Lecture 5
Dornach 2nd March, 1919
Yesterday from a certain
standpoint we endeavoured to go deeply into the present social movement.
The fact brought to light by the subject of our observations was that,
to have any understanding of a movement promoted by mankind, careful
distinction must be made between what goes on superficially in ordinary
consciousness in the soul, and what on the other hand is working in the
depths of the soul in the subconscious regions. We became aware of the
three impulses behind the modern proletariat movement — first, the
so-called materialistic interpretation of history; then what the
proletariat have learnt from their leaders, what they understand as the
class struggle that is at the basis of all that happens historically; and
then we gave our attention to the theory of surplus value which has worked
so incisively on the proletarian soul. These are the things at work today
on the surface of their soul life. In its depths something very different
is stirring and coming to life. Whereas the modern proletarian surrenders
himself to illusion when he says that all that develops historically
amply reflects purely economic processes, arising like smoke from the
spiritual life, he in really yearning, with all present-day humanity,
for definite spiritual knowledge of the world. But so far he is ignorant
of this subconscious yearning of his soul for spiritual knowledge. What
is going on in the subconscious depths of his life of soul and appears
in a different guise on the surface, often just expresses itself in
the most uncontrolled instincts.
Similarly, when the modern
proletarian utters the word class-struggle, he does not realise that
this is only an attempt to disguise what is filling the soul of modern
mankind as a deep yearning, namely, the impulse towards freedom of thought.
On its way from the subconscious to the conscious, the striving for
freedom of thought changes into its opposite. This striving for freedom
of thought is the real basis of the very intensive life in the element
of authority, in sheer class-consciousness. And true socialism, which
is the fundamental aim of our times, is expressed also in its opposite
— in the striving to put all surplus value to egoistic uses.
Whoever does not understand
this secret of the existing proletarian movement cannot today discover
the underlying social impulses. Having had all this before our souls
yesterday, we will now consider a few of its relevant truths.
A very different attitude
to a world historic movement arises in those who look more deeply into
what is happening, from the attitude of those who observe merely what
is on the surface. The present social movement is now finding its most
radical expression in Bolshevism, which is more a social method, having
for its content all that has been absorbed into the will of the most
advanced so-called socialism. The student of history as reality rather
then theory, endeavours above all to understand how certain streams in the
cosmic development of man reveal themselves in their most extreme form.
For in an extreme form it is often easier to recognise what, though no
less active, is frequently hidden in the less extreme. If we are rightly
to understand the historic consequences of Bolshevism, the horrifying
deeds of which are already historic fact, we shall, in some measure,
have to observe the more recent life of history.
In answer to the question:
Who are the Bolshevists? — various names would have to be given
today. The names most often repeated are those of Lenin and Trotsky.
I will, however, give you a third name which may Perhaps astonish you.
But from a certain point of view I can do no less than call Johann Gottlieb
Fichte a genuine Bolshevist. I have often spoken to you of him
[ Note 01 ]
and tried to present his life history from a rather more profound
standpoint, and we have also called up before our souls some of his
leading thoughts. It cannot be denied that Fichte was one of the most
forceful thinkers of recent times and, in the truest sense of the word,
an idealist. He stated his views on socialism in a little book entitled
Der geschlossene Handelsstaat
(The Enclosed Commercial State).
If what he there presents as a kind of ideal picture of social conditions
is studied in its reality, it can only be said that, if realised, this
social ideal set forth in Fichte's book could lead to nothing but
Bolshevism. Trotsky is writings sentence for sentence, almost word for
word, as far a this can be the case in such widely different things, are
reminiscent of Fichte's
Der geschlossene Handelsstaat.
Now Fichte is, it is true,
a Bolshevist long since dead. This is a reason however to go further
into the matter. In Fichte we have, above all, a solitary thinker who
reached great heights in in his philosophic ideas. He reflected upon
the crying injustices of the social order of his time, and how they
could be swept away to give place to juster social conditions. And out
of his own innermost soul arose a picture of a communal order that aimed
at organising human beings in much the same forceful way as Russian
Bolshevism organises them, and as its followers will continue to do.
I can imagine that many people today, concerned about the injustices
arising within the social order, feel themselves captivated by the very
simple conceptions developed by Fichte in his book. I need not dwell
upon this; it is enough to think that you have here, described in the
cultured language of a philosopher, what Bolshevism is doing. You will
then have an idea of
Der geschlossene Handelsstaat
by Johann Gottlieb Fichte. It is just these facts that can prove a
justification of the threefold nature of the healthy social organism.
Now what is the aim of this
threefold order? In public lectures I have often pointed out how this
particular way of thinking socially differs from other ways. I have
said that seeing what has partly come into being already, in one or
another of the forms of States, seeing what those who are socialistically
minded aim at realising, we have the feeling that what people think
of already as medieval superstition is nevertheless deeply rooted in
their souls. It is as if in the human soul there were a certain hankering
after superstition, and when superstition is driven out on the one side,
it turns to the other side. Thus, many things existing in social life,
as well as the aims of socialistic thinkers, recall the scene in the
second part of Goethe is Faust where Wagner is producing Homunculus.
Homunculus is supposed to be put together mechanically, out of certain
ingredients in accordance with dry intellectual principles. The Alchemists,
looked upon as superstitious, considered that this could not be done
thus simply, and set this artificial creation of a manikin, of Homunculus,
in contrast to the forming of a true human organism. A true human organism
cannot be put together out of just so many ingredients; the necessary
conditions must be forthcoming in which he can to a certain extent produce
himself. It is thought that in scientific spheres alchemistic superstitions
have been overcome. But in the social sphere superstition continues
to flourish. And it endeavours to sot up an artificial social order
consisting in all manner of ingredients out of the human will.
This way of thinking is
diametrically opposed to the fundamentals of Spiritual Science represented
here. The way of thinking we represent, aims at getting rid of all social
superstition, so that in a practical way we can answer the following
question: What conditions must be set up, not to enable some cleverly
designed, socialistic ideal to be put into practice, but so that human
beings in mutual cooperation should bring about the necessary shaping
of the social life
One finds, however, that
in actual fact this social organism like the natural organism must consist
of three relatively independent members. Just as the human head, the
chief bearer of the sense-organs, by reason of these organs stands in
a special relation to the external world and is centred in itself; just
as, too, the rhythmic system, the lungs and the breathing, end then
again the digestive system are centred in themselves, as these three
work together in relative independence; so it is fundamentally necessary
for the social organism to be threefold, its three members being relatively
independent. There must work side-by-side the independent spiritual
organism, the independent organism of the political state in its narrow
sense, and the independent economic life. Each of these bodies should
have its own legislation and government, arising out of its own conditions
and its own forces. This seems to be abstract, but this threefold order
is just the element in which man can be so fused that from the working
together of all the members a healthy social organism can result. It
cannot be just a question of thinking out what for the social organism
is to take. Our thinking, indeed, is not so advanced in the social sphere
that a structure can be given straightway to the social organism. One
individual by himself could as little bring about such a structure as
a man growing up alone on a desert island without any human society
could, out of himself, learn to speak. Everything social arises through
cooperation, but a cooperation harmoniously regulated on this threefold
basis. It is only by keeping in mind the direction leading to a really
practical structure, a really practical life, that we understand how
a men like Johann Gottlieb Fichte came to think out a social system
which, put into practice, would actually be Bolshevism.
For what kind of personality
is Fichte? Fichte is a characteristic modern thinker. He cultivated
in the most energetic way and in its purest form the thinking that was
evolving, as we know, though not always on the same level. (Read up
this in my
Rätseln der Philosophie; Riddles of Philosophy).
It is just in a personality like Fichte that one can see in what direction
thinking goes when a man wishes to draw it entirely out of himself,
out of his ego. And if one applies this thinking to the social structure
there arises the picture given in Fichte's
Der geschlossene Handelsstaat.
Only with deep insight can it be understood how thinking like Fichte's
is not suitable for finding the right social structure. Thinking drawn
entirely from the impulse of the ego is not able to find the social
structure of the ego, any more than the single man can invent speech.
The social structure is far more readily found when men are brought
together into such a relation that this structure can be created through
their mutual intercourse and cooperation. We must make a halt, so to
speak, before certain things relating to the social structure; we must
dare to follow the way only so far as we are shown: This is the relation
in which men must stand if the social organism is to be realised through
their combined efforts — That is thinking in terms of reality
and experience! Fichte's thinking is born out of the pure ego and is
ultimately, though in a different form, Bolshevistic thinking. It is
an anti-social thinking because it is born out of the ego alone; its
form does not originate in human association. The community life of
the proletariat has accepted this anti-social form on the authority
of an individual leader who has become its guiding principle.
The question now arises:
How is it that this life in common gives more just in the social sphere
than does the inner life of the individual man? Here we must be clear
whither the purest form of thinking, as arising in Fichte, actually
leads. The ordinary man with no grounding in philosophy, accustomed
to reading the newspaper or light literature, and having perhaps some
knowledge of science as taught today in the universities — this
man coming to Fichte's works cannot cope with them. He feels himself
overcome by the thoughts which are so forceful and so abstract in their
development. To most people they seem just a web of thoughts. The reason
is that it is pure thinking, woven out of the content of the soul alone,
apart from all concrete experience. Studying Fichte's
Wissenschaftlehre (Theory of Knowledge)
you follow it sentence by sentence in the
heights of abstraction, often with no idea why, as these thoughts mean
nothing to you, you should be concerned with them at all. You can read
pages of this and simply experience the following: The ego is asserting
itself. To begin with many pages are taken up with en analysis of this.
Next we come to — the ego fixes the non-ego, which again takes
up a number of pages. Thirdly, the ego establishes itself, its limits
being the non-ego, and the non-ego being bounded by the ego. —
So it goes on through the
Wissenschaftlehre
in which only these
propositions with far-reaching deductions are set forth. You will say: I
am not interested in all this, for ultimately it is just empty abstraction.
— Nevertheless when you consider Fichte's life and endeavours,
as I described them to you here a little time ago, you come to respect
both him and his striving after pure thinking. Whence comes then this
remarkable contradiction It arises from the necessity for man to arrive
at a certain period of his evolution at this pure thinking, this thinking
filled with pure thought. For in more ancient days human thinking was
filled only with pictures. Men like Fichte, Schelling and Hegel have
thought in thoughts alone, pictureless thoughts. The Greeks could never
have thought in this way, nor the Romans, nor could men have thought
thus in the middle ages, for in spite of all their abstractions, the
thinking of the Scholastics was still quite different. Why then has
abstract thinking arisen in modern historical evolution? It is because
men have to make great inner effort! And it partakes of this effort
when, in Fichte's sense, for example, an endeavour is made to rise to
the abstract, and there is a real struggle to attain to such abstraction.
This is said by the ordinary, practical men to be of no use because
all experience has been eliminated. And that is indeed so. Such abstractions
are, however, necessary as a stage in progress. And as soon as there
is sufficiently strong impulse within the human life of soul to develop
to a stage beyond these abstractions, then the soul rises into the spiritual
life. In modern mysticism there is no sound path that does not lead
through vigorous thinking. That must first be achieved. After vigorous
thinking, the next step is to actual experience of the spiritual. In
historical evolution this naturally takes a long time, but it is the
path on which mankind has to travel. And this longing holding sway in
present-day mankind, to get beyond the abstract to the spiritual life,
lies secretly at the basis of the force in the modern proletarian movement.
The proletarian fights against the activity of spiritual forces in history,
where he considers economic forces alone should prevail. He clings to
the most blatant external perception, and regards what he thus perceives
as the only historic development. The life of the spirit is for him
a mere superstructure, an ideology, a reflection of external economic
processes. He pictures it thus because when modern man directs his gaze
within, he can no longer discover the old atavistic visions; he sees
merely abstractions, abstract thoughts, in which he can find no reality.
For that, he would have to take the next step which I have already described.
Thus each seeks in the external world that reality for which he inwardly
yearns. Being tied, since capitalism arose, to the economic life alone,
the proletarian seeks there his reality.
And what will be the next
obvious step? The next step will be to see that ultimately no real driving
forces lie in the economic order. In exact contrast to this historical
materialism, it is out of the inner life that, as historical impulse,
the force will develop for pressing forward to the spiritual. What comes
to appearance in historical materialism is only the caricature of the
yearning in the deep recesses of man is soul.
In the same way the force
of each man's individuality is contained in class-consciousness, and
this individuality looks within itself for a content it has so far been
unable to find. Still finding emptiness there it leans on the class
as a whole in order, as man, to feel the strength of a common bond.
Thus, all the impulses holding
good. on the surface of the social movement, secretly issue from the
sources I have described. Therefore at the time Fichte was working,
a time not then ripe for developing Spiritual Science, nothing more
could appear than a thinking that awaited the approach of the spiritual
world and had no power to serve external reality. For when thinking
that really should be concerned with the spiritual world, is applied
instead, powerfully, logically and fundamentally, to the external reality
of the senses, it does not work upon this reality constructively but
destructively. Now I have often spoken to you of the function of evil.
I have told you what forces are really active in what we call the evil
in man. I have said that, from a plane higher than that of the senses,
from the spiritual plane that is nearest to ours, we can with the perception
we then have see what is at work in evil. For the forces living in thieves,
robbers, murderers, would not then be experienced in their unlawful
aspect as here in the sense-world, but on the higher plane they would
be metamorohosed, transformed, and thus fully within their rights. That
is where evil belongs. Evil is misplaced good. Only because the ahrimanic
powers force upon our world something belonging to a quite different
world, does what we see as evil arise. And thus arises also destructive
thinking, when social ideals are spun out of what is within man, and
the pure thinking does not wait to be filled by the spiritual world.
This gives us a glimpse
into the difference between all the prevalent ruling abstractions and
what is striving for a really practical grasp of the social organism.
For in what arises and is cultivated in man's community life, when rightly
brought about , there does not live abstract thought. Abstract thought
is not experienced when human beings are together. For then hidden,
secret Imaginations are experienced. And only when these are actually
realised do they give the appropriate form to the social organism. The
progress to be made in modern Spiritual Science will be closely connected
with the only impulses essential for a sound socialistic ordering of
the world. And the deficiencies and defects, all that is unhealthy in
the present social organism, consist in what can be the result of experience
alone being, in the manner of Fichte, woven out of demands arising merely
within man.
When we observe the direction
of modern endeavour, to make the State more and more into a uniform
State in which everything would be centralised, it becomes clear that
this can lead to nothing but a shattering, a disturbance, of the social
organism. And the reason for this lies far deeper than is thought by
those who consider the modern proletarian movement to exist merely to
be concerned with bread or wages. For even if a movement concerned with
bread and wages should be necessary or were in actual practice today,
what is important is not the endeavour to change the bread situation
or its organisation, but the way in which this is striven for. And you
arrive at that way through considerations such as today I have once
again put forward. Think of the question of surplus value to which we
came at the end of yesterday's lecture. Whoever has had experience of
the proletarian movement knows what a deep effect this question has
made, as it has been planted in the souls of proletarians by certain
of the leaders.
Now upon what does this
theory of surplus value rest? It rests actually upon what I was describing
in yesterday's public lecture in Basle, namely, that there is something
false in the relations between employer and employee, of which neither
employer nor employee is conscious. The facts of the matter are masked.
But although unconsciously, it is working on the soul out of the subconscious
depths as fact, it is working as feeling.
Let us observe the main
point more closely. The employee stands today in a quite definite relation
to the employer, a relation that, as a human being, he finds unworthy,
though in a although in a conscious description he might sometimes put
it quite differently. In his soul he experiences it as unworthy because
it leads to the sale to the employer of his labour power as a commodity.
In the secret depths of his soul he feels that nothing human should
be for sale. When a man sells his labour power the whole man is sold.
The question could be put
differently, and in the usual socialistic way of thinking it is put
thus: How is man to be refunded in the right way for his labour power?
The socialistic ideals run mostly on the lines of making adequate refund
for power expended on manual labour. But the facts are quite otherwise.
A human study of folk-economy makes it clear that no form of human labour
power can be exchanged for anything else — neither goods nor anything
representing goods, such as money, are interchangeable with labour power.
Even when transformed into reality it is no real process but only a
thing of the imagination that the manual worker should give his work,
and then, in exchange, receive money for what he expends in labour power.
That is absolutely false and the true process is masked; something quite
different happens. In the present social organism the worker brings
his labour power to market and the employer, the contractor, buys it
with wages. But it is not really thus. In the economic life there can
only be exchange of one commodity with another, commodities, that is,
in the widest sense; and in reality the whole of economic life consists
in the exchange of commodities. What is a commodity, if we think of
its reality? A piece of ground is not a commodity; coal, when under
the earth is not a commodity. A commodity is the result of human activity
alone, something transformed by human activity or something men has
moved from one place to another. Under those two headings you find everything
that can be brought into the concept ‘commodity’. The nature
of a commodity has been the subject of much argument. A close study
of economic connections generally shows that in reality only this definition
will hold water.
Now in the modern social
organism there has been an element of confusion in the circulation and
interchange of commodities, which has driven the social organism to
its present revolutionary convulsions. It is fantastic today to believe
it possible not only to exchange commodities for commodities but also
commodities for labour power, as in the matter of wages. It is fantastic
too when we believe it possible to exchange commodities, or the money
representing them, for what cannot be a commodity — ground, land,
for example, that has not been changed by man. For land, as such, is
not an object belonging to the economic process. Upon the land things
of the economic process are attained by human activity, but land, as
such, cannot be counted as belonging to this process. With regard to
the significance of the land in the social organism, we see that one
man or another has exclusive right to use and work this land. It is
this right to land that has a real significance for the social organism.
Land itself is not a commodity but commodities come from the land. And
here enters the right the possessor has to the land. If you acquire
a piece of land by sale, that is, by exchange, what you really acquire
is a right, you exchange something for a right, such as is the case
for example in buying a patent. There one gets a good idea of the process
of fusion that has had such unfortunate results. The fusion of the purely
political rights-State with the economic life. For this there can be
no cure other than separation. The economic life must be left to the
independent management of its own production, circulation, consumption
of commodities, in a life of association in which production, consumption,
and individual professional interests link men together and place them
in proper relation. But in these associations and groups there would
be only mutual economic activity, just as the human metabolic system
is concerned only with the digestion. Digestion is then taken up from
another aide by the independent system of lung and heart, which for
its part is connected with the external world. So, too, must be established
from a special source what is implanted in the economic life as rights.
This means that everything relating to political conditions should have
a relatively independent existence alongside the economic life. Those
who are observant see what unreality lies in the relation between employer
and employee, where their relation is represented as though labour power
could really be refunded. Labour power is not immediately but only immediately
funded, what appears being a certain apparent right which has become
economically powerful, by which, not manifestly but fundamentally, the
employer is able to drive the worker to the machine or into the factory.
What is here exchanged is in reality not labour power for commodities
or for the money representing them, but for something performed. Commodities
produced by the worker are bartered for other commodities or money.
For the commodities given him by the employer the worker barters the
goods he produces. Here, clearly revealed, we have the unreality of
goods apparently being bartered for labour power. This is what the modern
proletarian secretly feels to be beneath his dignity as a man, and makes
him say: You produce an amount of goods of which the employer gives
you back only a certain proportion.
The correct relation between
contractor or employer and the worker cannot be brought about in the
sphere of economic processes, but only in the sphere of the political
State as a relation of rights. That is what it really comes to. If on
the one side man stands on the ground of economic life, on the other
side on the ground of an independent life of rights, then the economic
life will be determined by the two sides; on the one hand by the life
of rights, on the other hand it will depend on the natural independent
factors of human activity.
At Basle, in public lectures,
I have pointed out that on a certain piece of ground in order to produce
wheat, for example, more labour has to be expended than in other places
where the rate of productivity is higher. That is the working of natural
causes on which, on the one side, border on the economic life. On the
other side, what should be the relation between employee and employee
must flow from the life of rights into the economic life.
How people who take a superficial
view of things will say; yes, but today that is already the case, for
a contract is drawn up. — How does it help if a Trade Union decides
about something that is recognisably a false relation? For the decision
is made about the relative position between worker and employer in respect
to labour power and its earnings. The right relation will come about
only when the decision is not concerned about payment but about the
way in which employer and employed share in the results produced. Then
the worker will see — and more depends on this than is thought
at present — that without the production of surplus value no subsistence
will be forthcoming. But he must perceive how surplus value arises.
He must not be implicated in a false relationship. Then the worker will
see that without the creation of surplus value there can be no spiritual
culture at all, and no rights State, for all this comes out of surplus
value. When the social organism is healthy, however, all this comes
into being as a result of its threefold ordering.
One can naturally speak
not for merely hours but for weeks on end about all this, and this is
what we have already nearly done. And of course we continually come
upon fresh details that help to make the matter clearer; for every individual
concrete question that will arise makes itself felt, the solution of
which will be sought in practical life through the threefold social
organism.
The following above all
must be kept in mind. In the economic life commodities are exchanged;
with this life is closely allied that of the political State that controls
the labour power in man's common life, in his life of rights. So that
whereas this economic life is, on the one hand, dependent upon natural
elements, on the other hand it depends on what is settled by the State,
for instance, the hours of work, work in relation to the individual
man — to his strength, weakness, age, and so on. There can be
no set maximum for working hours, or anything of that kind; in reality
there can be merely a higher or lower limit. These are conditions flowing
into the economic life from the side of the rights State, just as the
natural elements come to meet it from the other side. Once the social
organism is put on this healthy basis, the evil will disappear that
arises from the connection of wages with the economic life. The fact
that wages rise in good times and fall in a crisis will be changed into
its opposite. The good and bad times will be influenced by what is paid
for labour.
This can be seen especially
clearly where ground-rent is concerned, which today largely depends
upon the price of the goods produced on the land, upon market prices.
The opposite would be healthier, namely, for the rights expressed in
ground-rent on their part to influence market prices. Under the threefold
order much will be the exact opposite of the existing conditions that
have caused the present revolutionary upheavals. The whole of life will
run a different course.
Now what is it that above
all calls for our attention in the mutual relation of the economic life
and the political State, in their narrower sense? Let us take as an
example what is sometimes felt to be extremely unpleasant — the
payment of taxes. In this connection we have simply to make ourselves
clear that taxes must come out of surplus value; while in the common
democratic political life we must always bear in mind the living conditions
of the political organism, lust as we do those of the economic life
when, in buying and selling, we perceive clearly through human needs
the realities of the economic conditions. Here, too, the opposite will
result to what exists today. I do not say that the legislation with
regard to taxes should be altered; there is much today that does not
allow of change, for then what is at fault might just be shifted to
another quarter. So many things in social life will be regarded differently
under the influence of the sound threefold organism. It will be seen
that for the social life as such, for the life of men in the social
organism, getting money has no significance. Man separates himself from
the social organism in money-getting which is a matter of indifference
to it. In the functioning of the social organism, what money man gathers
in has no significance; he becomes a social being only when he gives
out.
It is in his giving-out
that a men begins to act in a social way. The point is — and here
I am not thinking of indirect taxes but of direct taxes which are a
quite different matter that it is in connection with paying-out that
the rate of taxation should be settled. Although it could be worked
out, naturally I cannot give details here, because for a lecture it
would mean going too deeply into the science of economics. Nevertheless
some indication of it can be given.
In a healthy economic life
of the social organism, separate from the other members, it is clear
that for geographical reasons, because of natural conditions, wheat
in a certain territory, for instance, must be dearer to produce than
elsewhere. And it can be shown that no adjustment will be created through
mere Associations. But the matter can be properly adjusted by the Rights-State
in such a case and this would arise out of its very nature by those
who buy wheat more cheaply, namely, those who pay out less being more
highly taxed than those who give out more when buying the wheat.
If the rights in the economic
life are well regulated by the Rights-State, if the rights are not merely
economic interests brought to realisation, if members of the agricultural
Unions have no seat in Parliament but only those are there who consider
rights as between man and man, then there will come about a satisfactory
ordering of the economic life.
I have shown this in an
abstract generalisation but it could be gone into in detail. The tax
position is a question to be regulated between the economic life and
that of rights. The regulation, however, between these two spheres,
on the one hand, and on the other the cultural, spiritual life, is such
that it can be established only on mutual trust and understanding. As
the payment of taxes must be compulsory even in a healthy social organism,
what on the other hand is given to the spiritual life can be a matter
of free will alone; for the spiritual life must be built wholly upon
the spirit of man and be completely emancipated from anything else.
Then it will react on everything else in the deepest, most intensive
way.
Such is the outline I can
give you of the way in which the healthy social organism must function.
This Threefold Order is not an invention, it is simply what can be observed
if one recognises the underlying forces active today in human evolution.
These forces can be brought into action in the next ten, twenty, thirty
years if only various people exert their will in various directions.
It is a question of the way. The forces have been observed and have
been given a perceptible form. It is in this way we must live in regard
to historical life. Freedom, in its quite different relations, will
be as little disturbed by this as by the fact that one cannot grasp
the moon, for example, however much we wish to do so. Freedom is realised
according to the necessities lying in the natural as well as in the
historic processes of evolution.
Notes:
1.
See The Spirit of Fichte present in our Midst
|