With a simple yes or no or with a simple sentence, such things cannot be treated if one has a scientific conscience. Today's healing magnetism – yes, one would not have to have learned about it in order not to know that there are a great many people working in it who have sought employment everywhere else, and when they have not found any anywhere else, they have become healing magnetizers. To demand spiritual-scientific explanations for such things is a bit much. But I would like to point out to you that these things must all be traced back to their elementary prerequisites. For example, there is the fact that for certain mental and physical conditions of the soul, the mere loving assurance contributes something to the healing process. Just think how much real therapeutic effect comes from genuine loving treatment of the sick person in one direction or another. Now imagine these things intensified, imagine loving treatment intensified to caressing treatment, and you have something that leads very strongly to what is healing magnetism. However, these are such imponderable things that they cannot be grasped in rough terms. It is entirely possible – depending on the case, it really depends on the how and not on the what – that the person who talks about these things, depending on whether he has the imponderables in mind or not, may just as well say something important or talk nonsense. So it is more important that one approaches these things only with a truly scientific conscience. And that is why I have always been careful to discuss these things publicly, for example, because some things are extremely colored when they are passed on.

Now, I would not want anything personal to come of it either, but anthroposophy must be something that really meets the necessary demands of our time, and one must not do anything that could in any way bring one into the danger of being a dilettante. It is very easy to fall into this amateurish neighborhood when dealing with these matters. One could say that healing magnetism is beneficial, depending on whether it occurs with knowledgeable, but now imponderable, genuine healers, or whether it occurs with people who are mere charlatans, who, after trying their hand at other fields, now also try their hand at the field of healing. Of course, as soon as the subject of healing magnetism was mentioned, before that it was suggestion, and now Christian Science is mentioned, which is asked about here:

How is it that Christian Science can heal if it merely suggests the mind?

Isn't it true that with Christian Science one must say approximately the same as with healing by magnetism, only in a somewhat different field. Whether a thing works or not does not depend on what we think about it. Because just imagine if you were to slap someone and you had the opinion that it was about some forces that don't even exist, the slap on the person's cheek will be exactly the same regardless of whether you have a false theory, a self-suggested theory, or something similar. When we speak of Christian Science, we are dealing with similar phenomena; you can also test these very similar phenomena in the field of education.

I have repeatedly spoken of the imponderables that operate from person to person and also applied them to the field of education. Suppose you want to explain the immortality of the soul to a child, the passing of the soul through the death of the human being, and you point to a butterfly pupa: that is, so to speak, the human body. The butterfly comes out: that is the soul. And you then apply this to the supersensible. You can now get two things. In your own state of mind, you can be a very clever, intelligent person who, of course, in this day and age does not believe that what you are describing with the butterfly chrysalis really has any other connection to immortality than as a symbol. The clever person makes it up; he does not believe in any connection himself, but says it to the child because the child is stupid and he is clever, because he makes something up that he presents as a comparison. That is one state of mind. The other state of mind is that of the spiritual researcher. He sees everywhere stages of an existence that is in polarity and intensification - words that Goethe already used. He looks at the chrysalis from which the butterfly crawls out, and he himself comes to believe that the butterfly crawling out is an image that the spiritual worlds are drawing for him. He is not a clever person in today's sense, he is not a clever person, but he is a person with a sense of reality. In reality, the deeds of the spirit are everywhere.

Now there is a difference in teaching: if you are a very clever person and want to make the child understand the matter through the invented symbol, you will generally achieve nothing. But if the picture lives in us, if we are imbued with the feeling that here the spirit of nature itself has drawn the image of the immortal soul in the emerging butterfly, then imponderables work from your soul to the soul of the child, then the child, because it receives something of life, also has something for life.

However, forces are at work from person to person that cannot be weighed with a scale or measured with a ruler, even though everything is set up according to measure, number and weight. And these things will still provide a rich contribution to what should enrich our lives, things that will be more meaningful for the salvation of humanity than some applications of science. If we look into these things, we will see that there are still quite other forces that will come to humanity precisely through the application of spiritual science. But for this to happen, on the one hand, true scientific conscientiousness must be taught, and on the other hand, the will must arise to penetrate into the spiritual worlds with this scientific conscientiousness.

I would like to conclude for today. We will then try, tomorrow, before you leave, my dear honored attendees, to present a summary in the evening, not so much in the form of questions as in the form of a lecture, as a farewell.

Preliminary remark: In connection with the significance of the individual senses, the participant in the discussion, Dr. Hehnel (?), had pointed out the impressive example of Helen Keller, who, despite her multiple disabilities, has undergone an amazing development.

Rudolf Steiner: Dear ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Hehnel has just raised an extremely important problem of a physiological-epistemological nature, and you will not consider it immodesty on my part if I interject a few words here, since I have to leave shortly - I would otherwise have done so at the end of the discussion. What Dr. Hehnel has said is something of eminent significance, and until these matters that have been raised here are thoroughly addressed, the problems at hand cannot be solved.

Now I would just like to point out that it was precisely this problem, which has now been pointed out in a commendable way, that compelled me, many years ago in Berlin, in lectures that I virtually titled “Anthroposophy”, to initially

AIR Art Sense Doctrine. And at the time I was obliged to abandon the book [I wanted to write about the sense doctrine], which had already been partially printed, because the material required further work. But I can say that work in this direction is in full swing within the overall anthroposophical endeavour. At the time, it was a matter of showing the different evaluation of that which is given on the one hand, I would like to say at the one pole of the human sense life, for which the sense of sight is of course particularly decisive, and how on the other hand something completely different is present - also in the experience of the human being - at the other pole of the human sense life, which now completely pushes into the motor life.

That is why I was obliged at the time to set the total number of our senses — which initially seems paradoxical — at twelve and not at the usual number that we otherwise have. If we go to the motor pole of sensory life, then we are indeed obliged not to limit this motor pole of sensory life to the sense of touch alone, but to carefully distinguish and analyze how touch, but also the sense of balance and the sense of movement, and so on, are incorporated into this motor pole of experience. These matters are still in the stage of, I would say, unstable research activity, and basically they must first be clearly formulated.

You see, my dear audience, if we stick to the one pole for which the sense of sight is particularly characteristic, we always enter a world for which we actually have no criterion of existence in our ordinary consciousness – concepts are always somewhat inadequate if we want to define them precisely. On the other hand, if you go to the other pole, you always come across certain experiences that at the same time carry the experience of being in the most eminent sense and actually, from certain physiological-psychological backgrounds, of which I have often, even very often spoken in my lectures, through preconditions that lie in all human nature, actually guarantee being.

As for those experiences that would never actually carry existence within them, at least not in the ordinary consciousness, and that lie at the other pole, I have once pointed out – it is indeed, I would say, compendiously formulated, which should actually be the subject of a [comprehensive] book – I have pointed out that only with a certain experience, which then takes place in that realm which I have called the imaginative realm, one is justified in speaking of concepts of being, that this only shows itself from the moment when one is able, in subjective experience, let us say, for example, in subjective experience of color, to carry the sense of equilibrium and movement up into the visual field, at least in suggestion. And on the other hand, it is again possible in a certain way in human experience to carry the experiences of the sense of sight down, if only, I might say, in a shadowy way, into those sensory areas that one must supplement only — as has rightly been emphasized — with one more sense: the sense of touch with the sense of movement and balance. Thus, for example, in the case of Helen Keller, when analyzed from a psychological point of view, the sense of balance comes into consideration in an outstanding way.

If these experiences are carried down, then it is possible that a case like that of Helen Keller will arise, and we will not arrive at an exhaustive characteristic of the so-called higher senses – I call them the visual senses or perceptual senses – if we are not able to carry the constructive elements that we obtain for the sense of touch into this area in a certain way. On the other hand, we must regain the ability to bring into what we call the will senses — I have often used this expression, and those who have heard my lectures will remember how I tried to extract the concepts from the human being — we must, on the other hand, bring into these will senses certain, I would say side effects from the image senses. We must be clear about the fact that without working on this field, which has been addressed here in such a commendable way, we would actually gradually come to develop a theory that would only take the pictorial out of the whole range of what is to be experimented on, and that we have to listen very carefully to precisely such things.

It is extraordinarily interesting to look at other cultural phenomena from this point of view. Consider, for example, what we produce in our pictorial art. In this age, when perspective has taken hold, the picturesque has been projected more or less solely through the sense of sight – this point in time can be easily identified in cultural history, it is not so far in the past. It was roughly in the 11th, 12th, 13th century that this transition became clearly apparent, that the painterly was first incorporated into the perspective, that is, into the ocular. If we go back further, we find that something much more universal, a human experience, underlies [the picturesque], that perspective recedes and that what man experiences, so to speak, when he immerses himself in the world with his naked senses, that is actually found in pictures. That is again a brief suggestion, and it would take a thick book to fully elaborate.

But it is interesting that someone – I can't remember his name at the moment – said with great justification: If you look at Japanese painting, you get the feeling that the vanishing point of perspective is assumed not outside but inside the human being. – In a certain way, if you paint in a more 'primitive' way, you actually do paint from the center. But then, of course, one can simply paint purely with one's eyes, and this will appear before us in a completely different way [from Japanese painting]. So one can say - and this is the crucial point that I want to emphasize very strongly in my lectures - that this object-consciousness, which I certainly do not find mentioned here as something that would be, say, a profanation, but on the contrary that this object-consciousness, which we have now finally arrived at in the course of the development of scientific research, should be taken into account everywhere, so that anthroposophy is actually founded on the condition that everything that modern science can give is taken into account. Otherwise, anthroposophy will enter into the realm of nebulous mysticism, because, on the one hand, in the development of human knowledge, we run the risk of getting lost in the senses of will, growing more and more into existence, but losing the possibility of gaining imagery from existence. On the other hand, we run the risk of living ourselves into the pictorial senses and then experiencing what Dilthey described as what would happen if we only perceived things in a fashioned way through the sense of sight. We would then have to live in a world of mere images, and we must guard against this danger by having an anthroposophy that is firmly grounded in reality.

You will have sensed that one thing emerged sharply – and rightly so – from the extraordinarily interesting words of the previous speaker: namely, that Helen Keller was able to undergo a certain spiritual and psychological development despite the fact that she lacked the sense of sight and the sense of hearing, and that the other senses, such as the sense of smell and the sense of taste, I believe, were atrophied. Nevertheless, it was possible to enable her to have a very extensive spiritual and emotional experience with the help of her sense of balance, movement and touch. And it was said that one should imagine that a person had only developed the sense of sight and the sense of hearing, but not the sense of balance, the sense of touch and the sense of movement – what would happen then? It was rightly said that what happened to Helen Keller could not happen to these volitional senses: it would not be possible, if the volitional senses were then absent, to transfer the experiences to the sense of sight.

But there is something else to be said about this, which seems to me to be extremely important and significant. It is precisely at the point, which is, so to speak, a point at an abyss, where one must pass from the pictorial to the real, where one must also pass with one's comprehension from this pictorial to the real, [and it is precisely this point that matters], and that is: A person like Helen Keller, who lacks the senses of sight and hearing and has the other senses by virtue of his or her physical organization, can exist in this world of air and soil, and even develop to a certain extent. But a person who only has the sense of sight and the sense of hearing, cannot develop on this earth in the air and on the ground, and cannot even come into existence at all – such a person does not exist within our earthly existence, it is unthinkable. This sharply defines the relationship – initially only conceptually – between the visual senses and the will senses, based on reality.

Thus an important problem has been raised in the most eminent sense, and I see it as my sole task to point out in a few words that this problem is felt within anthroposophy, and that we do not want to fall back into a nebulous mysticism by merely adhering to the higher senses, but that we want to work in full harmony with the justified spirit of scientific research of modern times.

In accordance with the program of today's meeting, my task this evening will be to say a few words about the appeal “An das deutsche Volk und an die Kulturwelt” (To the German People and to the Civilized World), which is in your hands. You will allow me to speak more aphoristically today, when I am addressing an assembly that is essentially familiar with the content of the appeal. I will speak about the social views that underlie the appeal and my book on the social question, which will be published in a few days, next Monday. What can lead a person with a compassionate impulse for humanity to make such an appeal, as has been presented to you today, is truly not some programmatic idea that one tends towards out of this or that interest. No, it is the facts that speak loudly and clearly, which have emerged from the terrible world catastrophe that we have been through in recent years. If we look at these facts with a watchful soul, we will come to a very definite conclusion above all. I would characterize this impression in the following way.

We have heard it said many times: During the terrible years that we have gone through in this world catastrophe that befell humanity, something happened that is unparalleled in the historical course of human development, which one usually surveys as such. There was a widespread feeling that something like this had never been seen in the whole of the great span of time that we call history. Should not the other thing also be evoked, which, it seems to me, has not yet been fully evoked, the feeling that now, for a reorganization of world conditions, things are also necessary that are, so to speak, brought forth from impulses of humanity that are radically new, that radically break, not only with old institutions, but that, above all, break with old habits of thought? Do we not have to say to ourselves, looking at the facts that speak loudly, that shadows are spreading over large parts of the civilized world, shadows that were actually left behind by pre-humanity in a chaotic manner for present-day humanity? In the face of this, can we say that out of the confusion, out of the chaos, such ideas, such thoughts, have already emerged that are equal to these facts? When we look at these facts soberly, do we not feel that we have to say: old party opinions are there, old social views are there, certain ideas of how it should be among people are there, but none of this is enough to somehow lead to a reorganization of what has been left behind from the most immediate past into our present.

This presents us with major, comprehensive tasks for the present. Perhaps we will best meet them if we ask ourselves openly and honestly – because openness and honesty will be the only things that can carry us into the future – if we ask ourselves openly and honestly: how did we actually end up in these circumstances? If I am to describe the most significant phenomenon of the present and want to ask: what has actually led to the present conditions, I cannot point out that they have arisen merely from the aberrations of one class or another of humanity. I would like to say: what is actually happening today is surging up as if from an abyss. What kind of abyss is that? It is an abyss that has opened up in the course of the last three to four centuries between the classes that have led humanity up to now and those who are emerging from being led and are now making their demands. It is not from one side or the other that the turmoil comes, but from what lies in between. This is not a pedantic remark, but something on which I believe a profound basis can be established and which at the same time throws light on what actually has to happen. On the one hand, we have the leading circles of humanity, who, basically, let's just admit it openly and honestly, have developed over the last few centuries and especially the last few years in such a way that they have shown little inclination to somehow look into the future, to have any idea of what may actually lie in the bosom of the social order within which they live.

When one looks at what has become of the influence of the thoughts, feelings, willpower and actions of these previously leading circles of humanity, then one recalls the degree of insight, the degree of power of thought, that was there, well, let us say, in the spring of 1914. It is necessary to point out such things today. In the spring of 1914, we could hear that at a meeting that was supposed to be enlightened at least with regard to political matters, at a meeting of those men to whom the leadership of the people was entrusted at that time, the then Foreign Minister said that he could inform the gentlemen of the German Reichstag that the general relaxation of Europe was making great progress. The relations between the German Reich and Russia are as satisfactory as can be imagined, because the government in St. Petersburg is not inclined to listen to the machinations of the press; the friendly neighborly relations between the German Reich and Russia promise the very best. Furthermore, he said that negotiations had been initiated with England, which had not yet been concluded, but which promised that the best relationship with England would ensue.

Yes, especially if one wants to openly and honestly consider what the intellectual power of the leading circles and those selected from these leading circles was in that decisive time, then one must point out such things. What has been hinted at could have been said in the weeks immediately preceding that terrible time, in which, within Europe, a mere ten to twelve million people were killed and three times as many were maimed! These things must be looked at, because today it is important to finally break away from what in recent times has usually been called the practice of life and to gain confidence in what real insight into the facts can achieve. If we do not decide to look courageously and without pretence at what, let us admit, we have been led to by our thoughtlessness regarding what the present is bearing for the future, we cannot move forward. That is what must be faced today. I really don't want to talk to you about anything personal this evening, but perhaps I may point out one thing by way of introduction.

At the same time that leading people were talking about “general relaxation” and the like, as I have just mentioned, I had to summarize in a small gathering in Vienna what I had formed over decades as a vision of the future possibilities of European, modern, civilized life in general. At that time I had to say it in front of a small group – a larger one would probably have laughed at me, because all those who held the leadership of humanity at that time were only inclined to regard such things as fantasies. I put what I had to say at the time into the following words, only repeating what I had already said in one form or another over the past decades:

The prevailing trends in today's world will become ever stronger until they ultimately destroy themselves. Those who have a spiritual understanding of social life see how terrible tendencies are sprouting everywhere, leading to the formation of social ulcers. This is the great cultural concern that arises for those who see through existence. This is the terrible thing that has such a depressing effect and that, even if one could suppress all enthusiasm for recognizing the processes of life through the means of a science that recognizes the spirit, would lead one to speak of the remedy, to cry out to the world for the remedy, so to speak, for what is already so strongly on the rise and will become ever stronger and stronger. What must be the case in a field, in a sphere, as nature creates through abundance in free competition - in the spreading of spiritual truths - that becomes a cancerous formation when it enters social culture in the way described.

It seems to me that these arguments more accurately describe what followed the spring of 1914, when these words were spoken, than all the words spoken by those who at the time considered themselves practitioners of life, who believed that they drew from reality, while they only drew from their political and other life illusions.

If I am to give a brief description of what has led to such things, well, it is precisely the lack of any foresight, the lack of a will to foresee what lies in the bosom of the present as the seeds of the future. Not to be accused – merely characterized!

If we survey the developments that have gradually emerged in the last few centuries in those leading classes that have ultimately entered the so-called bourgeois class of society, we must say that there have been many extraordinarily praiseworthy endeavors. There is no other way to describe them than to say that tremendous progress has been made in general human culture up to the present day. But what has this progress necessitated? It has necessitated that one has become entangled in a terrible contradiction of life. With the emergence of modern technology, with its necessary accessory of modern capitalism, on the one hand, and the modern world view, which goes hand in hand with capitalist and technical development, on the other, there was a need for a certain broadening of education. I will have to say something very paradoxical, but the truths that are necessary for us today may still sound somewhat paradoxical to the habits of thought of the time. Among those who have spoken out in an outstanding way, I actually know of only one man who has said in the right way how the world should actually be treated if things are to continue as they have been done in these leading, guiding circles for centuries; I know of one man who has said what, if they were consistent, these guiding, leading circles should actually do. And this man, and herein lies the paradox, is the head of the Holy Synod, as it is called in Russia; he is the Chief Procurator Pobjedonoszew. There is a writing of this man, which in an extraordinarily forceful and spirited way radically condemns all parliamentarism of recent times, radically condemns democracy, but above all the press of the Western world. Pobjedonoszew was far-sighted enough to know that either these things must be done away with, parliamentarism, the press, democracy, or that one would come to the destruction of that which the leading, guiding circles believe to be the right thing for modern times. Of course, only such a chairman of the Holy Synod had the courage to speak in such a radical way. There was an inner contradiction in the souls of the most progressive thinkers in the leading circles. It was fundamentally a contradiction even to the invention of the printing press. It was impossible, through all the newer institutions, to call upon the wider circles to make their own judgments and to think for themselves, and at the same time to continue to manage things in the same way as they had been managed. This was bound to lead to the result it has produced, namely, the self-destruction of this culture. That is one side of the matter. If the conclusion of the Senior Procurator Pobjedonoszew had been drawn in the widest circles, then people would have said, long since said: something else, something radically different is needed from what we have allowed to develop in the last few centuries. That is one side of the matter. I say this without accusation, just for the sake of characterization. From the statements of the Senior Procurator, one could see that a radical change was necessary, even if it was nonsense in more recent times. For actually one could only have held one's own if one had thought like him. That is the paradox that can be said on one side. That stands on one side of the abyss. Then comes the abyss, and on the other side stand the proletarians who have come of age, those who have been called from other walks of life over the past few centuries to the machine, to the factories; they have been called in such a way that their lives have been placed in modern capitalism, which is desolate for them. From their soul arose those demands that today are truly not just questions of bread; they are that too – but the important thing today is not the question of bread, because basically in Central Europe it is justified for all people – but, as we shall see in a moment, it is a comprehensive economic, legal and intellectual question. But let us now look at the other side of the abyss from the point of view that I want to take here, with regard to the characteristics of this side. Let us look at what is emerging in the proletarian world. It was truly something significant to witness what developed there. While on the one hand the bourgeois circles formed the upper class and developed a certain culture, which could only develop on the substructure of the proletariat, while the upper class of the bourgeoisie developed its own culture, one could see how, for decades, the little time that the proletarian had left over and above his work was filled with the striving for a social world and life view. This arose from completely different foundations than bourgeois culture. What this means is only known to those who have learned to think not only about the proletariat, but with the proletariat, through the vicissitudes of life. This is what is needed today to assess this side. And what do we see on this side? Well, there are already areas of the previously civilized world today where the proletariat is called upon to create order out of chaos. We have seen it develop, truly through all the ingenuity that corresponds to the fresh intellect of the proletariat, in which I believe – we have seen it, the idea, the idea of the social world outlook of the proletariat, endowed with tremendous momentum. We have seen it develop until the outbreak of the world catastrophe. We know how comprehensive views have arisen within the proletariat about what is to happen. Now, many of those who have formed these ideas in their own way, who believe that they have struggled to a proletarian world view, now stand in a position where they could carry out this world view, now they have inherited certain institutions over large parts of Europe. Do we see that they can do it? We see that from this side, too, the thoughts are much too short for these facts.

We see how on the one hand a worldview is alive that is driving the world into decline, and on the other hand a certain world-humanity current has not been able to find the social impulses at the decisive moment that can lead to a new form of organization. Between the two lies the abyss, and from this abyss surges that which already confronts us today and which will truly confront humanity, both bourgeois and proletarian, ever more strongly if this humanity does not find the inclination to grasp what the present and the near future demand out of the necessities of human development. These necessities of life can be seen by observing the proletarian movement as it is emerging, by seeing how it has gradually formed.

It can be said that what lives in the proletarian soul develops in three areas of life, but also develops what asserts itself as an inevitably satisfying demand of the present and the near future. In three areas of life. Those who have become somewhat familiar with the proletarian world view and outlook on life in recent decades, which has been summarized time and again by the insightful people of this movement in the words: It cannot go on as it has become, found above all how deeply the proletarian minds of recent times by an idea that emanated from the proletarian leader whose name has been alive in the European and American proletariat for seventy years, and who, despite all his successors, has not yet been surpassed, that emanated from Karl Marx. One has only to realize how, in the minds of modern workers, exhausted by toil, who in their evening meetings wanted to educate themselves about what should happen, everything that is connected with the word 'surplus value' has struck a chord. This touched the deepest feelings of the proletariat. But it not only touched the deepest feelings of the proletariat, no, it touched at the same time the most intense demands of the modern development of humanity. Only if you really want to understand such things, you have to look deeper than just into what people say with their minds, with their head consciousness. In the depths of the human soul often rests something quite, quite different from what people consciously realize. Endless meaning was stirred up in the proletarian soul when surplus value was mentioned. Infinitely much was stirred up by what the proletarian has no clear conscious ideas about, but what lives in him and what now erupts with elemental force and must be understood if one wants to find any way out of the confusion. Whether the doctrine of “surplus value” can stand up to the judgment of economic science in the sense of Karl Marx is not important for what is meant. Even if this idea was based on error, its social, its social-agitational effect in the working class as a historical phenomenon would have to be considered.

What was it that lived in the deepest depths of the proletarian soul when the subject of surplus value was raised? Well, the leading, managerial circles spoke of the evolution of humanity; they felt themselves in this evolution of humanity. Yes, when they wanted to express what actually underlies this evolution of humanity, then they said, depending on their need, divine world government, moral world order, historical ideas or the like. The proletarian, who, with the dawn of the new era, had inherited this bourgeois world view as a legacy, was offered certain concepts that had developed over time. But when he looked at the leading circles, he could see nothing of the revelation of what these leading circles spoke of as divine world guidance, moral world order and historical ideas. Why could he see nothing? Well, he was harnessed – that is only in recent times and truly has not improved much through the merits of the leading circles – he was harnessed not to a moral world order or divine world order, but to the yoke of the newer economic order. And he looked at what developed as spiritual life among the leading classes. What did he feel there? He sensed the only relationship he truly had – for he could not have the other – to this cultural view, to this cultural heritage of the leading, guiding circles. What was his relationship to it? He produced what this cultural heritage cost; he produced surplus value for others, that alone he understood.

And what they wanted to give him of this cultural heritage, in the form of all kinds of popular entertainment, popular theater performances, in popular courses, in artistic popular performances of other kinds, was something to which he could not develop an inner relationship. For one can only gain an inner relationship to it if one is socially and vitally immersed in the corresponding intellectual life. But the abyss between the two classes had opened up, and basically it was an untruth when the proletarian felt something in what had been thrown at him as a piece of cultural property. And so it came about — I will only briefly describe it today, on Monday I will say a little more about it — that something came about that cut deeply into the hearts of those who understood culture when, like the one who is allowed to speak before you today, they took part in proletarian life and proletarian striving. It came up that within the proletariat the soul-destroying view took hold that all intellectual life, art, religion, customs, law, all science are basically nothing but the reflection of economic life. Among the insightful proletarians, one could repeatedly hear a word used to describe all intellectual life: the word 'ideology'. What the proletarian felt when he looked at art, at science of modern times, at religion, customs and law, was for him nothing more than something that rises like a smoke from the only real thing, the material economic life - ideology. And the view arose, that view which cut deep into the heart, that view which understood all spiritual life, the entire content of the human spirit as ideology. One can, and the modern proletarians did so, especially their leaders, have this view: All spiritual life is basically only the product of unreal human thoughts that arise from the conditions of economic life. Oh, there is so much that can be proved in a strictly scientific way! We have learned a lot about it in recent times. Of course, this view can be scientifically proven as rigorously as possible, but one thing cannot be done with this view: it cannot be lived with. And that is the great tragic fate of the modern age, that the proletariat has placed one last great trust in the bourgeois class by taking over what has become of intellectual life within the bourgeois social order in modern times. What has become of it has been taken over by the proletariat and perceived as an empty fabric of thoughts, like smoke, one might say, rising from the economic conditions. But one can only live with the spiritual life if one experiences it in such a way that one is strongly supported by it in one's deepest soul. Otherwise the soul becomes desolate, otherwise the soul becomes empty.

And no one understands the terrible damage of modern culture who cannot point to this subconscious, who does not have insight into this subconscious, who does not know that precisely under this seemingly so easily provable view of life, the soul must become desolate and that this therefore led to despair in something other than at most an improvement in external material conditions. , and that this soul, emerging from this desolation, came to despair of everything in life except, at most, an improvement in material circumstances. This is the basis of what must be described as the real spiritual demands of the modern proletariat. This cannot be characterized in any other way than to say that the bourgeois social order of modern times has handed down to the proletariat a soul content, a spiritual content, that cannot ennoble the soul and spirit of man, and now this bourgeois social order is being hit back by what has become of the desolate souls, of the abandoned souls. These souls had to be summoned to participate in education through the necessarily widespread democracy. They could not and should not be excluded, nor did anyone want to do so. But they were summoned by a sense of modern intellectual life, the consequences of which were not drawn by those in power, because they did not need to be drawn. If you were a member of the bourgeois class, you still lived in the impulses that came from old religious ideas, from old moral or aesthetic views from ancient times. The proletarian was put at the machine, was crammed into the factory, into capitalism. Nothing arose from this that could answer the big question for him: What am I actually worth as a human being in the world? He could only turn to what was the scientific orientation in modern times. Intellectual life became an ideology for him, something soul-destroying. From this arose his demands, which are still vague today. Only an understanding of this fact can lead to a salutary path into the future. Things are much more serious and in a completely different area than is usually believed today.

The proletarian, for his part, has now gradually seen how, in more recent times, intellectual life arose from the economic order of the bourgeois circles – today there would not be enough time to fully develop the thought. The way people were placed, their existence and economic circumstances, so was their spiritual life. I may, when I tell these things, perhaps refer to a personal experience, because I consider this personal experience to be extremely characteristic. For many years I taught a wide range of human knowledge at the Workers' Education School founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht. I was also a teacher of speech exercises. In my dealings with students who are now active in party life and play a role here and there, I have been able to see much of what emerged at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century. I endeavored to make clear to my students, who also understood, what the intellectual life has made into an ideology, and that is precisely the economic life of the last four centuries. And by limiting himself essentially to the observations of life in the last four centuries, the proletarian and the proletarian theorist come to regard the whole of intellectual life as ideology. But it has only become so in the last four centuries. The proletarian world view is based on this error, in that it takes a fact of the last four centuries for a fact of the whole development of humanity. I have said it again and again: for the last four centuries this is correct, but we are now faced with the challenge of having to replace ideology with real spiritual life that carries the human soul. The healing aspect lies not in the statement that spiritual life is ideology, but in the will to create a spiritual life that is not ideology. For this ideology is the heritage of the bourgeois social order. At that time I was pushed out of the school by the party leaders, although the students themselves were in favour of me and had also understood me. It was not so easy to gain acceptance for those ideas which, after all, must above all be the fundamental ideas for a social reorganization if one first regards the social question as a spiritual question.

The second area of life that we see as having developed into what has come to light in the proletarian demands is the field of law, the field that, as the proclamation states, is supposed to be the actual territory of the state. What then is right? Yes, I have truly tried for decades to understand the different views that people have about the concept of right. I must admit that if one approaches the concept of right in a way that is true to life and reality, and not theoretically, then one says to oneself in the end: right is something that arises as something original, as something elementary, from every healthy human breast. Just as the ability to see blue or red as a color comes from a healthy eye, and just as one can never teach someone who has a diseased or blind eye the concept of the color blue or red, one can never teach anyone teach anyone what is right in any specific area, unless the sense of right and wrong, which is something elementary and original, lives in him, just as seeing colors or hearing sounds is something elementary. This sense of right and wrong arises, I might say, from a quite different corner of the soul's life than anything else that is created in the development of the human spirit. What is otherwise created in the life of the mind is all based on talent. The sense of right and wrong has basically nothing to do with talent. It is something that develops out of human nature in an elementary way, but only in dealing with people, just as one can only learn language by dealing with people. This sense of right and wrong, whether it speaks loudly and clearly, whether it springs darkly from the human soul, is something that the human soul wants to develop within itself. When the proletarian, through modern educational conditions and through democracy, began to participate in the general intellectual and legal life, in the life of the constitutional state, the question of rights arose for him as well. But when he asked about rights, what did he find? Look into his soul and you will find the answer to this question. He found that when he judged the point of law from his point of view, he did not find rights, but privileges, conditioned by the differences between the classes of humanity. He found that what had become established as positive rights had actually only emerged from the privileges of the favored class, as a disadvantage of the right among the classes without property. He found the class struggle on the legal ground instead of the realization of the right. This realization filled him with the conviction that he could advance only if he was a class-conscious proletarian, if he sought his rights from within this class. This led him to the second link in his world view: to overcome class differences so that the structure of the life of the constitutional state could arise on the soil on which these class differences had arisen in the course of historical development.

The third area from which the demands that are proletarian demands and at the same time necessary demands of the present arise is the economic area. This economic area, as it has so clearly emerged through the capitalist world order and through modern technology, how did it affect the proletarian? How did this economic order, this economic cycle affect the proletarian? Well, it affected him in such a way that he saw himself completely enmeshed in this economic cycle. The others had the intellectual life, which he, however, saw as an ideology, and for him to participate in it was actually a lie because he did not stand in the social context from which it had arisen. The bourgeois circles had their special privileges and cultural assets, and they had an economic life that ran alongside. For them, life was divided into three, even if they combined it in the unified state. But he, the proletarian, felt that his whole personality was harnessed to this economic life. How so? You can see why by looking at the feelings – if you want to understand these things, you have to look at real life – that have developed more and more violently in the modern proletarian soul over the last six to seven decades. Just as it became clear to the proletarian that he derived no benefit from intellectual life, that his only connection to it was his role in producing surplus value, so it became self-evident to him that the new economic life contained something that should not be there if he, as a proletarian, was to receive a humane answer to the question: What is human life worth in the context of the world?

In essence, the only things that move in the economic cycle are those that can be labeled as goods or human services. Production of goods, circulation of goods, consumption of goods, that is basically economic life. For the leading and guiding circles it was also so, but for the proletarian it was different. His labor power was woven into this economic cycle. Just as one bought goods on the goods market, so one bought the human labor power from the proletarian. Just as the commodity had its price, so human labor had its price in the form of wages on the labor market. This, again, was something that touched the unconscious feelings of the proletarian soul, something that did not necessarily have to come to full conscious clarity, but which was expressed in an elementary way in the great, significant, loud facts of the present. It was therefore to the depths of the proletarian soul that Karl Marx's words about “labor as a commodity” spoke. Basically, the proletarian stood in retrospect in the historical development of mankind by understanding these words in the sense of labor as a commodity. In ancient times, economic culture needed slaves. The whole person was sold like a commodity or like an animal. Later, in a different economic order, serfdom came. Less of the human being was sold, but still a great deal. Now the more recent period came along, which, in order to develop in a capitalist way, had to summon the broad masses of the proletariat to a certain education, which had to cultivate democracy in a certain way. And it was not understood in time to see what was germinating in the present for the future. It was not observed in time, as it is necessary, to tear the buying and selling of human labor out of the economic cycle. The modern proletarian felt that he was a continuation of ancient slavery, that he had to sell his labor power on the labor market according to supply and demand, just as one buys and sells merchandise. Thus he felt as if he were wrapped up in the economic process, not standing outside it, as the other classes of the population do. He felt as if he were completely immersed in it. Because if you have to sell your labor, you sell the whole person, because you have to go to the place where you sell your labor as a whole person. The time had come when it should have been realized that human labor had to be integrated into the social organism so that it was not a commodity, where the old wage relationship could no longer exist. This was overlooked. That is the tragedy of the bourgeois view of life: that the right moment has been missed everywhere, that what was necessary in the course of modern capitalist and democratic development has been missed. This is what, in the end, not from below, from the proletariat, but from a lack of understanding of the times, from the bosom of the bourgeoisie, has brought about the current chaos. “My guilt, my great guilt,” the leading circles should say to themselves all too often, then out of this realization would flow the clear feeling of what actually has to happen. This characterizes what has led to the present situation, that which is now bursting out of the abyss as a threefold demand, as a spiritual demand, a legal demand, an economic demand. And we must no longer build on the fallacy that all salvation can come from the economic order. For that is precisely the evil, the harmful thing, that the modern proletarian has been enslaved completely in the economic order. He must be freed from the economic order!

I have only been able to sketch out the historical development of these ideas. Anyone who has followed these events as they have unfolded in modern times with an insightful eye, anyone who has the good will and the inner sincerity and honesty to look beyond all economic, historical and other judgments of the present the reality, will come, through observation of the conditions of the last three to four decades, to recognize the necessity of this threefold order, of which the call speaks.

The proletarian has only seen that intellectual life is dependent on economic life. From this he formed the idea that all intellectual life must be dependent on economic life. He could not overlook the fact that intellectual life has condemned itself to be an appendage of economic life due to its inner weakness, due to the fact that it no longer had the impact of the old worldviews. Thus it came to its view of ideology. The proletarian had paid less attention to something else, which, however, for the same reason as the intellectual life has also become dependent on the life of the state, has remained unseen on the part of the middle-class. I even want to see the historical justification of this dependency in modern times as something necessary. But it is also necessary to take into account the right time at which this intellectual life must be emancipated, not only from economic life but also from state life. Over the last four centuries, the intellectual life of the civilized world has become increasingly dependent on state life. This has been seen as a sign of progress in modern times. Of course, this was necessary to free intellectual life from the shackles of the church; but now it is no longer necessary. It was considered progress to place intellectual life entirely under the wing of state life. How could anyone scoff at the Middle Ages, which we truly do not want to see again, how could anyone scoff at the fact that in those days philosophy, that is to say, for the Middle Ages, science in general, carried the train of theology. Well, at least it has come to pass that modern science does not everywhere carry the train of theology. But science has come to something else, intellectual life has come to this: to the dependence of this intellectual life on the needs of state life, which has been gradually established – this has been shown in particular by the world war catastrophe – entirely according to the needs of modern economic life, which were not generally human needs. The catastrophe of war has made us in Germany very aware of this in individual phenomena, I would say symptomatic. Of course, I could multiply the symptoms a hundredfold, even a thousandfold, but you will understand me when I point to what emerged from a certain scholarship precisely during the war, which, after all, brought everything to an extreme. But the matter has always been there. A very important natural scientist of the recent past, for whom, as a natural scientist, I naturally have the utmost respect, spoke a word that is particularly indicative of the dependence of science on the modern state. He spoke the word as Secretary General of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, calling this Academy of Sciences “The Scientific Guard Troop of the Hohenzollerns”. Well, you don't have to go that far everywhere. In relation to mathematics and chemistry, the corresponding fact is very much hidden, but even there it is present. But go up to those areas that touch on a great vital question of world view, to the field of history, and in modern times, intellectual life has truly become nothing more than the scientific protection force for the modern state. But intellectual life cannot be cultivated in its inner essence by legislating on freedom of teaching, on free science and free teaching. Laws have no influence at all on intellectual life, because intellectual life is based on elementary human talents. And anyone who is familiar with the official intellectual life of modern times knows, even if it sounds paradoxical – I do not even like to say it, because I had to struggle with a certain reluctance to come to this conclusion – that this modern official intellectual life has gradually developed a certain hatred for the talents and a certain preference for the production of the average in human nature. But all intellectual life must be based on the original human talents.

Anyone who looks into the connection between human and individual talents and the social order of human society knows that spiritual life can only prove itself in reality when it is compelled to prove this reality from its own essence prove this reality, when it is left to its own devices from the lowest school up to the universities, from what is today perceived as an appendage of the state to the free artistic expression and so on. Social democracy has so far only found the opportunity, based on feelings that may be wrong, which is not to be assessed here, to demand that religion must be a private matter. In a similar way, all intellectual life must become a private matter in relation to the state and economic order if it is to continue to prove its own reality. This reality can only be proven if this intellectual life is left to its own devices. Furthermore, if it is left to its own devices, this intellectual life will no longer engage in the nonsense it has been engaging in, for example, by interfering in the legal order of the state. One will have to recognize the enormity of the fact that a party like the Center, based purely on spiritual foundations – one may think of it as one pleases in terms of content – has wormed its way into a state parliament, such as the German Reichstag, where only human rights and the like were to be formulated. The moment such a party enters into the life of the state, this life is inevitably tarnished from one side, from the spiritual side. For only that can flourish in the life of the state in which all people are equal, just as they are equal to a certain degree in language. In the life of the state, only that which is not based on special human talent can flourish, but what is determined from person to person on the basis of the original sense of right and wrong. From an understanding of intellectual life as well as from an understanding of the conditions that have arisen in modern times from the intermingling of intellectual life with the state, the demand arises to completely separate intellectual life as a separate organization and to stand on its own. There is no need to fear, as the Socialists do, that the unity of the school system, which they advocate, might be endangered by the fact that the lowest school is placed on the independent basis of spiritual life, in an independent spiritual administration. The conditions of social life in the future will be such that special schools for different classes and groups will not be able to develop. Especially if the lowest teacher is not a civil servant, but only dependent on a spiritual administration, then nothing else can arise from this but the unified school. For how did the classes come about? Precisely because spiritual life was combined with state life.

On the other hand, economic life must be detached from state life. By raising such a demand, one is only too deeply involved in practical life. For basically one can say that economic life, in developing in modern times, has something so arbitrarily compelling that it has gone beyond outdated state and other ideas. Today, people still do not have a clear idea of this, because they do not look at what the necessary demands of modern times are. Let me give you a concrete example, an example that could be multiplied a hundredfold, and that shows how economic life has emancipated itself from the other areas, from intellectual and legal life, in modern human development. I would like to point out the necessary extraction of raw iron at the beginning of the 1860s. In 1840, the German iron industry needed about 799,000 tons of raw iron, which was mined by just over 20,000 workers. In the relatively short period up to the end of the 1880s, the German iron industry required 4,500,000 tons of pig iron, compared to the previous 799,000 tons. These 4,500,000 tons of pig iron were mined by roughly – there is only a slight difference – the same number of 20,000 workers. What does this mean? It means that regardless of everything that has happened in the development of humanity, regardless of what has taken place in the development of humanity, at the end of the 1880s, with 20,000 people, purely through technical improvements, through technical developments, about five times more iron was produced than in the 1860s. That is to say, that which belongs to the technical-economic sphere has become independent, has been set apart from the rest of human development. But people have not paid attention to this, they have not even seen it - and this example could be multiplied a hundredfold - how economic life has emancipated itself. What people did in the economic sphere was not followed by progress in the economic sphere through technology. One should not ignore the opinion expressed here. This opinion is that technology has advanced, but that there was no corresponding idea to accompany technical progress with appropriate social progress. Those who are able to observe facts know that this modern economic life has emancipated itself, and that when this emancipation is demanded from state life, all that is demanded is that people should admit it and make such arrangements as they have developed by themselves. Thus the necessity of the emancipation of economic life follows from many examples, which are not thought up by me or others, but which live in the facts themselves. It is what the facts demand. But what will be the consequence?

Well, a basic requirement, a fundamental requirement of modern life can only be met by separating economic life from state life. Contrary to the thinking of many a socialist thinker of recent times, development must proceed in this direction. While many socialist thinkers think that economic life must develop as in a large cooperative, that it must also include intellectual and state life, economic life must be separated and only run in the cycle of goods production, goods circulation, and goods consumption. But that is the only thing that can lead to a satisfaction of the necessary demands of life in the present.

You see, economic life borders on natural conditions on the one hand. We can only master natural conditions to a certain extent. Whether an area is fertile, whether the soil contains raw materials for industry, whether there are fertile or infertile years, these are natural conditions; they underlie economic life. This builds itself as on a base from one side on it. In the future, it must build itself on something else, which cannot be regulated by economic life any more than the natural forces in the soil. You cannot make decrees about the forces of nature. On the other hand, economic life must be adjacent to the legal life of the state. Just as economic life borders on natural conditions on the one hand, so it must border on the legal life of the state on the other. This also includes ownership, employment relationships and labor law. Today, the situation is such that, despite the employment contract, the worker is still harnessed into the cycle of economic life with his labor. This labor must be released from the cycle of economic life, despite the fears of Walther Rathenau. And it must be released in such a way that the measure, time and nature of labor are regulated on the legal basis of the state, which is completely independent of economic life, from purely democratic legal relationships. The worker will then, before he enters economic life, have himself co-determined the measure, time and nature of his labor from the democratic state order. How this measure, this nature, this character of the labor force is determined will underlie economic life, just as natural conditions underlie it. Nothing in economic life will be able to extend the basic character of that life to human labor. The basic character of economic life is to produce goods in order to consume goods. That is the only healthy thing about economic life. And it is the very nature of economic life that everything drawn into its cycle must be consumed to the last bit. When human labor is drawn into the economic process, it is consumed. Human labor, however, must not be consumed to its very last ounce, and must not, therefore, be treated as a mere commodity. It must be determined on the basis of the legal life of the State, which is independent of economic life, just as the foundations of economic life are laid in the soil by the forces of nature, which are independent of economic circulation. Before the worker begins to work, the nature, extent and duration of his labor are determined in the realm of the legal life.

I know all the objections that can be made against what has been said. One thing in particular can be objected to. As a necessary consequence of this view, it will be said that what is called national prosperity comes to depend on what labor law is. Yes, that will happen, but it will be a healthy dependence. It will be a kind of dependence that does not ask for production and production and more production, but asks: How can the person who has to intervene in the economic process maintain his physical and mental health despite the economic process? How can he be assured of rest from work, in addition to the consumption of his labor power, so that he can participate in the general spiritual life, which must become a general human spiritual life, not a class spiritual life? For this he needs rest from work. And only when social consciousness arises to such an extent that the rest from work also satisfies the purely human needs of the proletariat, when it is recognized that this rest from work is just as much a part of work, of social life, as is the labor force, only then will we emerge from the turmoil and chaos of the present. It is necessary that those for whom the above is biting into an apple, do it. Otherwise they will realize in a very different way what the modern demands mean, which do not arise from human souls alone or from human minds, but from the historical development of humanity itself. If this demand regarding labor law is met, then the formation of prices will depend in a healthy way on labor law and not the other way around, as it still is today despite some labor protection legislation. Wages, that is, the price of human labor, will depend on the other conditions of the economic cycle. Man will become the determining factor for what can be there in economic life. However, just as with nature, which can only be approached to a limited extent through technical devices, one will have to be reasonable in determining labor law and ownership in a certain direction. But on the whole, economic life must be aligned between the legal life and natural conditions. This economic life itself must be built on purely economic forces, on associations that will partly be formed from the professional guilds, but mainly from the harmony of consumption and production.

Today, due to a lack of time, I cannot go into the causes of the great economic crises, especially not into how they ultimately led to the great catastrophe, the Baghdad Railway and the like. But it is necessary to consider – and it can be shown in concrete terms – how these things must actually be thought.

You see, a healthy economic life can only result when the relations of consumption are regarded as the decisive factor, not the relations of production. Now, perhaps I may mention something that was once attempted, which failed only because, within the whole old economic order, such an isolated attempt is bound to fail. It can only succeed if the economic system is radically emancipated from all other aspects of life. In a society that most of you do not love very much because it has been much maligned, we tried, before the catastrophe of war befell us, to accomplish some of the things that must become the economic system of the future, developed, of course, to an immeasurable extent, in a small area, in the area of bread production. We were a society, we could provide consumers with bread. The consumers were there first, and the aim was to produce according to the needs of consumption. For various reasons, the project failed, especially during the war catastrophe, when such things were not possible. But take another example, which may seem strange to you because, compared to the “idealism” of today, it unjustifiably combines intellectual life with economic life for many people — after all, the idealists of materialism are strange people. In the same society, which, as I said, many of you will not love, I have always tried to put the economic element of intellectual production on a healthy footing. Just think about the unhealthy economic basis on which much of today's intellectual production stands. In this respect, it is truly exemplary of what should not prevail in the broadest areas of our economic life. So-and-so – well, who is not a writer today? – writes a book or books. Such a book is printed in a thousand copies. Nowadays, there are truly quite a lot of books that are printed in such numbers, but of which only about fifty are sold, the rest are destroyed. What actually happens when 950 books are destroyed? So many typesetters and so many bookbinders have worked unproductively, work has been done for which there was no need at all. This happens in the intellectual realm in relation to economic life, in relation to material things. I believed that the healthy thing was this: that, of course, needs must first be created. And within this society, which, rightly or wrongly, many of you do not love, the necessity has arisen to establish a bookshop of this kind, where a book is only published when it is certain that there will be takers for it, where only as many copies are produced as needed, so that human labor of typesetters and bookbinders is not wasted, but rather that what is created is adapted to human needs, which one may find wrong for my sake. And that is what has to happen: production must be adapted to needs. But this can only happen if economic life is built on the basis of associations in the way described.

Since the eighteenth century, the modern social life has been imbued with the threefold motto: liberty, equality, fraternity. Whoever hears these three words resounding in the human heart knows that great things have been said with them. But there have been clever people in the course of the nineteenth century who have proved that these three human impulses contradict each other. They really do contradict each other. Three dear human mottos contradict each other. Why? Because they arose at a time when, as far as these mottos are concerned, people felt true human impulses, but were still hypnotized by the unitary state. It was not yet possible to see that the salvation of the future can only lie in the threefold division into a spiritual organism, an economic organism and a state organism. And so people believed that they could realize freedom, equality and brotherhood in a unitary state. They contradict each other. Structure the healthy social organism into its three natural parts, and you have the solution for what the human soul has been brooding on for more than a century: freedom is the basic impulse of spiritual life, where the freedom of individual human abilities must be built upon. Equality is the basic impulse of state and legal life, where everything must arise from the consciousness of the equality of human rights. Brotherhood is what must prevail on a large scale in the economic sphere of life; this brotherhood will develop out of the associations. These three words suddenly take on a meaning, an unsuspected meaning, if one discards the prejudice of the unitary state and embraces the conviction of the necessity of the threefold social order.

I can only hint at all these things, and I can understand if many people still say today: these things seem incomprehensible to me. I have repeatedly tried to seek the reason for this lack of understanding in the call. And many were among those who said that they found it incomprehensible, for example, I cannot quite understand how they can justify what they have understood when they have been ordered to understand it in the last four and a half years. There are many things that people have understood that I truly have not understood. But with this call, something penetrates to the human soul that is to be understood from its freest, innermost resolution. To do so, however, requires the inner strength of the soul. But this inner strength of the soul will be needed if we want to emerge from the chaos and turmoil of this time. The appeal was first made in the midst of the terrible situation in which we found ourselves, because it was originally intended – now we have entered a different phase – as the basis for a foreign policy of which I could assume that with a certain revival of the ideas of this appeal, despite the fact that they only appear to be domestic political ideas, it would have been possible for them to have resounded in the thunder of the guns in the last few years. Then something would have emerged from Central Europe that could have been believed to have resounded out into the world in such a way that it would have been on a par with Woodrow Wilson's so-called Fourteen Points. These fourteen points, which are truly conceived in a quite different interest from the Central European, should have been opposed by the Central European interest. Then there would have been a possibility of speaking of understanding, whereas all the other talk of understanding was hollow. That is what was first attempted there, where it might have had an effect. But it was preaching to deaf ears. Those people who still had influence at that time, those who were the successors of those who had spoken of the “progress of general relaxation” before murdering ten to twelve million people, were told: You have the choice of either accepting reason now or expecting something disastrous. What I said in 1917 at a decisive moment in this appeal, is not the invention of one man, but the result of devoted observation of the developmental necessities of Central and Eastern Europe. You have the choice of either presenting to humanity what reason wants to be realized first, so that this humanity of Central Europe may have a goal again and be able to speak of it like the people of the West, or you will face the most terrible cataclysms and revolutions. In those days people listened to such things, and they were understood. But the will was lacking, or rather, there was no bridge between the intellectual understanding and the development of the will. Today, the facts speak loudly of the fact that these bridges from understanding to will must be found. That is what this call to humanity is meant to say. This call is to be understood out of free inner resolve. It is to be understood out of the will to think.

What I can contribute to this through the book “The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life in the Present and Future”, which will be published in the next few days, I will do so. But humanity will have to admit that completely new habits of thought are necessary for the new building, that something is necessary that has not been thought of in such a way on the left or on the right. One should not take things lightly. Humanity will have to make an effort to do so. It is making an effort to do so, forced by external circumstances to recognize that the time is past when people were led to believe that they can only be happy, contented and socially viable if throne and altar are in order. From the east of Europe today, a different song is heard: “throne and altar” are to be replaced by “office and factory”. In the womb of that which arises in the office and factory lies something very similar to that which arose under the influence of throne and altar. Only if we are willing to look neither to the left nor to the right, but only at the great historical necessities of development, will we find the way that leads us to what we need, namely, to nothing other than humanity, neither to throne and altar nor to office and factory, but to the liberated human being. For by dividing the social organism into three parts, you allow people to participate in all three parts. They are part of economic life, they are part of the democratic state, they are part of spiritual life or have a certain relationship to it. They will not be fragmented, but will be the connecting link between the three areas. It is not a matter of reinstating the old class distinctions, but precisely of overcoming the old class distinctions, so that the free human being can live fully by organizing the external life of the human being in a healthy way within the social organism itself. That is what the future is about. We can only free the human being, we can only place him in a position where he can stand on his own, if we place him in the world in such a way that he stands in all three areas without his humanity being fragmented.

Of course, it is still quite difficult to understand these things under certain circumstances. Recently I gave a lecture on these matters in a town in Switzerland. A speaker stood up who said that he did not really understand the threefold social order, because justice would then only develop on the basis of the state; it must also permeate intellectual and economic life. I replied with a comparison to make the matter clear. I said: Let us assume that a rural family community consists of a man, a woman, children, maids and farmhands, and three cows. The whole family needs milk to live, but it is not necessary for the whole family to produce milk. If the three cows produce milk, the whole family will have milk. Justice will then prevail in all three areas of the social organism when justice is produced on the soil of the emancipated state. It is a matter of returning from clever thoughts and ideas to simple thoughts and ideas about reality. I am convinced that this call is not understood because people do not take it simply enough. Those who take him simply will see how he and his ideas express the longing that we gradually emerge from the turmoil of the present, from the chaos of the present, from the trials of the present, to a life in which, precisely through the threefold social order, the uniformly healthy human being, the human being who is healthy in soul, body and spirit, can develop.

Closing words after the discussion

Someone asks Dr. Steiner where, in our German life at the moment, in the form in which the present government exists, the best opportunity presents itself to translate the ideas expressed into reality. Is there any hope that more can be expected for the thoughts expressed here tonight, or that more can be expected for the development of these thoughts, if the present socialist majority government remains in power?

Dr. Steiner: Those who try to penetrate more deeply into what this appeal actually means will, I believe, not find it difficult to see the direction in which the significant, weighty questions of the esteemed previous speaker are posed. I would like to say a few words about the historical phenomenon touched on by the esteemed previous speaker. You see, I only did it in two places in my lecture, but I believe that today's public life must have thrown its mirror images into personal experience in a certain way for anyone who really tries to penetrate it, dares to have a say in it, and has the confidence to dare to do so. I only mentioned two personal experiences, but perhaps I may say, in response to this question: I myself actually came from a working-class background, and I still remember as a child looking out the window when the first Austrian Social Democrats walked by in their large democratic hats on their way to the first Austrian assembly in the neighboring free forest. Most of them were miners. From that time on, I was able to experience everything that happened within the socialist movement, in the way I have characterized it in the lecture and as it happens when one is determined by fate, not just to think about the proletariat but with the proletariat, while still maintaining a free view of life and all its individual aspects. Perhaps I bore witness to this in 1892, when I wrote my “Philosophy of Freedom,” which truly advocated the structure of human social life that I now see as necessary for the development of human talent. Well, you see, in the 1880s, you could take part in many discussions and the like within the social movement, in which the socialist ideas that were emerging were reflected. I would like to say that a certain basic tone was present in all of this.

Of course, it would be going too far to talk about it, because the history of modern socialism is a very long one; it would be going too far if I wanted to be more detailed about this chapter, so what I say will already be subject to the fate that one must, to a certain extent, characterize superficially. In all that was truly alive in the proletarian-socialist worldview, there was something that I would like to call social criticism. It was something that could point out the entire process of modern life over the last four hundred years with tremendous acuity, with the acuity of human self-awareness. One experienced the social impossibilities of the present. But even when one spoke about these things in small circles, the most knowledgeable, the most active—I cite as examples the recently deceased Viktor Adler and E. Pernerstorfer —, the most knowledgeable stopped the discussion at a certain moment, when ideas were to be developed about what should happen, when the inner consistency that was pointed out, the inner consistency of the modern economic order, led to its dissolution, which was called “the expropriation of the expropriators”. What should happen then? If one considered the nullity of what was given at the time as an answer to this question, what should happen then, one could indeed have a certain cultural concern, because one could already see into a future at that time, which is now actually here. Into that future in which those who thought as people thought at that time are called upon to create positively. Those who have now emerged from these views, which caused such cultural concern – you really didn't need to be a fanatical bourgeois to experience this cultural concern in discussions with Social Democrats; it could arise from honest human thought and will – the descendants of these people are the present-day majority Socialists, and the cultural concern is now faced with facts. That is on the one hand. On the other hand, all the people who spoke in this way said: “Let us only get to the helm, then the rest will follow.” If one could not believe that “the rest would follow,” one nevertheless more or less became a prophet of what one is confronted with today: the helplessness of the successors of these people in the face of the facts. In those days, one was considered a fanatic if one pointed out what has happened today.

I truly admire Karl Marx for his keen insight, for his comprehensive historical perspective, for his superb, all-encompassing sense of the proletarian impulses of modern times, for his powerful critical insight into the self-destructive process of modern capitalism, and for his many ingenious qualities. But anyone who knows him also knows that Karl Marx was basically a great social critic who always fell short when it came to pointing out what should actually be done. This is the source of what we see today as the inability to achieve positive progress. Today we see not only the consequences of the facts, but also the consequences of opinions. You see, when I recently gave a lecture in Basel, to a different audience than the one I mentioned earlier, one of the speakers said that, above all, it was necessary for salvation if Lenin were to become world ruler. The other social issues are national. Internationally, Lenin must become world ruler. Well, in the face of such a remark, I had to allow myself to say the following: however we understand the concept of socialization, more or less, one out of insight, the other out of preference or under the compulsion of the facts, let us be a little consistent in these matters as well. If one wants to socialize, then I believe that the first thing to socialize is the relations of domination. Those who demand a world ruler may socialize in some areas, but they certainly do not socialize in the area of power relations. The socialization of power is what is really a basic demand in the first place. So, you see, today you can be radical and fundamentally conservative, even terribly reactionary. Those who have emerged through what I have characterized are often like that.

Today, one has to think in paradoxical terms in many things, because what is true contradicts the habits of thought so much that people today prefer to present contradictions rather than simple truths. But we also need consistency of opinion. Let us consider the opinion of a thinker who is so consistent – whether one likes him or not – as Lenin is. He is consistent, even with regard to a certain action. If you look at his views, you have to say that, in his opinion, he is more firmly established than any other, especially more firmly established than the majority socialists, in what Marxism is. And in one of his books, which is very interesting, he makes a highly interesting remark precisely from the point of view of Marxism. It is all the more interesting, at least formally, because it is not made by someone who writes about socialist parties within his own four walls, or by someone who may be a minister or otherwise in public office, but by an almighty man. He discusses those tenets of Marxism which point out how the old bourgeois state must pass into the proletarian state, but how this proletarian state has only the single task of gradually killing itself. Thus the establishment of a state that makes laws that ultimately kill it. In this state there will be a social order in which all people are equal not only in terms of the law, but also in terms of economic and intellectual conditions. Oh, the intellectual workers will not have a penny more than the physical workers. But at the same time, Lenin is absolutely convinced that this is only a transition. Because, and this he also deduces from Marxism, after the proletarian state has been killed, so all that it is striving for today will have perished, then the other will come, the actual great ideal, which will be realized in that there will be a social order in which everyone will have, not the same as the other, but where everyone will have according to his talents and his needs. But – now consider this big but – but, says Lenin, this state of affairs cannot be achieved with the present people; a new breed of people must first come. You see, in a sense that is also correct thinking, only in a peculiar way correct thinking. On the one hand you have the negative, and on the other the negative, which has led to the present-day consequence of facts, where people are faced with tasks that they cannot overcome from old theories, from old dogmas. They have the consequence of opinion. Something is to be done, but for people who are not yet there.

Now, dear attendees, in the face of all this, our appeal is for people who are here. And it is precisely this that distinguishes our appeal from everything else: it is radically different from basically everything else that is emerging in this field. What else is emerging? Programs! Well, programs are as cheap as blackberries today. It is very easy to found a society, a party, and make a program. But that is not the point. This call is not based on theory or dogma, but on reality, on practical experience. It is therefore not directed at programs, but at people.

It has been said time and again that if a person is placed alone on an island from birth, he never learns to speak, he only learns to speak in the company of people. Thus, social impulses can only develop in the context of living together with other people. They develop in the individual in a very particular way. Here is some proof of this. Among the Bolsheviks today, you know Lenin, Troitsky, and so on. I will mention another Bolshevik whom you may not have considered, and whom you will be very surprised to hear me call a Bolshevik. This Bolshevik is Johann Gottlieb Fichte! No one can have more respect for Johann Gottlieb Fichte than I do, but read his “Closed Trade State,” read the social order he designs in it. Truly, it is being realized in Russia. What is actually at its basis? Fichte was a great philosopher, one might say, a great thinker. All the spiritual paths he has trodden can rightly be trodden by anyone who brings to development what is latent in the human soul, what flows out of human talent. But more recent times have placed the individual at the very pinnacle of the personality. On the one hand, we have to develop this personality today, but just as language does not come from the individual human being when he develops alone, so a social order does not come from the individual. Social ideas, social impulses, social institutions can only develop in the society itself. Therefore, one should not set up social programs, but merely find out: How must people be organized socially, how must they live together so that they find the right social impulses in this living together? That is what is sought in this call. That is the important thing: how people must be structured in the social organism so that they can find the social impulses in the context that then arises from the right structure. This call does not believe in the idea, so common among social thinkers, that one is wiser than all other people. The author of this appeal does not imagine this; but he does believe that with this appeal he has been led to a burning point of reality. To the people to whom I have often spoken in smaller groups, I have repeatedly said: I could imagine that, based on the appeal, no stone remains upon another, that everything will be different than initially conceived, but that is not the point. What matters is to grasp reality as it is meant here, then people who grasp reality in this way will discover something that will also be in accordance with reality. What matters to me is not a program, not details, but that people work together in such a way that the social impulses are found through the collaboration. That is what must underlie realistic thinking today: to bring people into the right relationship. If a person wants to spin out of himself, as Lenin, as Trotsky, as Fichte did, some kind of socialist program, then nothing will come of it, because the socialist will can only develop in the social context.

Therefore, one has to seek out the right structure, the right design of the healthy social organism. What lives today as socialist theory reminds one of the old superstition that Goethe dealt with in “Faust”, how in the Middle Ages people wanted to compose certain substances of the world out of pure intellectual ideas in order to create a homunculus. Today, one looks back on this as a medieval superstition, and rightly so. But in the evolution of humanity it seems to be the case that superstition flees from one area into another. We no longer seek homunculi in the retort, but we do try to assemble an ideal picture of the social order out of all kinds of mental ingredients. That is social homunculi making, social alchemy. The world suffers today from this superstition. This superstition must disappear. It must become clear that reality must be grasped, that it must be pointed out how people must stand in the social organism. That is why I said: ultimately, it does not matter to me what the names of those who will participate in the new construction are here or there. It does not matter which former classes and social circles will be the ones to participate in this new construction. It does not matter whether they call what is necessary one thing or another, whether it is a dictatorship of individuals in the transition period or whether it is already widespread democracy. All these are ultimately secondary questions. What matters is that the right thing is thought, the right thing is felt, the right thing is wanted. I must again emphasize that, however beautiful our thoughts about social institutions may be, we must devote ourselves to the reconstruction of social institutions wherever we can. But anyone who believes he has a deeper insight into the situation must also assume that the following will be revealed to him from these conditions.

If you continue to make good institutions today, but leave people's habits of thought as they are, then in ten years you will have achieved nothing with these institutions. Today we need not just a change of institutions. As paradoxical as it sounds, what we need today are different minds on our shoulders! Minds in which new ideas are present! Because the old ideas have brought us into chaos. This must be understood. Therefore, today it is a matter of spreading enlightenment about the living conditions of a healthy social organism in the broadest circles. It is important today to start with a free intellectual life, to start expanding the opportunities everywhere to bring people to an understanding of the healthy conditions of the social organism. Above all, we need people who do not practice social alchemy or social homunculism, but people who create from social reality. Therefore, I do not believe that another revolution, and yet another, will follow the past revolution without a thorough re-education with regard to the ideas that a revolution brings something beneficial. Only when it becomes an ideal to engage in the healthy organization of intellectual life, the dissemination of healthy ideas, the arousal of healthy feelings, then there will be people — no matter how they assert themselves, be it in the soviet government or in something else — who will be able to bring about the recovery of the social organism. I consider that the most important thing. The most important thing is the revolutionizing of the human world of thought, feeling and will. Only on this basis can the result be achieved that the previous speaker longs for. I do not believe that salvation can come from anything else without these foundations. Because I take the matter so seriously, I have devoted myself to the area that was expressed in the appeal. Only when more and more people can be found who have the honest will and courage to radically understand and then implement this threefold order — it can be implemented from every point in practical life today —, when enough people with new thoughts replace people with old, unfruitful thoughts, then in some way that which must happen for the good of people and for their liberation will happen.

A communist speaker doubts that socialization in the form of the lecture can be carried out with today's people.

Dr. Steiner: Basically there is not much to be said in connection with what the previous speaker said, because he spoke out in favour of threefolding and is really suffering from a certain pessimism, namely the pessimism that people today are immature for this threefold social order and must first go through a communism in the sense of Lenin and Trotsky. It has been said as if these had been discussed here in a way that they did not come into their own. I only said, “think about it as you will,” that is the only thing I said about the content. I only characterized the form. It seems to me that the honorable gentleman who spoke before me does not actually believe that humanity could really be brought spiritually to put other heads on its shoulders. Well, you see, we have all experienced that five months ago people still wanted the world war and so on. But, dear attendees, I believe that there is one tremendous teacher of all that can be said today by people, and that is the world of facts itself. That is the terrible world catastrophe itself. I do not believe, however, that since the world catastrophe entered a new phase, there has been enough time for all people to learn anew. But for very specific reasons, I cannot join the previous speaker in his pessimism, in the form in which he has it. Not for the following reasons, in particular. You see, if it were simply the case that there was no other way to achieve threefolding than through the detour of communism – believe me, I am not suffering from any kind of pettiness or faint-heartedness about what is necessary – then one could also agree with that. If it were only possible to achieve the threefold social order through communism, as the previous speaker suggested, then I would immediately think that this is the way to go. But I have not said this without careful consideration, but rather based on decades of life experience: from the throne and altar on the one hand, to the office and factory on the other. You see, I am perhaps two and a half times older than the previous speaker. Now, even at this age, I just want to touch on this with a few words, one certainly has the opinion that a great deal of what needs to be done can only be done by young people. I have the opinion that you can stand at the end of the sixth decade of life and have a soul that is just as young as the previous speaker. That may be selfish. But I have given a great deal of thought to what I said about throne and altar on the one hand, and office and factory on the other.

You see, the situation is simply this: when you create any kind of social structure, you are not creating something eternal for all time or even for a long time, but something that is developing and growing. And for those who have gained the necessary life experience, the situation is such that they know full well that when a child is growing, they will take on a different form when they are adults. So, if you look at the living conditions of the social organism, you also have a definite idea of how it will develop and grow. On the one hand, I see something that has grown old, emerging from older communities: the private-sector administration of more recent times, the capitalism of today with its terrible harmfulness. We have experienced this as decomposition under the throne and altar. Now we are starting again with communism, only in a slightly different form – not under the motto 'throne and altar', but under the motto 'office and factory'.

All right, let us start again. After some time, we will not be at the threefold social order, but at another form, at a terribly bureaucratized form under the motto “office and factory”, under what is being prepared today in communism. There will not be what the propertyless experience today through the propertied. There will be, whether you believe it or not, a hunt for positions in order to achieve through the hunt for certain positions what is hunted today through capitalist profit. Instead of the harm of today, there will be a tremendous amount of spying and informing. Those who, on the basis of superficial thoughts, want to restore a bygone social order today so that they can start again and then believe that by starting over with what has already been tried and tested to the point of decrepitude, we can arrive at different conditions, are not considering all of this. Of course, in view of what we have experienced, how so many people have believed in what they were told, while they only barely approached something like the call, one can become pessimistic. I fully understand pessimism as a sign of the times. And in a certain respect, after months of talking about these things, I have also felt something that seems like a tragedy of the times: that it is so difficult to engage in discussion with bourgeois personalities. I regard that as a very significant phenomenon. It is something that very, very much encourages pessimism. You experience many things. For example, recently in a southern city, I experienced that in a newspaper review of a private page it was said, well, he made quite good comments in the first part of his lecture on intellectual life, but one would have wished that a speaker would have appeared who would have considered private-sector capitalism as his business and would have defended it, because it could be defended. It is sad that not a single such speaker appeared. It makes you want to believe that the capitalist order has reached its end. — A tangle of contradictions. First, you have to admit that the private-capitalist administration, the private-capitalist economic order, must be defended, so it must represent something durable after all. But the second thing is that the writer himself doubts it because no speaker could be found to defend it. The third thing is, if the sender was there himself, why didn't he actually speak himself?

It is as if people were extinguishing themselves and thereby proving how far they have descended into nothingness. I can understand all that, but still, for those who do not think pessimistically, there is only one thing to do: we must find as many people as possible who understand this threefold social order, then we can actually realize it in a very short time. Nowhere have I said that it cannot be realized for another ten years. No, this threefold social order can be realized today from every point of view. And that is why it is important to get it into people's heads, which is why we all want to take it seriously enough and work for it. But if you want to work for the good of humanity, you don't have to be pessimistic, you have to believe in your work. You have to have the courage to really think about being able to realize what you think is right. I consider it a form of self-destruction when someone says: I have ideas that can be realized, but I don't believe in them. I don't consider this question to be a question of reality, but only: What are we doing to ensure that a realistic idea can be realized as quickly as possible? Let us not think about what minds are like today, but about what they must become.

Let us take courage, and we will not have to wait for a new breed of human beings; we will find people who, although they have been depressed by the violence of recent years, will find a way to carry the new heads on their shoulders that is different from what some people think. So let us not be pessimistic, but let us work and see if our ideas will take hold or if we have cause for pessimism. If there were such a cause, then I do believe that the ten years of transition would not lead to threefolding but to something else. We have ruined much and would ruin much more, and before ten years have passed, we would reach the point where we would no longer be able to ruin anything because everything has been ruined. Therefore, it is better to work than to fall into discouragement.

A lecture for the employees of Waldorf-Astoria.

We are living in a highly significant time, which is already being announced by loud speaking facts over a large part of Europe, by facts that will become more and more widespread, and in this significant time it is necessary, especially in these circles, to think seriously, very seriously, about the tasks that one can have as a human being, as a working human being; about the rights that one must have; about what life should give in general. To think seriously and, above all, to think in a very specific way about this, it will be necessary to say a few introductory words.

You see, most of you will have formed views over the years about what needs to be done to solve the so-called social question, the social movement. Some of what has been formed as such a view will also have to be reconsidered within the working class. Now that we are facing completely different issues than perhaps quite recently, we will have to think differently in the very near future and already today. How one must endeavor to think is precisely what we want to talk about today. But first we must agree that today, above all, it is important that we have trust in each other and that we can really achieve something through that trust. This trust could be present less and less in the time that has now passed and which, however many impossibilities it contained, showed that it led to that terrible catastrophe, through which, in Europe, counting few, ten to twelve million people were killed and three times as many were crippled. This was the final consequence of the socially perverse ideas and desires of the classes that had previously led humanity. Today, the entirely justified demands of the times come from a completely different class of humanity: the proletariat. But this also means that the proletariat is faced with completely different tasks today than it was just a short time ago.

I will say only one thing to point out these tasks, that even leading Social Democrats said shortly before the October catastrophe, the November catastrophe occurred in Germany: Yes, when this war is over, the German government will have to take a completely different position towards the proletariat than it has taken before. It will have to take the proletariat into account in all acts of government, in all legislation. It will no longer be able to treat the proletariat as it has treated it in the past. - You see, that was said by leading Social Democrats relatively recently. But what does that mean? It means that these leading Social Democrats, shortly before the November Revolution, still expected that after the war the old German government would be on top. Now we are faced with the fact that, as elsewhere in Europe, in Central Europe, these governments have been swept away. This automatically negates the possibility that they can take social demands into account. Today, one must speak about these things quite differently, purely on the basis of the facts, than even insightful, well-reflecting Social Democrats have spoken about them recently. For today the proletarian himself is faced with the necessity of creating something sensible out of the chaos and confusion of the present. Therefore, today it is necessary to look at something quite different than one looked at a short time ago.

You see, when someone spoke recently, as I am doing now before you, people paid attention to what they said in terms of content. They checked whether the things that were said were in line with old social ideas or the ideals of the proletariat, and they rejected the person in question if he did not say exactly the same thing, or at least the main points in many respects. Today things have to be different, otherwise we will not get out, but deeper and deeper into chaos and confusion. Today, I would say, we must apply something completely different to awaken mutual trust. We must carefully examine intentions, we must examine whether what is said is based on honest and sincere intentions. Today, in fact, everyone must be able to have their say who, regardless of how they envision what has to happen, honestly and sincerely means well with the demands of the proletarian world. How we satisfy these demands is only the second question today. The first question is that anyone who wants to talk about reorganization or reconstruction today must be sincere about the demands of the world proletariat; they must be sincere in the sense that they are convinced that the demands as such, that the proletarian wants, are justified. For only when these demands are recognized as justified can there be any basis for discussion, and then one can talk about how these demands can be fulfilled and satisfied.

Now you see, in some respects you will indeed find that the call, which has also become known to you, differs from older socialist demands. Nevertheless, I believe that if people are made aware of what this call and the book 'The Crux of the Social Question', which is to be published in the next few days, are striving for, then what the newer proletarian movement has actually wanted for more than half a century will be achieved in a more intense and correct way. The desire was, to a certain extent, a demand of the times itself. It could not go on as the leading classes had arranged it. But from the criticism of the behavior of the leading classes, ideas must emerge today about how to do it – what actually needs to be done. Now, basically, the proletariat itself has done the best preparatory work for such a shaping as this call demands. Therefore, I believe that if some misunderstandings are removed, the proletariat in particular will develop the most meaningful understanding of this call, which is honest about the conditions of humanity today.

Those of us who, like me, have not thought about the proletariat but always with the proletariat, have experienced how the proletariat has been completely drawn into the cycle of economic life by the conditions of modern times. It is no wonder that today the proletariat, in contrast to those who have reaped the fruits of this economic process in the so-called “higher culture,” calls out to these leading classes: We want to create a completely new social order out of the economic process. The leading classes have, for centuries, and particularly in the nineteenth century, harnessed the worker to economic life, have kept him so busy in economic life, have taken up so much of his time with economic life that the worker could basically see nothing but this economic life. He saw how his entire working capacity was absorbed by this economic life, how he created surplus values by the absorption of his working capacity, through which the so-called “higher class” satisfied its so-called “higher culture”. He saw that he lived badly from the economy – the others lived well – and in the end he said to himself: Well, everything is economic life, so an order must come out of it that somehow brings salvation for the future. Of course, this view had to emerge. But the point is not that we judge the social order from what we have just grown into, but that we ask ourselves: What is necessary for the social organism to become properly viable? And you see, the task that was set first was to think about this viable social organism, which makes it possible for every human being to answer the question: What am I actually as a human being? was the task that had to be accomplished before the call to humanity was issued during this difficult time of trial for humanity, a call that arose from life experiences that are almost as old as the newer social movement. It did not arise out of some fleeting thought, as many of the thoughts do that now also design some social programs, but it arose out of the experience of the social movement for as long as I was able to experience it, for example. There one could see that one of the main reasons why we are still so far behind in solving the most urgent social questions today is that the leading classes have not been able to come up with something from their own thoughts that could get the social organism back on its feet in a healthy way. Of course, this cannot be found in any bourgeois thought, but only if one thinks neither bourgeois nor proletarian, but only human.

You may ask, dear attendees, why do those who represent this appeal not join a socialist party? I would like to answer with a very simple reference: you can be sure that the person who first drafted this appeal has never belonged to a bourgeois party and has never belonged to a bourgeois association, because today all party programs have to be redesigned. This appeal begins with a discussion of intellectual life. For this intellectual life, a complete reorganization is required, even a radical reorganization. I do not believe that anyone today can make a sound and original judgment about the reorganization unless he has been obliged to conduct intellectual life in the way that it must be conducted in the future simply to be healthy for decades. Of course, when one speaks of such things, one must speak somewhat radically and many may then say: the things are not meant so badly. — I myself have never lived in any dependence on the state or other corporations for the pursuit of an intellectual life. All my life I have tried to cultivate intellectual life on its own merits. This is precisely what the appeal as something universally human is intended to achieve. For anyone who has had to cultivate intellectual life in this way, who has never wanted to be dependent in his intellectual pursuits on any state or on anything else in the civil institutions that have passed away, experiences many things precisely with regard to intellectual life that help him to understand proletarian life in the present day. We know how difficult it was to break free from the fetters of intellectual life, which have brought so much harm – more than you yourselves with your socialist views can believe – especially in terms of spreading need and misery for the physical and mental life of the proletariat.

For in the material realm, in the external economic realm, people today fall into two classes: the class of the bourgeois, which has merged with the nobility, and the class of the proletarians. Today, the proletarian, because he has become class-conscious, knows what he has to demand. He is a proletarian. He did not have a choice. He was thrown into the proletariat by the economic process. Under the old economic and state order, the intellectual worker did not even have the choice of either becoming an intellectual entrepreneur or a proletarian. You could hardly become a proletarian if you did not make your peace with the ruling powers. In the spiritual field, one could only struggle through the difficulties that arose in the old order, or, if one made peace with the powers, if one worked together, as the proletarian must work in the material field, then one did not become a proletarian in the spiritual field, but a coolie. Either one had to take upon oneself everything that pulled one out of the old order as a spiritual worker, or one had to become a Kuli if one was worse off than the proletarian when one entered into what the social structure had developed in the old order. Because that is the case – I do not want to make any personal remarks, but to remain on factual ground – because the intellectual coolie has become so much the henchman of the economic and state powers, we have come from one side into such misery. The worker cannot, of his own accord, see this with such strength, because he has been drawn into the purely economic order since the advent of modern technology and soul-destroying capitalism. Those who have not been harnessed in this way, but in a spiritual way, know that what must happen for the good of human development is the emancipation of spiritual life. They know that it is impossible for those who have to cultivate the abilities, the talents of humanity, that which the human being brings with him into the world through his birth, to continue to be the servants of what has developed in modern times as a state or economic order. To liberate the spiritual life, that is the first task.

This liberation of intellectual life is still opposed by many prejudices, even on the part of the proletariat. The fact is that this intellectual life has emerged in modern times at the same time as the development of modern technology, with the development of soul-destroying capitalism. A newer intellectual life has also emerged, but one that is only a class intellectual life. In this respect, it was and is still very difficult to be understood. I would like to give you an example. Twenty years ago, in a lecture to the Berlin working class in the Berlin Trade Union House, I made the following assertion, which for me is an insight: Not only what else exists in the world is a result of the capitalist economic system, but above all, our scientific endeavor is a result of the capitalist economic system. At the time, most leading proletarians did not believe me either. They said: Science is something that is established by itself. What is scientifically established is just established; it does not matter whether it is proletarian or bourgeois thought. These were fallacies that haunted people's minds, regardless of whether they were proletarian or bourgeois; for the bourgeois world view was adopted by the proletariat. And today we are faced with the necessity not of continuing to cultivate this knowledge adopted from the bourgeoisie, but of deciding on a free knowledge that can only develop if prejudices are overcome.

For example, one might say: We have now happily come to the decision to strive for a unified school system; but if intellectual life is to be freed and children are to be led to school not by state compulsion but by each person's free will to send their children to the school of their choice, then the higher-standing people will found their own schools again. The old class school system will reappear. This objection was still justified in the old order, but in a very short time it will no longer be justified. The old classes will no longer exist. And what is demanded in this appeal for intellectual life, the emancipation of intellectual life from the lowest school up to the university, is not demanded as an individual institution, but in connection with a complete reorganization, which should make it possible that by the time a person grows out of school, something other than the unified school will exist. The objections that are made against these things are only conservative prejudices. We must learn to see that intellectual life must be emancipated, that it must be left to its own devices, so that it is no longer a servant of the state and economic order, but a servant of what general human consciousness can produce in intellectual life; so that intellectual life is not there for one class, but for all people equally.

Dear attendees, you have been working in the factory since morning, as far as your work goes. You go out of the factory and at most pass the educational institutions that are set up for certain people. In these educational institutions, those who were previously the ruling class, who led the government and so on, are being manufactured. I ask you: hand on heart, do you have any idea what is going on in there? Do you know what goes on in there? No, you don't know! This is a vivid illustration of the class divide. There is an abyss. What is sought in the appeal is that everything that is done on intellectual ground concerns everyone, and that the intellectual worker is responsible to all of humanity. You cannot achieve this if you do not liberate the intellectual life and make it stand on its own. That is why Karl Marx's words about surplus value have struck such a chord in the minds of the proletarians. The proletarians did not know this in their heads, but in their hearts they felt it to be true, and today these heartfelt demands are expressed in world-historical demands.

Why have these demands had such an impact? Why? Why is Walther Rathenau already worried about surplus value? The reason is that, so far, the worker knows nothing about surplus value except that it exists. It is used within circles that are strictly closed off from the others. Does the worker of today know that he is working for things that simply need not be in the world, that are fruitless labor, brought forth because bourgeois life has brought countless luxuries in the intellectual sphere as well? Most people today, out of thoughtlessness, do not yet understand how to get a correct idea of the relationship between the economic value of labor and intellectual life, which must surely be the guiding light for humanity. I will give you an example that may seem a little strange to you. Imagine a student who is about to graduate from university. You know, he is given an assignment to write a doctoral thesis on the parenthesis in Homer. That is, there are no parentheses in Homer, but he is supposed to invent one. He needs a year and a half for this. Then he does an excellent job on the parenthesis in Homer, according to the demands of today's education and science. But now we ask about the economic context of this doctoral thesis. This doctoral thesis, when it is finished and printed, will be placed in a library. Another doctoral thesis; no one looks at it, sometimes not even the writer himself. But from a practical point of view, the young student must eat, must clothe himself, must have money. But to have money today means to have the work of so and so many people. The proletarian must work for this doctoral thesis. He does work for something in which he is not allowed to participate. A grotesque, comical example of countless things, it cannot only be multiplied by a hundred, it can be multiplied by a thousand. So the first question to ask is: what do those who are supposed to lead us spiritually look like? They come from the educational institutions in which we ourselves are not allowed to participate. This will be different when the spiritual life is emancipated, when those who cultivate the spiritual no longer have the support of an economic corporation or a capitalist order, not the support of the state, but when they must know every day that what they achieve has value for people because people have confidence in it. Spiritual life must be based on the trust between humanity and spiritual leaders. No one can reply: Today, people are not always recognized when they are talented; there are unrecognized talents, even unrecognized geniuses. How will it be in the future when recognition must be based on trust? — for what a person occupies himself with privately is his own business; we are talking about how spiritual life is integrated into the social organism. It must integrate itself in the way I have described. It must integrate itself freely. Only by the fact that spiritual life has gradually been driven into dependence on state and economic life in the last few centuries has it become what it is. Only through this has it been possible that those people who spoke as I mentioned yesterday, those people to whom the leadership of men was entrusted, should have grown out of this spiritual life.

Let us take a look at the people who were at the helm at the outbreak of the world war. The Foreign Minister said to the enlightened gentlemen of the German Reichstag, who should understand something of the world situation: The general political relaxation has recently made gratifying progress. We have the best relationship with Russia; the St. Petersburg cabinet does not listen to the press pack. Our friendly relations with Russia are on the right track. Promising negotiations have been initiated with England, which will probably be concluded in the near future in favor of world peace, as the two governments are in a position that will allow relations to become ever closer and more intimate.

Well, so spoken in May 1914! Intellectual life, which has been led in this way for the past few centuries, had to lead to this level of maturity and insight into the circumstances. There are excellent scientists, because they are well drilled scientifically. But the point is that through intellectual training, heart and mind are also awakened to life; that one learns to recognize life, that one does not say in May “world peace is secured” and then in August allow the event of what killed ten to twelve million people and maimed three times as many. This must come about in spiritual education, and it can only come about when spiritual life is free and people not only become knowledgeable and can give definitions about all sorts of things, but when they become intelligent. When they become intelligent, then, precisely out of this free spiritual life, they will become those who can help in the management of businesses and in the management of the national economy. Then the worker who is under such a leadership will no longer say, “I must fight this leader,” but, “It is good that we have this leader; he has something on his mind, and my work will bear the best fruit.” If there is a stupid leader, I will have to work long hours; if there is a clever leader, the working hours can be shortened without making economic prosperity impossible. What matters is not that we work short hours, but that when we work short hours, we do not have nothing when it comes to expensive food and expensive housing. We must start from the whole, to arrive at a new structure, not from individual points. That is why I emphasize so strongly that, above all, intervention must be made in the spiritual life, that it must be placed on a healthy independent basis.

Now, people have been asking for so long what the state should do. Yes, you see, over the last three to four centuries, this state has become a kind of god for the ruling, leading classes – and many others have said so. When you hear what has been said about the state, especially during this terrible war, you are reminded of the conversation that Faust has with the sixteen-year-old Gretchen. Faust says of God: “The All-embracing, the All-sustaining, does he not embrace and sustain you, me, himself?” Yes, many an entrepreneur today or recently could have taught his employee about the state in such a way that he could have said: Does he not sustain me, you, himself? — He would then have added: but especially me!

Yes, you see, that is what we have to learn with regard to this, I would say, deification of the state. For the bourgeois population, for the most part, this deification has very quickly evaporated under the pressure of the facts. And when the state is no longer the great protector of enterprises, then enthusiasm for the state will no longer exist in this circle. But it must also become clear to the proletarian that the state must not be treated as a god. Of course, one does not speak of it as a “god”, but one thinks very highly of it. The old framework of the state is used to guide economic life. But it is healthy not to transfer economic life to the state, but only to transfer political life, the pure legal life, to the state. There it is on its own ground. There it exists by right. But economic life must be placed on its own foundation, for it must be administered in a quite different way from the legal life of the state. We can only arrive at a healthy basis for the social organism if we undertake the threefold division. On the one hand, spiritual life, which must itself procure its right, which has no right to exist if everyone who achieves something spiritual does not have to prove it before humanity every day. In the middle, the life of the state, which must be democratic, as democratic as possible. Nothing but what concerns all people equally may be decided there. What presents every human being before every human being as equal must be addressed there. Therefore, the state must be separated. How are we to negotiate whether one person is better at this or that than another? This must be separated from the state.

In the state, the only thing that can be discussed is what all people are equal in. What are all people equal in? Today, just two examples: one for property, the other for labor. Let us start with labor. Karl Marx's words about “labor as a commodity” have had a profound impact on the minds of proletarians. Why? Because the proletarian, even if he could not define it exactly in his head, still felt what was meant by it. What was meant was: your labor power is a commodity. Just as goods are sold according to supply and demand on the market, so you are bought on the labor market and given as much for your labor as the economic situation demands. Recently, people have begun to believe that insurance can improve all sorts of things. But that was truly not brought about by bourgeois circles. They had lived in terrible thoughtlessness, especially in more recent times. Well, to be fair, they did achieve one thing: statistics. Such an enquiry, such a census was carried out by the English government in the 1840s, at the dawn of the social movement. What did this census reveal? First of all, it mainly relates to English mines. It was found that children as young as nine, 11, 13 years old, boys and girls, were working down there in the mines. It was found that these children had never seen sunlight except on Sundays because their working hours were so long that they were led down the shafts before sunrise and did not return until after sunset. Furthermore, it was found that half-naked, often pregnant women worked together with naked men down there in the mines. But up above, in the well-heated rooms, people talked about charity, brotherhood and how people want to love one another. You see, that was included in the statistics back then, but it certainly did not become a lesson. It did not lead to reflection. The individual need not be accused, but what the bourgeois class has actually done, if one can say so, is to fail to intervene in the right way at the right moment!

The proletarian mind has conceived the idea: In ancient times there were slaves, and people sold each other whole. They became the property of their owners, like a cow in its possession. Later came serfdom. Then people sold a little less, but still enough, of themselves. In more recent times, people sell their labor. But if the worker has to sell his labor, he must go with his labor to the place where he sells it. He must go to the factory. So he sells himself there with his labor. He cannot send his labor to the factory. There is not much substance behind the labor contract. Salvation can only be expected when the control over the labor force is completely removed from the economic sphere, when the decision on the extent, on the whole way in which work should actually be done, is made by the state on a democratic basis. Before the worker even enters the factory or the workshop, a decision about his work has already been made on a democratic basis by the state, with his vote. What is achieved by this? You see, economic life is, on the one hand, dependent on the forces of nature. We can only control these to a certain degree. They intervene in human affairs. For example, the amount of wheat that thrives in any given country and the amount of raw materials that lie under the earth are given from the outset, and one must adapt to them. You cannot say that you have to have the prices of one or the other if that would contradict the quantity of raw materials. That is one limit. Another limit must be the use of human labor. Just as the forces of nature lie beneath the soil for the grain and man has no control over this in economic life, so labor must be supplied to economic life from outside. If it is supplied from within, wages will always depend on the economic situation. Only when it is determined outside of economic life, quite independently, on a purely democratic, state basis, what kind of work it is and how long the work may last, then the worker goes to work with his labor law. Then the labor law becomes a natural force. Then the economic is sandwiched between nature and the constitutional state. Then the worker no longer finds in the state what he has found in the last three to four centuries. He no longer finds class struggle, class privilege, but human rights. Only by isolating the state as a special social entity from the other two areas can we achieve beneficial social progress, can we achieve a form of salvation that can be found for all people on earth. We must get away from this prejudice that the state should be regulated by economic life and not economic life by the state, which is independent of it. Otherwise, we will always think wrongly into the future.

The same applies to property law as to labor law. You see, ultimately the foundations of all present-day property can be traced back to old conquests, to old military enterprises; but that has changed. In terms of political economy, the concept of ownership makes no sense at all. It is a pure illusion. It only exists to appease certain bourgeois minds. In terms of political economy, what does the concept of ownership mean? It means only one right, namely, the right of disposal over property, land, and the means of production. The right of disposal must be placed in the competence of the state, just as must the right of labor. You can only do this if you remove all economic and intellectual powers from the state. You can only do this if you run economic life, on the one hand, and intellectual life, on the other, completely independently, leaving only democracy to the state.

It will be difficult at first to grasp these ideas, but I am convinced that the proletarian will feel how these ideas contain the future. Within economic life, nothing may move as a commodity. Today, property also moves in it, that is, actually, rights. Nowadays, you can simply buy rights. With the right to work, you also have the right to dispose of the person. By owning the means of production, the land, you buy the right to dispose of it. You buy rights. Rights must no longer be bought in the future; they must be administered by the state, which has nothing to do with buying and selling, so that every person participates equally in the administration. Nothing other than what can be represented in the production, circulation, and consumption of commodities will circulate in the cycle of economic life. This always goes through consumption, and therefore the whole economic system in the future must be built on an associative basis, built on coalitions that arise from professional groups, but mainly from the emergence of the necessary consumer needs. Today, it is precisely because we start from the production of wealth that we are led to constant crises, caused by the social misery of the masses. If we start from consumption, then economic life is placed on a healthy foundation. Yesterday I gave an example of how, even if it is still inadequate, one can attempt to proceed in such a way in spiritual production that one does not count on unfruitful labor. I would like to tell you about that now. You see, our society is perhaps still an abomination for many. But in the field of spiritual production, this society has made an attempt at something that must extend to all other branches. About twenty years ago, I began writing books. But I did not approach it like many of my contemporaries. You know, many books are written, few are read. How could anyone have time to read everything that is written today? But this is economic nonsense, especially in this field. Imagine a book is written – that is the case in thousands upon thousands of cases. The writer of the book must eat. So and so many typesetters must set the type. The paper must be manufactured, so and so many binders must bind the book. Then the book is published in, let us say, a thousand copies. Perhaps fifty copies will be sold, the other nine hundred and fifty copies have to be thrown away. What actually happened here? We must always look at the reality. So many people who had to work by hand worked for nothing for the person who wrote the book. You see, much of today's misery is based on unproductive, useless work that is thrown to the wind. So what did we do in our society? We can't do anything with the usual book trade, which is completely within today's economic order. So we founded a bookshop ourselves. But a book was never printed before there were so many people that all the copies could be sold, that is, before the needs were there. Of course, this can only be achieved through work. People had to be made aware – but not, of course, by a sign like “Maggi's Good Soup Cubes”, for example. Advertising can be used to make people aware that the goods are available. But it must start from needs, from consumption. However, that can only happen if consumer cooperatives are established, if the cooperative system is essentially placed on an economic footing. It is not necessary to put this on political ground if you have democracy. Today, however, the proletarian does not see it, he does not yet have a good overview of it. And since I want to speak honestly, I may well touch on the last question to show how the proletarian experiences it in his own destiny, what terrible things are produced by the fusion of economic life with state life. What do countless proletarians consider to be the only salvation in economic difficulties, since the state still does not stand on truly healthy ground, that of democracy, which is independent of the needs of economic life? One can say, for example, that there must be labor rest so that the proletariat can participate in the generally free spiritual life of humanity. The state must stand in the middle between economic life and intellectual life; it must be placed on its own democratic ground. Today, things have become intertwined through bourgeois interests of the last centuries and very strongly intertwined within the first two decades of the 20th century. What do numerous proletarians often have as their ultimate goal - we see it today, where the facts speak so loudly - what do they have when they fight for justified demands? I need only utter one word to touch on something that many proletarians think about, but at the same time on something they cannot yet feel properly about today because they do not see the full economic consequences – I need only utter the word “strike”. I know, esteemed attendees, that if the proletarian were given the opportunity to help himself without striking, he would reject any strike. At least I cannot imagine any sensible proletarian who would want a strike for the sake of a strike. Why are they often so inclined to strike today? Because our economic life is intertwined with state life. A strike is a purely economic matter and only has an economic effect. But often a state effect, a political effect, is also to be achieved. This can only be the case in an unhealthy social organism in which the separation between state and economic life has not yet occurred. Anyone who looks into economic life knows that it can only be healthy if production is never interrupted. With every strike, you stop production. Those who believe they have to strike are acting out of necessity, which has arisen from the intermingling of state and economic life. It is a great misfortune that we are forced to destroy life today by this unfortunate amalgamation of what should be three separate spheres. There is no other way to definitively avoid strikes in the right way than to place state democracy on its own ground and make it impossible to fight for rights on economic ground. If they realized that, I know people would say: Well, if people finally come to their senses, if they would only tell us what they are going to do to fulfill the social demands, then we wouldn't strike, because we also know that not everything can be achieved overnight; we want to wait, but we want guarantees. During the war, in order to escape from the terrible misery, I spoke to many so-called “authorities” about the appeal and submitted it to them. The most important leading personalities have long since received the appeal. I said to them: What is set out here did not come from human minds by chance. I am no smarter than others, but I have observed life and that has shown me that in the next twenty years all work must be used to realize this tripartite division, not as a program - as a human demand. You have the choice either to accept reason now and to counterpose this as a Central European program to Wilson's fourteen points – if we don't help ourselves, Wilson can't help us either – or to put forward a call for international politics and say what should happen when peace comes; you have the choice either to accept reason or you face revolutions and catastrophes. The people did not accept reason. Has the latter been fulfilled or not? That is what we must ask today. That is what fills one with such concern today: that basically the old thoughtlessness is still present today, that it is not replaced by fruitful, realistic, practical ideas. Threefolding is a true way of life. That is why I am convinced that it will come about – and we will experience it – if only there is some possibility that the proletariat will realize that it can be enforced that we will advance socially in this way. Then the unproductive social aspirations will cease. People will work rationally, out of a proletarian mentality, rationally, after others have not worked rationally. That is what matters. I could have kept quiet, avoided talking about the strike, but I wanted to show you that I express everything I am convinced of at all times. That is what perhaps gives me the right to make the claim and to say: perhaps accept some of what I have said as if it were contrary to your views; but do not doubt the honest endeavor to achieve what the proletariat really wants and must achieve.

For more than a century, the motto of humanity has been: liberty, equality, fraternity. In the 19th century, many clever people wrote about how contradictory these three words are. They were right. Why? Because these words were still formulated under the hypnosis of the unitary state. Only when these three words, these three impulses, are set up in such a way that freedom belongs to the spiritual life, equality to the democratic state, and fraternity to the association of economic life, do they acquire their real meaning. What was still misunderstood at the end of the 18th century as the threefold social order must still be fulfilled in the 20th century. We want to achieve true equality, fraternity and freedom, but first we must recognize the necessity of dividing the social organism into its three parts. For if one realizes how necessary it is and if one has hope that understanding of this threefold nature must be awakened within the proletariat, then one may also express one's faith, may say: I believe that a healthy, good, future-oriented idea is the one that, more or less unconsciously, lies at the heart of the newer proletarian movement. The modern proletarian has become class-conscious. Behind this hides the consciousness of humanity, the consciousness that human dignity must be achieved. Through life itself, the proletarian wants to be able to answer the question in a dignified way: What am I as a human being? Do I, as a human being, have a dignified place in human society? He must achieve a social order that allows him to answer this question with “yes”. Then today's demands will have been met by a healthy social organism. In this way the working class will have achieved what it set out to achieve: the liberation of the proletariat from physical and mental hardship. But it will also have achieved the liberation of all humanity, that is, the liberation of everything in man that is worthy of being truly liberated.

Speech to workers of the Daimler factory

The sense in which my topic is to be treated today can be seen from the appeal that each of you has received. The subject today is to treat that which is called socialization today, which sounds like a world-historical call on the one hand and like a general human call on the other, from a broader and wider perspective than it is usually treated. And not because it corresponds to some kind of preference, but because the great and powerful demand of our time can only be grasped in the right way if one approaches the subject as broadly and generously as possible.

If I had spoken to a labor assembly five or six years ago in the same way that I want to speak to you today, the conditions for the speaker to communicate with his audience would have been very different than they are today. That is the case, it is just not well understood in the broadest circles yet. You see, five or six years ago a meeting like this would have listened to me, would have formed an opinion, according to the social views it held, as to whether one or other of the things the speaker said might differ in one way or another from its own social views, and it would have rejected him if he had put forward anything that was not in line with its own views. Today, it must depend on something quite different, because these five to six years have passed as significant, incisive events containing humanity, and today it is already necessary that trust in someone who wants to say something in terms of socialization, not only when he wants exactly the same thing as you, but when he shows that, with regard to the justified demands of the time, which are expressed in the ever-growing proletarian movement, he has an honest and sincere feeling and desire for these justified demands of the time. Today, we are facing very different facts – time has developed rapidly – than those we faced five or six years ago. Today, we have to look at very different things than we did five or six years ago. The following is offered by way of introduction.

You see, respected, very clever socialist thinkers, shortly before the autumn revolution of 1918 in Germany approached, they said something like the following: When this war is over, the German government will have to treat the socialist parties quite differently than it has treated them in the past. Then it will have to hear them. Then it will have to draw them into its council. — Well, I do not want to continue the matter, as I said, so spoke respected socialist leaders. What does that show? That shows that shortly before November 1918, these respected socialist leaders thought that after the war they would have to deal with some kind of government that would be there in the old sense, and which would only take these socialist personalities into account. How quickly things have changed, how quickly something has come about that even these socialist leaders could not have imagined! The kind of government that they believed would still be there has disappeared into the abyss. But that makes a huge, enormous difference, and today you are all faced with completely different facts. Today you are no longer in a position to seek 'consideration', but today you are in a position to participate in the new development of the social order that must take place. A positive demand is made of you, the demand to know, to think about what has to happen, how we can reasonably move forward in terms of the recovery of the social organism. A completely different language must now be spoken than before. Above all, it is important to look back and remember what led us into the terrible situation of the present; what should change for the better, what must change. Let me just mention a few introductory remarks.

I do not want to trouble you much with personal remarks. But if you are not a theorist, not an abstract scientist, but, like me, have acquired your views on the necessary social development through more than thirty years of life experience, then what you have to say in general and what you feel personally merge into one. As I said, I do not want to bore you with any particularly long personal statements, but perhaps it may be noted in the introduction that I was forced, personally forced, in the spring of 1914 in a small meeting in Vienna – a larger probably would have laughed at me at the time for the reasons I will speak of in a moment — to summarize what, figuratively speaking, had emerged in my bloody life experience regarding the social question and social movement. At that time, as a conclusion of decades of experience and decades of observation of the social life of today's so-called civilized world, I had to say the following: the prevailing tendencies of life will become ever stronger until they finally destroy themselves. The one who spiritually understands social life sees everywhere how terribly the tendencies towards social ulcerous growths are sprouting. This is the great cultural concern that arises for the one who sees through existence. That is the terrible thing, which has such a depressing effect and which, even if one could suppress all enthusiasm for recognizing the processes of life by the means of a spirit-cognizing science, would lead one to speak of the remedies that can be used against it – one would like to scream words about it to the world, as it were. If the social organism continues to develop as it has done so far, cultural damage will occur that is to this organism what cancerous growths are to the natural human organism.

Now, if someone had said this in the spring of 1914, the so-called clever people would naturally have thought him a fantasist. For what did the very clever people, those to whom, as the leading class, the fate of humanity was entrusted, what did they actually say about what was in store for the world? Today, one has to investigate a little critically what the minds of these leading people were made of, otherwise people will always object that it is not necessary to speak as seriously as we want to today. What did these so-called leading personalities say at that time? Let us listen, for example, to the Foreign Minister who was jointly responsible for foreign policy at that time. In a decisive session of the German Reichstag, in front of several hundred enlightened gentlemen, he had the following to say about what was about to happen. He said: The general relaxation in Europe is making gratifying progress. We are doing better every day with the Petersburg government. This government does not listen to the comments of the press pack, and we will continue to cultivate our friendly relations with St. Petersburg as we have done in the past. We are in negotiations with England, which have not yet been concluded, but which have progressed so far that we can hope to establish the very best relations with England in the near future.

This general relaxation has made such great progress, these relations with St. Petersburg have been so well initiated by the government, these negotiations with England have borne such fruit, that soon after, the time began in which, to put it mildly, ten to twelve million people within Europe were killed and three times as many were maimed. Now I may ask you: How were the gentleman and those to whom he belonged as a class informed about what was going on in the world? How strong was their intellect to grasp what was needed for the immediate future? Were they not truly stricken with blindness? And was there not added to this that terrible, that hideous arrogance that labeled anyone as a fantasist who pointed out that there is a social cancer that will break out in a terrible way in the near future? These questions must be asked today. They must be asked because numerous personalities today, despite the loudly speaking facts, are as blind as those with regard to what is only at the beginning of its development today: the form which this social movement, which has been going on for more than half a century, has taken in its newer form since the fall of 1918. That is what one would like to achieve today, that there would be people - such people must be among the proletarian population today - who have in their heads a consciousness of what must actually happen.

Those who, over the past few decades, have learned not only to think like so many who talk about socialism today, but to think and feel like the proletariat, have been led by their fate to do so. Today, they must think about the social question in a much more serious and broader way than many do. He must look at what this movement has become today as a result of its development over the last five, six, seven decades since Karl Marx's great reputation spread throughout the world; he must realize how the social movement, how the social programs today have to step out of the stage of criticism and to enter the realm of creation, the realm where one can know what needs to be done to rebuild the human social order, the necessity of which must be felt today by everyone who lives with an alert soul.

In three fundamental areas of life, the working class has sensed what is actually good for it, what must change for it in its entire position in the world, in human society, and so on. But the conditions of the last few centuries, especially of the nineteenth century and particularly of the beginning of the twentieth century, have had the effect that, while more or less unconsciously, instinctively the worker felt with his heart very well that the paths to his future ideal are three, yet, so to speak, the attention was directed only to a single goal. The modern bourgeois social order has, so to speak, relegated everything to the economic sphere. The modern worker was not allowed, not able, to gain a completely free, fully conscious view of what is actually necessary from his employment relationship. He could, because modern technology, namely modern capitalism, had harnessed him to the mere economic order, he could actually only believe, because the bourgeoisie had shifted everything to the economic level, that the downfall of the old, the collapse of the old, and the construction to be longed for and achieved, would have to develop in the economic sphere, in the sphere where he saw that capital, human labor and goods were at work. And today, when the justifiable call for socialization is heard, even when other areas of life are taken into account, only the economic order is actually considered. As if hypnotized, I would say, the gaze is directed purely at economic life, purely at what is understood by the names capital, labor and goods, living conditions, material achievements. But deep down in the proletarian's heart, even if he is not quite sure in his head, there sits what tells him that the social question is a threefold one, that this newer social question, which he suffers from, for which he wants to stand up, for which he wants to fight, is a spiritual question, a legal or state question and an economic question. Therefore, today, allow me to treat this social question, this social movement, as a spiritual question, as a legal question, and as an economic question.

You only have to look at economic life to see that there is much more at stake than just economic life. If we are right to call for socialization today, we must also ask: yes, what should be socialized and how should it be socialized? Because from these two points of view,

What should be socialized?

How should it be socialized?

we must, above all, consider economic life as it has developed in recent times, and how it actually is in our day, if we have no illusions about it, at least for our region, it is more or less in collapse. We must realize today that we can no longer learn anything from all the things that people in the sense of capitalism, in the sense of private enterprise, have regarded as practical and appropriate for people. Anyone who today believes that one can get ahead with institutions that are only conceived in the same way as one has previously conceived is truly indulging in the greatest illusions. But we must learn from these institutions. You see, the most characteristic thing that has emerged in social life over a long period of time, but especially to this day, is that on the one hand we have the previously leading classes, accustomed in their thinking to what has been comfortable for them for a long time; those have repeatedly praised and even adulated in their spokesmen and themselves all that modern culture and modern civilization have produced that is so glorious and great. How often have we not heard: Man today rushes across miles in a way that was previously unimaginable; thought travels at lightning speed by telegraph or telephone. External artistic and scientific culture is spreading in an unimagined way. — I could continue this song of praise, which I do not want to sing and which countless people who have been able to participate in this culture have sung over and over again, for a long time. But today, indeed, the times demand that we ask: how was this new culture possible from an economic point of view alone? It was only possible because it arose as a superstructure over the physical and mental misery, over the physical and mental distress of the broad masses, who were not allowed to participate in the much-praised culture. If it had not been for this broad mass, if it had not worked, this culture could not have existed. That is the crux of the matter; that is the historical question of today, which must not be ignored.

From this, however, the hallmark of all modern economic life emerges. This characteristic consists in the fact that today any follower, any member of the propertied class, can easily provide a popular “proof”; recently, this proof has been provided more abundantly. For a while, people kept quiet about it because, foolish as it is, stupid as it is, one can no longer dare to tell the working class, the truly socially minded people, about this folly. But today it is being heard more and more often, today when so much folly is going through the air, through the so-called intellectual air. It is easy for those who still want to represent today's declining economic order to say: Yes, if you now really divide up all the capital income and ownership of the means of production, the division does not particularly improve what the individual proletarian has. It is a foolish and stupid objection, because it is not at all a matter of this objection, because it is not at all about this objection, but about something much more fundamental, greater and more powerful. What it is about is this: that this whole economic culture, as it has developed under the influence of the ruling classes, has become such that a surplus, an added value, can only give a few the fruits of this culture. Our entire economic culture is such that only a few can enjoy the fruits. Nor is more added value given than what only a few can enjoy. If the little that is given were to be distributed among those who also have a right to a dignified existence, it would not even begin to suffice. Where does this come from?

This question must be posed differently than it is by so many today. I would like to give you just a few examples; I could multiply these examples not a hundredfold, but a thousandfold; perhaps some examples in the form of questions. I would like to ask: Within the German economic culture of the last decades, did all machines really need exactly as much coal as was absolutely necessary for these machines? Ask the question objectively and you will get the answer that our economic system was in such a state of chaos that many machines required much more coal in the last decades than would have been necessary according to the technical advances. But what does that mean? It means nothing other than that much more human labor was expended for the production and extraction of these coals than should have been expended and could have been expended if truly socio-economic thinking had been present. This human labor was used uselessly, it was wasted. I ask you: Are people aware that in the years before the war, we used twice as much coal in the German economy as we should have been allowed to use? We wasted so much coal that today we have to say that we could have gotten by with half the coal production if the people who had to supply the technology and the economy had been up to the task. I am giving this example for the reason that you see that there is an opposite pole to the luxury culture of the few on the one hand. This luxury culture has not been able to produce capable minds that would have been up to the newer economic life. As a result, an infinite amount of labor has been wasted. As a result, productivity has been undermined. These are the secret causes, quite objective causes, by which we have been brought into the situation in which we now find ourselves. Therefore, the social and socialization question must also be solved in a technical and objective way. The culture of the past has not produced the minds that would have been able to somehow create an industrial science. There was no industrial science; everything is based on chaos, on chance. Much was left to cunning, to cheating, to senseless personal competition. But that had to be. Because if one had gone into the matter on the basis of industrial science, then what would have resulted would no longer be what only a luxury culture has produced for a few from the surplus value of the working, producing population. Today, the question of socialization must be approached in a completely different way than many people approach it.

You see, someone can come to me today and say: Yes, you are of the opinion that there should no longer be any idle rentiers in the future? Yes, I do hold that view. But if he fights for the current economic order as one of its supporters, he will tell me: But just consider how little it is when you add up all the pension assets and distribute them, and how small it is in relation to what all the millions of working people have together. I will tell him: I know just as well as you do that the pension assets are few, but look, a counter-question: it is a very small ulcer that someone has on some part of their body. This ulcer is very small in relation to the whole body. But does it depend on the size of the ulcer or on the fact that when it occurs it shows that the whole body is unhealthy? It is not a matter of calculating the size of the rentier's fortune, nor of necessarily morally condemning the rentiers – it is not their fault, they have inherited this wisdom of being rentiers or something like that – but it is that, just as in the natural human organism a disease, an unhealthy thing, shows itself in its entirety when an ulcer breaks out, so the unhealthiness of the social organism shows itself when idleness or rent is possible in it at all. The rentiers are simply proof that the social organism is unhealthy; they are proof that all idlers, like all those who cannot work themselves, use the labor of others for their sustenance.

Thoughts must simply be brought into a completely different channel. It must be possible to convince oneself that our economic life has become unhealthy. And now the question must be asked: How is it that within the economic cycle, capital, human labor, and goods develop in such an unhealthy way – namely for the question of the broad masses of humanity as to whether one can lead a dignified existence as a worker? This must be asked. But then one can no longer stop at mere economic life; then, when one sees this question in all its depth, one is necessarily led to grasp the social question in three aspects: as a spiritual question, as a state or legal question, and as an economic question. Therefore, you must give me a quarter of an hour if I first speak about the social question as a spiritual question. Because anyone who has studied this aspect a little knows why we do not have an industrial science, why we do not have what has long since resulted from the minds of people a healthy management, a healthy socialization of our economic life. If the soil is diseased, no fruit will grow on it. If the spiritual life of a people is not healthy in a particular age, then the fruit that should grow on it is not the economic overview, as a way to control the economic order so that real benefit can arise from it for the masses. All the chaos that exists in our economic life today has arisen from the soil of a sick spiritual life in recent times. Therefore, we must first look at this: what is going on in those buildings that the worker passes at most when he walks across the street on Sunday, when he is freed from his factory or place of work? What goes on in those institutions where the so-called higher intellectual life takes place, from which, in turn, orders and instructions are issued for the lower school system, for the ordinary elementary school? I ask you, hand on heart, what do you actually know about how those personal abilities that are actually guiding in spiritual life, in legal life, in economic life are fabricated in the universities, in the grammar schools, in the secondary modern schools? You know nothing about it! You know something about what is taught to your children at school, but even there you do not know what intentions and aims for this school teaching flow down from the higher educational institutions into the ordinary schools. The broad masses of the proletariat basically have no idea which paths lead people growing up in the field of intellectual life. And this is part of what creates the abyss, the deep divide: on the one side, the proletariat; on the other, the others. What has been done in recent times to improve the situation? Because there was no other way than to make certain concessions to democracy, a few scraps in all possible forms of so-called newer education were given to the people; adult education centers were established, people's courses were held, art was shown to the people, so benevolently: the people should also have some. What has been achieved with all this, what is it actually? It is nothing but a terrible cultural lie. All this has only served to make the gulf even more significant. For when could the proletarian look with an upright, honest, whole-hearted, whole-souled gaze at what is painted within the bourgeois class, at what is fabricated within the bourgeois class as science? If he shared a common social life with those who produced it, if there were no class difference! For it is impossible to have a common spiritual life with those to whom one does not belong socially. That is what has, spiritually, above all, created the great divide. That is what points, spiritually, to what has to happen.

The enlightened, the enlightened in their own opinion, the very clever people, they are proud when they can say today: In the Middle Ages, well, it was the case that philosophy – as the whole of science was called back then – trailed behind theology. Of course we do not want to wish back that time, I certainly do not want to call back the Middle Ages, but what has happened in the course of the modern development? Today, because it has become very proud, the scientist no longer carries the train of theology, but with regard to the state, what does he do then? Well, here is a blatant example: You see, there was a great modern physiologist, he is dead now, who was also the luminary of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. I hold him in high esteem as a naturalist. Just as Shakespeare once said, “Honorable people they all are,” I would like to say, “Clever people they all are, all of them.” But this man revealed something about what characterizes this modern intellectual life in particular. He said – one would not believe it, but it is true – the scholars of the Berlin Academy of Sciences saw themselves as the scientific protection force of the Hohenzollern. – Yes, you see, again an example that could easily be multiplied a hundredfold, a thousandfold.

Now I ask you: Is it any wonder that the modern proletarian, when he looked at this intellectual life, perceived this intellectual life as a luxury intellectual life? Is it any wonder that he says to himself: This intellectual life is not rooted in a special spirit, it truly does not carry the human soul, nor does it reveal that it is the outflow of a divine or moral world order. No, it is the consequence of economic life. People live spiritually in the way they acquire their capital. That is what their intellectual life makes possible for them. Therefore, even in the modern proletariat, a truly free view of a spiritual life that truly nourishes the soul could not arise. But I know from decades of experience: the modern proletarian has a deep longing for a true spiritual life, not for a spiritual life that stops at the bourgeois border, but one that seeps into the souls of all people. That is why the appeal that I am commanded to speak about today states that in the future this intellectual life must be self-contained and not only contain the last remnants of intellectual life, art and the like that still remain. In Berlin, they have also wanted to incorporate these heavily into the omnipotence of the state.

The whole of intellectual life, from the lowest level of education to the highest, must be left to its own devices, because the spirit thrives only when it has to prove its reality and strength anew every day. The spirit never thrives when it is dependent on the state, when it is the state's lackey, the servant of economic life. What has become of this field has paralyzed people's minds. Oh, when we look at the ruling classes today, when we, who want to understand the call for socialization, look at those who run the factories today, at those who run the workshops, who run the schools, the universities, who run the states – oh, it makes one's soul ache – they can't think of anything, the seriousness of the situation does not sink into their heads. Why not? Yes, how have people gradually become accustomed to economic life, to legal or state life, and to intellectual life? The state, so to speak, takes over when the human being is beyond just the first years of education – which the state has not yet taken over because the first years of a person's education are not run cleanly enough for the state – with its school, it takes over the human being. He then educates him in such a way that this person only has to accomplish - as it was until the great war catastrophe over the entire civilized world - what he is commanded, what he is ordered, what the state - from its theologians, from its physicians, as it turned out during the war, in particular from its lawyers, from its philologists - actually wants. If there is an intelligent person among them, in the examination commissions, then you can hear a clever word from them. I once sat with the gentlemen of an examination commission, and when we talked about how bad our grammar school system actually is, he said: Yes, it is also a shame when you have to examine people and then see what kind of people you have to let loose on young people.

I am telling you this as a cultural-historical fact, as a symptom, so that attention is drawn to what lives among the people who have led the world, to whom, in a certain way, the leadership of the people was entrusted, and why people have finally brought the world into this terrible catastrophe. The causes that have brought humanity to this catastrophe are made up of millions of details. And among these causes, the social phenomenon of spiritual life is predominant, and because socialization is on our minds today, it is the socialization of spiritual life that matters most. What matters is that human talents and abilities be cultivated in the right way, just as what is to grow in the field is cultivated, as is the case in agriculture. This has not been done so far. The state took over the human being, trained him for its use, and all activity, all independence, was driven out of the human being. In the end, the human being had only one ideal in relation to economic life and intellectual life from the legal life of the state: economic activity. The state had taken him over and trained him for itself. Now, when man is well trained, the state economic life begins for him. He was provided for; then he was well-behaved, even if he no longer wanted to work, provided for until his death in the form of a pension, that is, through the work of those who had no pension. And when he had died, the church took care of the matter after death. The church gave him a pension for after death. In this way, a person was provided for economically until death if he belonged to the ruling classes, and in the grave he was also retired after death. Everything was in order for him; he no longer needed to think for himself or intervene in the social order in such a way that something beneficial could arise from it; he did not need to participate actively. Therefore, it has gradually become the case that people were no longer able to reflect on what should happen, on what should come into the world as a kind of new development. Those who were excluded from all of this, to whom the state would not even have granted the small insurance pension until death if they had not forced it, and to whom the ruling classes have also not handed down any intellectual life, because the intellectual life that gave them a patent for the soul after death was not wanted by the proletarians, who demand a new order. Therefore, we have as our first demand precisely that for an emancipation of intellectual life, for a reorganization of intellectual life. That is the first question that matters.

The second question arises when we turn our attention to the field of law, to the area that is supposed to belong to the actual state. However, we only find ourselves coming together sympathetically in this area today if we look at the economic area from it. What is actually in the economic area? In the economic area, there is the production of goods, the circulation of goods, and the consumption of goods. The commodities have certain values that are expressed in the price. But through the economic development of recent times, in its connection with the development of the state, the bourgeoisie has introduced into economic life something of which the proletarian demands in the most justified way today: it must no longer be part of economic life, and that is human labor. Just as it has struck the souls of the proletarian-feeling, when Karl Marx pronounced the significant word of surplus value, so the other word struck the souls of the proletarians, that in an unjustified way, the labor of man has become a commodity in the modern economic order. Here the proletarian feels: as long as my labor power must be bought and sold on the labor market, like goods on the commodities market according to supply and demand, I cannot answer yes to the question: Do I lead a dignified existence? What does the modern proletarian know of the intellectual life? Despite all popular entertainments, despite all guidance in the galleries and so on, he only knows that which he calls surplus value. Surplus value means that which he must supply for an intellectual life that cannot become his; that is what he knows of intellectual life. That is why the word surplus value struck so sympathetically into the proletarians' minds. And when Karl Marx formulated it, the modern proletarian's feelings ran counter to this concept of surplus value. And because human labor power must never be a commodity, Marx's other concept of “labor power as a commodity” struck the hearts and minds of the proletarians like a bolt of lightning as a profound truth. |

Anyone who truly understands human life knows that what I have just said, that in the modern economic cycle the human labor of the proletarian is unlawfully treated as a commodity, that this in turn is based on an enormous lie. For human labor is something that can never be compared by any price with a commodity, with a product. This can even be proved quite thoroughly. I know that the lectures I am now giving in this way – especially to the leading classes – are repeatedly and repeatedly said to me, directly or indirectly, to be difficult to understand. Well, just recently someone told me: They are just difficult to understand for those who do not want to understand them. And when I recently gave a talk in Dornach to a gathering of proletarians that was similar to the talk I am giving you today, someone from the type of people who find these words so difficult to understand said that he had not understood them properly after all. A proletarian replied: Well, you have to be a fool not to understand it. I, for one, do not fear this difficulty of comprehension, for I was a teacher for many years at the Workers' Education School founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht, and I know that the proletarian understands much of what the bourgeois finds quite incomprehensible. I do not fear that you will not understand me when I say: All tendencies, all goals of economic life, are directed towards consuming commodities. The issue, therefore, is to consume the commodity in a healthy way. What cannot be consumed is produced in an unhealthy way. In some way, the commodity must be consumable. But if the capitalist economic system turns human labor into a commodity, then those who turn it into a commodity are only interested in consuming it. But human labor power must not be merely consumed, and so we need an economic system, and above all we need a socialization that not only determines the working hours but also, and above all, determines the hours of rest, because these must be there if a communal social life is to be there. This shows that recovery can only come about when the leading circles of society, the then rightful leading circles of society, have as much interest in the worker having his rest period as today's capitalists have in the worker having his working hours.

Therefore, I say to you: human labor power can never be compared in price to any other commodity. Therefore, buying human labor power on the labor market – you understand what that means – is a great social lie that must be eradicated. How do we go about divesting human labor power of the character of a commodity? That is a great social question.

The first question was the intellectual question. The second is a great social question: How does the modern laborer come to strip his labor power of the character of the commodity? For what does the modern proletarian feel about the way his labor power is used in today's economy? He may not always have time to sort out his feelings and what is going on in his heart, and he may not be able to express himself clearly about these matters, but he says to himself: In ancient times there were slaves; the capitalists bought and sold human beings, just as one buys and sells a cow, the whole human being. Later there was serfdom; then they no longer sold the whole person, but only a part of the person, but still enough. At present, despite all the assurances of freedom and humanity, despite the so-called employment contract, the proletarian knows very well that now his labor is still being bought and sold. He knows that. The so-called employment contract does not deceive him about that. But in the depths of his soul, in the depths of his mind, he feels: I can sell a horse or a pair of boots at the market and then go back. But I cannot take my labor power and sell it to the factory owner and then go back; I must go along as a human being with my labor power. So I am still selling my entire self when I have to be in a wage relationship, when I have to sell my labor power. Thus the modern proletarian experiences the connection of the true character of his labor power with the old slavery. That is why he experiences it, which unfortunately the leading classes have failed to grasp at the right moment: that today the world-historical moment has arrived when labor power can no longer be a commodity. Economic life can only have the cycle of commodity production, commodity consumption, and commodity circulation.

Only people who can only think in the old way, such as Walther Rathenau in his latest booklet, which is titled “After the Flood,” show a certain fear of this realization. Walther Rathenau says: If you separate labor from the economic cycle, then the value of money must fall terribly. — Well, he only looks at it from one side. For those who think like him, this decline in the value of money will indeed have great significance. We will not talk about that any further. The point is that economic life itself can only be properly understood if one sees how this economic life is connected, on the one hand, to the natural conditions of economic life. There is the soil, it produces coal, it produces wheat. In the soil, for example, are the natural forces that belong to the soil and that produce the wheat. From above, the necessary rain falls. These are natural conditions. You can get around them to some extent with technical aids, but economic life does have its limits there. How terribly foolish it would be if someone wanted to legislate based on economic cycles and write a law that said: If we want reasonable prices and reasonable economic conditions, then in 1920 we need a year with so-and-so many rainy days and so-and-so many sunny days, and the forces under the ground must work in such and such a way. You are right to laugh. It would be very foolish to want to make laws about what nature itself determines, to want to invent requirements from the economic life as to how nature should work with its forces. Just as we come up against a limit with the economic life, as the soil of a particular country can only provide a certain amount of raw materials, so on the other hand the economic life must border on that which stands outside this economic life, on the life of the constitutional state. And in the life of the state under the rule of law, only that which is the common concern of all people, and which can truly be based on democracy, may be established and regulated. Thus we arrive at a threefold structure of the healthy social organism.

Spiritual life stands on its own; spiritual life must be free. In this respect, talent and human abilities must be cultivated in the right way. One statesman, who has said many a hot-headed thing during the terrible catastrophe of the war, has also said: In the future, the path will be free for the hardworking! — In these serious times, fine phrases and empty talk that are only true in terms of the letter no longer suffice. If people say, “A free hand to the capable,” but they are predisposed by blood and social prejudices to consider their nephew or sibling the most capable, then not much will be achieved by such a grand motto. We must take the cultivation of human talent seriously in the free spiritual life, and then we will socialize the spiritual life. The state is responsible for everything in which all people are equal, for which special talents are not considered, but for which what is considered is what is innate in man, just as the ability to see blue or red is innate in a healthy eye. The state is responsible for the sense of justice. This sense of justice can lie dormant in the soul, but it is placed in the heart of every human being. The proletarian sought to live out this sense of right. What did he find? Just as he found intellectual luxury in the sphere of intellectual life, which was like a smoke that emerged from the economic life, so in the sphere of the state he found not the living out of the sense of right, but class privileges, class prerogatives and class disadvantages. There you have the root of the anti-social element in modern life. The State is the owner of everything in which all men are equal. They are not equal in respect of their mental and physical abilities and aptitudes. These belong to the sphere of the free spiritual life. The State will only be healthy when it no longer absorbs spiritual and economic life in the sense of the modern bourgeois order, or one might say, in the sense of the bourgeois order that is now heading towards its decline. Instead, it should release spiritual life on the one hand and economic life on the other for their own socialization. That is what is at stake. Then it will be possible for the worker, as an equal of all people in the territory of the state, to regulate the measure and type and character of his labor power before he has to plunge into economic life at all. In the future, it must be as impossible for economic conditions or economic necessities to determine labor law as it is simply impossible for natural conditions to make it impossible for the economic cycle or other factors to regulate the forces of nature, rain and sunshine. Independently of economic life, it must be determined by the state, on democratic soil, where one person is equal to another, in the state, which is completely separate from economic life, what labor law is, and what is opposed to this labor law, what disposition of a thing is, what is called ownership today, but what must cease to the greatest extent possible and must give way to a healthy state in the future. If economic life is not determined by the worker, but rather, conversely, economic life must be guided by what the worker determines about his work in a state democracy, then an important requirement has been met.

Now, one might object: then economic life becomes dependent on the law and right of labor. Very well, but it will be a healthy dependency, a dependency as natural as the dependency on nature. The worker will know before he goes to the factory how much and how long he has to work; he will no longer have to deal with any foreman about the extent and nature of his work. He will only have to talk about what exists as a distribution of what has been produced together with the supervisor. That will be a possible employment contract. There will be contracts only about the distribution of what has been achieved, not about labor. This is not a return to the old piecework wage; that would only be the case if this process of socialization were not thought of in the round.

I can also briefly mention another issue that stands in the way of labor law, which will liberate the worker. Conventional socialism talks a lot about private property becoming common property. But the big question of this socialization will be precisely how to do it. In our current economic system, we only have a little healthy thinking about property in one area. This is in the area that, according to modern bourgeois phraseology, modern bourgeois dishonesty, has gradually become the most insignificant property after all, namely intellectual property. In relation to this intellectual property, you see, people still think a little bit sanely. They say to themselves: however clever a person may be, he brings his abilities with him at birth, but that has no social significance. On the contrary, he is obliged to offer them to human society; these abilities would be of no use if the person were not part of human society. Man owes what he can create from his abilities to human society, to the human social order. It does not truly belong to him. Why do we manage our so-called intellectual property? Simply because we produce it; by producing it, we show that we have the abilities to do so better than others. As long as we have these abilities better than others, we will best manage this intellectual property in the service of the whole. Now, at least, people have realized that this intellectual property is not inherited endlessly; thirty years after death, intellectual property belongs to all of humanity. Anyone can print what I have produced thirty years after my death; they can use it in any way they like, and that is right. I would even agree if there were more rights in this area. There is no other justification for the administration of intellectual property than that, because one can produce it, one also has the better abilities. Ask the capitalist today whether he agrees to take responsibility for what he considers to be the right thing for the valuable material property that he possesses! Ask him! And yet this is the healthy way. It must be the basis of a healthy order that everyone can acquire capital through the intellectual organization that will be the healthy administration of human abilities – you will find this explained in more detail in my book 'The Crux of the Social Question'. But it must come about that the means and ways are found to this great, comprehensive socialization of capital, that is, of capital income and the means of production, so that everyone who has the abilities to do so can come to capital and the means of production, but that he can only have the administration and management of capital and the means of production as long as he can or wants to exercise these abilities. Then they will pass over, when he no longer wants to exercise them himself, to the community in certain ways. They will begin to circulate in the community.

This will be a healthy way to socialize capital if we can get what is today capital in inheritance law, in the creation of pensions, of idler's rights, of other superfluous rights, what accumulates in capitals, into the social organism. We need not even say: private property must become social property. The concept of property will have no meaning at all. It will be as meaningless as it would be if blood were to accumulate in individual places in my body. Blood must be in circulation. What is capital must go from the capable to the capable. Will the worker agree to such socialization? Yes, he will, because his situation in life compels him to be reasonable. He will say to himself: If the one with the right abilities is the manager, then I can trust him, then my labor power is better applied under the right manager than under the capitalist, who does not have the abilities, but who has only been put in his place by an unhealthy accumulation process of capitals. I can only hint at these things now. The future doctrine of socialization will be the concrete, true development of the circulation of capital and the means of production, which Karl Marx also presented in an abstract way as a great goal for humanity: From each according to his abilities and needs.

We have gone through a hard time of human suffering, a hard time of trial for humanity. Today we no longer need to say, as some have done, that there must be a new race of people who can socialize according to the principle: To each according to his abilities and needs! No, we can have the right belief. If we only want it, then such healthy social ideas will be able to take hold of the tripartite division into spiritual life, legal life and economic life. For this economic life will only become healthy when it is separated from the other two. Then, in the economic sphere, associations will be formed, as I have described in my book, and cooperatives will be formed, which, in a healthy way, do not aim to produce and profit, but which start from consumption and do not make production in such a way that workers are squandered, but rather that workers are called upon to improve consumption and to satisfy needs.

Allow me to tell you the beginning that we made in the society that you do not love, because I understand it so much being maligned – allow me to tell you how, in a particular area, attempts were made to economically socialize intellectual life. When I was obliged, about twenty years ago, to lead this society with my friends, it was important to me to say to myself: If you distribute the books that are produced by me on the basis of this society in the same capitalist way as is the custom in the book trade today, then you are committing a sin against healthy social thinking. For how are books produced today? Many people today consider themselves capable of producing good books. Well, if everything that is printed today were to be read, then we would have our work cut out for us. But you see, that is why there is this custom in the book trade: someone considers themselves a genius and writes a book. The book is printed in a thousand copies. Of most of these books, 950 copies are pulped because only fifty are sold. But what does that mean in economic terms? You see, so many people who have to produce the paper, so many typesetters, so many bookbinders and so on have been employed to do the work; this work is unproductive, this work is wasted. Therein lies the great harm. Oh, you would be amazed if you only tried to answer the question of how much of the work that the honored attendees sitting here have to do is wasted. That is the great social harm. So how did I try to do it? I said to myself: There is nothing to be done with the book trade. We founded a small bookstore ourselves. But then I first made sure that the needs for which the book was to be printed existed. That is, I had to make the effort to create the consumers first; not, of course, by putting up a pillar like the pillars with the advertisement: Make good soups with Maggi! but by first creating the needs – one can argue against these needs, of course – and then starting to print, when I knew that not a single copy would be left lying around, not a single action would be in vain. Attempts have also been made to produce bread, which was not possible under present conditions in the same way, but where it could be carried out, it was precisely in economic terms that it proved fruitful, if one starts not from blind production aimed only at getting rich, but from needs, from consumption. Then, when that happens, real socialization can be carried out through the cooperative economy.

So today I had to talk to you about socialization on a broader basis. Because only what arises on this broad basis is the truly practical. Otherwise, socialization will always be botched if we do not ask the very first question: What does the state have to do? First it must release spiritual life in one direction, then economic life in another direction; it must remain on the ground of the life of right. There is nothing impractical about that, but it is a socialization that can be carried out every day.

What is needed? Courage, nothing else! But why do people want to see it as impractical? I have met enough people who, over and over again in the last four and a half years, have said that this world war catastrophe is so terrible that people have not experienced such horrors in the history of mankind, that it is the greatest experience in the historical development of humanity. Well, I have not yet found people who also say: If people were condemned to be led into such misery by old thoughts, by old habits of thinking, then they must now pull themselves together to leave these old thoughts and come to new thoughts, to new habits of thinking. Above all, we need a socialization of minds. The minds that we carry on our shoulders must contain something different from what has been in people's minds so far. That is what we need. Therefore, the question must be approached in a broad way.

And now, in conclusion, I would like to say this: when the dawn of modern times broke, those people who had the greatest concern for the progress of civilized humanity were imbued with three great ideals: liberty, equality, fraternity. These three great ideals have a strange history. On the one hand, every healthy and inwardly courageous person feels that these are the three great impulses that must now finally guide modern humanity. But very clever people in the nineteenth century repeatedly demonstrated the contradictions that actually exist between these three ideas: liberty, equality, fraternity. Yes, there is a contradiction, they are right. But that does not change the fact that they are the greatest ideals, despite the contradictions. They were formulated at a time when humanity was still hypnotized by the unitary state, which has been revered like an idol up to the present day. In particular, those who have made the state their protector and themselves the protectors of the state, the so-called entrepreneurs, could speak to the employee as Faust spoke to the sixteen-year-old Gretchen about the god: “The state, my dear worker, is the all-embracing, the all-sustaining; does it not embrace and sustain you, me, itself? And subconsciously it can think: but especially me! — The gaze was directed as if hypnotized to this idol, the unified state. There, in this unified state, these three great ideals do indeed contradict each other. But those who did not allow themselves to be hypnotized by this unified state in the field of intellectual life, who thought of freedom as I myself did in my book “The Philosophy of Freedom”, which I wrote in the early 1890s and which had to be republished now, in our time of great social issues and great rethinking, they knew: Only because people believed that they had to be realized in the unified state did contradictions arise between the three greatest social ideals.

If we recognize correctly that a healthy social organism must be one that is structured in three, then we will see that in the realm of spiritual life, freedom must prevail, because abilities, talents and gifts must be cultivated in a free way. In the realm of the state, absolute equality must prevail, democratic equality, because in the state lives that which makes all human beings equal. In economic life, which is supposed to be separate from the life of the state and the life of the spirit, but which is to be supplied by the life of the state and the life of the spirit, fraternity must prevail, fraternity on a large scale. It will arise from associations, from cooperatives, which will emerge from the professional associations and from those communities that are formed from healthy consumption, together with healthy production. Equality, liberty and fraternity will reign in this threefold organism. And through this new socialization it will be possible to realize what people who think and feel healthily have longed for a long time. We must only have the courage to regard many an old party program as a mummy in the face of new facts. We must have the courage to admit: new ideas are needed for new facts and for the new phases of human development. And I have had experiences with all classes in my life observations, which truly span decades, that have arisen from a destiny that has taught me to feel and think not about, but with the proletariat, and I have gained from this the feeling that the proletariat is the healthy element, that even what has now emerged as a consequence of the impermissible fusion of economic life with state life, that this is felt by the proletarian in the right way. Those who have listened to me today will know that I am sincere in my belief that the modern proletariat's demands are justified and historic. But I also know that in the final analysis, when it comes to the question of strikes, the reasonable proletarian thinks like the reasonable man in general. I know that the reasonable worker does not strike for the sake of striking, he only strikes because the economic system has brought it about that political demands are mixed up with economic demands. Not until this separation of political life from economic life has occurred will economic life be able to be completely brought into reasonable channels. We would also understand this, especially if we had the opportunity to talk about it in more detail. We would understand the need for every strike: it could be avoided; the reasonable worker would only want to undertake it out of necessity. This is also something that belongs to healthy socialization, that we get beyond what we actually do not want to do, what is unreasonable to do. Even the modern economic order has brought it about that what is unwanted, what is considered unreasonable, is often done.

You will understand me, and you will also understand when I say, precisely from this point of view: however bad my experiences have been with the old classes, people must still find their way to threefolding, and I hope for much from the healthy senses of the modern proletariat. I have seen how behind what the modern proletariat calls its class consciousness there stands an unconscious human consciousness; how the class-conscious proletarian is really asking how to arrive at a world order that answers the question, ” Is human life worth living and worth living for me? — Today the proletarian can only answer this question arising out of the economic order, out of the legal order, and out of the intellectual life with a No; tomorrow he wants to answer it with a Yes. And between this 'No' and this 'Yes' lies true socialization, lies that by which the truly self-conscious proletariat will liberate and redeem this proletariat and thereby liberate and redeem all that is human in man, which deserves to be liberated and redeemed.

Closing words after the discussion

Well, esteemed attendees, in the final analysis the discussion has not really yielded anything of such significance with regard to what I said that I needed to detain you much longer with this closing speech. But first I would like to answer the direct question that was put to me at the end: why I used so much agitation in my talk. Well, I certainly do not want to enter into a discussion with the esteemed questioner, as you will understand, as to whether, because it is said of me that I am a philosopher, I am only entitled to speak in an incomprehensible, unagitated way, that is, in figures of speech. That is not my point. But I was somewhat surprised, very much surprised, that the word “agitational” was applied at all to what I said. Because I am truly not aware of having spoken a single word other than what emerges from my conviction of truth, from my view of the current situation. What is agitative? If, let us say, a man who is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative listens to the very moderate words of someone who is very much on the left, and the latter finds them inflammatory, are they necessarily inflammatory? Why does he speak in an inflammatory way to the dyed-in-the-wool conservative? It is not his fault. The words only become so in the mind of the ultra-conservative man. So, you see, what one person regards as demagogic does not have to be demagogic for another. What one person finds quite unpleasant, he often calls demagogic. Now your technical manager has also spoken to you. If everyone who comes from the same background as your esteemed technical manager were to speak as your esteemed technical manager does, then, ladies and gentlemen, we would soon achieve what we want to achieve. If a great many people thought like this, then it would not be necessary for a few to say that the words of those like me, who want to speak the truth and do not want to create an abyss, only serve to widen the gap. But on the other side, on the right side of the abyss, there are also people quite unlike your esteemed technical director, who addressed you, and who speaks quite differently from him. There will not be a great gulf fixed between him and us. Perhaps the gulf will only begin where he, too, stands more on the other side. I believe that what I said about the fate of many intellectual workers could be understood.

You see, you could experience different things if you are really involved in the newer development of humanity. Many, more than 27 or 28 years ago, I once attended a meeting at which Paul Singer spoke. Some people from the proletariat somehow made it clear that they did not value intellectual work the same as physical labor. They should have listened to how Paul Singer, in agreement with the vast majority, defended intellectual work! I have never seen intellectual work misunderstood by the proletariat. I was not talking about any gap between physical and intellectual labor, I was talking about the gap between the proletariat, human labor, and capitalism. We must be clear about that. And let us be clear, such speeches as we have heard from your esteemed leader, to our great joy – at least to mine and certainly to your great joy – such speeches, we do not easily hear them on the other side either. We will not easily find people whose hands can be grasped.

And finally, one more thing: Yes, certainly, I say things that may make it necessary to act quickly with regard to many things. As a scientist myself, I understand very well the words of the esteemed previous speaker when he says: Development must proceed slowly; one must have patience to wait. Thirty years ago, mathematicians discovered things that are only now being recognized. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, and I now address your technical director, whom I greatly respect: But there are things in social life today that we cannot afford to wait for, but rather we are obliged to open our minds a little and be capable of quick understanding. That is why I was more pleased about the following than about the emphasis on slowness.

I have given lectures on social issues in various cities in Switzerland. I have come to understand that someone who falls outside the usual program is initially met with mistrust. In Basel, friends initially tried to get the Socialist Party's executive committee to have me give a lecture in their circle. The board – I do not blame them, I understand it, I also spoke today of justified mistrust – perhaps because they did not want to refuse me, based themselves on principle and said that they did not know whether it was desirable to let outside influences approach party members. So they rejected my lecture. That seems to be the opinion of some leaders now. They drew the conclusion that I should not speak. Then a Social Democrat came to me and said he would try to get me to come and speak at the Railway Workers' Association. That too was rejected. I then gave a lecture in Zurich. We then made leaflets in Basel, simply handed them out on the street and took the largest hall for a social lecture in Basel, and I was able to give this lecture in front of more than 2,500 people. You see, that was very recently. Now, just before I had to leave, after I had given this lecture to the proletariat of Basel, I received an invitation from the railway workers' association, which had refused at the time, that I should now give a similar lecture to its members. So things are fourteen days apart: first the association refuses, then it knew what it was getting and now also demanded its lecture. That was a rapid development, a development in a fortnight. I believe that today we must pay more attention to such rapid thinking, which takes place in a fortnight, than to such thinking that tells us that things must happen slowly. Today I would like to be much more pleased about those who first want to assert their free will, but who want to learn and want to learn quickly. Because, my dear attendees, we are heading for a terrible time if we want to adapt to slowness. We need a healthy impulse for thoughts that go just as fast as the facts will go. That is what we want to write on our hearts today. I know that the honored speaker did not mean to walk slowly out of laziness, but other people are lazy. But anyone who is serious today knows how quickly we will have to rethink and relearn if we do not want to be left behind and end up in misery and destruction.

Today, too, it will be my responsibility to speak in connection with the appeal that most of the honored audience may have seen, “To the German People and to the Cultural World,” which essentially seeks a way out of the serious turmoil into which we have fallen, a way out of the world-historical chaos through a special way of understanding social life and the social movement. Furthermore, what I have to say will tie in with my recently published book, “The Crux of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life”. Compared to everything that needs to be said in these difficult times, however, even this book, precisely because of the nature of its point of view, contains only the first, very first guidelines. And today, in particular, I must ask you to bear in mind that in the short time available in a lecture I cannot give more than the very first indications of the social point of view that is to be discussed. Perhaps some specific points can be added in a subsequent discussion. In any case, a further lecture is planned, which will then elaborate on some of the points that can only be hinted at today.

The reason for speaking today, as I would like to speak here, is that the social facts are truly loud enough and clear enough to be seen over a large part of the civilized world. And anyone who is able to appreciate them in their true form can see that we are only at the beginning with regard to the movement they are initiating. But it will be well to face the full seriousness of the matter right at the outset. Above all, those who have followed what we now call the social movement, which in this form is more than half a century old, will have noticed that now, when we are facing the facts that have emerged from the terrible world war catastrophe, , long-held thoughts, party opinions, and views seem, one might almost say, like mummies of judgment, walking among us and proving dead to what social facts demand of us today. If we want to arrive at a fruitful opinion, then it is necessary to at least briefly point out the reasons why long-held party opinions of all shades prove so inadequate in the face of facts. Not so long ago, I attended the conference in Bern that was tasked with commenting on the founding of the so-called League of Nations. Today, when it is necessary to speak openly and honestly about all things in order to make any progress at all, it is safe to say that, while the men and women at the League of Nations conference in Bern may have said many important things and expressed many fine ideas seems to be more or less the same as what the statesmen of the European states said to the nations, to the representatives of the nations, in the spring of 1914. I do not intend to go into the details of the matter today, but I would like to point out to this assembly the significant fact that the responsible Foreign Minister of the German Reich dared to say at a crucial meeting in the spring of 1914 that the general political relaxation - please bear in mind, the general relaxation, by which was meant the way to secure world peace for years - had made gratifying progress. Well, it made such progress that it was followed by that catastrophe, as a result of which, to put it mildly, ten to twelve million people in the civilized world were shot dead and three times as many were maimed. This and many other things must be remembered when those who, let it not be denied, talk quite cleverly about world affairs, are, as it were, blind to what is really hidden in the facts as the germ of future events. And with that, I would like to say from the outset, we come to one of the main points we will have to discuss today.

If we look back over the past decades, anyone who has had a heart and mind for the proletarian social movement that has emerged will say: over the course of more than half a century, many things have emerged that point to what the broad masses of the proletariat feel in their innermost being as their demands. If you have followed events, you could see how, I would say, from decade to decade, the proletarian demands have been expressed in an ever-changing way. If you had an understanding of the movements of humanity in world history, you had to say to yourself: basically, all of this, what is consciously spoken, what is formulated as a theory, what is set up as a program, is not in fact what it is about. What it is about would be – if I apply the word often used in modern times here as well – more or less instinctive, unconscious impulses that lived in a large part of humanity. These unconscious impulses expressed themselves, for example, in many preludes to current events. I will mention only a few stages.

In the Eisenach Social Program of 1869, we see emerging from the very dark, dull spiritual depths of the proletariat the demand for, as it was put, “a fairer wage for manual labor within the social society.” But then, after a relatively short time, as early as 1875 in the so-called Gotha Program, these demands took on a completely different, I might say actually communist form. At least in so far as they were openly expressed, they no longer dealt with the fair remuneration of labor, but with the equitable distribution and equalization of goods according to human needs. Then we saw how, nevertheless, the basic tenor of a political program remained alive in the proletarian movement. Until the beginning of the 1890s, the proletarian demands more or less clearly expressed the aspiration to a balancing out of social inequalities and, above all, to overcoming the principle of wages. Then we see how this political color of the program, I might say, strangely recedes, and how a purely economic program, the socialization of the means of production, the wholly cooperative nature of the work, becomes the theme. And one could go further. I am only hinting at the fundamentals. But anyone who really engages with this development of the modern social movement must also look at the other side. They must ask themselves: What has not been done to the detriment of humanity in the face of what has emerged! What could have been done? What I am about to say is not meant as a criticism of historical developments, for I know as well as anyone, of course, in what sense historical developments are necessary, and how nonsensical it is to send a moral or other condemning criticism into the past. But it is another matter to learn from the present for the future. What should have happened cannot be said otherwise: We have had guiding, leading personalities within the upper stratum of the human social order – these guiding, leading strata, have they shown themselves inclined to understand more deeply, from what they have brought forth as social experience, as social science on the basis of their class preference in more recent times, what the proletariat wants, than this proletariat itself?

Of course, the following is a hypothesis, but one that may shed light on the situation.

Do you see how different everything would have become, where we would stand today, if personalities had emerged within the leading strata of humanity who had absorbed the proletarian demands, imbued them with social experience, with social knowledge, with such social experience, such social knowledge that could have been put into practice – and if from there the starting point could have been won for a transformation of social life, perhaps decades ago! For a healthy self-reflection, one must not spare oneself the task of recognizing what has been terribly neglected in this direction. This has been neglected because, in a sense, it was bound to be neglected, because the intellectual life of modern humanity was such that it simply did not suffice to provide such an understanding. And here we are faced with the first key point of the social question in the necessities of life in the present and the future.

I am well aware that what I have to say in the first third of my remarks today will be somewhat uncomfortable, perhaps even incomprehensible, even boring, for some people. But anyone who does not recognize the seriousness of the first link in the social question, the spiritual social question, will not be able to contribute anything to the emergence from the chaos and confusion of the present. We must unreservedly admit that the intellectual life that has been brought up by the upper classes of human society, that this intellectual life, as it was formed, was not up to the facts. Even today, the legacy of this intellectual life is still far from being equal to the facts. Let us take a look at what has actually happened. It has often been emphasized, and rightly so, that the newer proletarian movement has emerged in the course of human development through newer technology and through the capitalist economic order. Of course, nothing should be said against this emphasis on true facts. But as true and correct as these facts are, there is another fact that people would rather deny. It is just as true, just as correct, and, above all, it is actually more important than anything else for what has to happen today: Perhaps three or four hundred years ago, with the advent of modern technology and soul-destroying capitalism, the process of what could be called the modern, more scientifically oriented worldview began.

About twenty years ago, I met with fierce opposition from proletarians and non-proletarians, from workers and middle-class people, when I expressed what I believed I had clearly recognized: that the modern labor movement, in the most eminent sense – it sounds paradoxical, but it is so – has the character of a movement of thought. However strange it may sound, it is true. It starts from thoughts. It starts from thoughts that, drawing ever wider and wider circles, sank into the souls of the proletarian population in the hours of the evening, when the proletarian population wrested itself from the fatigue of the day, and in which a truly more more real conception of social facts than was given by the political economists of the universities and teaching institutions, who essentially gave what the bourgeois class had to say about economic life and the other aspects of modern life. What has become part of the thoughts and especially the thought habits of the modern proletariat is, in essence, more important and significant than anything else for the movements that are taking place in the civilized world today. For what is actually at issue here? Well, as I said, with the advent of modern technology, with the advent of the capitalist economic system, the newer, more scientifically oriented worldview also emerged from the old worldviews, which had more of a general human or even a religious character. This scientifically oriented worldview, how did it confront the bourgeoisie, how did it confront the proletariat?

We can only come to an understanding of this fact if we have not merely learned to think about the proletariat from above, as so many do today, but if our fate has led us to think with the proletariat! You see, what one has learned to think and feel in the age of technology, in the age of capitalism, has certainly led many members of the leading, guiding circles of humanity to become free-thinking, free-religious. In this respect, unfortunately, unfortunately, modern humanity lived in a terrible illusion that must be seen through today. Yes, one could be a naturalist like Carl Vogt, one could be a popularizer of natural science like Büchner, one could be completely devoted to natural thought with one's head, but the whole person can still be part of a social order that makes it impossible for him to feel committed to the newer ways of thinking with more than just his head. It was different for the proletariat. I would like to mention a scene that could be multiplied not a hundredfold, but a thousandfold. A scene of the kind that has taken place with momentous consequences and that the leading classes have so far failed to recognize in all its world-historical significance. You see, I remember it vividly because I was standing next to it twenty years ago when Rosa Luxemburg spoke in Spandau near Berlin at a proletarian assembly in her peculiar, measured, deliberate manner. She spoke about science and the workers, one of those speeches whose fruits are now ripening all over the world. I will only use a few words to hint at the most important points of this speech. Rosa Luxemburg spoke to the workers, who had gathered on Sunday afternoon with their wives and even with their children, with complete awareness of modern scientific orientation, to hear something about the question: How does a person, as a worker, achieve a dignified existence? or: How should he think about his existence as a human being? At the time, she said: For a long, long time, humanity has lived in illusions about the ancient times. Now, at last, through its science, humanity has come to realize that all people are descended from the same animals. In the beginning, as she said, almost in her own words, man behaved most indecently as a tree-climber. Then she added: “Can anyone still believe that with such an equal origin for all people, there is any justification for the social inequalities that exist today?”

You see, a word had been spoken that the modern proletarian understood in a completely different way than the member of the previously leading strata of humanity was able to understand it. The member of the hitherto leading classes of humanity might have been convinced by such a word with his head, but he was completely caught in a social order that was a relic of world views of earlier times, in all sorts of ways, even if he did not admit it to himself, in all sorts of religious, artistic and other sentiments. He was not obliged to place his whole being in the light of such a philosophy. The proletarian, however, was compelled to see his whole being in the light of such a philosophy. Why? Not because the machine had come into being, not because capitalism had emerged, was the essential thing. The essential thing was that the proletarian was called away from his earlier living conditions, which, through his craft or the like, gave him something to answer the question: What are you worth as a human being among other human beings? Now he stood at the machine; that gives him no connection between himself and other people. Now he was standing in the midst of the bare economic system of capitalism. Now he was forced to answer the question from a completely different angle: What are you actually as a human being? — So he turned to this modern world view as he did to his new religion, which for others was a head-on conviction, but for him something that filled his entire being. Now, what had the proletarian taken over and what had ultimately filled everything that spread as a social outlook among the working class? It came, even if it was not always understood, from the development of the leading, namely the bourgeois, strata of human society. What the proletarian had adopted in the way of wisdom, of science, of materialistic views about man, had not grown in the proletarian's intellect; it was the heritage of what bourgeois thinking had developed in modern times. The proletarian, while living quite differently, only brought bourgeois thinking to its ultimate consequence, to its utmost development. And what did it become in his soul? Oh, he was convinced that this last legacy from the bourgeoisie must, after all, give him something soul-bearing. It was, so to speak, unconsciously the last great trust that the proletariat placed in the bourgeoisie, and that consisted in its taking over the newer materialistic world-view from the bourgeoisie. This last great trust has been betrayed. At least that is the unconscious feeling of the proletarian. And that is what underlies today's social facts, despite all the excesses, in their innermost essence.

When we look at this fact, then we must really take a good look at precisely what was unconscious in the proletarian's soul as a result of what has been mentioned. The bourgeois – take hold of your heart, try to recognize it through true self-reflection, if you are a bourgeois or your ancestors were bourgeois – the bourgeois has very different feelings as a legacy of earlier times. The modern proletarian, after his way of life, after he was called to the desolate machine, to desolate capitalism, rejected these old traditions. His soul was supposed to fill this newer worldview, but it could not. And no matter how enthusiastically the proletarian professed what this worldview said, he felt desolate in his soul, he felt a longing for a different spiritual life. For this intellectual life, the fruit of newer spirituality, has no power to answer the great soul-questions of mankind. This intellectual life says nothing about the connection of man with what every man feels in his heart as his higher humanity. That had a desolating effect. It had such an effect on the soul of the proletarian that he longed for something indefinite. This is what then masked itself in all kinds of demands and came to light in all kinds of forms. We will not understand this masking, these forms, if we cannot decide to look at the matter in its full depth from the point of view of a real world-view question. This newer spiritual life had no momentum for matters of world view, no momentum for the universally human. When the leading strata of newer humanity sought such momentum, sought something in spiritual life that would support the soul, they turned to the old religious ideas, to the old artistic, aesthetic, ethical or other views. But what they had to offer the proletarian, and what only the proletarian could understand, was not soul-nurturing, and to this day it is not soul-nurturing. We must ask: where does it come from? We must not ask the theorists, we must truly build no gray theories. We must immerse ourselves in a real life practice if we want to see clearly. Of course, I can only sketch the world-bearing facts today, but they can be fully proven. With the advent of modern times, with their technology and their capitalism, something was left over from an earlier development that, to the connoisseur, only remotely resembles what we call the state today, insofar as this state is truly worshipped and revered by enough people, one might say, almost like an idol. The classes of people who were the leading ones at the beginning of the modern era, when technology and capitalism emerged, used the framework of the state to bring into this framework everything that they felt comfortable bringing in. And we see it as justified, at least understandable from the point of view of that time, when one had to fight against the church and many other powers, as since the dawn of modern intellectual life, of historical life in general, intellectual life has been more and more incorporated into the sphere of the state. The school and other branches of spiritual life were increasingly drawn into the sphere of the state. This was seen as a great step forward in modern times. That is why it is so difficult today to fight against the general prejudice in this area and to say that it is precisely in this area that a retreat must be made, certainly not into a dark Middle Ages, but into the liberation of spiritual life in all areas from the state. . That is what one will have to realize today, that it is necessary if one wants to participate, even to a small extent, in the process of emerging from the terrible situation into which humanity has brought itself. It was considered a step forward to gradually place everything that belonged to intellectual life under the supervision of the state. Only a few artistic fields, some things that were considered unimportant for life, were still left free in the intellectual field.

Indeed, anyone who is familiar with the situation in this field knows what it means that people have become so arrogant in recent times with regard to the judgment that one can hear time and again that in the Middle Ages, philosophy, and by that we mean all science, all human intellectual life, trailed theology. Now, of course, the majority of those who are really intellectually active at the present time do not follow theology, but something else takes place. I would like to characterize it by quoting a word that could be multiplied a hundredfold, no, a thousandfold. A very famous, and rightly famous, important natural scientist of modern times once spoke as Secretary General of the Berlin Academy of Sciences about his colleagues, about the entire body of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and said that these scholars were the scientific protection force of the Hohenzollern. Well, think about it, that testifies to the dependency in which intellectual life has fallen, after it has freed itself from the clutches of theology. It no longer trails behind theology. But what it is inclined to do vis-à-vis the state, oh, the last four and a half years prove it. Read what German historians have written. And it is true, unfortunately most true – not only the administration, the staffing of the sciences depends on the state, no, those who really know the facts know that this science, which has become dependent on the state, has also become dependent on the state in terms of its content, its existence, became dependent on the state, and above all in so far as it was made by people who had killed the original spiritual life in themselves and became more or less only mediators for the assertion of that which the state actually asserts in them. It will be difficult to openly and courageously confess what has just been said, but it must be confessed. For it must be realized that spiritual life is only possible in its real essence, that it sustains people, that it sustains souls above all, that spiritual life is only possible when it is based on itself, on its own freedom, when everyone from the teacher of the lowest school knows: You are not subject to any command of the state, but only to the administration of those who have grown out of the spiritual life and serve it. With this spiritual life, which is completely independent of the state, something will be created that is a healthy soil for the development of the spirit in general.

What have we experienced in the spiritual development of recent times? Oh, how fundamentally alien to real life is everything that is cultivated within the walls of the scientific establishment. And what do we therefore lack in the field of economic life everywhere? Today, knowledgeable experts in this economic life admit that we lack the most important thing in economic life, that we lack, for example, a real science of industry. Economic life could not lag behind; it had to keep pace with the course of more recent development. It was impossible for the German iron industry, for example, to continue producing only 799,000 tons of pig iron, as it did in the early 1860s. No, by the end of the 1880s, it was necessary to produce not 799,000 tons of pig iron, but 4,500,000 tons. What is remarkable about this production of pig iron? That these 7,990,000 tons of pig iron were produced at the beginning of the 1860s by just over 20,000 workers, and, curiously, that the 45,000,000 tons in the 1880s were produced by just over 20,000 workers as well. What does that mean? It means that technical progress has advanced so far and economic life has progressed so much that the same number of workers were able to extract 45,000,000 tons of pig iron at the end of the 1980s, whereas only 7,990,000 tons were extracted at the beginning of the 1960s. But then one wonders: Has this perfection of technology been followed by perfection in other social fields? No. And today, insightful experts readily admit that we lack a science that is suitable, for example, to help production in the sense of increased consumption according to the demands of the present, so that the factories are built in the right place everywhere, that the factories are properly accompanied by other, supporting factories in the neighborhood. Whoever today observes the economic chaos that has emerged due to the lack of an industrial science in this regard can see the real reasons, the truly practical reasons for today's social movement. For a healthy spiritual life, a spiritual life that must not be dependent in a comfortable way, must not be supported by the state and its auxiliaries, but must prove its ability and strength for the social order anew every day, such a spiritual life, that is a healthy soil for all spirituality. And just as you say to yourself when you see a bad piece of wheat sprouting, there is imperfect soil underneath —, so you should say to yourself today: the fact that we have no industrial science, that we do not have what we need like bread itself for the recovery of our economic life is due to the fact that the soil in which the practical sciences should flourish is unhealthy, that the spiritual life does not produce those people who are the right leaders of capitalist administration, those people who can really find trust in the broad masses of those who have to work.

You see, these are the connections. Either you see the connections in this way, then you will find a way out of the chaos - but it is necessary to look into this deeper connection - or you do not see this connection, then you will go further into chaos, further into overexploitation, into degradation, no matter what you do in the sense of the old thinking about the economy. For only by starting with the socialization of spiritual life itself can we move beyond this overexploitation and this depletion. But socializing spiritual life means emancipating it from state life, leaving this spiritual life to its own devices from the lowest school level up to the university and completely freeing humanity's relationship to this spiritual life.

Believe me, I am familiar with all the objections that can be raised against what I have just said. I know that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will tell me: Well, when schools become free again, illiteracy will flourish once more, and similar things. You see, I would like to mention one thing in particular in response to the objections that may be raised by the Socialist side regarding what I have just said. The Socialists attach great importance to the so-called unified school. They say that in the future there must no longer be a class school; the children of all people must be taught in a unified school at least until the age of fourteen or fifteen. Very well, but do you believe that a school other than a unified school will exist when, for objective reasons, the independent intellectual organization, the intellectual organization independent of the state, sets up this school? I have written a little booklet: The Education of the Child from the Point of View of Spiritual Science. You may take whatever position you like on this point of view. I can fully understand any opposing position to this point of view; but if you disregard this point of view, if you disregard what can be said purely from the point of view of school philosophy about such a view, you will see that, when the education of the child is discussed, purely consideration is given to that which develops in the human being up to the age of maturity. When one speaks about the constitution of a school for objective reasons of spiritual life, one does not come to the idea of developing anything other than a unified school. It will be a need of spiritual life emancipated from the state that this spiritual life will have to prove itself effective every day anew in its representatives, that it will make its true essence and strength available to social life only when it is based on itself. Such a spiritual life will not live in abstract heights, it will not preach. Such a spiritual life will not cultivate unworldly science behind walls; it will educate people who, when they carry the thoughts of this spirituality within them, will become true leaders of economic life, our so complicated, so demanding economic life.

Spiritual life is not practical for the state; it has become impractical, it has become abstract. For decades I have repeatedly said to those to whom I was privileged to speak: You know teachings, you know theories that, for example, culminate in ethics, in morality, so that people are preached “love your neighbor as yourself,” or preached of brotherhood, of general compassion and the like. These sermons seem to me like speaking to the stove in the room: “You stove, that's what you look like; your essence invites you to warm the room, that is your duty as a stove, your categorical imperative, so warm the room!” Preaching is as useless for a stove as it is for a person. Therefore, we do not preach to the stove at all, but we do put wood or coal in it and light them. Likewise, in our present social order, those spiritual enterprises that remain at an abstract level are no longer appropriate; only those that really find access to what lives in the human being are appropriate. Do you think that if, for example, a truly living spiritual life had existed since the middle of the nineteenth century - but that is, of course, a hypothesis - people would have been just as uncomprehending about the Eisenach, Gotha and Erfurt programs as they were about them? No, never! On the basis of a healthy spiritual life, a healthy industrial science and a healthy social science would have developed. In the social sciences in particular, we have always put the cart before the horse. Instead of those who were called upon to speak about the social order, about the economic order, somehow finding something that had to happen, that could have met the demands of the proletariat, instead of that, these gentlemen recorded what was already there. That is what has brought us so low in this area. And the proletarian had no other choice than to experience the consequences of what was done with the economic system in which he was harnessed, based on the facts I have presented. From his point of view at the machine, from his involvement in soul-destroying capitalism, he saw the intellectual life of the leading, guiding classes. Well, of course, these leading, guiding classes could not help but shape life more and more democratically; they called on the broad masses of humanity to embrace democracy. Little by little, they also came to give the proletariat a share of what they cultivated as intellectual life; adult education centers were founded, art houses where the people were shown what art the other classes produced, and so on. What was developed there – no one should, of course, be reproached, because the people believed they were doing the right thing, which was in the spirit of progress in democracy – but what was actually staged was nothing more than a great lie. They just did not understand this lie. When the broad masses of the proletariat were called upon to look at the pictures of the bourgeoisie, to listen to the school courses of the bourgeoisie, and when they were then persuaded that they understood something about it, then that was not true. For one cannot experience anything in the field of intellectual life unless what is produced is produced within the same community. Because a deep gulf had opened up between the social experiences of the proletariat and those of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat's alleged understanding of bourgeois intellectual production was nothing more than a lie.

Thus the proletariat could not help but feel that it was part of the bare economic life. After all, everything was organized so that only a few could really enjoy the fruits of this intellectual life. But what did the proletariat experience? In the economic sphere, it experienced capital, the effectiveness of its own labor, and the circulation of goods, the production and consumption of goods. That was all that the proletariat really experienced. But when it looked at the state, which was used in this way by the ruling and leading classes of modern times, as I have just described, the proletarian felt something that every human being can feel who is mentally healthy. One can reflect a great deal on what the important concept of right actually means within humanity, or rather, within humanity. In the end, we will say to ourselves: the sense of justice is as fundamental to human nature as the perception of the colors blue and red is to the healthy eye. You can always talk about the red or blue color to someone with a healthy eye, but you cannot evoke any abstract idea of it. In the same way, you can talk about the individual rights to any healthy person. The broad masses of the proletariat also felt this in the periods when the democratic principle had led them to reflect on themselves at the machine and within capitalism. But then this proletariat looked to the state. From its point of view, what did it think it would find within this state? Truly not the realization of the right, but the class struggle with its class privileges and class disadvantages. Here we have another example of where bourgeois thinking has proved itself to be powerless. On the one hand, it was compelled to allow democracy to prevail; on the other hand, it did nothing to draw the consequences of this democracy and did not really dare to exclude from the state that which must be excluded, and to include in the sphere of the state that which must be included in the sphere of the state.

Today, due to the advanced hour, I will only point out one thing, but an important one: the second key point of the social movement of modern times. I will point out how it has taken hold – as I said, the one whom his fate has destined to think with the proletariat has seen it again and again – in the minds of the proletarians, the word of Karl Marx, that the modern proletariat must suffer from the fact that its labor power is bought and sold on the labor market like a commodity, that in economic life not only commodities circulate, but human labor power also circulates. Wages are nothing other than the purchase of human labor power as a commodity. Of course, the proletarian was not so educated by the heritage of bourgeois science, which he had inherited, that he could clearly understand in his mind what actually existed. And the proletarian leaders had only just inherited bourgeois science, so they certainly could not. But the proletarian felt the following in his heart in response to the above quote from Karl Marx. He looked back to ancient times and said to himself: There were once slaves, and the capitalist could buy the whole person like a cow or an object. Then came the time of serfdom, when one could buy less of the person, but still enough. Then came the more recent time, the time when people were made to believe that they were free beings. But the proletarian could not enjoy his freedom, because he still had to sell something of himself, namely his labor. You cannot sell your labor like something you have produced. You can take a wagon wheel or a horse to the market and sell it, and then go back. With your labor, you have to go along. There is a remnant of slavery in real life, no matter how much is said and taught scientifically about so-called freedom. This was what was fixed in the feelings of the proletarian, and what should also have been felt by a real spiritual life in the leading and guiding circles. But although they rightly evoked democracy, which fostered this feeling towards human labor, they were short-sighted enough not to accommodate this feeling through any institution. Now, finally, the facts speak in such a way that it is absolutely necessary to raise the second core question of the social movement: How to strip human labor of the character of the commodity? This is only possible if, on the one hand, we separate intellectual life from the actual political or legal state for the reasons given, and, on the other hand, we separate economic life from this political or legal state, if we thus place three independent social organisms side by side, which can only become a true unity if they are independent. Then they will help each other organically from within, whereas the current unity of economic life, state or legal life and intellectual life has led us into chaos. Now, on the one hand, economic life borders on natural conditions. How foolish it would be if some corporation were to sit down and determine today what natural conditions are needed for the year 1920, for example, how many days a year it must rain and how many days there must be sunshine. That would be folly, of course. In this area, where economic life borders on the natural foundations, one understands this folly, but on the other side, where economic life borders on the free state, which is not allowed to engage in economic activity, one does not yet understand a similar thing. Even Walther Rathenau emphasized in his latest pamphlet, 'After the Flood', that the detachment of the worker from the economic cycle would bring about a tremendous fall in the value of money. He cannot even imagine what will be possible as a result of the liberation of economic life from state life – the withdrawal of labor from economic life, so that economic life is left with nothing but that which is objective and independent of man. In the State the worker will have to stand on such ground where every man is equal to every other man. The future of the State, freed from economic and intellectual life, will be such that everything that lives in humanity, and which can be precisely defined, will develop within the State. In relation to this everything will stand completely equal before all men.

Not equal are men in regard to their individual abilities and talents. All these individual abilities and talents must be developed in a free intellectual life, in an intellectual life independent of the State. Democracy can achieve nothing here. Democracy has as its content everything in which all men are equal and to which no experience of life belongs. But experience of life is the element of economic life. The State must not concern itself with economic affairs. Its function is to lay down and regulate all those matters in which one human being is absolutely equal to another, and in which true democracy can prevail. These include, besides property rights, which you will find more fully explained in my book, above all labor law. In the future, the time, extent and type of work will have to be regulated by the state, which is independent of economic life, so that the worker, who is himself involved in this regulation, comes with a legally limited amount of work, with a working hours limited above all by labor law, when he enters the factory or workshop, before he concludes any kind of contract with a supervisor. Just as economic life, on the one hand, borders on the natural foundations of life and can only get by with a few technical measures, but is ultimately dependent on them, so economic life will, in the future, have to border on the other side of the firmly established labor law. It will no longer be possible to determine wages according to the utility value of goods, as is still essentially the case in our economic system today. All prosperity, all production within economic life will only be able to be shaped as a consequence of what is determined by the state as labor law, just as economic life can only be developed as dependent on natural resources. You can read more about this in my book “The Key Aspects of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life Today and in the Future”. We are now coming to the second of the key aspects of the social question, the regulation of labor law by separating economic life from state life.

The third of the core issues of the social question is the economic question itself. This finds its regulation when this economic life, realistically wedged between the two boundaries just described, is regulated within these boundaries by purely economic forces, the forces of the professional classes, by the forces of production and consumption through cooperatives and the like, in a completely independent manner from the legal and intellectual life. There is no more time today to go into detail - that can be done in the next lecture - about how the emancipated economic life can then bring about what prosperity will depend on labor law, and also on property law, but in a healthy dependence on it and, above all, in a morally necessary dependence, as it is on the other side in a natural dependence. In detail, however, it will be necessary for the other two areas of the social organism, the spiritual and the legal-state, to supply their strengths to economic life. But they will supply them precisely when they develop in the right way on their own ground.

When I was speaking on this subject recently in a Swiss town, a very clever person said to me during the discussion – of course I recognize all clever objections, I am aware of how much can be objected to what I am proposing here; but it is based on reality, and therefore there is as much to object to as there can be objected to as a rule; the reason why what is proposed is practical is that so much can be objected to it and because the objections must be countered in a practical way, not with judgments. He said: Yes, you now want to define the state with its law and its justice, but justice must prevail in both intellectual and economic life! I replied with an image: I imagine a rural family, the man, the woman, the children, servants, maids and three cows. The cows give milk. The whole family needs milk. Is it therefore necessary, or even possible, that the whole family should also give milk? No, if the three cows give milk properly, the whole family will be supplied with milk, and it is not at all necessary for the others to give milk as well. So it is with the three members of the social organism. Each of the members supplies for the other members that which can be supplied to them precisely because in its emancipation it is placed on its healthy, essential foundation. This is what one has to consider above all in the face of these truly practical social proposals, drawn from reality.

For more than a century, humanity has been guided by a threefold motto: liberty, equality, fraternity. Who could close their mind to the powerful impulsiveness of these three ideals? Nevertheless, very clever people of the nineteenth century, they have rightly, I say expressly rightly, pointed out the contradictions between these three great human ideals and said: If one is to develop the freedom of individuality, if the individualities are really to come into their own alongside each other, how is equality to prevail? Or again: How is fraternity to come into its own alongside equality, alongside the expansion of pure right? Well, you see, there is a capital, fundamental contradiction here. Why? Because these three great ideals of humanity, liberty, equality and fraternity, were still being formulated at a time when people were hypnotized by the idea of the unitary state, that unitary state which has actually led us into today's catastrophe. But something right, something lofty, something powerful was felt in these three impulses, and this can only be realized when it is known that each of these three ideals is suitable for the member of the three-part social organism placed on its own ground. In the future, the free spiritual organism must develop out of the impulses of freedom, the state and political organism out of the impulses of equality, and the economic organism out of the principle of fraternity on a large scale, from experience gained from person to person, from organizations, associations, cooperatives, and so on.

This is what prompted the person speaking to you today, when we were in the midst of that terrible catastrophe that brought us here in Germany to our present situation, to turn to many places so that the tone of the Germany. One could already see that at the time. The sound of the guns that thundered in vain should have been accompanied by a spiritual voice that would have filled the world, so that Central and Eastern Europe would have heard that in the future they should not work with guns but with the spirit. The way should have been sought to prevent what has now come to pass. My friends have put a great deal of effort into bringing to the relevant authorities, who were still appointed at the time and have now sunk into the abyss, what has been brought forth from the necessary conditions for the development of humanity in the present and near future. And I said to some at the time: What is expressed in this draft - at that time it was mainly formulated for foreign policy - is what has been deduced from the conditions in Central and Eastern Europe and the civilized world in general through decades of dedicated work, and what is to be realized in the next ten, fifteen, twenty years. And it has been said: You now have a choice. Either you accept reason and tell humanity that you want to realize this, or you face cataclysms and revolutions. Because what you do not want to realize through reason is what leads to revolution. This may be said today by someone who, before this war catastrophe, spoke of a social ulceration, of a social cancer. At the time, I was considered a fantasist, and those who spoke of a general relaxation shortly before the slaughter began were considered practical people.

Let us hope that in those who already understand the necessity of a change in thinking - not just a change in institutions, but a change in thinking, a change in learning in people's minds - let us hope that the impulse for the social movement that is heralded by such loud facts will shine in them. Let us hope that it will dawn on people before it is too late. Because what speaks through facts must be caught up with by thoughts. Today we do not need easy talk about this or that that should be changed. We need new thoughts in people's minds. Many people have said: A catastrophe like this war has not been seen since the beginning of human history. But few have said since: Therefore, we also need thoughts that may seem to some as if they have not yet been thought, but we need them, these thoughts, if we want to escape from this terrible catastrophe that still exists, and escape from confusion and chaos. Let us turn to self-reflection! Let us try to combine insight with courageous social will, then it will not yet be too late, even if the situation is already difficult today. Let us try to prevent the moment when we would then have to say to ourselves in terrible human tragedy, mourning: Too late!

Closing remarks after the discussion

I do not want to keep you very long today. First of all, it will be my task to thank you warmly for your trust. Believe me, it is truly not because of any personal desire to be consulted in these serious times. Rather, if I regard your trust as something extraordinarily meaningful, it is only because I have to face up to the seriousness of the times. And if I did not believe that we should not wait long in these times, but must quickly take action, I myself would perhaps recommend to you: Consider one or the other. But today it is really a matter of finding the way to rapid action out of the confusion of the present. I have been here in Stuttgart for eight days now, and I must confess that after having discussed the same ideas in Switzerland for a long time, the impressions of the last week here have been a very decisive experience in terms of my expectations and hopes, and from a very special point of view.

You see, today it depends on the people of the masses wanting what is reasonable. From my speech, you yourself will have gathered how, for years, attempts have been made to find the right thing to do with minorities, with those to whom, in a certain respect, the leadership of humanity had been entrusted. They preached to deaf ears. Today, a great deal depends on the masses, a great deal depends on whether one finds the possibility of cultivating reason in the broad masses. It was a great experience for me to be able to speak about these ideas to broad masses of the population, as has been mentioned to you, and to experience no contradiction. Today I consider this to be extraordinarily important, because it shows me that if one seeks the way, one finds it, and if it has not been found so far, then I believe it has not been sought in an appropriate way. The last few days have proved this to me, and that is why they were an important experience for me.

There is a lot to be said about the individual points of the debate, but given the late hour, it would be too much. However, I would like to defend myself against some of it, picking up on the last words, which actually showed great goodwill towards me. I would just like to recommend to you: Read page 140 of my writing 'The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life': 'The individual institutions of life presented will have shown that the underlying way of thinking is not, as some might think — and as was actually believed when I presented what I had written here and there orally — about a renewal of the three estates, the estates of nourishment, defense and teaching. The opposite of this division of the estates is aimed at.” The previous speaker said that the idea of threefold social order can also be found in Plato. No, what I presented to you today is the opposite of the division of the estates. It is not that human beings are newly structured in the state, not that the old estates are re-established, not that the Platonic idea is realized, but that what is independent of man, the social organism, is structured in three, and man attains his full, unified human dignity by not being divided into classes. It is by becoming a threefold social organism that class differences are overcome. There is a gulf between us and Plato. We must also rethink Plato. I must make this point, even in the face of such kind words. It is very important that we do not try to equate today's events with some old idea of Plato's.

Then today, in a way that I find very gratifying, the name Karl Christian Planck has been mentioned repeatedly. I believe there are also people here today who visited the Bürgermuseum years ago, where I emphasized the legal and political ideas of K. C. Planck in the context of my speech at the time. Yes, K. C. Planck is also one of those whom I would most like to cite as evidence of the aberrations of intellectual life in modern times. After all, K. C. Planck felt compelled to say that he would not even want his bones buried in his ungrateful homeland. So little attention was paid to what he had to say for that time. But I know that if Planck were to live again today, he would move with the times. If he were to ask himself, “How would my professional legal state be implemented in reality?” — he would automatically come up with the threefold order. That is what I believe to be viable in Planck's work, and I believe it will be a good preparation for what needs to be said today, though so many decades after Planck. It would be a good preparation if a good many people wanted to read The Testament of a German and also other books by K. C. Planck.

A great deal has been said: negotiations should be held, and the like. But aren't the negotiations that have now begun, when so many people, of whom you have been told, have to a certain extent embraced the ideas, negotiations that have already begun? That is also the opinion of our committee, that further progress should be made along these lines. But now I would like to say a word, a word that the great Gladstone once said. He once said that the North American Constitution was the most exemplary constitution he knew. Another, perhaps more witty English statesman, said that in his opinion the constitution did not need to be as good as Gladstone said, because the North Americans knew how to do the right thing for themselves with a bad constitution. It depends on what the people actually make of a constitution.

Now, instead of going into the details of the debate, I would like to point out the fundamental differences between what I believe and what many people see as the solution. You see, what is at issue here is not to set up some abstract program in which a great many people see salvation, but rather to bring people into such a context in social life that they can find what is right from within the social community. My appeal and my book are addressed to people. I have said repeatedly over the past few years: I do not imagine that I am smarter than others who also have experience, but it seems to me that my proposals are close to reality, to practical life. At any moment, the things we are talking about here can be realized from any starting point, here and there. It is only a matter of having the courage to do so. I have often said that perhaps no stone will be left unturned by my individual proposals, but that people will find the right way to live together if they are given the opportunity to do so. And people will find the right way if they are grounded in the threefold social organism. My appeal is to people themselves. If people want to establish the institution in question, they will enter into relationships with each other in which they can really organize their social life in such a way that the conditions of a healthy social organism are fulfilled. It is a practical matter, a practical grouping of people according to the threefold organism. Then, in the spiritual, legal and economic spheres, people will find what is right when they are in these three spheres. It is about people, and basically, to understand this call, nothing more is needed than real faith in people. I have often been told that the call is difficult to understand. I must confess that I was surprised that people who have understood so much that I have not understood in the last four to five years said that. There was so much that people understood or thought they understood when it came from the Great Headquarters or from some other source. Then everyone understood and even framed the sayings in golden frames. But now it is important that people understand something of their own accord, out of their own free decision. Man must rely on himself; that is the first requirement. This is the keynote of this appeal and of everything that is wanted here. You will be able to deduce the actual keynote of the appeal from what I have just said, and I hope that what is wanted will be understood better and better.

In the present grave situation of a large part of humanity, especially of humanity in Central Europe, it would be disastrous if the cure for various serious social ills were sought with small and petty means. It is necessary today to strive for comprehensive, forceful impulses that are based on a real understanding of what has driven us into confusion and chaos. It is necessary to turn our eyes, impartially, honestly and sincerely, to what actually is there and from which we want to escape. These considerations, which are characterized by the few sentences just quoted, were the starting point for the writing of that appeal for the threefold social order, which you know and which I also want to talk about today. It is only possible, I might say, to point out the necessity of what is said in this appeal and, in somewhat more detail, in my book, The Essential Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life, from this or that point of view. And many lectures would be needed if one wanted to point out everything that underlies the impulses that led to this appeal. Therefore, I must ask you to accept that what I can say in a single lecture can only be a part of what is actually needed to understand the social ideal that is meant by the appeal. Above all, however, I would like to point out today that a glance at the international situation that led to the terrible catastrophe of recent years, if viewed objectively and without prejudice, must lead to this appeal. Foreign political conditions and domestic political conditions, if we speak from the point of view of Germany, seem to force us to the impulses that are meant here. The basic idea of this appeal is that the terrible situation in which we find ourselves is essentially due to the fact that in modern times there has been a tendency to mix and blend three areas of life that must now develop independently: the three areas of intellectual life, the actual political or legal or state life, and economic life.

In the unitary state, which has increasingly been regarded as the panacea for the social order, hypnotizing humanity, all the forces of these three areas of life have been merged. Today, salvation for our social organism must be sought in the independence of these three areas of life, as a practical goal. This is, in the abstract, the basic impulse underlying this appeal. If we want to understand from one of the many points of view that come into consideration, we must look to the left and to the right, so to speak, if we want to understand what has led Central European humanity, in particular, into today's terrible and dreadful catastrophe. Germany and the German people were involved in the war to the west and to the east, and it can be said that it is only by looking at the circumstances in the west and the east and how they interacted that we can understand our current situation in Central Europe.

If we look to the West, we will see, if we first consider social hardship, how, especially in the countries of the West, in those countries with which the war lasted the longest, in the historical development of modern times, clear fusion of economic life with political life has taken place, so that from the national instincts, especially of the English-speaking population, I might say, in this part of the world, as if naturally and elementarily, a striving for the state has arisen, above all, from the particular point of view of economic life. Everything political was permeated by the economic. The economic laws became political laws. Thus we see the fusion of political and economic life when we turn our gaze to the West.

In another way, we see the fusion of political life with cultural life initially in the form of nationalist folk cultures and their intellectual life, which emerges from this nationalism. Looking eastward, we see the fusion of intellectual life with political life. Everything – here it can only be hinted at, but a thorough study of the European and American situation proves it – everything indicates that the explosive materials which have gradually accumulated between Central Europe and the West can only be understood from the conflict that arose in the West itself between economic and state life due to the fact that economic and state life, but with a particular predominance of economic life, had merged in a chaotic way. In the East, the explosive materials were stored due to the merging of the individual spiritual cultures of the national communities with the political life of the state.

We were placed between these accumulations during the development of modern times. We have so far failed to learn what our task is in this wedging between West and East. The terrible world catastrophe that arose from these two impulses, which I have characterized, should teach us where to steer, especially in Central Europe, which should learn from the West and the East. From the West it should learn that, as a neighbor of the West, it has the task of separating and achieving independence in economic life and political state life. From the East it has to learn the separation of spiritual life from - if we look superficially at it only in national life - state life. Huge errors – there is no use closing our eyes to this fact today – huge errors have piled up in the politics of the middle states, in the careless politics of these middle states, which finally led to nothingness, because the statesmen were not able to see how certain national instincts in the West have so far prevented economic life from merging with political life and gaining the upper hand in the latter, just as it provided one explosive charge after another in the East, how intellectual life has merged with state life in an unorganized way. Huge political errors, which one must recognize in their historical necessity, are what finally had to be discharged in that catastrophe that brought us the most terrible disaster. Has one in recent times, and I mean a long time, yes, has one actually until today the good will to look at these conditions in a penetrating way? Are there not, in spite of the present terrible situation, many people among us who look down on truly practical impulses as worthless idealism because these practical impulses are great ideals today, and who, out of complacency and timidity of spirit, long for small goals, which they alone call practical, while they turn against the great goals that are necessary today as against the impractical ones. These people, who today reject the truly practical, great goals as idealisms and only want to look at the very nearest, these people are the same or the descendants of the same who brought Central European humanity, European humanity in general, into its present situation and who will cause the damage to become even greater. If it is not possible for the so-called practice of life of the philistines to be replaced by the real practice of life — today the situation must be viewed impartially and honestly — then the result of a true foreign policy, which leads to the impulses of the threefold social organism, will never come.

But today we are not only dealing with a consequence of foreign policy. We are dealing with developmental forces that are surging from quite a different direction and making waves in humanity! What we are facing today can be compared to the migration of peoples and the encounter of this migration with Christianity at the beginning of the Middle Ages. Anyone who considers the great impulses of Christianity in their effectiveness through the Middle Ages and the modern era must actually notice the character of Christianity's impulses, especially among the peoples who are usually referred to when the migration of peoples is considered, and the character it has taken on among the more southern peoples. Originating in Asia, Christianity first took hold among the highly developed peoples of Greece and Italy, among the highly developed intellects of these southern regions of Europe. Only then did it penetrate into the lands of the “barbarians,” as the southern peoples called those storming in from the north. If we take a survey of these conditions, we find that what actually made Christianity effective in the world did not develop through its passage through the southern peoples, who were at the highest stage of development but already in a state of decline, but that it unfolded its mighty impulses in the hearts and minds of those peoples who still had unspent intelligence and unspent soul power. That was, I might say, the horizontal migration of peoples with its peculiarities at the beginning of the Middle Ages. Today, when we look at the proletarian movement, we are faced with a vertical migration of peoples. That which can be called the proletariat flows out of the depths of cultural life to the leading currents of culture. But what we must seek as the new, saving element of culture, as the great impulses that lead us out of the confusion, that works, I would say, from the depths of the spirit, as Christianity once did for the Greek and Roman peoples. And we see how that which wants to seize the future in order to reshape the world in spiritual, state and economic terms needs the unspent intellects, the unspent minds of those masses of people who, in today's vertical migration of peoples, are streaming from bottom to top, while, as I already I have already stated here, in the worn-out brains of those who, like the Greeks and Romans of old, are at the height of culture, there is hardly any trace of that fire in the leading circles that have been in charge up to now, a fire that we urgently need today to find the way out of social distress and to achieve truly great, practical goals for humanity. That such paths must be found is indicated above all by the fact that the vertical migration of peoples has played itself out in the course of the more recent development of humanity.

Foreign policy points to the threefold nature of the social organism. What does domestic political life show us? It shows us that precisely those elements of the people who carry the unspent intellect, the unspent powers of the soul from below upwards – however little many people today may want to admit it, however little the proletariat itself can find suitable and appropriate words and ideas for certain phenomena today – that these people feel this in their souls, they feel it in the hardship of their bodies, and in everything that confronts them, one can say that for three to four centuries, but especially in the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, they feel the triple hardship of the social order in three ways. They felt that they were facing, first of all, a spiritual life with which they felt no community other than the one that had been characterized for them in the last half-century by Karl Marx's words about “surplus value”. What underlies this has by no means been fully understood, neither on the one hand by the bourgeoisie nor on the other by the proletariat. In fact, things are taken rather superficially, especially in more recent education. What underlies it is that the entire, so much praised, so much vaunted intellectual culture of modern times in all its ramifications could only develop as the culture of a few on the subsoil of the deprivation of culture on the part of the great, broad masses. Not as if the hitherto leading classes had brought want and misery to the proletarian masses out of a malicious will, out of devilry. No, they brought it about, as I tried to show last Monday, through lack of understanding of the tasks that arose in world history from the fact that ever broader and broader masses were seized by the modern vertical migration of peoples, by the striving for a spiritual life that they lacked. But that was how it was, and the essential thing is that what we have achieved in art, indeed in science, what we have achieved in education with regard to intellectual life, could, on the one hand, only be for a few and that it had to be worked for under the deprivations of many. This special kind of intellectual life could not exist without creating an abyss between the privileged and the disadvantaged. The broad masses, striving upwards, felt this in relation to the main aspect of human life, in relation to the intellectual life.

In contrast to the life of the state, or of politics or law, the upwardly striving masses felt more and more that there is something for human nature that is the same for all people. This equality cannot be developed in any theory; it simply exists in the experiences of every healthy soul. Just as one cannot speak to a person with blind eyes about the color blue or red, so one cannot speak to an unhealthy soul about what lives in every healthy soul as a sense of right and wrong, that sense of right and wrong that makes man equal to all other men in the second sphere of social life, in the life of the state. But this feeling, which was still suppressed in the broad masses in the old patriarchal conditions, and even in the conditions of the Middle Ages, this feeling of equal rights, it came up more and more intensely in the last centuries and especially in the proletarian development of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The ruling and leading classes could not help but call on the broad masses for democracy. They needed it for their own interests. They needed a proletariat that was increasingly educated in schools. But you cannot educate one soul without educating the other at the same time. By making the proletarians into skilled workers for the complicated tasks in their factories and elsewhere, the ruling and leading classes had to, because one is not possible without the other, because the other develops by itself, at the same time allow the legal consciousness that is inherent in every self-aware human soul to arise in the proletariat. But this sense of justice developed quite differently in the proletarian than in the previously leading, guiding circles of humanity. In the previously leading, guiding circles of humanity, feelings of justice developed around the circles of interests into which these classes had long been born. The proletarian, by being placed at the machine, by being harnessed in the soul-destroying capitalism, was not equipped with such interests. Those relationships that existed everywhere between what the leading classes represented in social life and what they felt as their humanity, those contexts of interest did not exist for the proletarian. I do not mean it humorously when I say that for the members of the leading classes, something may have emerged from the social context in which they were placed, from an inner sense of humanity that gave them a certain sense of right and wrong when they could write, let us say, “factory owner” on their business card and the like, or even “reserve lieutenant”. But for the proletarian, there was no such connection of interests between the soul-destroying machine and his humanity, and between being harnessed into capitalism and his humanity. The proletarian was reduced to his bare human rights, and by looking at the others, he saw not universal human rights, but class privileges and class disadvantages. That was the second experience, the experience in the field of state life.

And the third experience arose for the proletarian in the economic sphere. There he saw how his labor power in the wage relationship was treated by the leading, leading circles in exactly the same way as a commodity. This had a deep, profound impact on the feelings of the modern proletariat. It created an awareness that perhaps did not express itself clearly in the mind, but that took root more and more deeply and intensely in the hearts of proletarians who were aware of their humanity: In ancient times there were slaves, the whole man could be sold and bought like a thing; later there was serfdom, less of the human being could be bought and sold, but still enough; today there is still buying and selling of human labor for those who own nothing but that labor. This labor power, one must go with it, by having to sell it, one cannot carry it to the market like an object and go back again after selling the object, one must deliver oneself to the one who buys the labor power. The enslavement of the laborer to the economic cycle was the third experience of the modern proletariat. Thus, in the social order that emerged as a welfare state, the proletarians found themselves united in the same way that we found them united in foreign policy; they found themselves united in the modern state, in intellectual life, in state and legal life, and in economic life. Just as the amalgamation of the great imperialisms led to the explosion of the world war, so, on the other hand, what moves from the bottom up, what is experienced threefold in intellectual life, in legal or state life and in economic life, leads to social explosion. The two belong together. The old order exploded into the world war catastrophe from the empires, into which modern capitalism saw itself transformed from large-scale enterprise without really knowing it. Large-scale enterprise has become imperialism, and the clash of imperialisms has given rise to the world war catastrophe. That which moved vertically, from bottom to top, contains the same impulses. It only leads in the opposite direction to that social distress that was a world social distress in the conditions of the newer empires, which either, as in the West, became empires of interests, or as in the East, amalgamations of state empires with national empires. The fusion of the three spheres of life led to the explosion of the world war and into a social distress of the greatest magnitude, because this so-called world war is nothing different than previous wars. It is the last gasp of the old order in a terrible form. Let us see how a new one is about to begin, from the bottom up. Let us not fail to see what impulses are striving to develop differently for the further development of humanity than those that developed from the old economic order into world imperialism and thus led to the most terrible horrors of recent times. This is how the signs of the times speak today. And so man must know how to face these signs of the times today. Have we not experienced how, especially in Central Europe, it has become apparent that people have gradually lost a truly healthy judgment about intellectual, economic, and political life because of the unnatural, the impossible gradual fusion of the three areas?

I ask you, without getting involved in a critique of the circumstances, I ask you whether events and facts of the last human development – let us look at them only with regard to Europe for now – have not emerged almost entirely under the influence of the fusion, for example, of politics and economic life? The whole world has screamed – I do not want to get involved in a critique of this screaming, of course, there are not only lambs on this side and only wolves on the other – but the whole world has screamed about the breakthrough through Belgium at the beginning of the war. How could this breakthrough have come about? It could only have come about because the strategic railways had been built there. They would not have been there if the economic forces had been separated from the political forces within the German territory. Look at the map of Europe, consider the many railway networks and then study from a healthy industrial science - which we do not yet have - whether these purely economic institutions, the railways, would be as they are - you can even do these studies in neutral countries - if they only served economic life and developed out of it. Or do we not notice, when we look at the relationship between economic and political life, how, precisely because the empire has become more and more merged with economic conditions, all of Central Europe has gradually become more and more of a large commercial building, following the Western model? Do we not notice that political education is increasingly fading away? Just think of the vast sums of intelligence, the vast sums of prudence that have been directed towards pure business life, towards economic life, while the peoples of Central Europe have become more and more apolitical, even compared to their apolitical nature of earlier centuries. We have become depoliticized by merging politics with economic life.

And finally, more and more we have come to depend completely on state life for all intellectual life. Here, too, it must be pointed out again and again how not only the filling of positions but also the administration of schools have come to depend on modern state life, but also the content of intellectual life itself, the content of art, the content of science. People are not yet aware of this today, which is why the most monstrous prejudice arises in this very area, when people attack what is important. And what is important today is that we rise up to work towards a healthy separation of economic life from state or political or legal life on the one hand, and again towards a separation of the entire intellectual life from state life on the other.

Today, the call for socialization runs through our economic life. It emerges, one might say, from the aforementioned vertical migration of peoples like a motto in world history. And even though there is still little sign of even a reasonably adequate understanding of true socialization, we must nevertheless say, when we look at social life without prejudice: However unclear the thinking on the matter may be, the call for socialization expresses something significant in world history. We see this perhaps most clearly from the fact that, precisely because of the terrible economic experiences of the war, even capitalistically oriented thinkers could not avoid speaking of the necessity of socializing the economy. This necessity for socialization of the economy is, for example, very energetically emphasized by an otherwise capitalist-minded man, Walther Rathenau. Indeed, in some of the points the Appeal makes, one can even find points of contact with what Walther Rathenau says, for example, in his little book 'The New Economy'. But as we shall see in a moment, for those who really understand the impulses of the threefold social organism, there is a radical, fundamental difference in the socialization of the economic between what must be demanded on the basis of this threefold social organism as such socialization and Rathenau's views. And this fundamental difference shows precisely what is most necessary in contemporary social striving.

But how did people actually arrive at the idea of socialization in the economic sphere, at the demands for socialization? For a long time, the human ideal was seen in what was called the free play of economic forces. Much of what can be called the modern private-capitalist economic system came into being as a result of the free play of economic forces, of the free competition of economic personalities and groups. But then, in the course of the development of the economic system that had emerged under the influence of modern technology, under the influence of modern capitalism and under the influence of the free play of economic forces, it became apparent that more and more was being separated from a human minority, namely the proletarian majority, which became the bearer of the three great demands that I have just characterized. And so the justified demand arose within the proletariat for socialization, that is, for the opposite of the pure play of forces in the economic sphere. According to the ideas of the leading figures of the proletariat, the development of economic life should henceforth be based on the thorough organization of the whole of economic life. And we see, of course, how in certain areas, albeit to the horror and disgust of many, such thorough organization is being implemented. For the old free play of forces, one still found the beautiful saying of the salutary of throne and altar as an echo of earlier state and economic orders. Now, out of the catastrophe of world war, the call and enthusiasm for throne and altar is abandoned, but we see something lurking that opens up in the face of the former throne and altar. Not only the former ruling classes, but also the broadest sections of the truly rational, thinking proletariat feel something frightening in the question: What will happen when office and machine take the place of throne and altar? Will it be better for us? Could it not be that the same dictators might develop from among those who work in the factory and office as have developed under the influence of throne and altar? This is a significant question, but also one that, if answered in a healthy way, must lead to a way out of social hardship to truly practical goals. I am still speaking in a very abstract way, but the idea I am about to express can be practically applied in all areas of economic life if all those involved in economic life are called upon to organize these matters. But it must be done in such a way that trust can prevail between all these links in the economic chain.

Let us speak openly and honestly on this matter. The days I have spent here in Stuttgart addressing numerous proletarian assemblies have been a great experience for me. I hardly spoke, only in form at most, to the proletarians differently than I speak here. I was, it turned out, understood in Switzerland and here in the broadest circles of the proletariat. And what did this teach me? It taught me that it is only possible to make progress, whether with socialization or with other social demands of the present, if we work with the trust of humanity. That we will only make progress if we work with people and align ourselves with their desires, if we stop seeking salvation only in issuing decrees from above out of a seemingly superior intellect. Today we can only avoid dictatorships if we find the right words that, when spoken by individuals, are spoken from the heart, from the feelings of the broad masses, especially the working population. I wanted to say that first. It points out that the social issues that are immediately urgent cannot be resolved in small circles, however they may call themselves, but that they must be resolved on the broad basis of the factories and workshops, from the people, not from socialist theories.

One of the first demands, if we take this human factor into account, is that the economic life should learn from the bitter and terrible events of the world war catastrophe, that is, from what the world war catastrophe has become, how socialization should be carried out. We must learn that everything that leads to such socialization must be disastrous, especially if it again confuses state or legal life with economic life.

Time and again I have to point out the unnatural amalgamation of economic life with state and legal life, as it developed in Austria in the last third of the nineteenth century. The fact that Austria fell into such a terrible decline, and was ripe for decline long before the world war catastrophe, is due to the fact that, on this hotbed of conflict, it was not understood how destructive it would be to form the state based on the rule of law from economic curiae at the dawn of the newer constitutional life. Only through coercion was a change made, much later, but it was much too late, to something other than what was attempted in the 1860s. The so-called Reichsrat was formed from four economic curiae: large landowners; chambers of commerce; cities, markets and industrial towns; rural communities. Purely economic interests were asserted on the territory of the state, where the law was to arise. Economic interests were transformed into rights! And anyone who has properly studied this political development of Austria, which under the Taaffe Ministry in the last third of the nineteenth century was called muddling through, knows what seeds of destruction lay in the fact that in these territories, which were based on the most diverse nationalities, the impulse was not found to develop the legal life separately for itself and the economic life separately for itself. I could say a great deal, and I could say a great deal in the parliaments of practically all the present States, if I wanted to show in detail how the impossibility of merging political or state or legal life with economic life has increased everywhere. From today onwards, the first requirement must be to separate this economic life from the state life. Then we can proceed with the claim of all human resources involved in economic life, trusting in them to carry out the appropriate socialization, which will consist - as I have explained in my book and also hinted at in other places - in the formation of associations, first by profession, then by context, coalitions, cooperatives, which arise from the pursuit of harmonization of conditions in consumption and production. Only on this basis can healthy socialization arise. It will arise when people see the damage caused by both the free play of forces and mechanical socialization – both of which have been prejudicial to humanity. It will only arise when we learn from the lessons of world's history, so that socialization will come about not through the extinction of the free play of forces, but precisely through the understanding work of the free play of human forces. You can only do that if you spread trust, but then you can do it! That, more or less, is what Walther Rathenau meant, and he was echoing a certain saying of Gretchen to Faust. But the threefold social organism means something quite different. You see, that is why Walther Rathenau's concept of socialization is quite different from the socialization that had to be proposed by the threefold order, because Walther Rathenau cannot imagine anything other than socialization taking place while state supervision continues and the state draws a steady profit from what is produced in the socialized enterprises.

This only proves that a person who might have learned from practical experience remains trapped in blind theory. This only proves how powerfully suggestive the thoughts that have formed in the course of the development of modern capitalism continue to be, even in those who strive for socialization, how necessary it is to struggle against prejudices in this area with all the strength of free practical insight into the circumstances. Everything that is to be raised in the way of order in economic life, of reasonableness and understanding permeating economic life, of morality, must come from the independent personalities and bodies that themselves direct economic life. Economic life will only develop healthily when the state has nothing to say in economic life other than what it has to say through the personalities involved in economic life, as personalities with rights. Of course, if someone cheats others in the field of economic life, then he is subject to the state law. He is subject to the state law as a personality. But the functions and activities of the personality in economic life must be based, in the economic partnership, on the mere contract, on mere trust. Even if this still meets with many prejudices on the socialist side today, anyone who judges not from concepts and ideas but from the experience that the last decades of European economic life have brought, up to the economic downfall in the war, will say this. And he must say: We will not achieve sound economic conditions until the separation of economic life from state life has been accomplished. We have arrived at the present situation through the intermingling of what should be based on trust and contract with the state, which should be based solely on laws. The laws of the state may only shine into economic life insofar as they shine through personalities. Only in this way can we bring out of economic life what must be brought out, that which, as labor power, is today, like a commodity, unlawfully harnessed into the economic cycle, according to the proletarian sense.

On the one hand, economic life borders on natural conditions. Imagine the following absurdity: some economic consortium would get together, determine its balance sheet, the probable balance sheet for 1919; and this consortium would take the 1918 balance sheet and then, based on assets and liabilities, determine how many days it should rain in the summer of 1919, for example, in order to achieve a desirable business situation for the next year. Of course this is pure nonsense, isn't it. But I only mention this nonsense because it should be seen from it that, on the one hand, economic life is based on natural conditions, which we cannot completely regulate from within this economic life. We can do some things through technical devices, but we cannot completely regulate them from within mere economic life. Just as economic life borders on natural life on the one hand, so in the future economic life must border on the legal life of the state, and in the legal life of the state everything must be regulated that is subject to the legal life, above all human labor. For the economic cycle, the regulation of the human labor of the worker must lie outside this economic process. Just as the natural forces of the soil ripen the corn and wheat outside the economic process, so the regulation of the measure, time and type of labor must be outside the economic process. Nothing must be determined by the economic situation, nothing must be determined by the economic conditions and forces with regard to the measure and type of human labor. With regard to labor, man stands quite differently to man than with regard to the satisfaction of human needs, which are met by the economic cycle of production, circulation and consumption of commodities. From this cycle of production, labor must be taken out and regulated in the purely democratic life of the state, in the separate state emancipated from economic life. Thus the economic process is healthily constrained between nature on the one hand and the legal life of the state on the other. All this must be organized in the spirit of threefolding. This can only be achieved if the state does not develop what can only develop within the economic process from person to person, but only develops everything that relates to the relationship between individuals, where each individual is equal to every other individual. Therefore, no profit that comes from a consortium of people, from an economic group, from an economic community, may prevail on the basis of this state life. What is gained in the economic sphere must in turn flow back into the economic life of the people to raise their standard of living. Whatever flows into the state, let us call it a tax or whatever, must, if I am to express myself clearly, come only from the pocket of the individual human being. Only the individual human being can stand in relation to the state; then, on the basis of the state, only the individual human being stands in relation to the individual human being. Then human rights will truly flourish on the basis of the state. Then the social question, insofar as it is a labor question, will be solved by emancipating state life from economic life, in which the compulsion can no longer prevail by which labor itself becomes an object of the free play of forces in the free play of forces. The worker must have organized his labor power before he enters the workshop, before he enters the factory, before he enters the economic process. Then he appears as a free personality, whose freedom is guaranteed by the state labor law, to the head of labor; only then does a healthy relationship develop.

Here we are on truly practical socialization ground. Those who understand the conditions of this ground know that you can make socialization framework laws without end from other conditions. You can make them today, find them useless after two years, reform them, find them useless again after five years and reform them, and so on. We will not arrive at a healthy, beneficial state sooner than we rise up to attack the practice at such a point as I have just pointed out. It is precisely this characteristic of the development of recent times that this development, in many ways for human thinking, for human habits of thinking, clings to the surface of things. And now, when we are confronted with world-shaking facts, we see in so many cases, unfortunately, unfortunately, the inadequacy of the old party judgments, which were supposed to build up and which in the building up often behave not like judgments that intervene in reality, but like mummies of judgment that have died under the party stiffness, under the party philistrosity of more recent times. Therefore, it can be said that in the present day, when things should be seen urgently and squarely and honestly and truthfully, the most important things are seen so crookedly. It is understandable that many who have seen modern capitalism in its development now hold the view that private capitalism as a whole must go and common ownership of all means of production must prevail. It is understandable that this judgment, which has been formed over decades, I would say out of bleeding souls, out of need and misery, is difficult to discard. Nevertheless, a deeper question must arise – after all, we cannot do without capital accumulation in the modern economy – the question: What must be associated with capital accumulation? The individual ability of people to use capital in the appropriate way, not in an egoistic but precisely in a social sense, must be associated with capital accumulation. We cannot do this if we do not cultivate human individual abilities, if we do not make the respective capital administrations of the enterprises accessible to these human individual abilities. Therefore, on the ground on which this call for social threefolding, which you have mentioned again today, originated, an idea had to be grasped that represents something completely different from what is still often understood today as the socialization of capital.

It is remarkable how, when thinking practically, one is led to making the administration of capital dependent on the third sphere, which must become independent in a healthy social organism, the emancipated spiritual organism. We have increasingly severed the link between intellectual work and the work of capital in the economic process. As a result, instead of developing an economic upswing that can be linked to an increase in the standard of living of the masses, we have increasingly developed a kind of economic overexploitation despite all technical advances. Particularly with regard to the impulses that play a major role in modern economic life, for example the impulse of credit, modern economic life has run itself into a strange cul-de-sac. Credit in the context of economic life today is something that can almost only be supported by existing economic factors. In the future, we need the possibility that credit will not only be born on the basis of economic life, we need the possibility that credit can be born into economic life from outside. Not true, a paradoxical assertion, a strange assertion; but what underlies it is even stranger as it is. As spiritual life becomes independent in the direction of the future, developing out of its own conditions, we shall emerge from that abstract spiritual life, from that luxurious spiritual life that cannot find any relation to practical life. Those who know me will not suppose that I want to belittle spiritual life in any way. But the intellectual life that will develop out of its own conditions, isolated from the other two social organisms, will not be an abstract intellectual life that merely preaches or remains on abstract intellectual heights. It will be an intellectual life that does not merely lead to abstract knowledge about this or that, but that leads to making people capable as people. In a future social order, we will no longer be able to use our grammar schools, which are alien to life. Nor anything similar.

But that which will live will be something that has spiritual impact, that the human soul is able to carry in all its most spiritual needs for life. It is precisely by developing that which so many people today regard as an outlandish spiritual life that we come to find that path which cannot be found by our education system, which is forged to the state, that path which educates the human being as a whole human being, educating the human being in such a way that any kind of intellectual culture will no longer be possible without at the same time being a skill for practical things, a way of looking at practical things. The materialism of modern times has made people impractical. A true spiritual life, which will not be the life of a state servant in the field of the spirit, will make people practical again. It will not produce people in the field of the highest culture who think they have worldviews but do not know what a bank, credit, mortgages and so on are, and how these work in economic life. It will not produce people who know about the forces of physics but who have never chopped wood in their lives. I am, of course, speaking comparatively here. There is a practical bridge between a genuine spiritual life, left to its own devices, and the management of economic life. Capitalism, in its damaging form, can only be overcome if the management of capitalism is closely linked to the recovery of spiritual life. Then there will emerge what may be called a healthy socialization of capital. Then those people will emerge from the spiritual life who can also bring credit, new credit, into economic life, who can constantly fertilize economic life. Then the cycle of capital will be possible, of which I speak in my book. Today I can only touch on these points. In the next lectures that I am allowed to give here, I will have to discuss individual specific questions of this kind, in particular the relationship between capital and human labor.

Thus we see how the three great impulses of human social development, which, as I mentioned the other day, have been shining maxims of human endeavor since the French Revolution, will be able to materialize through the three-part social organism. Freedom in the field of independent intellectual life, equality in all fields of state life, fraternity through the associations and cooperatives of the self-built economic life.

Now, in conclusion, I would just like to say this: I know that if one hears only the generalities, and not yet the specific practicalities that have been mentioned again today, one can have many objections to them, because one does not know how everything is really connected in practice in the thinking about this threefold social organism, from the founding of the university to the sale of a toothbrush. The practical nature of the proposal lies precisely in the fact that one can object in many ways when one only hears the general. But the practical value will emerge when people of all professions, of all human activities, participate in the realization of this idea in their social work in the individual concrete case. In the face of the objection that it is idealism or even utopian, in the face of this objection, more and more people will speak out about the serious facts of the time.

In July and early August 1914, world events reduced to absurdity in a strange way the ideas that many still consider practical today. In my pamphlet, 'The Crux of the Social Question', I pointed out at the end, where international relations are discussed, that people at home and abroad still have no idea of what really happened in Berlin on the last day of July and the first days of August 1914. The world will demand to know what happened there. When the truth is told about these things, it will be seen that a terrible light falls on the events of modern times, a light that will show that we do not just need a transformation of one or the other, that we need new thoughts, new habits of thought, that we not only have to transform institutions, but that we have to relearn and rethink in the thoughts of our heads.

Those who honestly and sincerely come to terms with this situation will not despondently recoil at the objections of those who say: You idealist, stick to your trade, stick to your ideals, don't talk us into practice! These practitioners will see what a pest this practice of life will reveal itself to be. But those who are the true practitioners, who think from the great impulses of human development, do not ascribe any special cleverness to themselves. For what compels us today to speak as I have done today, are the facts of the present itself. Oh, sometimes one feels so that one would like to compare oneself with that boy who once sat at the machine and had to operate the two taps, where the steam was let in through one and the condensed water through the other. The boy was truly not a genius inventor because of his age, but he stood before the machine, which revealed something to him through its facts. He saw how opening one of the valves coincided with the descent of the balance arm on one side, and opening the other valve with the descent of the balance rod on the other side. So, in his naivety, he took some ropes and tied the cocks to the balancing rod – and lo and behold, there he was at his steam engine, watching the balancer go up and down and open and close the cocks. But with that something important had been found. It was not the man who had been right at the time who now approached the boy and said: You good-for-nothing, get rid of those cords, just open the valves by hand; but it was the man who had found the self-control of the steam engine through the naive machinations of that boy.

Today, the facts speak so powerfully that one truly feels naive when trying to find how the self-control of the healthy social organism should be achieved. I could only hint at this today. It will be found when the following are allowed to function in full independence: spiritual life, economic life, and political or state life.

And so, I would like to conclude today by saying that I hope that humanity, and in particular Central European humanity, will recognize the significance of these impulses in the necessities of life in modern times before it is too late. For it must be recognized that we can only effectively move towards practical goals out of social need if we come up with ideas that contain the germ of action. It is thoughts that contain germs, thoughts that contain the germs of deeds, that we should seek, and we, who represent the tripartite social organism in its three impulses of independent spiritual, economic and legal life, believe that these impulses must be carried into the development of humanity before it is too late.

Closing remarks after the discussion

Dear attendees,

I do not want to keep you any longer with my closing remarks, not so much because there is not still much to be said about the remarks of the esteemed speakers, but above all because we are already too far ahead in time. Therefore, some of what I would like to say, but only in a vague way, has been said by some of the esteemed speakers, will have to be taken into account in the next two lectures to be given here. However, I would like to address some of them today, albeit very briefly. So please forgive the brevity of the answers to the direct questions that have been put to me.

The question has been raised as to why I myself – possibly through those on whom my word could have made some impression – have not raised the voice of peace earlier. Well, even though there were speakers in this discussion who again raised the accusation of idealism, I would like to emphasize quite strongly that I am and want to be a practitioner of life through and through, and that therefore it never occurs to me to merely propagate things that do not show their potential for realization in the facts of life. I would therefore also like to answer these questions with a few facts. What do you think would have been a truly practical way of promoting peace propaganda in real terms, say here in Stuttgart, well, let's say in the middle of the year or in the spring of 1916? By calling you together here and speaking fine words to you about the necessity of peace? Do you think that in the spring of 1916 a real practitioner of life could have achieved that so easily? Well, there were other ways. These ways, which came from the realization, from the full realization of the matter, were tried in order to do what was right at the time. In the not too distant future, it will be necessary to talk seriously about the history of the last four to five years, not in the way that people still talk about the history of these years in many circles. To mention just one of the facts: I fully advocated what I considered necessary as early as the spring of 1916, when it would have been possible to take practical action. I tried everything possible. Partly because of lack of time, because I would have to talk a lot about it, I will not elaborate further. It came to the point that on a certain day my task in the face of the terrible events should have begun. But then came the strange decree, I will call it that, from the highest instance, although those who had examined the matter considered it to be very promising. The decree came from the instance in which many people believe because they were ordered to believe: “He is an Austrian German, after all. Before we use Austrians for such services, we have to hire our capable German people for them. — That is the truth! That is how a truth can be! If I told you the whole context of the matter, no one would ask me why I did not stand up earlier for what I stand up for today. And another thing. At the beginning of this century and at the end of the last century, I was a teacher at a workers' training school founded by the old Wilhelm Liebknecht. At that workers' training school, I formed a very loyal following among the students. But perhaps the members of the Socialist Party present here know that there are also so-called bigwigs within this party. And so it came about that one fine day, because I did not want to teach a dogmatic, materialistic view of history, four people out of six hundred of my students – four people who had never heard me outnumbered six hundred of my students who had heard me for years – and managed to get me fired. This is also a small chapter as to why the things that are now being spoken of me have not been spoken of earlier. Those who know how and where I have spoken on these subjects do not ask. But it is one thing to speak and another to be listened to. I am firmly convinced that many of those who are listening to me today would not have listened at all before the great lessons of the terrible and dreadful events of recent years came. This is also something that must be taken into account.

If it has been said that a bone of contention should be thrown between the state and labor, then, please, I must also refer to one of the next lectures. It will show that the esteemed previous speaker has misunderstood me completely if he believes that I want to make the state an economic actor in just any old way. That will not be the case. Rather, the state will play no economic role at all, so it cannot be the payer of wages either. Instead, for the state it is a matter of the freedom of the labor force. In this sense, I have also been correctly understood by many.

Now I have only briefly responded to certain questions with individual facts. In the course of time, these very questions will be answered quite differently.

If one of the esteemed gentlemen who spoke before has pointed out that it has been said that I have not explained the things, then it must be said that it is precisely the case that these things can only be explained from the experience of life, that when they are expressed, they go out as an appeal to human thinking and human experience. One must really turn to life for a change, otherwise we will not make any progress. Here is something that approaches people in such a way that they are to give it their free understanding. Unfortunately, we have seen that much has been understood in recent times – well, what I have not understood are the things that certain gentlemen have had framed in quite beautiful frames in recent years, the proverbs from a certain quarter, I have not understood those. The difference between what is to be understood here and what has been so easily understood in the course of the last few years is that, of course, here, with understanding, an act of inner freedom should be present. There, understanding was commanded. Let us sit up straight for once, try to understand something without being ordered to understand it, and let us try to work out how much of what we think we understand we only think we understand because it has been instilled in us, drilled into us or ordered to be understood. Now, anyone who is a practitioner of life can finally understand when someone says: Don't be hard on the money bag carrier, have pity on this or that person. But such instructions are actually quite selfish instructions, really quite selfish instructions, because it does not matter whether someone realizes that money is dirt or continues to believe that money is a little god. That is not what matters to the socially minded, but rather what role money and a person who has it play in society.

We should not shut ourselves off from such feelings: we should feel sorry for the moneybag carrier – but we should open our minds to the circumstances, not just to what we would or would not want to feel sorry for based on our own tastes. It is a matter

about breaking the habit of idle preaching. This idle preaching is one of the things that has brought us to our present plight and misery. I have often said figuratively to my listeners: All the talk about love of one's neighbor, about brotherhood, is all very well, it does so much good for the inwardly egotistical soul when one talks about love of one's neighbor in a well-heated room, about loving all people without distinction of station and so on. But that is now compared to reality as if I stood in front of the stove, so I said, and said to the stove: You stove, it is your stove duty to heat the room. The way you look, you have a stove physiognomy, such an object has the categorical imperative to make the room warm. — But it does not get warm, I can preach as much as I want.

And so people preach in abstractions over and over again, it does not get warm, but outside it is now going haywire. The thing to do is to stop preaching, use my thoughts to consider how warmth can be created in a sensible way, and to get firewood and make a fire. In the matters that are now at hand, it is important that our thoughts contain the seeds of what can be done. I believe that anyone who really seeks will find this in the meaning of the call to action in my book 'The Crux of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life'. There have been enough words that are just words, now we need action. But if these actions are to be reasonable, we must first come to an understanding about them. We need germinal thoughts for action, such germinal thoughts that lead to action as soon as possible, before it is too late.

It might seem as if, in the events of the great world catastrophe, which today is at the “Versailles” stage, the topic: the future of capital and human labor, seems somewhat unfounded. However, following the events in their depths, one might perhaps point out that these two topics: world catastrophe and that to which today's reflection is to be devoted, are intimately connected. For it must be more or less clear to anyone who has observed the events of recent years with an open and alert mind that something of what could be called world capitalism on a large scale has led to this so-called world war, that this world capitalism behaves, as you painfully know today, in its own way within the so-called conditions of peace, and that through a large part of the civilized world today, what could be called the demand directed precisely against capitalism is already going like a mighty historical opposition. Thus, the contradiction between capital and human labor is perhaps the deepest, most significant problem of our time. Capitalism ultimately rose to what can be called, and often has been called, imperialism. Human labor gasped under the rule of this imperialism. And if you take a closer look at the most significant characteristic of capitalism, you will find that it effectively came to an end in the terrible world catastrophe. What is one of the main characteristics of the capitalist world economic order? It is this: that man's working life, his enrichment, is based on the so-called profitability, the investability, of capital. Now I ask you: how much of the causes of the horror of the catastrophe can be traced back to the investability of capital on a large scale? To what extent were the struggles actually fought for the expansion of the investability of capital by certain imperialisms? And so it is already apparent, and will become more and more so, that from the depths of humanity rises and will rise the demand: How do we come to a reorganization of human existence, after those forms which the world economic order under capitalism, imperialism, has assumed, firstly, to such a high degree have shown themselves to be a disaster for humanity, but secondly, have long been leading to their own destruction? And so, with what we are discussing today, we are actually discussing the contrast between capital and labor, a declining world economic order on the one hand, and a rising world economic order on the other.

In discussing this question here, I ask you to bear in mind that it is necessary, from the points of view from which we are speaking here, to first speak clearly about the comprehensive, the great impulses, so that then, on the basis of understanding these great, comprehensive impulses, we can go into the details. For no one who, in this day of the great reckoning of the world, wants to avoid turning to the great, comprehensive impulses can possibly think of making a healing contribution to the rebuilding of the world. Whoever today calls great, comprehensive points of view impractical, actually expresses, whether he wants to or not, that by remaining in his so-called practical, in his small, he does not want to participate in what is really necessary for the development of humanity. Therefore, allow me today, in connection with my last two lectures, to dwell on somewhat more comprehensive impulses, so that next Friday I will be able to discuss only details that arise from the comprehensive plan of the threefold social organism in a fully clear way. These details could not be discussed without first fully unrolling the blueprint.

If we want to get to know the demands that arise from the broadest sections of the population today, and which at the same time express significant historical necessities, then we first of all need to have the good will to listen to what is most necessary in the light of the new situation, in order to give the people's particular demands a form that can be integrated into the reality of human development. Circumstances in recent years have changed so much from what they used to be that they appear to be something completely new, and yet many people today still cannot let go of old habits and old ways of thinking, and they have no ears, at least no willing ears, for what is most urgently needed. Today we are indeed faced with demands that do not originate from this or that source and cannot be propagated by this or that source. We are today actually faced with the demands of the broad masses of the people, which arise from the depths of human feeling, human experience and human will. In this time, above all, trust is necessary, trust among people, trust of people in those who have something to say about the demands of the time. Above all, it is trust that is not based on something personal, but trust that is based solely on the matter at hand. Today we are noticing something very significant. It can be said that if one knows how to gain access to the broadest masses of the people, it is relatively easy to gain trust. However strange it may seem, it must be said: Today it is all the easier to gain trust the more one speaks to those people who, due to the previous economic, legal and intellectual order, have been uprooted, so to speak, with regard to the human necessities of life, who rely on the strength of their own person, on the strength of their work, to make a living.

It is remarkable how the most comprehensive impulses are received with understanding by those who have personally experienced the inadequacies of human development in recent times. It is more difficult to speak to those who today are still, as it were, standing there with the remnants of the old economic, legal and intellectual order; who carry over into the new era what they have acquired, inherited or otherwise appropriated from the old order. They are attached to their possessions and to their ideas. And it becomes difficult for them to find anything practical except for that which enables them to preserve, at least to a certain extent, what they have acquired, inherited or otherwise appropriated. Today, many people, and all the more those who belong to the latter category, lack not only the opportunity to seek trust in order to achieve a new beginning through trust between people, but they even lack faith in this trust; they lack faith that the understanding of those who want to understand great impulses is genuine and honest. I do not wish to criticize, I only wish to discuss facts, but facts which make it so extremely difficult to advance today by means of that which alone can advance us - the power that lies in man for the understanding of other men. Today it is infinitely difficult to popularize this basis of all real socialism: understanding of one man for the other. For it is a strange fact that in our time, when the call for socialism sounds so significant, so magnificent, it is in this time that the strongest anti-social instincts live in the depths of the human soul. This is why, clouded by these anti-social instincts, it is actually very difficult for few people today to gain sufficient, realistic, truly practical insights into what is necessary for the further development of humanity. What has been discussed in the previous lectures and what will be discussed today and next time has not been plucked out of the clouds. It has been taken from real life. For much of what is required by the impulses of the threefold social organism is, in the secret desire of many people, actually already there, already there in the sense that it wants to move from the depths of the soul to the surface, that it wants to fight for its existence, and that only the institutions of our present-day intellectual, legal and economic order want to hold back these forces that are pushing to the surface. The world-wide struggle between capital and labor, which is now agitating the world, makes one particularly aware of the strange phenomena whereby people today are working out of their old state economic order to counteract what wants to fight its way up for their own good. Do not expect me to start with some more or less satisfactory definition of capital and human labor. In reality, one does not fight against concepts and ideas, in reality one has to fight against forces and people. In reality, however, one also often has to fight against delusion, inadequacy, even blindness. In this respect, things are extraordinarily strange today.

This brings me to the second point to be considered, apart from the socio-psychological fact of seeking trust. From the great mass of the proletariat and the socially minded, the call arises, and it has been arising for a long time, for some kind of socialization of the means of production, which, after all, are essentially the same for the proletariat as for capital. Anyone who, in the sense in which I have dealt with it in my last two lectures here, engages in the development of social and socialist ideas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries may come to the conclusion that there is something in this call for socialization of the means of production that corresponds to the most justified thing that one can see in the more recent development of humanity. But for those who allow themselves to be influenced by the facts as they have changed through the world catastrophe, it will not be difficult to see through how inadequate many of those ideas, party opinions and the like that have also asserted themselves on the socialist side have become, now that the facts arising from the world catastrophe are loudly and powerfully demanding expression and seeking to be shaped. Now the questions must be raised: How can we shape social life? How does the path lead to what is presented as a good goal: socialization of the means of production? How do we arrive at such ideas that not only show us the goal that can satisfy demands born out of suffering and deprivation, but that also open up the path to that goal for us? That is the task of the threefold social organism: to find the way to an end that the broad masses of humanity recognize as their own, feel as their own, and to a certain extent understand as their own. I must again and again emphasize that what I have to say here is not derived from some vague theory, nor is it the product of erudition. It has its source in real life and its present far-reaching demands. But one sometimes wonders how the times, how human thoughts relate to something that has been taken straight from the depths of life. In the form in which the call for socialization sounds today, it comes from a significant world-historical rallying cry, from the so-called Communist Manifesto of the ingenious Karl Marx. And basically, what has been experienced to date and what will continue to be experienced in terms of social and socialist impulses will be branches and shoots of what is given at the root with this Communist Manifesto. But it is remarkable that in the same year that the Communist Manifesto appeared, an honest, realistic book was published. And the thoughts in this book arose from the soul of a man who already knew life and who would have been inclined to profess himself a socialist completely even then, if he had been able to do so based on his knowledge of life. It is Bruno Hildebrand who wrote the book at that time, a seemingly unassuming book, but a symptomatic book, a book that should be thoroughly considered: “The National Economy of the Present and the Future”. I mention this here today in my introduction for a very specific reason. If you take everything that has been put forward by the opponents of socialism since the Communist Manifesto, you can clearly find it all in the work of Bruno Hildebrand from 1848. What is actually the basis of the impulse of this remarkable man? He said to himself, I have to imagine what a social order would look like if it were purely socialist! He visualizes such a socialist social order to a certain extent. If he could consider it possible, as everyone can tell from the man's explanations, then he would immediately profess it. He cannot consider it possible according to his views. Why? Not because he believes that some people who have acquired, inherited or otherwise obtained wealth will suffer, but because because, as a thinker of reality, a genuinely practical thinker, it becomes clear to him that those who want socialism as they imagine it would have to feel unhappy in such a socialist social order in no time. And why should they feel unhappy? The man gives all this. He shows how many of the legitimate human powers would naturally have to disappear if a socialist structure were to take hold of human society. He shows how it would be impossible to establish the relationship between capital and labor in the long term, especially in a socialist society.

Now, one is in a very strange position when faced with such a realistic examination. One says to oneself, but now, the historical necessity of socialism does exist. Socialism must come, and it will surely come. Should one want that which may also bring people into misery, at least not into happiness, who want the new order? That is the question that can weigh like a terrible burden on people today who look deeper into human development. What we are called upon to do today, prompted by the forces inherent in human development, cannot be clearly understood from any agitational or demagogic background, but only from a sense of bitter seriousness and sacred responsibility towards the demands, the legitimate demands of humanity.

The questions that arose from these foundations are the questions that ultimately emerged for the foundation of the impulses of the tripartite social organism. The socially structured human society stood there as a future perspective, based on real life. But in the quest not simply to speak out of illusions and demands, but in the quest to arrive at something that can truly benefit humanity, the question had to be asked: Why is it that what is historically necessary, what must certainly come to pass, can at the same time appear as something that disturbs humanity in terms of the noblest forces? Such a prospect cannot deter those in positions of responsibility from recognizing the necessity of a social structure for the social order. But it can drive him to investigate how to ensure that good and not evil may come of it, so that the free human nature, developing in all directions, may come into its own, and not a human being withered and dried up inwardly must live in the historically necessary. This leads to a more exact, life-oriented study of this social organism. And there it becomes evident that if one simply wants to transfer the old state order, the old state content, into the new social order, if one would develop the old unified state into the new social order, then what the opponents of socialism, if they are well-meaning opponents, would argue, would come about. The murky picture is immediately illuminated when one realizes that One must first remove the actual legal or state or political sphere and the sphere of human spiritual culture from the economic organism, in which we have become more and more involved, so that the state and spiritual organism have become servants of the economic organizations. If you leave these inside, you sail away, hypnotized by the idol “unity state”, and if you want to socialize, then the objections apply. If we separate the newer human culture, the legal or political or state life on the one hand, and the spiritual life on the other, from economic life, in which more and more of human culture has been concentrated, then the possibility remains in the freed economic cycle to socialize in a healthy way. And at the same time, the possibility arises to socialize in a healthy way in the other two areas as well.

I wanted to draw attention to this for the simple reason that today, when these things are discussed, people are so easily persuaded that what is being said has, as it were, come about overnight. What is meant by the threefold social organism is not such an idea. It is something that has arisen out of living together with social reality. Because only if you have the prospect of the tripartite social organism that you characterized recently and the one before that, does the possibility arise of casting the right light on such impulses in the newer development of humanity and on their design in the present and into the future, which are necessary for capital and human labor. Among the confusing and unjust forces of modern times, views have emerged that do not always point in the right direction. For example, it can be said that those who have thought about how to help human development have expressed the strangest ideas about what they actually mean by capital and its effects. There is an economist, Roscher, who includes the state in capital; there is an economist, Thänen, who includes people in capital. I could give you a long list that would prove to you how people view the economic world and have the strangest ideas about what is active in economic life. Therefore, we will perhaps get a clearer picture of what is actually moving and stirring humanity today than we would from the ideas of such people and perhaps also the ideas that we can form ourselves, by pointing out the fundamental impulses of the unleashed struggle between capital and human labor. First of all, we can point to the beliefs of both sides. For basically, two economic creeds are pitted against each other.

What does the capitalist actually believe? The capitalist believes that he lives off his capital, or if he is economical, that he lives off the interest of his capital. That is his belief. He does not think much about this belief, because he does not suspect that no one can live off capital and interest. And he also does not suspect that there is a certain justification when a very significant political economist, who even became a Prussian minister for once, uttered the words that capital is the fifth wheel on the economic wagon. You really have to consider what that actually means. It means nothing less than that human society does not actually need what is considered capital today. But in reality, this capital feeds many people, very many people. These people are all nourished by the fifth wheel on the economic wagon, that is, they feed themselves in such a way that if they did not feed themselves, the economic wagon would also move, only they themselves would have to do something other than feed themselves from capital, namely work. You see, that sheds light on the capitalist's belief. It is very difficult to fight against this belief, as it is generally very difficult to fight against religious beliefs, for the simple reason that religious beliefs are intimately connected with human nature. And no matter how often you tell the capitalist: your capital does not create life, as long as your capital is not transformed by the social order into a power, into the power that you have over other people through your capital, who work and provide you with a living through their labor. Anyone who looks at these things thoroughly will realize that capital only has any significance when viewed from the standpoint of this question of power. So much for the moment about the capitalist's creed.

Now, the creed of the laborer, at least of the laborer who has developed into the modern age under the soul-destroying capitalism, this creed is: I live from my labor! In today's social order, it is just as much a mere belief, an unjustified belief, that one can live from one's work as it is an unjustified belief that one can live from some capital, although the belief that one can live from one's work has at least a certain limited truth. It is just that it is not completely true within our social order. For within our social order, which is based on the division of labor, in order to be able to live from this labor, a threefold activity of the human being is necessary, which proceeds from the spiritual culture of the time in the broadest sense. Firstly, there is the inventive activity that leads to the means of production, and secondly, there is the organizational activity that leads to the harmonization between the means of production and human labor. Thirdly, there is the speculative activity that leads to the utilization of what is produced with the help of labor on the means of production, and to the transfer of the products to the corresponding members of human society. Without this threefold spiritual activity, labor is unfruitful in the social organism based on the division of labor. But this points us from the outset to what, as I said, sheds light in a certain way on what is needed today. We just have to look at what is there in the right light. Today's society works under the influence of capital. The worker feels quite rightly when he regards the means of production as the essence of capital, that is to say, that which must be created by human labor and does not lead directly to consumption, that is, is not a direct consumer good, is not a direct luxury, but what serves to produce consumer goods and luxury goods. Socialism seeks to bring these means of production into a social order that is different from the one into which they came under the influence of the capitalist economic order of modern times. Now, strangely enough, one can say that it is already apparent that in a certain sense the means of production are something in themselves, that they can be separated from people. Just compare how, in the older economic forms, what the human being needed as a craftsman to produce was grounded in his or her humanity. Now compare everything that is done on a large scale today with the help of modern means of production, how it can be separated, as it were, as a material good from human individuality. We know that when a sum of means of production that make up a business is sold – it can be sold by a person or a corporation to another person or another corporation, both of whom may have nothing to do with these means of production other than to draw their royalties, their profit – it shows how, to the greatest extent, the means of production are detached from their owners. Here we have something that exists in reality, which in the future only has to be turned into its opposite in a corresponding way, and then we come to a real socialization of the means of production. I have tried to indicate such a thing in my book “The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Present and Future Life”.

Two things must be achieved. Firstly, a closer bond must be established between the managers of a business and the means of production. A manager or a consortium of managers must be the one who, through his intellectual work, whether it be planning, calculating or inventing, intervenes in the business through the means of production and participates in it. The greatest possible trust must be placed in such a consortium, which is united by its entire intellectual structure and intellectual abilities with the means of production of a particular enterprise, by those who, as manual laborers, have to work with these means of production. In the future, the craftsman, the manual laborer, and the person who does not derive the profit that arises from the means of production, but who, through his intellectual abilities, through his intellectual work, which he has oriented towards the type of specific means of production, is solely entitled to manage this company, these means of production. But this manager has only as long to manage the production means as he can justify the management by the connection between his abilities and these production means.

This is where a point begins, where, however, those who can only imagine that at least the essentials of the old remain, begin to look perplexed. And yet, when the time comes that someone who has grown together with a certain set of means of production through his abilities can no longer maintain this state of being, then the social organism has the obligation to transfer these means of production to another person or group of persons without purchase. This means nothing less than that in the future there will be a coming together of – let's call it capital or whatever we want – of capital and human abilities without purchase. Capital will then only have the meaning of what is needed to initiate large businesses. In the future, capital will come into being through a person who is capable of running a particular business. This capital will only come into being through the trust that other people have in him, who will give him what they work as surplus labor beyond their needs. He will be able, so to speak, on behalf of a group that trusts him, but that means the general public of the social organism, to build up such a business, which today can only be built on private capital and private capital gains. But once the business has been set up, the possession of the means of production no longer applies. After the means of production have been set up, the worker faces the person who is the technical or other intellectual director of the business. The means of production do not belong to anyone; the possession of the means of production ceases. And the moment the collaboration of the company with this manager is no longer justified by the special abilities of the manager, the manager is obliged to transfer the means of production to another consortium, to another group of people. Directly or indirectly! This achieves for the future what I must call the circulation of capital and the end of private ownership of capital! Capital will be incorporated in a healthy way into the socialized social organism. It will circulate in this social organism, as blood circulates in the human or animal organism, where it must not be used by one organ alone, but must circulate through all the organs. Free circulation of capital! That is what is really required for the future.

In such a social organism, in which capital circulates freely, only real freedom of labor is possible. For just as private capital ownership is in fact a fifth wheel on the cart in relation to social functions, so human labor power, as the counterpart of capital, has been placed in a dilemma under the rule of capitalism. What is necessary for the recovery of human society is achieved through the circulation of capital that no one owns. What is paid out today, what is extracted from the means of production, what people call their capital or their pension in mortgage certificates, in mortgage bonds or bonds and so on, is absolutely unnecessary in the real process of human development of the social order. It is removed from this social order, and that removes the people who remove it from this social order, making them more or less parasites and those who generate the great forces of discontent within the social organization. Some people will, of course, find everything I have explained here about the circulation of capital highly impractical. I believe that. But to find something impractical, in this case, means nothing more than not wanting to let go of what is the fifth wheel on the wagon of the economic order, that is, having become accustomed to finding only what has proven practical for oneself, for one's own selfishness. But in the future, human beings will have to give themselves over to the social organism with their entire being. It will not be enough for people to sit in their rooms and fantasize about love for their fellow human beings and brotherhood and think very highly of themselves while doing so, and then cut the coupons, which they can only cut because the people in the mines and factories work for them in need and misery so that they can do themselves good in their sermons of philanthropy, love for their fellow human beings and brotherhood.

This talk, this good behavior, must come to an end. The organization of human society in such a way that it truly meets the demands of good behavior is what is now going through the world as a call. What has emerged under the newer capitalism, what has developed more and more, what has now, so to speak, arrived at the pinnacle of its consciousness, namely its class consciousness, is the social group of people that, for the time being, basically consists only of the working population, of the proletariat. What needs to be done with regard to this social group? Well, this social group has, in a sense, practiced self-help, and it has also achieved many things for itself, which it has wrested from the capitalist-led state, the purely capitalist economic order, and so on. Cooperatives and trade unions have emerged to organize the social group – initially, the masses of workers were anarchic, not in their attitudes, but in their grouping, initially anarchic. But as long as we were under the old economic order, these attempts at organization could not achieve any real goal. Despite all the praise of workers' protection, workers' insurance, even international workers' protection and so on, none of these things were suitable for properly organizing the social groups that live as the proletarian population. Because something was left behind in all these attempts at organization: the opposing capital and its representatives remained. And so it emerged, as it still is today, that there was a struggle between one social class, the supporters of capitalism, and the other social class, the proletariat. Struggle, competition, that is what emerged. And we have seen what we have come to through this struggle, through this competition: the unionized worker must wrest his wage increase or something else from the representatives of capital through the union. What the proletariat feels today clearly expresses how little the previous organization was able to fulfill what lies within the proletariat as a demand.

In earlier lectures, I have already pointed out what the main point is. One could say that two main points of socialism as a whole lie in two demands, to which a third then arises as a matter of course, as a self-evident consequence. They lie, firstly, in the demand, which has already been discussed today in the context of capital, in the demand that in the future the capital invested in the means of production should no longer be property. Capital is divested of its property character. Secondly, in the future, labor must no longer be a commodity. That is to say, in the future socialist or social society, in the healthy social organism, the wage relationship will cease to exist. Labor or labor power must no longer be a commodity. The person who does manual labor produces as a partner with the intellectual worker in the way that has already been characterized. There is no labor contract, there is only a contract for the division of services. This can only be achieved if the worker faces the supervisor as a completely free human being, that is, if he is able to determine the extent, time, and type of his labor on a completely different basis than that of the economic order, if he is free to dispose of himself as a whole person before entering into a contractual relationship.

I know that today's pigtails cannot yet imagine what has been said as something practical. But fifty years ago, many things could not be imagined as practical that have become practical in the fifty years since. The worker enters into the contractual relationship as a free human being who can say: Because I can determine the character of my labor on a basis independent of economic life, I will now approach you and work with you in the way my labor is regulated. What we produce is subject to a division of labor with you!

You see, therefore it is necessary that in the future the actual state, the actual social legal field, be detached from the economic field. By doing this, it will be possible to regulate everything that can be regulated as law on democratic ground, independently of economic life. Economic life itself can only be organized on the basis of experience and the real foundations of that economic life. But labor power can already be organized when the worker enters economic life at all. If that is the case, then in the future there will be, on the one hand, circulating capital or the circulating means of production, which are not the property of any one person, but are actually there for general use, and which can always come to the most capable through the institutions that I have just described. On the other hand, there will be human freedom, not only in terms of all kinds of ideal goods, which the manual laborer cannot count as his own today, but above all in terms of human labor power. Then the economic life will be relieved of the wage relationship, for then there will only be goods in the economic life, or, for that matter, we can call them products. Then what is capital, wage and market today will face each other in a different way. Then, as you have seen, capital will have ceased to exist, and so will wages, because there will be achievements that the worker produces together with the supervisor. The concept of wages will cease to have any meaning.

But what is now the market will also take on a different form. Today, the market, although it is already organized in many small ways, still has something anarchic about it. The market regulates the mutual values of goods, and that is the only value that should exist in economic life in the future, because human labor has a value that cannot be compared to anything else and must not be counted among economic values. What economic values there are will be the comparative values of the goods. Under the circumstances described, it will be possible for the goods to acquire such comparative values that give the greatest possible number of people, that is, all people who work, a standard of living that is as close as possible to the general, not to a group prosperity. This can only be achieved if the market ceases to be what it is today, if it is thoroughly organized, if the most comprehensive economic experience, the calculation of the various economic fundamentals, leads to a determination of commodity values that are not subject to the anarchic conditions of supply and demand, but are oriented towards human needs, as determined by experience. This can only be achieved if this economic life, if the market, or rather the markets, are transformed into associations, into cooperatives and so on. This cooperative structure, this structure not only on the basis of such cooperatives as have already been tried, but the interweaving of the entire economic life with a cooperative structure, will only be possible if, on the basis of experience in economic life, an intuitive knowledge of the relationships between producers and consumers is acquired. There are also some signs of progress in this respect. You can familiarize yourself with these in the writings of Sidney Webb, for example, where great things have been achieved in cooperatives, insofar as great things can be achieved within the current economic system, which still exists outside these cooperatives. But if the economic system is changed in the way I have suggested, then the point is that the cooperative structure must be brought about not according to subjective demands, but according to what the economic structure itself yields. I would just like to make a certain remark so that you can see that things are not left hanging in the air. It will be obvious to anyone who takes into account the nature of economic life as described in my book 'The Core of the Social Question' that the question arises: how, for example, can we limit cooperatives? If we want to limit them arbitrarily or for reasons outside of economic life, then we will always end up with false pricing and, as a result, false influences on people's lives. Now there is a very definite law that can lead to the development of a cooperative structure out of reality. You can start by considering the two currents of economic life, production and consumption. You can imagine consumer cooperatives where people join together who want to buy economically so that they take advantage of everything that can be exploited for buying by joining together as consumers.

On the other hand, producers can join together; this has already happened to a great extent within our economic system, and this is where the production cooperatives come from. Now, both types of cooperatives have very different tendencies. If you study consumer cooperatives, you will find that consumer cooperatives are primarily interested in buying as cheaply as possible and secondly in having as many people as possible in their ranks. They never resist the expansion of their cooperative if they have their true interests in mind. The production cooperatives have the opposite characteristics. The participants will fear competition if they expand, and they have every interest in selling as expensively as possible. This indicates that in the future, salvation can only come from bringing together people with consumption and production interests, in consumption-production or production-consumption cooperatives, where not only consumption will regulate production but where even the size of the cooperative will be regulated, in that consumption tends to make the cooperative as large as possible, that is, to expand and grow, while production tends to set limits to the cooperative. In this way the social structure is created out of the essence of things, out of reality itself. I could cite innumerable cases from which you would see that anyone who is capable of thinking in terms of reality, anyone who really wants practical ideas in their head today, will find the foundations of true, genuine socialization that is beneficial to people in the beginnings that already exist in reality.

But all that I have told you presupposes the real threefold social order. There will be no capitalists in the modern sense, arising purely out of economic life. There must be people who grow out of a free spiritual life, as I have characterized it in previous lectures, out of a spiritual life that will not produce abstract intellectual products that are alien to life, but that will unfold spiritual material that, on the one hand, rises to the highest heights of the spirit and, on the other hand, trains people to become truly practical human beings. At all levels of intellectual life, people who are alien to life because they only know will not be educated, but people who can think, who can dispose.

A cycle will take place within the limits that I have already indicated today, within which the administrations of the spiritual organizations will send their most capable people into economic life, as I have explained in my book, and economic life will send its people into the spiritual organizations, so that they may deepen there the knowledge they have gained through their experience in economic life or, as teachers, instruct the growing youth in economic life.

A living cycle, carried by human beings themselves, will take place between the three limbs of the social organism. The three-part organism will not disintegrate into three separate areas. The human being, who will live in all three parts, will become the living unity.

In the future, the human being, with his or her social interests and powers, will form the very basis of all life. The human being will be much more important than today, when the apparent unified state still divides humanity into classes and estates and does not allow people to be full and whole human beings. Today, people still believe that if they have a constitution, then a great deal has been achieved. In the future, people will understand that a constitution is nothing if the people are not there who, in their own liveliness, carry the forces to mutually compose, if I may say so. That is what matters, that one understands what I recently hinted at: Gladstone, the English statesman, once said that the North American free state had the most advantageous constitution. Another Englishman, who seems to me to be more ingenious than Gladstone, said in reply: But these North Americans – that was precisely his view – could have a much, much worse constitution, even a terrible one; they are the kind of people who will make the same out of a good and a bad constitution! That we must put the human in the place of what is separated from the human, that is what must be achieved. From a living spiritual life will come the living leaders of the enterprises. Capital is no longer needed! Alongside such living leaders will stand the free worker as a whole human being. He will know how to answer yes when he raises the question: Does the social order give me my human dignity? And a market that is not anarchic but organized will be able to bring about a just balance in the value of goods. Many details need to be said about all these things. Today I could only sketch out an outline, and you could ask many questions. I know that some of today's words cannot yet be fully understood. Next Friday, details, evidence and further explanations will be provided to show you that this is not something that is carelessly thrown into the world, but something that is intended to provide what is justifiably demanded with the call for socialization.

What is justifiably demanded, but perhaps not yet clearly recognized by those justifiably demanding it.

What is given with the tripartite organism is not intended to be like the description of a house. No matter how beautiful the description of a house may be, one can object that such a description is of no use at all; the house must be built. But there is a difference between a beautiful description of a house and a construction plan. And a construction plan is intended to be everything that is given as impulses for the tripartite division of the social organism. However much it may be misunderstood today, it will be the one thing that alone can lead humanity out of the chaos and confusion into which it has been brought. I know that I can still be misunderstood today. Some say that this is a new party formation. It is not even remotely a new party formation. What is at issue here is what follows from the very development of humanity, which has nothing to do with any kind of party formation.

And anyone who believes that they can see into this development of humanity and recognize what the time itself demands also exposes themselves to the misunderstanding, even from those who want to misunderstand or perhaps misunderstand in good faith, that they personally want something. For he knows that what is objectively striven for cannot be so easily inserted into the development of mankind in the face of people's prejudices and preconceptions. Today, however, we live in a time, especially here in Central Europe, where we have to look at what the last excesses of the old capitalist competitive labor have brought. And we in Central Europe are experiencing particularly painfully the consequences of what the leading circles, the leading circles so far, have brought upon humanity. We are experiencing it in pain and suffering, we are experiencing it in these days with bleeding souls. We may say that days of trial are clearly evident. In such days one may give oneself to the hope and faith that in the face of unusual experiences, unusual thoughts will also be understood, that in the face of great suffering, great courage will not be found for small, but for great reckoning.

That is why I believe and why I say what I have to say, even in these days of suffering, out of this belief: Through suffering, pain and trials, we will find the courage, the boldness, the understanding for a new construction. The construction must be done not only by transforming old institutions, but by transforming all our thinking, all our habits of feeling, by transforming our whole inner man.

Final remarks after the discussion

Dear attendees! Although I am completely convinced that he is not even aware of how he actually came to his assertions, and although I do not in the least want to deny him a kind of goodwill, what the second speaker has discussed here makes me feel that, piece by piece, he has each time what I said, sometimes by a quarter, sometimes by half, sometimes completely reversed, and then polemicized against his own assertions, discussed with them, in order to arrive at something that has nothing at all to do with what you heard from me today or yesterday. It happens very often that one creates the possibility of discussion through such preconditions, and so I would like to discuss only a few individual points from this perhaps quite unconscious discussion practice. For example, the gentleman who spoke before repeatedly dwells on the opinion that I advocate tyranny or the supremacy of the intellectually gifted. How does he make it clear that, according to what I have discussed, one consequence could be that the intellectually gifted should rule? Now I do not know whether the speaker has also heard what I said here recently, or whether he knows what is in my book. Otherwise he would know that the underlying principle of all the impulses I am talking about is that all human talents find their appropriate social place. It is precisely a matter of the structure of such a social organism, which does not give priority to any particular talent, but which makes it possible for each talent to find its appropriate place. This cannot be achieved by anything other than the thorough selection and development of the various talents in places where people understand talents and where talents can be managed in the right way. The spiritual organism will have to see its main task in developing talents. Read my book carefully. Do not add a single adjective to what I say, but take what I really say as it is. Then you will see that in the field of spiritual life not only spiritual talents are developed, but all talents down to the most physical ones. The spiritual organism is not there to create a spiritual aristocracy, but to develop all talents. Apart from the fact that I pointed out last time that a spiritual gift cannot really exist without at the same time offering the possibility of developing a manual gift when necessary. In short, the speaker has not made the slightest effort to break out of previous thought habits and really muster the will to rethink, but has criticized, according to what has been customary up to now, something that consciously strives out of what has been customary up to now. But that seems to me to be what must be overcome above all. People who, even if they have good will, do not make the effort to understand what the other person is saying and wanting, are precisely the ones who have led us into today's situation. And painful as it is for me, I must say: I can only see in the previous speaker one of those people who do not want to let us out of the confusion. Before the great world catastrophe, one could understand such people for my sake, because in those days the great test and the great questions had not yet come to humanity. But today we should truly not want to stop the course of development by our stubborn thinking. That is what makes me so anxious when people come up with all kinds of old stereotyped ideas and even want to frighten people by saying that the other person is a thought anarchist or something similar; I did not understand the adjective. These are things that can be frightening. One must counter what can really be inferred from what has been said. According to the imagination, what the speaker said can be inferred from the threefold structure, but read my book and you will see that every possible precaution, if I may say so, has been taken to ensure that what appears to be inferred here cannot be inferred at all.

For example, the speaker claimed that the interests of the professions would be in conflict. That is a matter of course. But precisely by separating intellectual life, by separating legal life, this is resolved. I have taken up a lot of your time today with what could be called an introduction: if socialism is realized and it leaves everything in the social organism that brings about what I have described, then this will happen. Of course, in the social organism that the speaker envisions, this would be included. In the threefold social order, precisely what he wants to introduce into the economic order is taken out of the economic order. It seemed to me that the speaker, although he professes to believe in the council system, is a representative of the court council mindset, which once made a similar objection to me, not from the people's council system but from the court council system.

The matter does not have the foreign policy side that the speaker painted, but a completely different one. The only remedy for our foreign policy situation, which has led us into this catastrophe, should have become apparent when foreign policy matters were discussed - I cannot, of course, discuss everything in one lecture. What we can achieve above all by means of the threefold social organism, even if it is only implemented by one state and not in neighboring states that still retain the old capitalist order, is the previous game of interests.

It is indeed a peculiar feature that every state can carry out the threefold order independently of the others, and that, for example, through the interplay of interests, which will be quite different will be quite different from the present one, when economic interests alone also work across borders as economic interests, that then those sources of conflict which have led to the wars that are technically called resource wars will be eliminated. The privy councillor who made this objection told me: Yes, so far a large proportion of wars have been resource wars. If your system is realized, then there will no longer be any resource wars, so your system contradicts reality. I had to tell him: If you had said that in confirmation, I would understand it; that you say it to refute it is peculiar. So I have to say: The only help against the mood that exists on the side of the Entente is that we break down this mood, this resentment, into three parts. That is what this threefold division would bring in this area for the current foreign policy. I would advise the speaker to study the foreign policy that follows from the tripartite division from a point of view broader than that of a court councillor; then he would be able to spare himself the completely useless definition of whether the tripartite organism is anarchistic or the like. He would be able to see how true it is, as I have already hinted at here, that the same people who are enthusiastic about unity need to be told: a rural family consists of a man, a woman, children, a farmhand and three cows, and they all need milk. Do they all have to give milk? No, only the three cows have to give milk, then everyone will have milk. It is necessary that the entire organism is structured in the right way; then the members will also work together in the right way to form a unity, and what arises on the one soil will also be able to work in the right way on the other members.

Because the previous speaker did not take this into account, he would have to decide the endowment through universal suffrage. Well, you can decide the filling of positions, you can decide all sorts of things through universal suffrage. But how you would like to administer the talents through universal suffrage, I ask you to think through thoroughly, and you will see if I follow the method of the previous speaker and outline the consequences - but I only recognize this method as a sophistic method, so I will not go into it further - but if I were to outline the consequences to you, then you would see what would come of it. If you democratized talent, you might not call it thought anarchy, but you would call it something else.

Similar things have been said many times. I was particularly surprised to hear the expression “spiritual capitalism”. I don't know what that means, especially how it might be used after a lecture in which the circulation of capital was discussed in the way I discussed it. Intellectual owners – yes, honored attendees, just try to think with realities! Imagine the social organism – the speaker has not described it as he imagines it – according to the few hints the speaker has made. Then you will have to say: What is it exactly, if, let us say, intellectual workers work alongside manual workers under some kind of socialist order? I do not know what kind of difference it is supposed to make to my economic organism that the intellectual worker works alongside the manual worker. I have expressly stated: ownership ceases at the moment when the capital is realized, that is, when the means of production are there. How one can then speak of intellectual ownership is completely beyond me. From the particular experiences mentioned by the esteemed speaker, one can of course derive anything one wants. One can of course derive a great deal from the atrophy of the soul and the like. I did not find it very tasteful when the speaker concluded by saying that he would leave the middle class to me so that the proletariat would be all the more assured to him. Well, there is no need to get involved in such things, because whether you ultimately see it as an inflammatory phrase or not is entirely a matter of taste.

But what has been said with regard to trust and with regard to believing in trust – well, you see, I must say that today it is truly not a matter of criticizing the relationship that we have come to know from the old conditions, but today it is a matter of establishing new conditions. If someone were to tell me today, whether for the first time or the hundredth or the thousandth time, that he does not believe there is trust, but has had to struggle with mistrust in so-and-so many cases, then I would say to him: Nothing will get better if we do not try to create this trust, because we have to work with trust today. All the other threads that have been used to draw the masses together are failing. The threads of the future can only be those of trust. If mistrust were to be allowed to take hold tomorrow or the day after, we would just have to wait for what comes after tomorrow and the day after, because if good things are to come, they can only come out of trust. The trust that I mean and that we must work on, this trust will have to come from the souls. This trust must be created, it is more important than anything else, even today. Then, when this trust is created, the relationship between those who work with their hands on the means of production and those who work intellectually will be right. Then this trust makes impossible what the speaker has painted as a horror.

This is precisely what is so terribly lacking today in these socially turbulent times: the will to build on trust. Oh, this trust will be there, the more and more trials come upon people, and I would have to despair of humanity, at least of the rebuilding of healthy conditions, if I could no longer believe that one person will be able to find their way to another through trust. Because, dear assembled, socialize as much as you want, talk about socialization as much as you want, but one thing must underlie this socialization: the socialization of souls. Those who do not seek the way to the socialization of souls may socialize externally as much as they want, but they will lead people into more anarchistic conditions than what the previous speaker wanted to present as a kind of anarchism. And there is no other name for soul socialism than trust. But this trust must be worked at. And today, is this trust not a little shaken? Dear attendees, I have been connected with the social movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries for a long time. I have worked in it; I know it. What the honorable speaker said before, one could have heard over and over again against what I said today. Apart from the threefold social order, the same objections that the previous speaker has raised today have already been raised by others in 1898 and 1899. But it is most necessary that we move beyond the old ideas, that we can relearn, that we do not remain with the old. As painful as it is for me to say, I believe that those who cannot overcome their old prejudices are holding us back the most. And those gentlemen who use the method of first turning the sentences halfway or completely around in order to then polemicize against their own, always have an easy time of it, because of course not everyone will understand, after hearing a lecture just once, how the things are meant, how they must be understood if they are placed in reality. For precisely those things that do not correspond to theories, not merely to good will, but that stem from a conscientious, responsible life experience and observation, precisely those things cannot be exhausted in an hour, but only suggestions can be given for them. But I have always said that these suggestions, since that time, and it has been quite a long time since I have spoken of the threefold order, may well turn out quite differently in their realization than what I myself say about these details, for example. What matters to me is that the building plan is taken from reality and can be lived into reality, that it is realistic. And because I believe that it is not subjective human

will that imagines it must realize these impulses, but because observation of the developmental forces of humanity in the present and in the future itself leads to it, I believe that it will find understanding. And I hope that I must say once again, from our sorely tried time and from our painful situation we will still find understanding for much for which we perhaps cannot yet imagine finding understanding at all today.