How to defeat the demon of materialism. Lecture 3 of 3

  

Rudolf Steiner, Zurich, Switzerland

March 19, 1920

Today, an endless number of what could be called social programs or the like are buzzing through the air, truly challenged more than at any other time by all the forces at work in the present that are leading to destruction. There is no lack of proposals as to how a new structure might be developed out of this destruction. Nevertheless, when the idea of the threefold social order, urged on by the needs of the time, seeks to assert itself among these various proposals, it is primarily because of the realization that that the idea of the threefold social organism has something to offer which, if one grasps its inner essence, cannot be equated with programmatic proposals or social ideals in the abstract sense. What I would like to present to you here is thoroughly imbued with the realization that today there is a great danger for all such things to fall into utopianism. One need only think of how, basically, even if it is not yet sufficiently noticed here or there in the European world, everything that was thought to be established in the traditional economic, legal, and intellectual order is subject to a certain process of destruction, and how this process of destruction has become all too clear in the course of the last four to five years of horror for European civilization.

In such times, one cannot build on this or that that is already there and has retained its reality. After all, the most firmly established institutions have, so to speak, been reduced to absurdity by recent years. And so it is obvious that we have to build on a completely new foundation. Man can only do this by building from the foundation of thought, and it soon becomes apparent that the foundations that make a solid structure possible are not easy to find. For at first one seems to have no point of reference at all as to whether what one wants to translate into reality from one's thoughts can somehow be justified in this reality. And anything that cannot show and prove from the outset, through its content, that it can be fully realized, is utopian.

The idea of the threefold social order seeks to avoid the danger of utopianism by not actually setting up anything that could be called a social philosophy , what is called a social program, but that it wants to point to a special way in which people can work together in public life so that the forces of destruction can be countered by forces of new construction, of new development.

I would like to say that what the others indicate should happen, according to the idea of threefolding, should only arise when such cooperation between people and groups of people can take place, which is what the idea of threefolding of the social organism seeks to express. When one stands on this ground, one does not take the standpoint that one is somehow omniscient, that one is a prophet who can indicate how this or that institution should turn out in the future for the benefit of humanity, but one only wants to call upon the judgment of those who have something to say in such a way that, through the cooperation of people, this judgment can also become objective reality.

The inspiration for this idea of the threefold social organism actually goes back a long way for the person speaking to you today. It is rooted in decades of life experience relating to the social conditions in the most diverse areas of Europe, but especially in Central Europe and those parts of Central Europe that, through their fate in the last great war catastrophe, show how what had previously been the social structure of humanity, of civilized humanity in Europe, is striving towards something new, and is unable to cope with the forces that, I would say, are moving from the depths of humanity to the surface today. If one looks impartially at historical life, especially in the last third of the 19th century, in the years of the 20th century that preceded 1914, one can clearly see how that to which one adheres so dogmatically, which one still regards today, even though it has been shaken in many areas of Europe, as something that should not be shaken, such as the unified state, which has gradually taken hold of all areas of public life for three to four centuries, is no longer up to its task in the face of certain great demands of humanity, how it is not capable of simultaneously encompassing intellectual life, state-political or legal life in the narrower or even in the broader sense, and economic life. Therefore, for those who were last concerned with the idea of the threefold order, the idea arose to start precisely there and raise the question: what form must the state, which has so far been regarded as a necessary unity, take in relation to the three main spheres of human life, in relation to the spiritual sphere, to the legal-political sphere and to the economic sphere? And now, before I proceed to a kind of justification, I would first like to take the liberty of presenting to you a brief sketch of how the cooperation of people should be conceived so that the tasks that arise for people from these three main areas of life can now really be mastered from within the social structure.

In summary, the life of these three areas has only taken place in the last three to four centuries. You only need to remember — to cite one example — how, with the development of medieval conditions into modern ones, schools, up to the universities, were not founded by the state, but by church communities or other communities, which had their development alongside the beginnings of state life. It was only in the course of the last three or four centuries that the view arose that the unified state must also extend its power, for example, to schools, universities, and the like. Likewise, one can say that economic life was also supported by corporations founded on economic impulses; it was led by those personalities who formed associations only out of economic motives. And it was only in the course of the last three or four centuries that the state extended its power over economic life, so that this combination of spiritual, legal, and economic life is something that has only come about in its full significance in modern times, although it has of course shown itself earlier here and there, because everything in the historical life of mankind announces itself in advance.

In contrast to this, the idea of the threefold social order seeks to place each of these three fields on its own ground. It starts from the assumption that a certain impulse has, in the course of modern history, risen with an inner necessity, I would say again, from the depths of human feeling and sensing to the surface of historical becoming. And that is – one cannot deny it, I believe, even if one is still so biased – that in public life, despite everything that is emerging today, the most powerful impulse is after democracy. This impulse occurs as something elementary in the development of humanity. One can say: just as in the individual human being of a certain epoch of his life, let us say, sexual maturity occurs, so in the development of European humanity, preparing since the 15th century, the tendency towards democracy emerges.

If we try to identify the essential element in the various forms demanded for the democratic coexistence of people, it ultimately turns out to be this – at least it emerges as the only reasonable possibility – that the affairs of the state should be managed by the cooperation and joint judgment of all people of legal age , who in this cooperation and in this joint judgment are regarded as equals, so that everyone stands as an equal in relation to the other, with equal rights in his judgment, with equal rights in the contribution he has to make to social life, and also equal in everything he has to demand from this social life. This is the abstract democratic demand. In the modern history of humanity, it becomes concrete through the fact that it is connected with the most important feelings and impulses. One can also say that this democratic tendency has found its way into the state structures of Europe in the most diverse ways, fighting against that which has emerged from feudal and other social orders. The democratic tendency has more or less pushed its way into the old-established forms. But the urge to do so has left its mark on modern history. Since the States could not avoid adding the democratic force to their former powers in some way, even if some, I might say, only did so for the sake of appearances, they also extended this democratic principle to the fields of intellectual and economic life.

But now, as a result, a significant contradiction in public life as a whole has emerged in the development of modern humanity. The one who is serious and honest about realizing the democratic impulse must actually notice this inner contradiction in modern public life. It is the contradiction that I would like to characterize in the following way: spiritual life, up to its most important part, school life, cannot develop out of anything other than the abilities of human beings, which are quite individually different from one another. The moment one wants to extend the levelling influence of democracy to that which wants to flourish and thrive in the individual form of the adult, the moment spiritual life must always suffer in some way, must always feel oppressed in some way. Therefore, I believe that anyone who is truly serious about the democratic tendency, who says that democracy must be everywhere in public life, must say: Then one must exclude from all that all mature people decide upon as equals that which truly not all mature people as equals can have an appropriate judgment about. By pursuing this thought to its ultimate consequences, by also checking whether you have really taken into account everything that comes into question, you will come to the conclusion that, precisely when you strive for the democratization of modern state life, you have to extract the whole intellectual life from this state life, from the political-legal life.

The spiritual life must be placed on its own ground. It must be placed so firmly on its own ground that those who teach, for example, from the lowest school to the highest levels of education, are at the same time the administrators of the education and teaching system, and that the administration of the education and teaching system is connected with the entire spiritual life of a social organism, whatever it may be. Only when one — and I would like to speak specifically here — makes the person who teaches at school responsible for both tasks, and only when one creates institutions in such a way that the person who works in the spiritual life , especially if he is teaching and educating, has nothing to do with anyone other than other teachers and educators. If the entire spiritual organism is an independent unit built upon itself, then all the forces inherent in humanity can truly be unleashed in the realm of spiritual life, and spiritual life can develop to its full fruition. This seems to indicate, at least in some kind of abstract form, the necessity of separating intellectual life, which must be built on its own principles and impulses, from everything that is absorbed in democracy.

But just as intellectual life must be separated from mere state life, economic life must also be separated from it. Admittedly, this is an area in which one finds fewer opponents today than in intellectual life. In the sphere of intellectual life, especially in the field of education, it has become customary during the last three or four hundred years to regard as enlightened only those who recognize the superiority of the State over education, and who cannot imagine that it would be possible to restore the independence of intellectual life without lapsing into clericalism or something of that kind.

In the economic sphere the situation is basically similar. While spiritual life is concerned with that which is inherent in man as an ability, which must be developed freely, which, so to speak, man carries into this physical existence through his birth, economic life is concerned with that which must be built on experience, which must be built from that into which one grows by being absorbed in a particular economic field with one's professional activity. Therefore, what comes from democratic life cannot be decisive in economic life, but only what comes from professional and factual foundations.

How can these professional and factual foundations be given to economic life? Actually, not through any kind of corporation, through any kind of organization that is so beloved today, but solely through what I would like to call associations. So that associations are formed by people who immerse themselves in their professions and become truly knowledgeable and skilled in the field of economic life. Not that people are organized, but that they join together according to objective criteria, as they arise from the individual economic sectors, from the relationship between producers and consumers, from the relationship between professional and economic sectors. A certain law even emerges here – you can read about the details in my writings – as to how large such associations may be, how they should be organized, and how they become harmful when they become too large, and how they become harmful when they become too small. It is perfectly possible to found an economic life by building it on such associations, by basing everything that is achieved in the social structure through the purely economic impulse of such associations on the purely material and technical. In a sense, everyone knows whom to turn to for this or that, if they know that they are linked to the other in one way or another through the social structure of associations, and that they have to guide their product through a chain of associations in such and such a way.

Of course, since I have to speak briefly here, I can only sketch out the principles of the matter. And so, I would like to say, the spiritual life must develop independently out of its own forces, in that those who achieve it are at the same time the administrators; likewise, the economic life must develop out of its own perspectives, in that those who are active in the economic life join together according to the principles of the economic life. If economic life is independent, then that which can only be based on the equal judgment of all mature human beings will arise as the content of the third link in the social organism, the actual state community.

I know very well that many people are truly frightened when one speaks to them of this threefold social organism, which is said to be necessary for the future. But this is only because people usually think that the state should be split into three parts. How should these three parts then work together? The truth is that unity is maintained precisely because these three parts are brought to their full development in the way I have only been able to sketch out, because the human being as a unity is present in all three parts. He participates in some way in the spiritual organism. If he has children, he is interested in the spiritual organism through the school. With his spiritual interests, he is somehow involved in the spiritual organism. He carries what he has received from the spiritual organism into this democratic state, since he is a participating adult in the democratic state, in his deeds, in his life. But what public law, public security, public welfare and so on is, which concerns every adult, is developed on the basis of the unified state. And with the constitutions of the soul, which are developed there in the direct interrelationship from person to person, one enters again into economic life in one's special field, in which one is linked through various associations in which one is active. One carries what one has gained from spiritual life, from public life, into this economic life, fertilizes it through it, maintains it, brings justice and spiritual fertilization into this economic life. The human being himself forms the unity between what is not the division into estates.

I have often been told that this would be a return to what in ancient Greece included the nourishing, defending and teaching classes. Such an objection only shows how superficially such things are often viewed today. For it is not a matter of a division of people themselves, not of a division into classes, but of the external life being divided into three in its institutions. It is precisely because man is part of such a tripartite social organism that all estates can cease to exist and true democracy can come about. I would say that the development of modern states points to this with an inner necessity for anyone who is unprejudiced.

Do we not see that, on the one hand, they have to take account of the necessary impulse towards democracy, but then, on the other hand, allow democracy to be corrupted by the fact that, as a matter of course, the able will always have more weight in the democratic life of the state than the less able? In matters where ability is important, this is entirely justified, for example in the intellectual sphere. On the other hand, the actual democratic state must be kept free and pure from such overpowering influences of particularly capable personalities, because there must be an area according to the basic demand of modern humanity in which only that which is equally valid for all people who have come of age is asserted.

The economic field shows particularly well how impossible it is to allow what man acquires through his special development as an ability in economic life to have an effect. He may acquire economic supremacy through it. But it must not become a social supremacy. It will not become one only because that which is economic power, which remains within economic life, cannot possibly become a political or legal supremacy. All the factors that have led to the caricature of the so-called social question would be overcome if people were willing to accept that economic life would be placed on its own ground and that democratic state life could, in turn, be placed honestly and sincerely on its own ground. The development of newer states shows how necessary it is for humanity to turn to such principles. And so, in addition to the historical impulses that one must take up in order to be pointed to this idea of the threefold social order, allow me to characterize the two subjective sources from which this impulse has arisen for me over many years.

The first source is that, with spiritual-scientific knowledge, which I have chosen to represent my view of life, one can inform oneself about certain developmental conditions of humanity differently than from the currently prevailing materialistic-scientific worldview. This currently prevailing materialistic-scientific worldview cannot actually lead to a real understanding of the historical development of humanity, because what we call “history” today is basically more or less a fable convenante. We make history today - and then want to learn something from this history for the social and political tasks of the present - in such a way that we imagine that what follows in human development is always the effect of the preceding, this preceding in turn the effect of a preceding and so on. A truly appropriate comparison of the whole development of humanity with the development of the individual human being, one that is not based merely on analogies, could heal one from this error.

When I see the individual develop, I have to say: What occurs in the first years of life, in the middle years of life, at the end of life, that does not present itself in such a way that I can speak of cause and effect. I cannot truly say that a person who turns thirty-five only experiences organically what is the effect of what he experienced at twenty or twenty-five, but we see as man develops, we see certain developmental impulses and developmental forces arise from his organism, from his entire organic being and nature, which show themselves to be particularly effective at certain periods of time.

Thus, for each individual, there are life epochs: When the second dentition appears, at around seven years of age, we find that the child's entire soul life changes. Before, the child imitated; now it becomes one who needs to come under a certain authority and to follow the judgments of people. Again, at puberty, a transformation of the soul life clearly begins. This transformation of the soul life can also be observed in later epochs, if only we have an organ for it.

For the individual human being, it is not just a matter of cause and effect, but of developmental forces shooting up from the depths of his being. And if you study history properly, you will find – to cite just one example – such a turning point in the development of all civilized modern humanity around the middle of the 14th or 15th century. There we find precisely that transition which, out of the elementary necessity of development, actually gave rise to modern humanity with its demands. Oh, there is a great difference between what man has regarded as the right way for himself to live a dignified life since that fifteenth century and what the man of the Middle Ages regarded as such.

The story of the soul – which we have not actually pursued – as it can arise from spiritual science, of which our building in Dornach is a representation, leads one to see what I have called the democratic principle as something that occurs in modern humanity in the same way as one sees the qualities that occur in the individual human being, say, at the age of sexual maturity. By taking into account the fact that modern humanity is quite different and that the developmental principles of the whole of humanity, as well as of the individual, must be taken into account, it becomes clear that democracy is something that cannot be opposed. , but that, because democracy is something that springs from the most elementary human nature, the social organism must be tripartite so that what can be democratically ordered comes into its own in the development of humanity. That is one thing, this spiritual-scientific view of the developmental impulses of humanity. The other is the observation of the facts of the life of nations.

I can only give you a few examples here. But it is still interesting to see from individual examples the impossibility of the newer unitary state structures coming out of their unity to form a truly viable social structure. It is only necessary to refer to a few examples to show this. You will understand that, as a non-Swiss, I do not mention Switzerland as an obvious example. I need only mention that what has already occurred to such a high degree in some European states will also gradually occur in the others, and that it is quite a short-sighted attitude to keep relying on the thought: Oh, it's different for us, we don't need to worry about what's happening elsewhere.

Now, I have chosen as an example the East of Europe, Russia, not only because Russia, with her tragic destiny, is particularly significant for our study of humanity, but also because, according to the practical political judgments of the leading English politicians, Russia is also the country in which, most vividly, I might say, as in an experiment taking place in the life of nations, what needs and what impossibilities prevail in modern national life must show. Let me highlight just a few aspects of this Russian national character.

There, placed in the middle of the Russian absolutism of the 1860s, which you know only too well, we encounter the curious institution of the zemstvo. These are assemblies of representatives of the rural population, those people who are involved in economic life or other areas of life in individual rural areas, who come together in certain assemblies to discuss these matters, I would say in the manner of a council or the like, a cantonal council. From the 1860s onwards, Russia was full of such zemstvos. They actually do fruitful work; they work together with something else that is traditional in Russia: the Mir organizations of the individual village communities, a kind of compulsory organization for the economic life of the village. There we have, on the one hand, old democratic customs in the Russian peasant organization, but in the appearance of the Zemstvos we have something newer that definitely tends towards the democratic. But something very strange is emerging. And this strangeness becomes even more striking when we look at another phenomenon that has emerged in Russia before the world catastrophe destroyed everything or cast it in a different light.

In Russia, it has been found that people from the most diverse individual professions have associated with each other, and in turn that associations have arisen from profession to profession, bank cashiers and bank cashiers have formed associations. These associations have in turn joined together to form more comprehensive associations. Those who came to Russia actually held their meetings not with individuals, but encountered such associations wherever they had anything to do with.

All of this was incorporated into the other state life of absolutism. Now, if you study these zemstvos, if you study the associations, if you study the Mir organization itself, you notice one thing. Of course, these organizations also extend to many other areas of life, such as school institutions and the like, but they do not do anything special there. Anyone who engages in an unbiased study of these associations – after all, the Semstwos did not develop into corporations either, but actually into associations, with farmers joining those at the forefront of industrial life, and so on. Even if it all took on the character of a public institution, in reality one was dealing with associations, and they all did good. But what they did, they actually only did on the basis of economic life. And we can say: In this Russia, the strange thing is that an organic system based on associations is emerging. Furthermore, it is proving that the Russian state is incapable of dealing with what is emerging there. So we can say: as the necessity of the early capitalist development, as it occurs in Russia, leads to economic organizations, these must, out of an inner necessity, take their place alongside the political institutions.

Now, something else peculiar occurs in Russia in the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century. Yes, of course, absolutism founds its schools; but these schools are nothing more than, I would say, a reflection of the needs of absolutist state life. Now, a spiritual life is developing in Russia, a more intense spiritual life than the West of Europe assumes. But how must this spiritual life develop? Absolutely in opposition, yes, in revolutionary turmoil against everything that is Russian statehood. One sees that this tightly and uniformly organized state is splitting apart into three parts, but really only wants to split apart. But it cannot. It shows us, precisely through what it is experiencing, how impossible it is to compress these three most excellent spheres of human life into a unified state.

I can only sketch this out for you. If you study in detail how these three elements in Russian state life then develop into the world war, how out of the world war first the really insubstantial rule of Miliukov develops, but then under Kerensky something develops that can be called the transformation of absolutism into a democratic state, but still entirely with a belief in the omnipotence of the unitary state, then can be seen precisely from what Kerensky's short reign must fail, how this Russian state, which wants to become democratic, is unable to address the most important issues, an economic issue, the agrarian issue, because the associations of Russian life are such that anything democratic that is tried out of the old absolutism breaks down on them.

Of course, everything is also showing itself in a certain concrete way. You can't see everything in it right away. But anyone who looks at it impartially, at this becoming Russia, its steering into an impossible social-democratic structure, because the unified state is fragmented at the impossibility of combining the three areas of life, will see that this example of Eastern Europe is a very significant one and that the far-sighted English politicians are right to look at Russia as the field in which, as in a world experiment, the course of human development is being demonstrated.

One could survey the whole of Europe from such points of view, one would see everywhere how the unified state is gradually disintegrating. Even if it still appears firmly established in some areas, it will dissolve because it cannot cope with the proper interaction of the three human spheres of life. Just see how, in more recent times, where, for example, the political sense, the political attitude completely fills the innermost being of the human being, how there the political attitude cannot become master over economic life.

In this respect, France is a good example. France has saved from its revolution in the 18th century what is now a truly inner democratic spirit, even if this democratic spirit is coupled with a great conservatism in relation to family life. Even if much of the democratic reminds one of the philistine and patriarchal, the tendency towards democracy is perhaps, if not purest, then at least most pronounced in the Frenchman's deepest convictions among the peoples of Europe. This democratic spirit first sought to express itself in the life of the state. It was precisely through this expression of the democratic spirit in French state life that the state was, on the one hand, abstractly dissected into its departments; but these departments were, in turn, combined into a single unit. All this was the fruit of the French Revolution.

One has only to consider one thing in this structure of the French state: the position of the departmental prefect, and one will see how inorganically the political-legal, the state element, is linked to the economic element. The prefect is actually nothing more than the executive organ of the Paris government from a certain point of view. I might say that the Paris government has the various departmental prefects as it has its many hands. But the departmental prefect, in turn, must be in contact with the economic interest groups in his department. So that when there is an election in France, the prefect will certainly direct that election, but it will not turn out differently than it can turn out from what the prefect concedes to the economic interest groups.

Thus we see how parties exist in France, parties with party slogans, and party watchwords too, but how these party watchwords signify much less reality than that which grows out of the economic interests of the department. In this respect, the study of the individual facts of French life is extraordinarily interesting. In France, in particular, one can see how a proper interaction of the legal-state and the economic can never be transformed into a certain public truth, because the state element cannot control the economic element.

I myself have, I would like to say, studied for decades from direct observation what was bound to lead to the downfall, let us say, of Austria. There was no way for Austria to avoid going to the dogs, one way or another. For as the newer democratic life emerged, it also had to bring something like democracy into its state life, into this state life, which above all had its intellectual structure from such a diversity of peoples that there were actually thirteen official languages in Austria, which on the other hand had a complicated economic life, leaning on the Orient on the one hand, on Germany and Western Europe on the other, on Italy and so on. When something democratic was to be introduced into this Austrian state life, it was formed in such a way that a Reichsrat was created. Four different sections were elected to this Reichsrat: the curia of the chambers of commerce, the curia of the large landowners, the curia of the cities, markets and industrial centers, and the curia of the rural communities. If you look more closely at the reason: nothing but representatives of economic interests were elected to the Austrian parliament to shape the state. Of course, they achieved nothing, except that they transformed economic interests into state interests, and nothing of a real state emerged at all, but rather a conglomeration of economic interests, against which the spiritual life of the various nations then rebelled, something that was bound to move towards fragmentation for internal reasons.

We can observe something else, however, that is much more international and universal, and we will see how everything that is considered impartially in the modern life of humanity tends towards this threefoldness. Take the most striking thing that has emerged: I am not talking explicitly about the social question, but about the social-democratic question. In Russia, because the old state life, when it wanted to democratize itself, fragmented due to the impossibility of unifying the three areas of life in such a way as to a resulted in something completely alien being imposed on Russian culture, and that what is now unfolding in Russia is, of course, nothing other than something that must necessarily lead the social life it affects into ruin. What Social Democracy, the Socialist trend that swears by Marxism, can practically achieve, especially in terms of democracy, which is truly demanded by the innermost human being, can be seen from the sad state of present-day Russia, where it can already be reported that the ideals of the gullible workers are being fulfilled in such a way that now, under the necessity of the circumstances, is compelled to transform the eight-hour day into a twelve-hour day, and that instead of the usual organization, in which the worker thinks he will find his freedom, a military labor regiment is being set up that promises to be much more tyrannical than the Prussian military regiment ever was. These are the fruits of Leninism, of Trotskyism!

They cannot be otherwise. They only show, in the most radical form, how the social-democratic current developed out of the proletariat – because today's Russian rule over the many millions of the Russian people includes only a few million industrial workers, and basically there is a tyranny of the few million industrial workers today – how the social-democratic current developed. How did it develop? Yes, we can say: this social democracy, which is particularly characterized by the fact that it derives all human life only from economic production, that it regards all spiritual life only as an ideology, as something that rises like a smoke from economic production, this social democracy, how could it arise?

This social democracy, which is under Marxist influence – I do not mean healthy socialism, of course – is actually the sin of bourgeois currents that have arisen in modern times, the result of the sin of bourgeois currents, I might say. For if you look everywhere, you would see, as I have shown with two examples, France and Russia, that the whole civilized world has gone through this in its development in modern times. You would see everywhere that economic life has become one that has been stamped by technology , which has taken man away from his former connection with his occupation, and placed him in the abstract, indifferent machine, in the indifferent factory – and the proletariat, basically, has known nothing but economic life.

In more recent times, it would have been necessary to place this ever-growing proletariat in a social structure. From what historical development has brought forth in humanity, nothing could be gained by which one could, as it were, have devised a unified structure for those who are the leaders in economic life, in intellectual life, and so on, and those who have to work by hand. To a certain extent, the old powers had not been developed into new forces. The old princely states did not give rise to real institutions that would have been supported by democracy. So it has to be said that what modern social democracy actually is came about because the leading classes, the leading people in modern history, could not cope with what economic life had brought about. They have left the states so organized that they could not encompass the ever more massive and massive economic life. And so it is precisely the failure to come to terms with what was brought about by the emergence of the proletarian in human souls that shows that nothing fruitful for a possible structure of the social organism could arise from what could be imagined by the state.

And so I could cite many more examples that would show you that it is indeed necessary, on the basis of what can be observed, to place the three most important spheres of human and human existence on their own ground.

This necessity could truly have been discussed before this terrible catastrophe befell the world and so clearly revealed the destructive forces in the last four to five years. But I do not believe that humanity in the period before 1914, when people only lived in illusions about what they felt was a great, powerful upsurge in modern humanity, could somehow have been won over to an understanding of this necessity. Now, however, the time has come when it is no longer enough to prove theoretically that such a necessity exists. Instead, states that have been particularly exposed to the dangers of the unitary state have been swept away in their old form and are faced with the necessity of rebuilding themselves from scratch.

We see the eastern former Russian state fragmented, faced with the necessity of rebuilding itself, but also with the powerlessness to rebuild itself in a way that will flourish, having to accept something is being imposed on it that never grows out of its own nationality, but is imposed on it like a general socialist template that can be applied to everything. And we see, for example, in Germany, where a failed revolution, the revolution of November 1918, really shows a lot of how only chaos, real chaos, results from the circumstances. And the most striking, I would say heartbreaking, thing in the life of present-day Germany is that wherever you meet people and talk to them about public affairs, they appear at a loss. Why are they at a loss? For the simple reason that the dogma of the unified state is deeply rooted in the souls and because the terrible lessons of the last four to five years have truly not been enough for people to erase this dogma from them. I have asked many individuals where it comes from that they are so lethargic that they cannot be won over to rallying for anything positive in the direction of reconstruction. The people confessed calmly: Yes, we were in the trenches for so long, we didn't know if we would still be alive in eight days, it had to gradually become indifferent to us whether we would still be alive in eight days; shouldn't it be indifferent to us now what social institutions are made in eight days? One accommodates oneself to the mood of the soul. Many a person, truly not just one, has said this.

Of course, the circumstances of the time make many things understandable, but something greater, something more significant is the historical, the purely human necessity. There is only either-or. And I believe that here too it could be realized – since the conditions are truly not far away that are likely to throw their waves into the whole of Europe – what should be realized: that it is impossible to bring the three spheres of life, intellectual life, state life, economic life, into a unity. The necessity should be realized to place each of these three spheres on its own ground.

I am well aware of the many objections that can be raised from the old point of view against this threefold ordering of the social organism. But anyone who considers the present world situation, as I have tried to describe it with a few examples, will say to himself: this proposal differs from all the other, more utopian proposals for the reorganization of the social organism in that it does not present a program, that it does not come with the pretension of knowing everything, but that it says: if people organize themselves socially in such a way that their best that their best comes about independently in a free, emancipated spiritual life, that in which all mature people are equal, in an independent democratic state life, that in which everything must develop from economic foundations, in an independent economic life, then the fact that people are called upon to work socially will bring about something like the solution of the social question.

For I do not believe that anyone who knows life can go along with the superficial view that the social question arose yesterday, and that one only needs to have some ideas or draw some conclusions from life in order to hammer out a program that will solve the social question. There are many such concoctions. But the impulse for the threefold social order is not based on this ground of omniscience. It is permeated by the conviction that the social question has indeed arisen, that it cannot be solved overnight or with any single measure: it will always be there in the future, it will permeate our lives, and the solution can only consist in being continuously under such institutions, so that the daily new difficulties can be overcome little by little. The whole of life in the future will consist in being a kind of solution to the social question.

The impulse for threefolding hopes that the social question can be resolved through the work and judgment of individuals in the threefold social organism. It does not seek to solve the social question theoretically; it seeks to give people the opportunity to solve the social question through collaboration and joint reflection. But even what can be proposed – today I have only been able to give you a rough sketch – these characteristics of the three areas of the social organism, even that is by no means regarded by the bearers of this idea as something that could be any kind of dogma. That is all I ask: that it be discussed, that as many people as possible be imbued with what the needs of the present time teach, that out of the best forces of the human being, that which can lead to a new structure be done.

When good will from all sides works together, a fruitful discussion can arise. And it is this fruitful discussion that is really important to those who are the bearers of the idea of the threefold social organism. If they had to believe that they could not have emerged before the distress of the world catastrophe occurred, they now have some optimism; although, I would say, a sad optimism: that the ever-widening spread of distress must become the great teacher, that it is precisely out of distress that people will have to recognize that something like what is being said today — I do not want to say in the content that we are able to give to the idea of the threefold social order, but in the impulse that we would like to give to the public discussion through this idea — that something like this must somehow be taken seriously. Much will depend on whether such things can be taken seriously. A kind of spiritual drowsiness still hangs over European humanity, and indeed over modern civilized humanity. Even if those who are already working today in the movement for the threefold social order have done this or that out of their convictions, they know that the right thing will only come when a sufficiently large number of people engage with the details of the matter.

We have already had the opportunity to found a free school in the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, where children between the ages of six or seven and fourteen or fifteen are taught in an eight-year primary school according to the principles of a free spiritual life, so that they grow into a social order from a free spiritual life. We have tried many different things in this area, and economic matters are also being considered, where we want to try to place the most diverse branches of economic life under the aspects of the threefold order, to organize them, to finance them according to these aspects; for it will perhaps be particularly necessary, in order to be convincing, that the model, that the example, is there. But in order for this example to have a sufficient impact, in order to put it into practice at all, it is necessary, above all, that a sufficiently large number of people take part in the discussion of what the impulse for the threefold order of the social organism actually wants.

I would like to have stimulated a little thought on this point, and on this alone, with the very sketchy remarks that I have been able to make in the short time available to me this evening.

A discussion then followed in which various questions and objections to the remarks made in the lecture were raised.

Final Word

Actually, I have to admit that no real objections have been raised. I understand very well that, based on what I have said tonight, a wide range of questions can be asked, and I believe that it is impossible to cover such a question so exhaustively in a one-hour lecture that hundreds and thousands and perhaps even more questions cannot be asked afterwards. I would therefore just like to make a few comments, which may at least provide some insights instead of an answer to the various questions, which would really take several days. First of all, with regard to what the Chairman said last, that there are no clear formulations of what threefolding actually wants. You see, I have tried, as well as it is possible for such a movement, which is basically only at the beginning of its work, to discuss some of these problems in my book 'The Key Points of the Social Question', for example, the problem of the circulation of the means of production, which I have put in the place of the unworkable socialization of the means of production, and so on. You will find more such details in the Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage than one might perhaps expect. I must emphasize again and again that my attempts to grasp this impulse of threefolding are actually drawn from the whole of life, and that the whole of life actually has dimensions not only in two directions, but always also in the depths. I would ask you to bear in mind that the movement is in its infancy and that at the end of my presentation today, if I may call it that, I actually called for a discussion. I believe that only a discussion will produce the right results.

Now I would like to at least touch on some individual questions. An important misunderstanding between Dr. S. and me will have arisen precisely because I do not speak at all, as the doctor understood it, of three parliaments. I do not see the essence of this threefold structure as being that the unified parliament is divided into three parliaments, but rather that we only have a parliament in the modern sense for that which can be democratically administered or oriented, but that the other two areas are not administered by parliament, but are administered from what arises from within themselves. It is very difficult for me to discuss these concrete things in abstract terms. I would therefore like to build the answer, so to speak.

When setting up the Waldorf School, I once again had to deal in detail with what I would call a cross-section of the state administration for the school system. Right? I had to constitute the Waldorf School from two sides. On the one hand, I had to base it on what I believed the spiritual life itself would demand as an impulse for the Waldorf School. On the other hand, I could not build castles in the air. That is, I had to create a school where it is possible for students to leave, for example, at the age of fourteen or, if you like, in between, and then be able to join another school later on. Naturally, I had to deal with the curricula. Now, I first came across – please excuse me for having to go into very specific details, but I believe this is the best way for me to communicate – I came across the curricula. The curricula are state-defined descriptions of the subject matter, the teaching objective and so on. It is quite another matter if one, as a pedagogical and didactic artist, can study purely from the essence of the human being how, from the age of seven to fourteen, what is to be brought to the human being takes place. I am convinced that the teaching objectives for each year can be read from the developing human being.

Now I want those who are immersed in the living teaching to set the teaching goals, and not those who are torn out of it and become state officials, who thus pass over from the living teaching to democracy. So I want what comprises the spiritual life to be administered by those who are still immersed in it, who are building this spiritual life. So it is important that the whole structure of the administration is built on the structure of a spiritual life itself. Isn't it true that today, for example, I still had to make the decision that children, after completing three classes, can join again — in order to have freedom in between — after another three years, at the age of twelve, they can join again. So I had to do justice to an external aspect.

That is the essence of the threefold social order. It has a real basis everywhere and must also work from a real basis. But if you have a real basis, you do not have something vague. Spiritual life is there, it has an administration simply because one person is in one position and another in another. In this separation of the spiritual body from the state body, I would simply like the administration to be hierarchical, and I believe – of course this is something that cannot be explained quickly – that the hierarchical administration will have all imperfections. I know what the lecturers in particular will object, but perhaps even major imperfections are sometimes necessary in such transitions in order to arrive at something perfect. But the point is that, little by little, a purely didactic body of intellectual life, which, if administered in a way that is justified by the facts, only slightly echoes Klopstock's “Republic of Scholars”. And that something like this is actually possible in the field of intellectual life if one only has the good will to found it.

I think that it will then become very clear – let me mention something specific, pick out an example – that pedagogy, when practised at university level, has been one of the worst disciplines so far, at least in the whole of Central Europe. As a rule, it has been saddled on some pedagogue who has practised it as a secondary subject. In such a republic of scholars, the one who proves to be capable can be called upon for three years, can teach education, and then return to the teaching profession.

But as far as the external structure is concerned, I must say that, on a small scale, things have gone excellently so far with our teaching staff at the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. The question arose right at the beginning: Who will be the director? – Of course, nobody; we simply have teachers with equal rights in all classes, and one of this teaching staff, who has slightly fewer hours than the others, takes care of the administrative matters. In this way, it can already be seen that the capable teachers also have a certain authority over the others, a natural authority, and a certain hierarchical system emerges. However, this does not need to be an answer to the question, as the senior judge L. meant: Who commands? — but it happens automatically. Naturally I will refrain from mentioning names, but it does happen. And in the intellectual field....

What about the parents' say in the choice of teachers? That's dictatorship!

Professional and objective! Of course, call it a dictatorship for my sake, the name doesn't bother me. It is a dictatorship in the sense that it is not the individual who decides. Since you are a scientist, you will easily understand when I say: when it comes to the correctness of the Pythagorean theorem, it does no harm if a “dictatorship” decides, because a certain necessity lies in the matter.

And religious education?

The point here is that some theoretical questions now become didactic questions. In the religious instruction as it is organized in the Waldorf School, although I do not want to say that it is always organized in this way, because there may be developments here too, it is important that it is appropriate for me, for example, that what I was able to give as a pedagogical and didactic teaching course is expressed only in the methodology, not in the world view, but in the way the lessons are taught. The Waldorf school is not meant to be a school of world view in any direction. This could only be achieved by the fact that my institutions all relate to the pedagogical-didactic and work from that. The children who come from Catholic parents have their Catholic religious education, the children who come from Protestant parents have their Protestant religious education from the respective Catholic and Protestant pastor. Now, there were a large number of proletarian children and also anthroposophist children, and there was a demand for free religious education. And the children whose parents demand free religious education receive free religious education from us, based on our convictions. So in this question, an emotional truth, combined with certain social driving forces, decides.

Things naturally look different in the process of becoming than after some time. But it is precisely in practice that it can be seen that one can make progress if one does not want a parliament for spiritual matters. That is why I cannot go along with the “three parliaments”, nor can I answer the question, “if Kerensky had had three parliaments. . .»; that is just it, that he should have solved the agrarian question in his one and failed because of it. I see no causal nexus between threefolding and what came before, for example; I just wanted to point out that what came before failed because of the three spheres of life, which I cannot take as two or four or even more, because there are only three.

Dr. S.: I didn't seriously consider that objection.

Dr. Steiner: I did not understand it any other way! Now I am wondering, since the state has failed in its establishment of the three parliaments, how one can make progress through a new beginning, not through a causal nexus, although what is good must remain. You see, the elements of the answer to your questions lie in what you said. I do not want a parliament in the economic field either; heaven forbid, no democracy in the economic field! But an order that does not arise hierarchically, but from the thing itself.

Now, these areas are not simply juxtaposed. If you read my “key points,” you will find that the circulation of the means of production is essentially determined by what is determined in the intellectual sphere, so that the intellectual sphere has a direct effect on the economic sphere. And so much of economic life is determined by the organization in relation to one's position. What I want to say is that the spiritual organization will also be concerned with determining whether a person is capable of doing this or that and will be trained for it; the economic position in which he can be placed depends on this. Of course, this must now be done jointly by the economic and spiritual aspects. The fact that he is qualified for this or that will already place him in a different position from another person. Nothing hierarchical develops from this, but in a certain sense nothing bureaucratic either. Every bureaucratic parliament for the economic system only leads to the disintegration of the economic system. So the essential thing for me is the way the three elements are organized, and you can't say that everyone will be in three parliaments; it is only one parliament in which everyone can be, but only based on the judgment of each mature human being. So let's say, to highlight the most important area: all legal matters. The legal issues are actually such that they are at least in the interest of every person who has come of age, and I would like to say, of course, that every person who has come of age is not ideally equally capable with every other person who has come of age. But a certain arithmetic mean does yield the appropriate result in relation to legal issues. At this point, one should now turn to the theory of the basis of law in general. Law is not really based on judgment, but on perception, on the habits that arise from the interaction of people living together. This can be judged when people who belong together judge it. I do not believe, Doctor $., that the individual human being therefore needs to find the right law, but together they will find it. That is what democracy does. I see much more of importance in the interplay than in the details. I would like to see people who have come of age in the democratic parliament and have them decide there mainly on legal matters, but also, and rightly so, on welfare issues, because every person who has come of age can decide there; of course, in many things not on the

objective and technical.

Now, the eight-hour day is something that cannot seriously be considered at all for the threefold social organism, because what does an eight-hour day actually mean? I must confess that I do not, but for the greater part of the year I work much more than eight hours and do not find it in any way excessive. I do not believe that it is possible to establish such an eight-hour day without undermining our real social life. In my “Key Points of the Social Question” you will therefore find that everything that relates to the time of work is determined within the democratic state, and on this basis, the contracts for the distribution of the proceeds are then concluded, not labor contracts, but contracts for the distribution of the proceeds between what I call the labor manager and between what I must call the worker.

So that in the right-wing parliament?

In the right-wing parliament, the time and nature of the work is determined. In this respect, the manual laborer is on an equal footing with the intellectual laborer, because the intellectual laborer cannot assert his interests. You can come to an understanding with goodwill, but you cannot make any demands that relate to economic life itself, you cannot regulate export and import according to parliamentary laws; rather, that must be studied from the economic conditions, from factual and technical knowledge. The fact that I have been working in a company for twenty years also gives me a different moral authority with my fellow human beings than if I have only been there for a year. In democratic life, it is not a matter of whether I am a cheeky young badger of twenty-one years old passing judgment on something. In economic life, it simply depends on whether life experience is taken into account. This is simply necessary for the good of humanity.

I deliberately raised the question of the eight-hour day. Now, if there were a four-hour day, what could the manager do? I don't care about the eight-hour day. I also work more. I am talking about the regulation of working hours.

All right. The matter is this: if the democratic parliament decides on a four-hour day, then this four-hour day will either be sufficient to run the economy within the economy, or it will not be sufficient. If that is not the case, then it will be a matter of everyone, in turn, realizing from their mature reason — for the change must also be carried out democratically — that the change must come about democratically, not in any other way, not by the economically more powerful being able to exert pressure. So what exists as the legal basis of economic life belongs in the democratic parliament. But what is the economic question? Isn't everything an economic question? One might ask: can spiritual life be separated from economic life at all? The objection has been raised that this costs money. In economic life, I see associations emerging from the individual branches of economic life, which interweave, from related and unrelated branches, production, consumption and so on. To describe this in detail would be going too far.

What is important is this: the various members of the spiritual life, who are in their administration of the spiritual life what I have described for the spiritual life; as participants in economic life, they form economic consumers and are members, associations that belong to the economic body. What I separate is life; it is not an abstract separation into three bodies, but it is life that is structured. It is true that spiritual life is indeed administered hierarchically, but the economic life of all those who work spiritually is part of the economic life of the associations. So in their economic activity, teachers and so on are also economic entities and economic organizations. And so the various people actually work together. And this can only be followed in detail; just as, after all, when one wants to present chemistry, not everything can be presented in one hour, but one must refer to what can then be done in detail.

But to answer a question from Judge L., it is easier to discuss and answer certain questions with people who have simply come of age than factual questions, I think that is obvious in the end.

Certain socialists – and there were really not dozens of them, but scores, in the period just after people were suddenly allowed to stir things up again in Germany – certain socialists imagined how to organize the individual branches and so on, by applying what they had learned as political agitators to economic life. This is the great misfortune of today's political discussion, that people have actually only acquired a certain training in the purely political struggle, in elections and so on, but now cannot apply it to economic life.

Basically, socialist agitators usually have no understanding of economic life and even less of the conditions of economic life. And so the most diverse utopias have been put forward as to how one thing or another can be organized. For example, I would like to mention how industrial sectors that are based on a fine, meticulous interlocking of very different things are supposed to cope with their exports if they are to be organized according to a Möllendorff planned economy or something similar. It depends on certain things that can only be administered from within an economic organism, not by government, but from within.

It is characteristic, for example, when it is said: You cannot take school out of the state today; people will not put up with it, and it is not necessary in a socialist state. Those who do not know the conditions that really exist in humanity, but which haunt the minds of political agitators, must say to themselves: in the socialist state it would be even more necessary! Above all, for the good of the people, it would be even more necessary to at least take the school out of what is intended for humanity in the socialist state, as it is imagined by Marxism.

So I believe that if the good will exists to respond to the individual – I have already been repeatedly confronted with the objection of the three parliaments – I want to have the threefold structure for its own sake, not just to have three groups of people, three houses next to each other; there really won't be three houses. If I am understood correctly, it will probably be found that we can meet in the concrete solutions that I have already given for individual questions, and for others, if I still have some time to live, will still give - I would prefer if you will give others - I think we will get along quite well.

I would like to emphasize again here: it is not a matter of omniscience, but rather of trying to determine, without utopia, what should happen in detail, starting from the assumption that the three areas of life different conditions of life, and that only when people from the three areas of life work together in a qualitatively different way, not just in a parliamentary, quantitative way, but in a qualitative way, will the concrete findings emerge in the right way.

I must also say that for me, this threefold social order is so firmly established that I would compare this certainty, of course cum grano salis, with the certainty of the Pythagorean theorem. You cannot prove it everywhere, in all cases, but you can prove that you can use it. The threefold social order does not have to be abstracted from all particulars, but it can be applied in all details, in this case practically applied, in that in the threefold organism precisely the state life, economic life and spiritual life are organized in such a way that a practical result is achieved.

I believe that answering the very extensive questions of Mr. Chief Justice L. would take too long this evening; but it may be seen that the point here is to start from the concrete shaping of reality, and that it is therefore extremely difficult with abstract answers, because one wants to remain in the full reality.

I would just like to come back to this: I also find it extremely interesting that within French folklore, syndicalism has emerged, and I believe that this question is best solved by studying socialization. It is very interesting to study the different nuances of English and French socialism. English socialism is basically a watered-down form of capitalism. It is actually entirely what works in capitalism. So the purely economic element in the English labor question is actually only sharpened to the interests of the worker in the big picture; but it has not gone away completely, so that English socialism has an economically opportunistic coloring.

German socialism has taken up Marxism with military efficiency and military organizational spirit, and it has acquired a tight military organization. And those like me who have worked in a workers' educational school that had grown entirely out of social democracy, but was also thrown out by its non-Marxist orthodoxy, that is, by its non-Marxism, by saying: Not freedom, but a reasonable compulsion can judge that. German socialism is basically something that is entirely in line with the same spirit that produced Prussian militarism.

Without wishing to say anything favorable about the nature of the people or to accuse the Germans of anything, French syndicalism is, after all, — through its associative character, I must see it as the best beginning for precisely what I must think of as the association in economic life. And especially when I compare it with English and German socialism, I see that it arises from the same thing that I have tried to characterize, from the democratic spirit. These are two sides; one side has shown itself among the bourgeoisie, the other among the workers. And what is more capitalist and more profit-oriented in the bourgeoisie is syndicalism among the workers. It is only the obverse and reverse sides.

So I believe that these three different nuances, the English, French and German nuances of socialism, are related to the qualities of nationality.

And this brings us to a question that I consider to be extremely important. We should not start from a general socialism and we should not believe that there is such a thing as an abstract socialism. Instead, we should ask: How should each national culture be treated based on its own characteristics? And anyone who comes from Western Europe, has observed and reflected on Swiss social conditions, goes to Russia and imposes something completely alien on the Russian people, actually destroys what the Russian people could have formed out of themselves. — But, as I said, not all social issues can be resolved today.

Source: The Rudolf Steiner Archive