THE SOCIAL HOMUNCULUS Dornach, 26th January, 1919 From “Goetheanism: a Transformation-Impulse and Resurrection-Thought. The Science of the Individual and the Science of Sociology” — volume 188 of Steiner’s Complete Works (unpublished in English). This lecture is the 9th of 12. It was originally published in the Anthroposophic News Sheet in 1943 — along with lectures 10, 11, and 12 of the same volume — under the title “The Migration of People in the Past and at Present.” It was newly edited in 2017.
DURING THESE LECTURES I HAVE OFTEN SEIZED THE OCCASION to point out to you that particularly in connection with the most important problems of life, modern men may learn something from the trenchant, penetrating, almost flood-like events of the present time, though this learning from events is a method practiced by few people today. As a rule, they think that they can learn something from the events if they simply pass judgment on them, and then these judgments are looked upon as experiences. This can be very satisfactory for some people, but it does not suffice, indeed it is quite unsuited for what we so sorely need at present, and that is an understanding of social life. The essential thing in such matters is to learn from the events themselves; we must allow the events themselves to develop our judgment, instead of pronouncing judgment over the events. Many explanations that I have given you can show you the true methods of spiritual science and how spiritual science applies these methods to external physical events — for instance, to the events in social life. Here I think that a particularly significant event of modern times connected with social life may teach us something. I have already drawn attention to it, but let me open today's lecture by developing thoughts relating to it. If we were to discuss the social question with a member of the working class (which now constitutes the majority of the population counting most in the concerns of modern life, and which has, on the other hand, obtained the inner impulse for its views chiefly through Marxism), if we were we to speak with him on the social question, we would always find that in regard to social work and social thinking he would not attribute much importance to so-called good will, or to ethical principles. Again and again, you would come across the following attitude: Suppose you were to tell him that according to your views the foundation for a solution to the social problem lies in the development of a feeling of social responsibility in those who have certain leading positions (particularly those who belong to the class of the so-called employers), a feeling that it’s absolutely necessary to create for everyone an existence in keeping with human dignity. To a man of the working class you speak, for instance, of raising the moral level of the middle class. When you voice this view to the working man, he will at first smile, and then he will tell you that it is very naive of you to believe that the social question can now be solved through feeling, or an activity engendered through feeling. A member of the greater mass of the working population will tell you: Everything that flows out of the feeling of the leading class of employers does not count at all. This class of employers may think what it likes in regard to ethical or moral feelings… but since the world is now divided into employers and employees, the employers must necessarily be the exploiters. A working man does not even listen to proposals that the feeling of social responsibility should be raised, for he argues: This is !1
quite useless, for everything depends upon the following: The working class must become conscious of the prevailing social conditions, so that the working class itself may bring about a change in them — a change that ends, or at least alleviates, the general misery. The essential point is not that of increasing the sense of moral responsibility, but that the oppressed, miserable working class should bring about, in the present struggle, a new non-capitalistic economic order, a change in the prevailing conditions, a new economic order. This means, in other words, that no trust should be put in the power of thought; we should not believe that a right comprehension, a right understanding of life can bring about a change in social conditions. One might well imagine the following taking place in one of the many “councils” that are now being formed in central European countries. A comic paper recently published the picture of a man with a long body and with tiny little legs, stating that he was the only man in Germany who did not “govern,” for everybody else already belonged to some “council”; but the man with the short legs had always remained behind, so that he was the only one in Germany, who did not belong to a council and who did not govern! People felt that there was a great deal of truth in this picture. If we were to speak at one of these councils of what must now be considered as right — through an insight into the development of humanity and the needs of humanity — the listeners who belonged to the working class would answer: “What are you talking about? You belong to the middle class! Because you are a member of this middle class, your thoughts are a priori influenced by the modern economic order. If social conditions are to be improved, it is far better to incapacitate you in one way or the other, so that you have nothing more to say on the matter; this is better than listening to any proposals you can make for a useful development of social conditions!” Things have already gone too far. Because of this, it is necessary to see things clearly. Of course, the majority of people does not wish to see things clearly today — least of all those who come together in councils, for they do not in any way desire to judge things clearly. Every proletarian, every member of the great mass of the working population, should be taught to see the following (and he will do so if we approach him at the right moment — this is the essential point!): As a proletarian, he denies the possibility of any social improvement in human development through the means of thought. We may ask him how he arrived at the view that an improvement of social life can be brought about only through a change in the conditions of social life. There is only one answer to this question, which the facts themselves reveal. You see, the whole tremendous impetus of the modern proletarian movement is based upon the idea of Karl Marx and his followers (and it is a very vigorous idea, to be sure). The idea that thought is worthless is a Marxist theory. Consequently this idea has produced the present socialistic way of feeling. But this socialistic feeling, which refuses to have anything to do with the impulse of thought, is nevertheless based upon the impulse of thought. In a lecture that I once delivered to proletarians I explained: Those who investigate world history and the true forces that are active in the development of humanity will find that, with only one exception, a truly scientific impulse has never become a world-historical impulse. Investigate things everywhere and try to discover the real impulses, and you find that these impulses were never of a scientific kind; with one exception, the renewal of the proletarian movement through Marxism. Lassalle felt this truth when he delivered his great incisive speech on science and the working class. For the only sociopolitical movement having a scientific foundation is the modern working class movement. It is encumbered with all the errors and the hopelessness of modern science, just because it sprang out of modern science. But it proceeds entirely from thought. !2
Imagine this colossal contradiction that has found its place in modern life! During the past sixty or seventy years, the idea that thought is worthless has exercised the greatest influence of all — the course of development during these years shows this. It is a significant lesson, because it shows that the influence of thought is something quite different from the content of thought. An idea — the idea of Karl Marx — exercised a particularly strong influence. But if we examine this idea in regard to its content, we find that the content as such is quite unimportant; of importance are only the economic conditions. If we have the capacity to immerse ourselves in this contradiction — in this living contradiction of thought — we find a tremendously important truth for an understanding of the present time. What must now be grasped at all costs is the fact that the content of theories, the content of programs, is really of no importance whatsoever, for the influence of thought is based upon something quite different: Upon the relationship of the corresponding thought to the state of mind of those who absorb this idea, etc. You see, if Karl Marx had not voiced his idea from 1848 onwards up to the seventies; had he not given expression just at that time to the ideas contained in the Communist Manifesto, developed in his system of political economy, and in his great work Capital; had he spoken of these things in 1800, or in 1796 — then his ideas would have exercised no influence whatsoever, nobody would have shown any interest in them. Here you have a key for a most important fact. Imagine that Karl Marx's works had appeared, for instance, fifty years sooner — they would have been waste paper! But from 1848 onwards — when general conditions of the proletarians had reached a definite stage — his works did not become waste paper but an international impulse, and now they continue to live in Russian Bolshevism and in the whole central European chaos, which has already begun and which will increase more and more. They continue to live in the chaos that will spread over the whole world. With this I wish to draw your attention to the fact that far more essential than the content of a truth is the circumstance whether it is uttered fifty years sooner or later. The content of an idea is only significant for a definite time, and it is no mere fad on my part when I say, for instance, in regard to anthroposophical spiritual science: Now is the time to speak of it, now it must enter the hearts of men, for now is the right moment in which human beings should absorb it. But something else should be borne in mind: Marxism was kindled of its own accord, but spiritual science is something that must be taken up by people in freedom. If we bear in mind that human understanding is subject to evolution, then it will be easier to understand many things that are, not only possible, but also necessary to understand — and which people really do not wish to understand. In a certain connection, we discover tremendous things if we encounter the thoughts that now exist in the so-called spiritual life (which is, however, no real spiritual life!) Those who can understand such things will come across plenty of evidence. We may open, for instance, a certain number of a periodical published here in Switzerland in which the author, who frequently writes for this paper, discusses a topical problem. In this article he speaks of what he understands by “the people." He speaks of various personalities and of their responsibility or guilt in regard to the outbreak of war; he discusses the fact — and in many ways he is right — that certain leading men of central Europe must be blamed for it. (I have often explained that here it is not possible to speak of guilt.) Then he finds it necessary to explain what he really means by “the people." This is how he defines “the people”: They constitute nine-tenths of civilized countries — such as Germany, Austria, England, France, etc. — and he says that they are the sum total of the uncultured, unfree persons, who are in the widest sense dependent on leaders, and who therefore need leadership.
!3
Consequently, we may say that this writer defines “the people” as being the uncultured, unfree, dependent masses, who, in the widest sense, need a leader. But, if we were to examine conscientiously the majority of those who belong to the middle class — or even the higher class — they would also answer more or less the same. If we now take the opposite view, we would have to say that only one-tenth of humanity is cultured, free, and independent, and that it does not require a leader! Those who think they can express an opinion as to the true significance of “the people," generally think they belong to this one-tenth. In the light of such a view — which is preeminently important for the development of a social judgment — it is above all necessary to face the question of whether it is justified to accept the idea that nine-tenths of the population consist of uncultured, unfree people in need a leader! This is the question each one of us must face if we wish to form an independent social judgment. Of course, if views are to be exchanged on such questions, it is necessary to build up that intensity of thinking that spiritual science can offer. For everything else that intensifies thought today does not suffice; this can be seen in the thoughtlessness that now rules the masses. There is a saying that I have come across again and again during the last months — I do not know if one can call it a coincidence, for in reality no such thing exists. I have found this saying quoted by one or another person, whenever social conditions were discussed in public. It is the following: “The stupidest calves choose their own butcher.” People find it natural to quote this saying and everyone finds an obvious meaning in it. I don’t find any meaning whatsoever in it. I think that not the stupidest, but the cleverest calves would choose their own butcher; for in that case they would choose one who would kill them as painlessly as possible, whereas those who do not choose their butcher would fare worst of all. The very opposite is true: “Only the cleverest calves choose their own butcher.” Important judgments that require changing are accepted just as thoughtlessly as this saying. Or when a human being surveys life, he would gladly forego the activity of thought, he has no wish to apply power of thought! What we need today is a keener thought-activity, so that we may reach concepts that correspond to reality. An “advanced” modern thinker — “advanced" in the meaning of modern academic wisdom, modern illumined thought, modern democratic consciousness — may find the idea tempting that ninetenths of humanity constitute the uncultured, unfree dependent people who need a leader. Nevertheless, this idea is quite worthless for the following reason: Let us proceed from a historical fact that can teach us a great deal in this connection. As you know, Christianity arose in an unknown province of the Roman Empire through the Mystery of Golgotha. Within the Roman Empire of that time, which had already absorbed the Greek civilization, there lived a population that really possessed a wisdom of deep significance. The Church had to make a tremendous effort in order to eliminate every trace of this ancient Gnosis. (I have spoken of this recently.) Gnostic wisdom — a highest wisdom — existed in those days. When Christianity first arose this highest wisdom existed within the Roman Empire. This can in no way be denied. Yet it was impossible for this highest wisdom to absorb the historically powerful impulse of Christianity. The strong impulse of Christianity was absorbed by the barbarians of the north, who did not possess the wisdom of the southern populations. When the barbarians of the north encountered the strong wave of Christianity, then Christianity began to exercise the influence that it had to unfold for the remainder of the fourth post-
!4
Atlantean epoch and for the beginning of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. New conditions have only arisen at the present time. We should consider the fact that the strongest impulse in history could not be absorbed by the most highly developed and abstract spirituality of a certain epoch; this impulse could instead be absorbed by men who were apparently arrested in their development and whose being was connected with the more instinctive part of human nature. The view just mentioned in regard to nine-tenths of humanity does not amount to much more than the fact that, as far as spirituality is concerned, these nine-tenths differ from the people believed to be their leaders. For these so-called leading men have a decadent intellect, a degenerated understanding. The nine-tenths of humanity still possess, as it were, a latent kind of intelligence that is far more able to absorb the strong historical impulse that must now be received. This impulse is far more powerful than the one to be found among the so-called “intelligentsia," among the people with a decadent intelligence. What now separates the bearer of spiritual impulses from the masses able to receive those impulses, are not the masses themselves, but the leaders. These leading men, even the leaders of socialistic proletarians, are completely permeated with the decadent intellect of the “bourgeoisie." What is needed above everything else is a clear admission of the fact that the true impulses of spiritual development are accessible to the so-called uncultured, unfree masses. These impulses can reach the masses if we gain an insight into their characteristic form of intelligence, and the way in which it works. No class of humanity has ever been so fantastic as the bourgeoisie that mocks at fantasy. Practical life today is truly fantastic! The practical people in life are “practical” only because they have been given the legal possibility to assert themselves, to enforce themselves, whereas people who do not have the chance to push themselves forward, cannot assert themselves, no matter how skillful and practical they may be. Today we should really learn to feel that in the great masses (which are not led, but misled by their leaders) there is something that asserts itself as a remnant from that time that is designated — though erroneously — as the “migration of the people.” At that time, certain barbarian tribes came to the fore, as it were, and they absorbed the very impulses that the more highly developed nations were no longer able to receive. During the present time we also have a migration of people; this migration —which is forcing its way to the surface — does not start from any definite place, but comes from the whole sub-stratum, the proletarian sub-stratum of humanity. This is the essential point. It is necessary to face this migration of people, to meet it. Let us take the following hypothesis. Suppose that everything that is described in history books as the migration of people had really taken place — all these migrations of the Goths, the Huns, and later on, of the Mongolians, the migrations of the Vandals, the Suevi, etc. Imagine that these tribes had not encountered the stream of Christianity when they migrated from the east to the south-west. Imagine that this stream of Christianity had not come; think what a difference this would have made in the world! The whole subsequent epoch can only be thought of if we bear in mind the fact that these barbarian tribes came over from the east to the south-west, and that they encountered the stream of Christianity. Today the proletarian element rises out of the depths. And this proletarian element must be met with a spiritual element that comes from above! You might say that a spiritual-scientific influence should be
!5
exercised upon social conditions, upon the conception of the world. Those who do not wish to believe that a new spiritual revelation comes towards this migration of people — which now follows a vertical, and not a horizontal direction — those who remain by the old spiritual revelation suited to the horizontal direction, in short, those who prefer to remain by the Roman way of propagating Christianity and do not wish to become acquainted with the new revelation of Christ Who passed through the Mystery of Golgotha, those people lose a great deal; they lose as much as might have been lost in the Middle Ages if the barbarian stream, which rolled from the east to the south-west, had not encountered the spreading current of Christianity. Also at that time, the cultured men of Greece and of Rome stood between the current of Christianity and the barbarian stream. Today, all the people who cling to old ideas under the guidance of the so-called intelligentsia — particularly under the guidance of modern science, which has proved so unfruitful in the social field — today all these people stand between the spiritual stream that should flow down to the proletarian stream and this current that flows upwards. Regarding such matters, we should chiefly strive to become unprejudiced concerning ideas that could enable us to develop a social judgment. But if we don’t understand the social organism, we can’t develop a social judgment. Do you know what results when a modern economics professor or political leader speaks of social or economic questions, do you know what the social organism becomes? — The social homunculus! This is a fact that we should really try to grasp. We must consider that all those who wish to understand the social organism, without grasping the truth of the threefold structure, give rise, within the social organism, to the homunculus, to nothing but the homunculus! Goethe also believed that the ordinary understanding, based upon the senses and the intellect, could not reach the “homo,” but only the “homunculus!” You see, in regard to the social organism, the great majority of men today are absolutely unable to think; the leading motifs for real thought are lacking. I have already explained to you that in the social sphere people set out from the strange and grotesque idea that a single state or national territory is a complete organism. Indeed, they even aim at setting up national organisms, complete in themselves! But this is nonsense! I have already told you that if anything on earth that is connected with social life is to be compared with an organism, then it is only possible to look upon the whole earth as an organism; a single state, or national territory, can only be a part of this organism of the earth. If we wish to apply this idea of an organism, it can only be applied to a complete whole. Those who wish to establish political economy upon the foundation of one single nation, resemble someone who seeks to establish the anatomy of the whole human being by studying only the hand, or a leg, or the stomach. This should be borne in mind, for it is far more important than people generally believe. The threefold structure, which I have explained to you, does not give any abstract program and none of the recapitulations that people are accustomed to today, but it places itself livingly within the economic structure, within the social structure.
!6
Those who only study the anatomy of the stomach cannot understand the anatomy of the head or throat. But those who study the anatomy of the whole human being are also able to form a right idea of the stomach, the head, the throat. Those who know the inner life-conditions of the social organism (and this knowledge can only proceed from knowledge of the above-mentioned threefold structure) are indeed able to themselves identify the real conditions; and they are able to have an insight into them, whether they have to judge the social conditions in Russia, England, Germany, or any other country. Today we come across the strange and distressing circumstance that people speak of the different nations as if they were separate countries, and they believe that social reforms, etc. can be brought about in single, separate regions. This constitutes one of the fundamental errors of our time and it may lead to the greatest mischief in practical life. It can only cause harm to believe that it’s possible to do something within a certain limited territory, without taking into consideration that from a social standpoint the earth is an organism that is complete in itself, ever since the middle of the nineteenth century. It is absolutely necessary to reckon with reality, otherwise we cannot progress in any way. You will see from this that the essential thing is to acquire an unprejudiced attitude, for such an unprejudiced attitude alone enables us to develop judgments out of the things themselves. For we can only judge things rightly if we have no prejudices. When we discuss social conditions in this way, you will hear repeatedly that it’s hardly conceivable to separate economic values from human labor. That this is possible can be grasped least of all by the learned political economists of today. If these men were willing to learn something from history, they would say to themselves: Plato and Aristotle were as yet unable to think that slaves are not connected with economic values. They still considered the existence of a fairly large slave population as an economic necessity. But today no sensible person looks upon a slave population as an economic necessity, as they did in ancient Greece and Rome. And yet people still believe that human labor should be a commodity, that it should be treated as goods. You see, we strive after the gradual realization of the above-mentioned threefold structure. It can only be realized little by little. We do not aim at sudden reforms or revolutions, but merely indicate a new direction. Single measures in keeping with this new direction can be introduced, indeed, everything that calls for reform today can be arranged in all details in such a way as to follow these guiding lines, this new direction. (This can be done if one does not stupidly adhere to programs, but to real life, and if one moves in the direction of real facts. This is the essential point.) Striving for its gradual realization, we divide into three the parts that have merged together during the last phase of human development. (This merging has producing a diseased social organism. Indeed, the last catastrophe [the first world war] has clearly revealed this diseased condition.) A sound course of development, in keeping with reality, can be reached if we strive to separate into three parts that which has melted together into one. This will lead of its own accord to the separation of human labor from economic values. Even as the slave has ceased to be a commodity, so human labor will cease to be a commodity. But this will not be brought about by laws forbidding that “human labor should be a commodity," but by keeping apart the spiritual,
!7
economic, and state concerns. This alone will separate goods, which represent an economic value, from that which has become crystallized within the goods, the human labor employed to produce them. In this connection it is really terrible to come across the mistaken and confused thoughts of people who have something to say, or wish to have a say, in the necessary reorganization of social conditions. Let me give you an example: You have the great mass of the so-called Marxists. These men have a clear idea of the fact that human labor is stored in the goods we purchase. For any commodity we purchase, human labor has produced it. In paying for goods, I must also pay for the human labor contained in it. This is of course the case under modern conditions, but it is essential to separate human labor from the true goods, to separate it not only in thoughts, but in the actual process. But this entails that we should really develop clear thoughts in regard to these matters. Now it’s easy to argue that manufactured goods do not contain human labor as an economic value. A non-Marxist, for instance, would say: It’s not right to declare that in political economy human labor and manufactured goods have been fused. Non-Marxists, who consider things from another angle, say that in the capitalistic economic structure manufactured goods exist in order to save labor. In fact, there are some goods with a certain purchasing power that can save labor. Let us suppose, for instance, that you are a painter and that you’ve painted a picture that you can sell for $500. This sum enables you to employ a certain number of people to work for you. Now suppose that you then don’t sell the picture, and that you have to do all of this work for yourself! In that case you would hare to make your own shoes, your own clothes, even weave the material for your clothes, etc. But first, you would have to get the raw material for your work, and so forth, for the economic process is extremely complicated. Therefore, some economists think that it’s not at all a question of labor being stored in goods, but a question of being able to save labor through goods that can be sold. According to these economists, the economic value of a commodity is therefore based upon the fact of how much labor can be saved through it, and not upon the quantity of labor that was needed to produce it. We therefore have two sides today. One declares that the economic value consists in the amount of labor that has been put into the goods. Take the case of the picture. The work put into it really can’t be compared with that which has been saved. Under given circumstances, a gifted painter may produce a picture ready for sale in about a month's time — is it not so? His “labor” is, in that case, what he “crystallizes” into the picture in one month's time. This is, however, far less important than the work that he thus saves for himself. He becomes a capitalist through the fact that he saves labor; a capitalistic economic structure arises through the very fact that he can now, through the sale of his picture, save work by employing a certain number of people to work for him. Here you have two opposed definitions. One definition is that the economic value of a commodity or good consists in the labor employed for its production. The other definition is that the economic value of a good consists in the labor saved because of it. These two definitions are diametrically opposed; they are opposed in regard to their real significance. For it would be an entirely different matter if the goods were really valued according to the labor employed for their production, or according to the labor saved through having them. But, in the process of economic circulation, goods are valued neither in the one way nor the other. Let me elaborate my example: Suppose that this picture, valued at $500 in accordance with prevailing ideas, still
!8
hangs in the painter's studio. He sells it, and it now hangs in the drawing room of Herr Mendelssohn, who is not a painter. There it hangs, and only a few people see it. Now, if you wish to define the economic value of the picture, you will say that it consists in the amount of labor, employed to paint it. Yet this definition does not hold good, either in regard to the painter — let us say, Lenbach — or in regard to the buyer, Herr Mendelssohn. As far as they are concerned, the economic value of the picture is not based upon this fact. For Lenbach, or any other modern painter, the immediate value of the picture of course consists in the work that he saves through it; yet this is not true, as far as Herr Mendelssohn is concerned, for he does not save any work through it. The definition of labor saved may therefore be applied, from an economic aspect, to the painter who has produced the picture; you may apply this definition to him, if you think in a one-sided manner. But from the aspect of the person who buys the picture and hangs it up in his drawing room, the above definition no longer holds good; the political-economic definition of the picture's value cannot be applied if we bear in mind real facts. You see, what is so important to consider is the fact that today people are so easily inclined to define things; when they think they’ve discovered something in the existing conditions, they immediately look out for a definition. Under such circumstances, it’s not at all surprising that one side should have one view and one side another. It’s natural that someone who draws the economic definition of a picture from Lenbach's studio, has quite a different opinion from someone who draws the economic definition of the picture from the drawing room of Herr Mendelssohn. This of course gives rise to disputes. This is the character of every dispute that now exists in social spheres; differences arise because people do not go back to the original impulses. This calls for a sense of reality, which can only be acquired through a spiritual-scientific training. Today you may come across hundreds of definitions in the political-economic sphere, but they will only make your heart ache because they’re so very unreal. These definitions fall far short of the reality — though it’s possible to “prove” them over and over again — for they always fit into a certain sphere. If you only consider the aspect of the spiritual worker, you may say that the economic value of something consists in the amount of labor saved. But if you only bear in mind the aspect of the proletarian workman, you may say that the economic value of something consists in the labor employed for its production. I will now give you another example from the field of political economy. In this field we have — in regard to the theory of money — the so-called nominalists and metallists. On the subject of money, they have the most terrible disputes. For the latter look upon money as a good it itself, and attribute to it the value that it has as gold or silver, while the former only consider money as a symbol for an existing value. The nominalists, on the one hand, and the metallists, on the other, wage a war to the knife on this subject of money. But these people have no idea whatsoever of the reality. As far as money is concerned, nominalism is right at a time when the production of goods is very weak — it’s justified when there is a crisis. But metallism is right when there is superfluity. From different directions of reality, both are right — at one time it is this, and at the other time that. You see, if we take ideas in the one-sided manner in which people generally take them, we can never apply them to a totality in a healthy way. When we regard a totality, a whole, it is essential to collect all the facts; we should not apply one-sided definitions, but should instead develop a feeling that shows us where we can take hold of the facts, throwing light upon reality.
!9
Now the following question might be raised: Where does the economic value arise? It does not arise where human labor accumulates, becomes crystallized in the goods, and it does not arise where labor can be saved through the goods. The economic value does not arise in either of these fields. The economic value is a condition of tension. If here, at this point (a drawing is made), you have an electric conductor discharging electricity, and if the electric current is intercepted here at this point, then we have a tension between the two, between the discharging apparatus and the apparatus collecting the discharge. There is no discharge if the tension is too weak, for a discharge can only take place if the tension is strong enough. Similarly, the economic value must be sought within a kind of tension, and we can describe this economic value in the following way. We have the goods, the wares; then we must consider their different qualities and also the place where they can be consumed. We have, therefore, the goods at a certain place and time. On the other hand we have human needs (and this is the same as the artificial or natural interest that people have in the goods). This tension, and nothing else, gives rise to the true economic value. The true economic value does not contain the idea of human labor. Within the social organism, labor should be associated with the circulation of goods in quite a different way. But this particular tension, which resembles the tension existing between an electric accumulator and an electric receiver, is that which produces the true economic value. This tension arises by the fact that goods of a specific quality are at a definite place where there is a demand for them. This alone determines the real economic value. Lenbach's efforts in producing a picture within a certain time, through his gift as a painter, and the labor that he could save for himself, through this picture as an object of value, can only determine the picture's value as Lenbach's private property. This applies to every other kind of labor in regard to goods. All this does not determine the economic value. The economic value at any given moment is determined, on the one hand, by the demand, or the need, and on the other hand, by the specific quality goods that exist at a given time. This constitutes the true economic value of a commodity, and this value can always be applied. But this leads us away from the mere political-economic organism, and leads us instead into the threefold social organism. For, on the one hand, we have the goods, the wares, leading us into the economic sphere. These, however, do not come into being out of themselves but depend on the soil and ground, upon the foundation of nature. This foundation of nature must exist. It cannot be saddled on to the state. It must exist on the one side. On the other side, we have the demand, the need. This leads us into the spiritual-cultural sphere, into the cultural life of humanity, for consider how different are the demands of people who belong to western civilization and those who don’t! Here we have two entirely different elements that penetrate into the life of society. The essential point we to consider is that there are other elements that penetrate into the political-economic life. The social organism thus resembles the human organism that consists, on the one hand, of the chest and head. Into the head penetrates the spiritual world. And then there is the part of the body that takes in nourishment; the physical world penetrates into this part. In this way the social organism is also threefold, for on the one hand, we find that it’s influenced by all that gives rise to demands, to needs (which must never arise through the economic process itself); and on the other hand, it’s influenced by !10
that which nature produces. This leads us to a threefold structure, for in the middle lies that which unites these two spheres. In order to perceive the immense fruitfulness, the social fruitfulness of the above thought, it suffices to consider the following fact: According to the explanations given above, an isolated process, an economic process, should never give rise to demands, but demands should instead come from outside, through some other cultural process, through an ethical process, or something similar. During unsound times, demands arise through purely economic processes, and people who cannot think fully rejoice over this. During the time that led to out present social catastrophe — during the time in which the present social cancer gradually began to develop — people tried in every way to artificially produce demand for goods through processes that didn’t come from the social structure itself, but came from outside, from some other cultural task of humanity. You could, for instance, read over and over again the following advertisement: “Cook good soups with Maggi!” — Well, the demand for “Maggi” would certainly not have arisen had it not been advertised! Advertising has come out of the purely economic sphere. It does not give rise to real demands. To produce demands in such a way as to arouse an artificial interest in certain goods, is unsound and a source of illness to the social organism. It is just the same as if a physician were to induce a boy to learn more diligently by giving him a stimulating powder, so that his stomach makes him more diligent, instead of his being stimulated to study by moral forces. This social bungling — these social tricks that arise by saddling everything on to a so-called “Monon,” on to a social homunculus — have led to the catastrophes of the present time. For the social organism itself should never produce, on the one hand, demands, and on the other hand, goods. The goods must be supplied to the social organism by the foundation of nature. And the demand for goods must come to the social organism from the course of human development itself. One thing that should never be considered a social problem is, for instance, the question of population, for this would signify a misunderstanding of the connection between the human being and political economy. As I explained at the end of yesterday’s lecture, making a social problem out of the problem of population would mean that in our time we don’t know the difference between a pig and a human being.
Political-economic reasons should never determine whether an increase in the population is desirable, or whether it should be kept to a certain level; other reasons of an ethical-spiritual nature should be called upon for this. When considering such a problem, we should especially bear in mind that if a significant increase in population is obtained through artificial means, then we force the souls who would have only incarnated after four or five centuries to come down prematurely, and as a consequence, in a deteriorated condition. Under certain conditions, increasing the population means forcing souls to incarnate in a physical body under unfavorable conditions. This would give rise to moral corruption. The question of increase, stability, or decrease in the population should never be a political-economic question, but a moral-ethical one; in short, a question connected with a spiritual conception of the world, with a spiritual conception of life. All these things can only follow a sound course of development if they are grasped in a spiritual-scientific manner. You will therefore recognize the need to give a spiritual-scientific foundation to all the thoughts !11
connected to social problems. If you really study the horrible things now said and written in connection to social problems, you will see that their unfruitfulness necessarily calls for the application of that sharp clarity of thought that’s contained in spiritual science. Even as the blind followers of Plato and Aristotle had to come to the point of saying: “Man, as a slave, cannot be considered as goods," so the followers of modern humanity must learn to say: “In no case can human labor be considered as goods," for other impulses, not the value of products, should induce men to serve and to work for their fellows. The economic value of goods should never be fixed in accordance with the labor needed to produce them, nor the labor saved through them, but only in accordance with the justified tension that exists between the goods and human needs. Neither the labor accumulated in the goods, nor the labor saved through them, constitutes the decisive factor, for our labor does not place us within an economic process; we do not work in order to save labor, we work in order to create a certain tension between the goods produced and the corresponding demand. The corresponding demand may determine that goods which involved a great amount of work must, under certain conditions, be sold cheaply. And conversely, within a sound economic process, the demand may determine that a product involving little work obtains a higher price. Consequently, the work involved can never be the decisive factor. This is evident from the explanations given above. Those who have an insight into such things, recognize the radical necessity of not seeking the impulses that give rise to human labor in the economic value of goods, but in quite a different direction, which is determined by the above-mentioned state of tension. Only those who have an insight into such things can arrive at a decision in connection with the two important social problems that face us at the present time: compulsory labor, which is the aim of the Bolsheviks, and the right to work, or any other name that we may give to it. Those who do not penetrate to the depths indicated today, will always talk in a confused way about these things, no matter whether they speak officially or are simply following certain aims. Only those who penetrate to the depths of reality have a right to speak of such questions. Indeed, it is a serious matter today to acquire the right to have a say in such things. In my next lecture I shall continue to speak on this subject.
!12