2nd Public Lecture
added to the 4 lectures on the Social Question
by Rudolf Steiner
given at Zurich, 8 March 1919
“What Significance Does Work Have for the Modern
Proletarian?”
When the theme for today's lecture was announced, the question
could have been asked: ‘From which angle is this going to be
approached?’ — From some or other research, it could be
concluded that now again an understanding needs to be
addressed, an understanding so strongly yearned for which has
for a long time been imposed as today's capitalistic sea of
confusion, and those in it notice that the water is up to their
mouths and they are no longer able to swim in this sea. They
search for a rescue boat; they would not be able to find such a
rescue boat with conditions they usually insist upon. About
such an interpretation I don't want to speak this evening. It
appears to me that in the time in which we are living, quite
other things are necessary. If we look at one another, at what
has actually happened and what is going on at present, for
those who are searching for such an understanding, it is so
terrible.
What is called the ‘social question’ today has in no way only
come about yesterday. In the way one speaks about it today, it
is more than half a century old. However, what has actually led
up to the social question is much, much older; it has come out
of the entire development of modern times and out of the last
centuries. When we observe where this development of the last
centuries has led up to, then we can sum it up in the following
way.
There were a number of people who we can best describe by
saying they lived in a capitalistic economic order and felt
comfortable living in this capitalist economic order. One hears
often enough from these people how far civilization has
progressed. One can hear how it has come about that humanity
has reached such a stage in which not only distant single
countries and continents but over world oceans they could
quickly come to an understanding; how far humanity has come
through a certain education and taken part in what they called
spiritual life, imagining they had reached impressive heights
in our time.
I
don't need to mention all the praise declarations about this
direction in our modern civilization. However, modern
civilization has developed out of a foundation. Without this
foundation, it is inconceivable; it thrives from this
foundation. What was in this foundation? In this foundation
there were increasingly more people who out of their deepest
soul sensitivities had to let the call be heard: ‘Does modern
life give us what our human existence is worth? Why have we
been condemned by modern civilisation?’ — So, modern
humanity is ever more split into two divisions: in one in which
they feel comfortable or at least feel satisfied in modern
civilisation, but out of which they can only feel satisfied
because of this foundation, while the other one must create the
foundation as their labour, towards a social order in which
they can basically have no share.
In
the entire process, admittedly something else also developed.
It developed in such a way that the carriers of the so-called
civilization in the old patriarch conditions could not progress
with its numerous illiterates. It meant that of the
capitalistic supporters at least a part of the Proletarians,
the part in their employ, had to be educated. As a result of
this education, the Proletarians developed something which has
come to such a frightening expression for those who understand
the all too necessary facts. This development brought about the
possibility to a large number of people, who had just created
the foundation for this modern civilization, to be able to
consider their situation; they didn't arrive at an instinctive
insight any more but it enabled them to pose this question in
the most intensive way: ‘Can we have a dignified human
existence? How can we acquire a dignified human existence?’
Those who up to now had been the leaders of humanity have in
the course of modern economic life brought the economic life as
far as they could, into a connection with the modern state. The
modern Proletariat could to a certain extent not be excluded
from the modern state through the influences of recent times.
So it came about that the Proletariat on the one hand within
the economic life strived for a dignified existence and on the
other hand with the help of the state, tried to win the
right.
One
can't deny this — the facts teach us — in both
directions little has been accomplished. In the manner of the
trade unions the modern working community within the economic
circulation has tried to accomplish something: there were
scraps of what human dignity within a healthy economic order
should be. This has been achieved in a way, by state life. On
the other hand, the economic and political power of the
hitherto leading class of mankind was opposed. So one can say
that despite various things having been accomplished in both
these directions, today the modern Proletariat is not less
challenged by the question: ‘What significance is there
actually in my work in relation to what each person in the
world must consider regarding dignity?’
In
contrast to that, for long decades the Proletariat have, in the
most varied forms, addressed the leading circles with the cry:
‘It can't go on like this!’ — On the other
hand, hardly an understandable word can be heard in response.
The words which do become audible stand in an extraordinary
relationship to what the minds of the time should have striven
for. Don't we hear it from all possible sides — from the
Christian-social side, from the bourgeois-socialist aspirants
— some or other statement is being made which could help
remedy the dangers which one is believed to be able to see? Was
it more basically as ingratiating phrases which came out of
various moral, religious deliverances, emerging from those, up
to then, leading classes?
These leading circles didn't experience it but the other side
of humanity did. The one who feels it from quite another angle
than as from empty phrases, the one who experiences it out of
the awareness of his or her class, brought into a particular
social situation, should form the base for this modern
civilisation. And so, some things were done through the trade
union, cooperative and also political life, yet something else
came about which was more important than the modern
Proletarian's work, something which was full of seeds for the
future and the facts of the present carried it into abundance.
This was created in the following way.
While the ruling classes were amassing their luxuries, which
could only be fed and empowered by capitalism, the Proletarian,
in the time left over for him, in his meetings sought in the
truest sense of the word an education towards a spiritual life.
This was something which the earlier ruling classes didn't want
to see, that among thousands, yes thousands of Proletarian
souls a new culture, a new viewpoint was developing in the
people.
Based on the nature of these things, the Proletarian
development next proceeded to the viewpoint of considering
economic life, because the modern life of the Proletarian was
forged by the machine. Into the factory he was packed,
harnessed in by capitalism. Here he found his concepts.
However, these concepts — I only want to point out how
intensely everything connected to Marxism penetrated with
meaning into the Proletarian soul — this development was
such that very little, really very little reaction was elicited
from the leading, up to then ruling classes.
Isn't it typical that those who know about these things must
say today: Among the ruling proletarian personalities, among
those who really understand the Proletariat, not merely think
about the Proletariat but among those individualities who have
taken up what could really be considered a fruitful development
offered by economic life, among them really live the basic,
thorough knowledge of life into which the social organism plays
even as the most elite of educators, even the most thoughtful
professors of sociology, university professors. It is typical
that this circle, whose calling it was so to speak, to concern
itself with sociology, with national economics, that it
resisted everything which presented itself as an understanding
for the modern Proletariat, for as long as possible. Only when
the facts threatened and no longer allowed anything else to be
permitted, did they accommodate the bourgeois leaders, allowing
many Marxist or similar terms to be taken into their national
economic system.
That the work of the modern Proletariat was achieved, I would
like to call it, achieved in total secrecy towards the leading
ruling circles, this I report out of no grey theory; I maintain
this because I could observe how this work was being executed.
For years I was a teacher in the worker's education school in
Berlin, where Wilhelm Liebknecht, the dear old
servant, could be validated. Partly in this school, partly in
what was happening, one had a good extract of every process in
action, directed towards a new era developed out of the
proletarian consciousness. This should have been considered
long ago, but superficially regarded the modern proletarian
movement only in terms of wages and daily bread and failed to
understand its needs to be considered as a question of human
dignity of all people.
On
the other hand, it is not really important when people point to
the frightening and sometimes cruel events out of the world of
facts as originating from the social chaos. Those who
understand these things correctly, how they have developed,
don't question the connection between these cruelties or
terrors to the modern proletarian movement but they clearly
take it that the leading classes are at cause for what has come
about today.
The
world-historical moment only started when the Proletariat began
taking responsibility for world historical events. Capitalism,
the capitalistic world order particularly in the most recent
times worked right into the terrible and in many respects
insane catastrophe of the world war.
What can we now see as a central focus in the Proletarian
movement and the Proletarian yearnings, which can be considered
as the Proletarian progress? In the centre of this we see what
the Proletarian experiences regarding that which basically is
the cause and which can only be given from the modern economic
order to the social organism, because the leading cultural
circles are basically only interested in one thing which the
Proletarian can give, and that one thing is Proletarian labour.
One needs to realize how incisive Karl Marx's ideas
were, which crossed the tracks of the modern Proletariat in
such a way that they had the experience: Above all things
clarity must be created in relation to the manner and way in
which human labour may flow into the social organism.
Now, it has often been said and illuminated in the widest
circles: through the modern economic order, labour has become
goods among other commodities. It is typical of the economic
life that it exists in the production, circulation and
consumption of goods. However, it has happened that the labour
of the modern Proletarian has been made into goods.
From this angle, basically everything can be said about the
Proletarians. However, the question is usually drawn to one
side so that it doesn't appear in the full light but through
which one actually gains insights into the statement of the
human labour in the healthy social organism. Here the question
must be raised which in any case rises out of the Marxist
question but it is raised in an even more precise, an even more
intense manner. It must be asked: Can human labour ever really
be considered as goods?
Through this the question leads to quite a different track. One
will in fact ask: How can human labour legitimately be
rewarded? How can human labour in any way come to its rights?
One can add further: it must be in such a way that human labour
earns its pay.
A
wage is in some ways nothing other than purchase money for the
goods called ‘labour power.’ However, the power of labour may
never be goods! Where the power of labour in the economic
process is made into goods, there is a falsehood in the
economic process, because in reality something is added which
could never be a true component of this reality. On this basis
labour can be no goods because it can't have the character
which goods is necessitated to have. In the economic process,
each item of goods must have the possibility through its value,
to be compared with other commodities. Comparability is the
basic condition for the ‘being-of-goods’ (Ware-Sein) of
something. The value of human labour can never be compared with
the value of some or other commodities or products.
It
would have been terribly easy if people had not forgotten how
to simply think. Just think about it, for my sake, when ten
people in a family work together, each one doing his or her
work, how one can take a single contribution out of ten and
compare it with the achievement which the ten has produced
together? People just don't have the ability to compare the
output of goods to the power of labour. Labour stands on quite
another basis of social judgement than goods. This is what has
perhaps in recent times not been clearly spoken about, but
which lives in the experiences of the modern Proletariat.
What lives in the requirements of the modern Proletariat? What
lives here in the feelings of the Proletarian is factual
criticism, the world historic criticism which simply lies in
the life of the modern Proletarians and, hurled into it,
everything which the leading circles as a social order have
promoted. The modern Proletariat is nothing other than a world
historic criticism. Just the knowledge that labour can never be
goods, owes its sensation, the basic experience of its
existence, which is lived through in recent times as an
enormous, an all-encompassing white lie, because labour is sold
and according to their being this can never be sold.
That a remedy must be found, as everyone with insight must find
obvious, of this the modern Proletariat is convinced. Yet he
has been driven into something which not he, but the earlier
ruling classes has made of the social organism. He has been
pushed out of everything left over and is only drawn into the
economic process. Does this not make it clear that he would
want to bring about through this mere healing of this economic
process and the circulation of the economic life itself, the
entire social organism as well? Out of this the ideals have
originated in the same way as the ideals the modern
Proletariats have lived up to now.
It
has been said that because private capitalism has made modern
production into a goods production through private means of
production, it has resulted in the modern Proletariat coming
into the position which only he can experience. The only help
can be offered by reverting back to the ancient idea of the
cooperative, a cooperative which means that one's production
goes over to the other and work towards self-production in
which he can't misuse the other on the grounds that he would
then be prejudicing himself. The following can also be asked:
How would this great cooperative be set up? Here one must take
refuge in the framework which has been created in recent times
— that of the modern state. The modern state itself must
make itself into a big cooperative through which the production
of goods gradually is directed to the production of the
self-employed.
Here we find the very point which needs to be grasped. One can
now say that healing can be found in the modern Proletarians'
spiritual life on the one hand, and at the same time discover
that where there is a possibility for development in the modern
Proletarian's spiritual life, there is a possibility from this
step, to take yet another step towards progress.
People who do not agree with this should really not be resented
if they are being sincere with honest feelings which they
cherish, for they do not yet see results coming from the
present Proletarian world view, but it is necessary to point
out that this Proletarian world view have seeds of progress,
and that this progress should really be striven for — and
it can be striven for.
There are those who would admit they became enlightened by what
I have already said — about eighteen years ago — in
the Berlin trade union house, as a characteristic, and then
often again had to emphasise it as a peculiarity of the modern
labour movement, which I still maintain as absolute truth. At
that time I said: For those who glance over the historic life
of humanity with an inner understanding for what has emerged,
for them it will be noticeable that this modern Proletarian
Movement appears different to all other movements of humanity,
basically because — and you might find this grotesque, a
paradox even — it stands on a scientifically orientated
foundation.
Profound, very profound it was then in this direction as a
fundamental, basic requirement of the modern labour movement
that the almost forgotten (Ferdinand) Lassalle's famous
lecture was given entitled “Science and the
Worker.” Things need to be looked at from another point
of view than what is habitually done: one must look at it from
the view of life. In doing so one could say: with reference to
what has become available to the Proletariat as a result of
what the ruling classes had to give him because they didn't
want him to be left illiterate, through this the modern
Proletarian had the desire to conquer, to take it as his
inheritance what had been built up in the recent times out of
the endeavours of the leading circles, what they had created as
a scientific world view.
What it comes down to is this — now the modern
Proletarian reacted in quite a different manner regarding this
scientific world view than all the other circles, even though
they were the ones who had created this world view. One could
be quite an enlightened person in the leading and up to
the-then ruling circles, a person whose innermost convictions
welled up from the results of modern science, for my sake one
could be a scientific researcher like Vogt, a popular
scientific researcher like Büchner, and still your
scientific orientation will be different to that of the modern
Proletarian.
Those who, out of the leading circles with their prejudices,
namely their anticipation and their presentiments, who
theoretically confess to their modern education regarding human
beings and nature, they remain stuck for this reason within a
social order which cuts them off from the modern Proletariat.
The structure of the Proletariat does not rest on scientific
claims but is due to what came before modern science into human
minds as religious, lawful and such imaginations towards the
fulfilment of human dignity. Of this I once had a direct
experience.
It
happened in the moment when I stood in front of a worker
gathering with the tragically passed away Rosa
Luxemburg. We were addressing the gathering regarding the
modern worker and modern science. There one could to see how,
what modern science poured into the modern proletarian souls,
worked quite differently even in the most convinced leading
circles, when Rosa informed the people: ‘There is nothing which
refers to the angelic creation of people, nothing which points
to the lofty places of origin which the common people eagerly
describe; there are even claims from the common people's world
view how our origins developed from climbing animals. Whoever
thinks this through’ — thus she spoke enthusiastically
about this issue, this leader of the workers — ‘whoever
thinks this through can't discriminate like the present leading
circles are doing, persisting in their prejudices about the
possibilities of grading ranks among people who all originate
from the same origins.’ — This was taken up differently
by them compared with those in the leading circles. This
supplemented the ideas which the modern Proletarians were taken
to understand as science.
That which has been taken up by a soul has the possibility for
further development and about this evolution I would like to
relate something to you.
If
you glance over everything which relates to the question of how
it is possible that the force of labour of the modern
Proletarian has been made into goods, you will gradually be
coerced through your observations regarding the economic life
to arrive at a point where you have to say to yourself: It has
come about precisely because the modern worker has been
harnessed to the mere economic life and through being within
this economic life his labour has become goods. In this
direction, we have the continuation of the slave question of
olden times. Here the entire person was goods. Today what has
remained is only the labour of the person. However, now this
power of labour must be adhered to by all people.
Within the modern Proletarian soul was the feeling that the
last remnants from Barbarian times must not be allowed to
continue into the future, that it should be conquered. There
was no other way to conquer it than with the same clear
strength of mind with which the modern Proletariat grasped the
essence of economic- and human nature, with which the science
for a healthy social organism can be grasped. About this
science I would like to say a few words to you.
One
thing above all appears clearly. One need to ask oneself:
within the circulation of the modern economic life, what makes
the force of labour of the modern Proletarian into goods? It is
the economic power of the capitalists.
In
these words of the power of the capitalists there is already an
indication for a healthy answer. So: when is power
diametrically opposed? Power is diametrically opposed by law,
by rights. This however points out that for the healing, the
recovery, of human labour in the social organism it can only
come about when labour is taken out, when above all the
question regarding labour is taken out of the economic process
and it becomes a pure and clear question of law.
Through this we come to consider things in broader terms,
whether there is a more significant difference between the
economic question and the question of law. This distinction
exists: only we are not inclined today to examine this
difference deeply enough. We are not inclined to goo deeply
enough into, on the one hand, what the active forces in all of
economic life has to be, and on the other hand, what the active
powers need to be in the actual life of rights.
What works in the economic processes? Human needs are active in
the economic process; here the possibility of satisfying human
needs may come through production. Both are based on natural
foundations, the human requirements are based on people and
production is based on climatic, geographic and such natural
foundations. The economic life of the modern division of labour
has led towards what the exchange of commodities is, and has to
be. Each exchange of commodity which benefits both the needs of
people and value of goods according to their mutual estimation
— I can't describe it in detail, it would take too long
— appear on the markets and is drawn into the circulation
of the economic process on the markets.
Within the circulation of the economic life, the life of the
law can't develop simultaneously as a closed circuit. Human
nature will as much admit that the social organism within the
economic life develops the life of rights by itself, as it will
admit that a single centralized system exists in the human
organism. Tonight, I really don't want to play with various
comparisons out of natural science but I believe here is the
point which the natural scientist has also reached today, as we
have done. In my last book
“Riddles of the Soul”
I have remarked that natural science can't properly acknowledge
that there are three systems in the healthy human organism: the
sense-nervous system is there as carrier of the soul life, the
breathing and heart system as carrier of the rhythmic life and
the metabolic system as carrier for metabolism and this
comprises the entire human organism. However, each system is
centralised in itself, each has its own approach to the outer
world. In this human organism order and harmony is summoned in
order for these three systems not to cause chaos among one
another but that they unfold side by side, and as a result
allow the power of one to flow into the other.
So
in a healthy social organism such a three-foldness should take
place. It must be realised that when a person in the economic
organism becomes active, he must simply operate in the economic
process. Then administration, the legislation of this economic
process is expected to mutually evaluate the goods in the
economic reality and bring it into movement towards a goal
orientated circulation of goods, introducing the goods
production, introducing the consumption of goods. What needs to
be removed now from this economic process is not everything
which includes the satisfaction of needs of one person to
another, but is connected to the relationship of one person to
every other person. Where all people should be equal is
radically different from what can develop only in the economic
life. That is why it is necessary for the healing of the social
organism that the purely legal life element, the actual life of
rights, be removed from the economic one. This development is
just what has been striven against in recent times.
The
ruling classes up to now — what have they done? In the
regions where they felt comfortable, where their interests
really lie, there you have the old merging which certainly had
existed in many areas between the economic life and political
state life, and now is taken further. So we see that in recent
times, under the influence of the leading circles of mankind,
so-called nationalisation came about in certain economic
sectors. Post and telegraph and similar ones nationalised in a
modern step which this modern progress wants.
In
exactly the opposite direction it must be considered, not
according to the interests of the leading circles up to now,
but with the question: ‘What are the foundations of a healthy
social organism?’ — Efforts need to be made to gradually
dissolve the purely economic life from the actual political
state, a state which has to care for law and order, but above
all to care for those things that out of these areas, out of
the economic life the corresponding life of law flows in. Those
who have no eyes, no spiritual eyes, can't really distinguish
how radically different the economic life is to the actual
political state.
Look at how these things have developed today. Some people
speak out of the present social conditions in such a way that
they say, within the social conditions we have as the first
item: ‘Exchange goods for goods.’ — Good, this happens in
the economic life. It has just been spoken about. Now as to the
second item: ‘Exchange of goods, alternatively the
representative of goods, namely money, for labour.’ And as a
third item: ‘Exchange of goods for laws.’
What about this last one? I've just spoken about the second
one. Now, we need to look at the relationship of property
ownership within the modern economic order and we will
immediately become clear about what should be clarified in this
area for the future. How one usually likes to think about the
ownership relationship in relation to land — everything
else in the actual foregoing regarding the social organism
doesn't really have meaning, the only meaning it has is that
the owner of the ground and land has the right to own a piece
of land and can utilise the earth, and by doing so make his
personal interests valid.
This doesn't have the slightest relevance in the origins of the
economic processes as such. With the economic processes —
against this only an erroneous national economy objects —
it relates to what there is on the land as goods or the value
of goods that can be generated. Use of the land depends on a
right.
This right, however, is turned into power, transformed within
the modern capitalistic economic order, through the
amalgamation of capitalism with land rental. So on the one side
we have the power, excluded from such rights; on the other side
economic power, which is able to compel human labour to become
goods. From both sides, nothing other than the actualized white
lie is the result, when there is no striving — striving
out of actual social insight — towards the dividing of
the social organism into an economic organism and an organism
in the narrower sense, as state-political.
The
economic organism must be established on an associative
foundation, out of the needs of consumption in its relationship
to production. Out of the various interests of the most varied
career circles the manifold cooperatives — one could name
them with the old word of ‘brotherhood’ — need to be
developed, in which the needs and their fulfilment are
managed.
What develops from this associative foundation of the economic
organism will always relate to the fulfilment of one sphere of
people with another sphere. In this area expert utilisation
must be decisive, first in the natural foundations and then
also in the design utilisation of the production, circulation
and consumption of goods. What will be of relevance here would
be human needs and human interests.
This is always regarded as contrary, as something radically
different to how apparently equal people relate towards one
another, where they should be equal; it is today already
uttered in trivial words: ‘Where they must stand equal before
those laws which they have created themselves, as equals.’
On
the associative foundation, the circulation of the economic
process will rest; on a purely democratic basis, on the
principle of equality of all people and their relationship to
one another will rest, in a narrower sense, the actual
political organisation. Out of this political organisation
something quite different will develop compared to the economic
power, which makes labour into goods. Out of the economic life,
separated from the political life, something will rise as a
true law of employment, where here and only here, the labour
which can be traded between one person and another, measure,
work and so on can be agreed upon.
However, one might believe that things in recent times have
already improved a bit — but fundamentally it comes down
to not having improved. By the way the Proletarians' labour is
positioned in the economic process, the price of labour as
goods and the price of other products are dependent on the
value of the goods. Everyone can see this if one looks deeper
into the economic process. It will be different if, independent
of the laws of the economic life and its administration, out of
the political state, out of the purely democratic
administration and making of laws for the political state, a
labour law can come into existence. What will happen then?
What will then happen is that a person, through his own labour,
will stand through his particular relationship towards the
social organism in an ever so lively a way, as we can see today
in the foundations of nature. Within certain boundaries, such
things as the technical fertility of the ground, and so on, can
be shifted a bit; the fixed boundaries of the foundations of
nature be shifted a bit; yet these natural foundations
determine the economic life nevertheless in the most extensive
measure from one side. Likewise, as the economic life is
determined from this side, so from the other side the economic
life must be determined from outside, so that it doesn't make
labour dependent on it but that the economic life can be
presented by purely human foundations. Then labour determines
the price of goods, then goods don't determine the price of
labour any longer!
At
most it can happen that from some or other basis the power of
labour can't manage sufficiently and the economic life is
impoverished. The remedy should be sought in the correct basis
and not merely in the economic life.
The
basic economic life is only based on supply and demand. With
labour rights, which is situated on the basis of an independent
political state, all the rest of the rights are also
necessarily based on this same foundation. Briefly — I
can only indicate it due to our limited time — it must
necessarily be seen how there has to be a peeling apart on both
sides: the life of rights and the economic life, the ideal of a
healthy social organism in the future.
As
a third element, the independent economic life must be
integrated with the independent law of rights, with what one
can call the spiritual life on mankind.
By
speaking of true progress within the Proletarian world view,
one will encounter the most resistance. The opinion has come
from thinking-habits in this sphere, more than elsewhere, that
salvation depends on the absorption of the entire spiritual
life by the state. People were unable to see through the
dependence of their spiritual life coming from the state right
now in recent times, from what had happened before in the
so-called interests of the ruling state circles, which had been
able to satisfy these ruling circles. These ruling circles
discovered their interests were satisfied by the state; they
allowed the state to absorb ever more, what they called the
spiritual life. Like the political state necessitated
obligatory tax laws and established that all people are equal
before the law, and how it is necessary by the state, through
the obligatory tax to satisfy its needs, so, on the other side
the spiritual life had to be freed from both the other spheres
of the social organism.
The
striving towards the amalgamation of the spiritual life with
the economic life has brought disaster into our recent times.
That which is to develop in the spiritual life can only do so
if it takes place in the light of true freedom. Everything
which can't develop in the light of true freedom stunts and
paralyses the real spiritual life and besides that, leads to
going astray, which can be recognised all too easily in the
newer social order. Of necessity, here is to figure out which
inner connections exist between the spiritual life in the
narrowest sense, and the religious life, the economic life, the
artistic life, a certain ethical life — what the
relationship is between the life of all of them which
originates in the first place out of the individuality's
abilities and skills.
Out
of this now, while we are speaking about these things in the
most serious way, when in the first instance a healthy social
organism is considered, we must speak about it in such a way
that the following needs are to be counted under the heading of
spiritual life: everything which involves the unfolding and
development of individual abilities, from the start of the
schooling system through to the university system, right into
the artistic, right into the ethical life, yes, right into
those branches of the spiritual life which form the foundation
of practical and even economic systems. In all these areas, the
emancipation of the spiritual life is to be striven for. Thus,
the spiritual life is to be placed as a free initiative of
individual human capabilities, so that this free spiritual life
can only be there in a corresponding way in a healthy social
organism, when its validity also depends on free recognition,
on the free understanding of those who need the acceptance.
That means that in future the management of the spiritual life
will no longer be directed out of an addition of sums of what
there is in the purse or strongbox, nor come out of state
bureaucracy.
Not
only as a result of the spiritual life being governed by the
state, did it take on a certain characteristic corresponding to
the personalities within it, in relation to the personalities
who administered it, but the spiritual life as we find it
today, rightly experienced as an ideology by the modern
proletariat, this spiritual life has actually become a mirror
image of the interests and desires which the leading circles
have for the modern state because this they created according
to their own comforts and needs. Is it basically right to say
that the entire spiritual life has gradually become only a
mirrored superstructure for the economic and governmental life?
The modern spiritual life of the leading circles is exactly
such a superstructure. Certainly chemistry or mathematics can't
easily take on characteristics according to the interests of
the leading circles. Already within the scope in which they are
practiced, especially the light which falls on them from other
spiritual areas, is determined through the fact that the
leading circles have interests in the modern state life and for
the modern spiritual life to grow together with the state.
Yes, modern spiritual life is exactly at the most important
stage where it should penetrate the human soul and take its
particular position in the social order, but instead it has
become a sporting ball of the economic and political life. One
can see in the way in which, right into the terrible war
catastrophes, the carriers of the spiritual life were connected
to the modern state life through capitalistic detours,
basically taking the most important spiritual areas of life and
inserting what could be applied, to the service of the
state.
Not
a hundred, not a thousand but thousands of proofs can be found.
You only need to think of taking the German history
professors and supporters of historic science. Try to make an
image of everything they have produced in relation to the
history of the Hohenzollern, and ask yourself whether,
according to this world historic fact, the history of the
Hohenzollern actually looks like it does, as it had appeared
before? According to this, one can observe how relationships
within the spiritual life have become a mere game for those who
were not liberated from it.
The
spiritual life must become free from both other spheres. Only
then can the spiritual life continue with its own legislation
and administration — as strange and surprising as this
might sound, but it needs to be said — of what today can
only, and completely, come out of capitalistic prejudices; then
spiritual life will really become the winner over purely
economic proletarian interests. The spiritual life is
consistent. The spiritual life comes out of the highest branch
of spiritual life right down into those branches which
originate as a result of someone, out of their individual
talents, taking the lead in some or other venture. Just as he
directs them today, so he directs them out of the economic life
through the process of power, economic power. Like he leads
them from out of a healthy social organism, so it comes out of
the spiritual life. Spiritual life has within a healthy social
organism its own legislation and administration in relation to
the higher branch of spiritual life, but also in relation to
everything within the economic process which work towards the
spiritual life being independent as such.
Then within this economic process the right way and influences
of emancipation will rise towards an independent spiritual
life. What had been achieved through capital can no longer be
achieved according to the sense of modern capitalism. Now it
will be achieved only through the impulses coming out of the
spiritual life itself.
However, these impulses must be imagined in the correct way.
How will an enterprise really look in line with these
impulses?
Whoever knows the foundations of spiritual life — I have
come across this quite often — will not contradict me
when I give the following sketch of an enterprise which
obtained its impulses not from an economic influence but from a
spiritual power. Here would be those who are in the position,
out of a free understanding with their colleagues and with a
certain capital fund, to undertake nothing related to their own
needs but directed to a social understanding which has been
truly founded in spiritual life. In such an enterprise they
would face, through a free understanding of all colleagues,
right down to the last worker, the free understanding of their
appointed posts, then a relationship of free understanding will
arise between the leaders of the enterprise and the workers who
are quite necessary for its execution. This results in, that
beside the working hours there is included, within this
enterprise and within the cooperatives of the enterprise, the
possibility of a free expression about the entire way in which
the overall social organism is placed within the economic
process. Then those who live within the influences of a
spiritual life would replace those in positions held by
capitalist entrepreneurs today and reveal themselves in regard
to all which places their wares in the entire social process of
mankind. Each individual will then see the direction taken by
the product to which they have contributed their work, where
the product of their particular individual capabilities of
manual work leads to. Everything can then also become included
which would give the worker the possibilities to establish a
real employment contract.
A
real employment contract can't be determined when it is
established on the basis of the condition that labour is goods.
A true employment contract must not be based along these lines:
the one and only real employment contract can only be based on
the condition that work, which is necessary for the creation of
products, is accomplished on the basis of laws, but that in
relation to economics, that the proper cooperation is created
between manual work and spiritual work, that in relation to
economics, that a sharing operation between the manual and
spiritual work must happen which can only take place out of the
free understanding that manual work was the precursor, because
then the manual worker knows that out of the spiritual
coexistence with the leaders to what degree his work, through
their leadership, flows for his own benefit into the social
organism.
In
such collaboration, the possibility ceases for capital based
enterprises to develop according to egotistic benefits. Then
only, when in this way the social organism is healed, then only
can today's profit motives be replaced by purely factual
interest. To a greater extent what had been the case in earlier
times, would arise again as the interconnection between a
person and his or her work.
Let
us consider the connection between a person and their work
today. On the one hand, there is the entrepreneur who wants to
accomplish what he regards as work but he clears off as quickly
as possible from this work. He expresses it in such a way that
when he has cleared out from his work, he refers to it as
“shoptalk.” He gets away from it and then searches
through all kinds of other things to discover his striving as a
human being. Through this relationship of human beings to their
work is shown how little people grow together with their
work.
This is an unhealthy relationship. This unhealthy relationship
attracts others; by this tearing the modern Proletariat away
from the foundation of their old craft, where they grew with
their occupation, grew from their professions to their honour,
to their human dignity, tear them away to where they are
installed at machines, harnessed in a factory; here the
unhealthy proof is produced in them that they can obtain no
relationship with their jobs.
Whoever has come to know the true foundations of spiritual life
knows that such an unhealthy relationship between a person and
his occupation can only arise from unhealthy requirements.
There is nothing in a healthy spiritual life which is free from
political and free from the economic life which only have an
effect on them; there is nothing in such a spiritual life which
is not directly interesting and which, when it is correctly
handled, a person can connect to his work, because he knows:
this work he does, becomes a member of the circulation of the
social organism. It is not something which can only be judged
because it can't be any other way, that a person must also do
something uninteresting. No, it must be judged in such a manner
that precisely this foundation of spiritual life will be
searched for, which is the one and only thing which can call
forth interest: coherence of people with their work and
interest in all spheres in any occupation.
This will show that, when the emancipated free spiritual life
out of spiritual impulses enter right into the most
individualised branches of governmental and economic life and
its administrators, then only will it be possible that a real,
factual interest is applied to all and not be based on a mere
commercial, mere outer economic and benefit ratio
relationship.
Admittedly the foundations for such a spiritual life need to be
created. These foundations can only be created when everything
regarding schooling is to be placed in the management of the
spiritual life, when the lowest teacher no longer asks: what
does the political state expect of me? — but when he or
she can look at those in whom they have trust, when he or she
can look at the spiritual life according to their own
principles in their managed area of the social organism.
Thus, it works in many respects, I believe, when it proves
itself naturally. From a true continuation of the proletarian
world viewpoint it works against habits of thought. While
people had absorbed the inheritance of the bourgeois science
and amalgamated spiritual life, state and economic life into
one another, it is important that for the healing of the social
organism there needs to be a striving towards the independence
of these three mentioned areas. Only through these areas
— if I might use acceptable expressions — gradually
having their own parliament and their own management, which
relate to one another like a government of a sovereign state,
only negotiating through delegation, only exchanging their
communal needs through transport, then only will the social
organism be healed. The question today is a fundamental one,
arising out of all the facts: How can the social organism be
healed? It needs to be taken in hand, it is sick, this social
organism!
In
order for those who, out of their class consciousness, want to
make the correct claim towards healing the social organism,
they actually need to research the Proletarian world viewpoint
down to its fertile sprout and from there continue to build
further.
I
must admit that initially some could object to what is
considered as correct today, when it is said: The direction
must be taken according to this social three-foldness, this
three-foldness of the social organism. — As much as these
ideas contradict thought habits of some people at present, the
reality must not be to steer towards our comforts, not towards
what we believe has up to now been true for life practitioners.
Reality needs to orientate us, reality founded on honesty and a
healthy sense of judgment for the recognition of truth.
What I have explored here has no relevance to some or other
cloud-cuckoo land. Oh, the time is here when some, who can only
glance superficially at the simplest things and then create
their own thought patterns, considering themselves practical in
life, must admit that the very frowned-upon idealists who think
from the basis of evolutionary necessities of mankind, are the
real practical people. What I have given you is not clouds of
cuckoo land; it originated exactly out of the most direct,
daily needs in the life of mankind.
Admittedly I can't enter into all the single areas; in
conclusion, I would like to touch on one area, an area which I
can only mention fleetingly as something which I've apparently
derived from the most ancient idea of the social life and how
it comes across as the most ardent need. What in life is most
humiliating? The most humiliating thing is that we must have
what we call money, in our purse. We also know however, what is
connected to this money. You know how this money intervenes
into every part of life. If one considers the development of a
healthy social organism, in which branch does the control of
money belong?
The
management of money has up to now been the concern of the state
through certain forces of its development. Money is actually
truly goods in a healthy organism, just as labour is not goods.
Everything unhealthy which comes through how money enters the
social organism results from money being stripped of its
characteristic as goods, that it depends today more on the
cancellation of some market through the political state, than
on what it certainly should rest, while nothing else works in
international traffic, which is on its merchandise value.
National economists have an amusing battle today, a battle
which really works in an amusing way to the insightful. They
ask if money is goods, just a popular commodity, for which one
can always swap other goods, whereas if for instance you had
the misfortune of only manufacturing tables and chairs, you
would have to go around dragging your tables and chairs and
wait for someone who had vegetables. Instead you could swap
your tables and chairs for the money they are worth and then
find what's applicable according to your needs. While the one
says money is a commodity or at least represents a commodity,
even if it is paper money, for which there is a corresponding
value, the other might say money is totally only that which
comes about through the state law pigeon-holing a certain
brand. Now these educated economists research the question:
What is correct? Is money a commodity or something which arises
from mere branding? Is it a mere payment for goods?
The
answer is simply this: today money is neither the one nor the
other, but both. The one is a result of the state simply
approving of certain brands; the other is that in international
transportation or in a certain relation also in national
transportation, money purely as a commodity is the only form in
which it can participate in the circulation.
A
healthy social organism will strip money of its legal
characteristics; its management and legislation will be
assigned through a natural process within itself, in the
adjustment of money, coinage, the value of money within the
economic circulation, the same parliament, the same
organisation which manages the rest of the economic
organism.
Only then, when something like this steps in, which the modern
Proletariat may be striving for, will it be placed on a healthy
foundation. That strange relationship which exists between the
working wages and the nature of goods, this relationship
depends on a white lie. While the worker on the one hand
believes that when his demand for an increased wage will
suffice towards healthier living conditions, then on the other
hand the price of commodities rises if it is not freed in the
economic cycle from the legal cycle of the political state.
These things are all placed on a healthy foundation only when
the three-foldness steps in.
In
the same way, if you have insight into the necessity of
independence of the spiritual life, then you will see, will
accept that there is no necessity to create capitalistic
organisations as such, but that the manner and way how in the
course of modern time capital is managed, how it has been used,
that it only exists in the economic process, is how the capital
process has caused damage which is linked to so much
misery.
One
will have to recognise this: as long as the employment contract
does not relate to the collective output of what the crafter
and the spiritual worker brings, but as long as the employment
contract is related to the wages for the work, for so long
would it be impossible to place these on a healthy basis.
The
one and only way for the spiritual life to be recognised as a
healthy reality becomes revealed in any case in its necessary
relationship between worker and spiritual ruler, there where
the worker is cheated, not cheated merely through the economy
but cheated by the business man, who does not value his
individual qualities, his spiritual traits in the right way,
but in an incorrect way, in a inhuman manner. The worker is not
exploited by the economic life, the worker is exploited through
the white lies which come about in today's social organism in
which individual abilities can just be used by cheating the
workers because they are not seen from both sides in the
economic process; within a healthy spiritual life they are seen
from both sides and directed thus.
As
I've said, what I've brought here towards the healing of the
social organism can still be resisted by many Proletarian
minds. I can see this. For years I have been involved with
workers and spoken to them about these things. I haven't
managed only single branches of teaching in the workers
educational school; I have also offered exercises in speech. In
these exercises which led on to speech exercises, several
workers in this community truly showed what particular
colouring, what special form their demands took as modern
Proletariat. Here one could readily acquire the ability to
think about the Proletariat not only in the manner of today's
leading circles or the leading circles up to now. This is what
I wanted to say to you today: think with the Proletariat, don't
think about them!
For
my sake think about it, it is like this — I would like to
bring you to understand — that with reference to the
contents of the one or the other meaning, one could perhaps
renounce one but it is not important in today's world historic
time whether one denies one or other meaning but that one
agrees as to their honest claims which should be the claims of
the modern Proletariat. Only through becoming comfortable with
these agreements, with the consensus of honest Willing,
then only through this could the seedling be discovered, which
lies in the Proletarian world view, towards further growth and
development. The time for mere discussion is over, the time is
past for people who only want to serve their interests and
speak about understanding. The time has come where for decades
already, merely the undercurrents of outstanding claims of the
modern Proletarians have now stepped up to the world historic
plan, where they may really become the most important and most
meaningful events in modern times.
What has come out of the chaos of the recent world war due to
the economic war, which for a long time might in future
continue to meet the future, this will become the social
question. Today I will present no unreal, no theoretical
solution or attempt to give one. I want to make you aware that
the time has now come for the social question to present
itself, where people in their social communal work need to be
divided into governmental-, economic- and spiritual organs,
that out of these healthy divisions a continued solution of the
social question can come about.
This social question will not be solved from one day to the
next once it is there; because it will always be there like
life always generates new conflicts, so there needs to be this
branching of members which strives in an honest way for
solutions in the rising conflicts in social life. Whether
people would try, in the widest circles, to become aware of
such an evolution in the proletarian world view for the healing
which would lie in the future, would depend on the direction
taken from the starting point of the modern proletarian
movement. Actually, it needs to lead to something which has not
been able to come about yet. Out of all the eligible demands of
the questions of wages, of bread, it needs to be lifted up to a
mighty, radical world historic change, coming out of the
consciousness of the modern worker and passing over into
general human consciousness, out of the dignity, out of the
sensitive dignity of the modern Proletarian, to be established
as real dignity for all people.
In
the attached discussion, various speakers were heard and the
conclusion was given in the following words by Rudolf
Steiner:
Rudolf Steiner: Yes, regarding the first honourable speaker I
would like to make something like a fundamental remark. When
one speaks one is often in the position to say that one can't
quite grasp why things which the previous speaker uttered are
not quite understandable, as if it had been said as a
refutation of what one had just said. The first speaker spoke
in such a way as if he found it necessary to assure me in every
way — even though he has acknowledged many things, at
least in relation to his whole attitude — that he
actually has to fight. I'm not in a position to fight with him
but I would like to say that actually those who have listened
to me don't have so much against what the first speaker had
said. I am in the position to acknowledge much more, also in
relation to the content of his statements, than what he somehow
seemed to focus on in relation to what I actually wanted.
Now, some details seem important. It is remarkable that the
first speaker believes that according to my lecture I spoke to
workers, but I did not work with them. Sure, naturally each one
can only work in his area of expertise, but the manner and way
in which I worked together with the workers is already such
that one can't say: ‘the workers were merely spoken to.’
I also believe that those who perhaps enter more into what streams
through the lecture, on its entire intention, will find it
understandable that for so many years I have not been addressed
in this way, even though I admit I have been thus addressed
today. I have not always been addressed like this, only I
believe, out of the simple reason that at that time workers
already felt that what I had to say was not uttered from mere
conversations with workers.
When it became possible for me to speak in such a way as I have
had to do today, it is really not some learned skill. Let us
pose the question: Who can actually implicate themselves as
Proletarians? Whoever can speak with and to the Proletarian
about his destiny which he has struggled through with his own
forces, can speak in such a way as I have done today, only as a
free speaker. In these circles I have been accused, shared
community, I have perhaps even been treated nearly, perhaps
even treated worse, than I've been handled here this evening.
Surely it is something different when someone, like me, has
struggled through in a similar way; I will continue thus in my
short life which remains. I have struggled for years through
conversations with the Proletarians, worked with the
Proletarians, I have grown out of the Proletariat, grown hungry
with the Proletarians. I didn't ask the Postman how much he
earns to make him starve, but I had to become hungry myself. I
didn't get to understand the Proletarians through thinking
about them but I learnt to understand the Proletarians by
living with them. I grew up out of the Proletariat, learned to
starve because I had to starve. This is the foundation from
which you can already sense that because I've been able to live
for years with them, I don't speak as it it's a mere theory but
from a position of an applicable practical position. I believe
it can also give the basis whether one has a certain right to
speak to the Proletarians or not.
This is what I wanted to say about this issue.
What the first speaker brought, for the greatest part, doesn't
actually relate to me but to the intellectuals. Yes, the
chairman has since said: ‘When someone or other can speak about
being pelted with dirt, dirt thrown at him by the
intellectuals, then I may do it too.’ Really, when you want to
investigate the manner and way in which dirt has been thrown at
me, and the way and manner this dirt looks like, then you will
not envy the dealings I have entertained with the
intellectuals.
Anyway, this is a personal remark. However, those who have
replied to me, also come from a personal basis and therefore
these remarks need to be made.
Now, the greatest part of course doesn't involve me but it has
relevance to the student body. In relation to the latter: do
you believe that I don't understand at all how the majority of
today's student body is justified by the reproach that this
ideal does not reach the lowest wage-labourer? Obviously here
much can be argued regarding capital. Just as the modern
worker, on the other hand, understands that after all, other
classes of people have developed out of circumstances, so
eventually the modern student has also had to develop out of
their situation. Whoever can impartially compare the strivings
within the modern student body with for instance what was found
within the student body, when I also — it's been a while
— had been within that student body, it was said, in
reference to the profundity in just the phenomena of decline in
the bourgeoisie, as contained in the modern professorial body
— which obviously depends on the student body —
that in relation to the example which illuminated the modern
student body one can above all observe the blossoming which
brings improvements to the students, which in itself has a
certain satisfaction. It has become quite obvious — when
today it looks as if the students would stick the workers in
the back — that out of the colleagues of the student
body, I believe there are quite large numbers already, it will
rise towards social ideals. The student has to overcome various
things. One must not forget how unshakable the clamps are which
immobilises one. I have just recently had many an opportunity
to also speak to young students, whose ideals appear
unreachable to them yet they are closer to having developed a
healthy spiritual life in general out of the sick spiritual
life of today. I know what kind of receptivity the youth has
for the renewal of the spiritual life. I know also, however,
how great the temptation is, when inspired youth who have
graduated, who find it necessary to search for a position in
the modern community, how close the temptation lies to become
dulled and fall back into the infidelity of philistinism.
Naturally we won't reach a final solution from one day to the
next for what we most hope and wish to see. However, it must be
acknowledged that everywhere where such a longing exists, this
kind of sensible yearning which the modern Proletariat calls
for, takes place, that it isn't suppressed and in some fanatic
or dogmatic way mixed with one another. I still believe that
this dogmatism at least up to a certain degree — even in
modern struggles the funds can't be too easily chosen —
would have to yield to the spirit which I've presented in my
lectures: what is important is not so much the variety of
thoughts but more on the equality of earnest will forces.
Just ask for once how many of those you blame for sticking one
in the back are dependent on the circumstances established by
the modern student, and ask yourself on the other hand, how
much earnest will is valid in today's youth. Rather maintain
that, than falling into dogmatism and becoming lamed.
Now, what I can say about the content brought by the second
speaker is this: I agree to the call which has fallen to the
left, which is basically not so very different from what I said
myself: I don't claim things need to be as firmly said as I've
expressed them. When something or other is said which can
improve things, then I'm pleased about it. As a result, I don't
judge as harshly as the second speaker has done; I would only
like to put right what can always be referred to by this
speaker who has not quite taken it in a right way. He has for
instance referred with suspicion to the worker school where I
taught for many years in Berlin by saying it could only be a
liberal educational association. I have clearly stressed that
it came from the old Liebknecht, the labour school was founded
by Wilhelm Liebknecht! I don't believe you can push over the
old Liebknecht with founding an arbitrary educational
association for the working class as they would not have
accepted him at the time. The audience wasn't made up out of
the “ordinary bourgeois liberals” but were entirely
comprised of workers who were none other than social democrats
out of Proletarian circles organised through the bank!
So
I believe that some of the words I have spoken have not been
taken up in the right way by this speaker, as I would have
liked them to be taken, and how they can be understood when not
approached with a predetermined opinion when the other person
arrives with a different meaning, but when he expresses what is
meant only in a different form because he believes it is
necessary that this world historic moment must be taken more
comprehensively, and while he believes that today not every
practical person can be called who would only judge in relation
to the near future but a true practical person who overviews
the bigger picture.
In
relation to the question of the “call for
proposals,” which corresponds nearly word-for-word to
what I've said tonight — you need not wonder about it
because you have heard that the “call” was created
by me and that you need not expect that when I speak about
something to the bourgeoisie, that it should sound different to
when I speak here from this podium.
Interruption: Either everywhere the same
or...
That's what I've just said. I said in the “call”
are the same words as what I've said here. In every
“call” there is nothing different to what I've said
here.
For
me it is important that the meaning of what I say is the truth
and I will speak the truth in every instance where I am
permitted to speak the truth. I only speak the truth; that is
what it comes down to, for me. This is what I want to say in
relation to this. I will exclude no one from anything if he can
merge it with his conviction and can say yes to what I say
myself. I believe this is the only way to arrive at an olive
branch, that we speak the truth, unconcerned about the
impression made on people, whether they support it or not. This
is what I wanted to say about this.
In
conclusion, I would like to make a remark which relates to what
the next speaker said: I had not said anything about the manner
of the struggle. — However, out of my words you can
extract how I actually think about this struggle. I believe
I've referred to it sufficiently; my view does not depend on a
superficial understanding or how the nice things are all
mentioned. Today we are enslaved in a facts-phase where our
deeds are nothing but an empty observation of how things must
be changed, however we need, through our observation, to find
which new thoughts are really able to be brought into human
souls. The ancient thoughts showed what kind of a social order
they could bring about and these old thoughts are the proof
that they are useless. For this reason, I believe that it first
and foremost practically comes down to those who have an honest
social will, to communicate before anything else about what can
happen.
Today we stand here in Switzerland — I don't know if one
could say “Thanks to God” or
“unfortunately” — still in the circumstances
which are not the same as in the central and eastern European
circumstances. Central and eastern Europe is in circumstances
only manageable through the connection to the ancient thinking
of a social organism. When there is no effort made by the
Proletariat themselves to utter the fundamental questions,
which now out of this chaos through the simplest organisations,
which all have to have the characteristics, according to my
view, of this three-foldness of the social organism — if
healing is not brought about by the Proletariat themselves, by
organisations being newly recreated, according to new ideas,
then I see absolutely no healing in the coming decades.
First of all, we need to begin with something you might regard
as insignificant: we must realize we don't only face civil
institutions, bourgeois conditions but that we face a bourgeois
science.
This is what I've said in the Berlin union house for sixteen
years and it was really understood among the Proletarians. The
Proletariat still have the task of expelling thoughts of
bourgeois science out of their thinking and not to meet some or
other institutions with the bourgeois science but with new
thoughts, which perhaps can only be brought by the Proletariat
because the Proletariat are emancipated from all the remaining
human relationship in which unfortunately the bourgeois people
stand. Today the most important thing is something which
probably appears as the least important to you, the
emancipation of spiritual life; the accomplishment of the
development of freedom of the spiritual life. If we accomplish
in having a free spiritual life, if we manage to have a science
which is not a mere capitalist tributary and thus indicate this
tone into the Proletarian circles, then only can we approach
healing. Not a restriction in the bourgeois sense, not a
reduction but rather an amplification of proletarian
activities.
I
have the firm belief — if people were capable of arguing
like the second speaker from a viewpoint which I well
understand, and apply so many objections that one can't
understand, sentence by sentence, what I've said — I have
the firm belief, because I have spent much of life among the
Proletariat, that what I have said is understood not from other
classes but would be understood by the Proletariat.
Unfortunately, we have to wait until the Proletariat understand
it. I do believe however that it will be understood.
With these thoughts, I would like to say, I can with a certain
satisfaction look back at what I've wanted to achieve this
evening. I really haven't wanted to convince you right into the
details of every word. I am taking into consideration your free
individualities; to each one of you I take care to allow for
your understanding, out of freedom. I do believe that among you
there are many who will still think differently about what I
have said, as you already thought about it today. This belief
is the very thing which needs to be applied to healing the
social organism.
|