CONSCIOUS SOCIETY E-Book

Rudolf Steiner

• Herausgeber: Rudolf Steiner Press
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Beschreibung

Delivered in the context of post-war cultural and social chaos, these lectures form part of Rudolf Steiner's energetic efforts to cultivate social understanding and renew culture through his innovative ideas based on 'threefolding'. Steiner develops a subtle and discerning perception of how social dynamics could change and heal if they were founded on real insight into our threefold nature as individuals, social beings and economic participants in the world. He doesn't offer a programmatic agenda for change, but a real foundation from which change can organically grow.Social forms and reforms, says Steiner, are 'created together', not imposed by lone geniuses. Nevertheless, the detail of some of the thoughts and ideas he presents here as a possible model – down to the economic specifics of commodity, labour, taxation, ground rent and capitalism itself – are staggering in their clarity and originality. This is no mystic effusion but a heartfelt plea, backed by profound insights, to change our thinking and the world we live in. As he points out, thoughts create reality, and so it is vital how and what we think.Among the many contemporary and highly-relevant topics Steiner discusses here are: the nature of money and capital; taxation and the state; free enterprise and initiative; capitalism and Marxism; the relationship between employer and employee; 'added value' theory and the concept of commodity; and 'class consciousness', the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Leseprobe

CONSCIOUS SOCIETY

Anthroposophy and the Social Question

Eight lectures given in Dörnach between 15 February and 16 March 1919

TRANSLATED BY MATTHEW BARTON

INTRODUCTION BY MATTHEW BARTON

RUDOLF STEINER

RUDOLF STEINER PRESS

CW 189

The publishers gratefully acknowledge the generous funding of this publication by the estate of Dr Eva Frommer MD (1927–2004) and the Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain

Rudolf Steiner Press Hillside House, The Square Forest Row, RH18 5ES

www.rudolfsteinerpress.com

Published by Rudolf Steiner Press 2018

Originally published in German under the title Soziales Verständnis aus geisteswissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis (volume 189 in the Rudolf Steiner Gesamtausgabe or Collected Works) by Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Dornach. Based on shorthand notes that were not reviewed or revised by the speaker. This authorized translation is based on the latest available (third) German edition (1989), edited by Robert Friedenthal

Published by permission of the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach

© Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach, Rudolf Steiner Verlag 1980

This translation © Rudolf Steiner Press 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 1 85584 611 1

Cover by Mary Giddens Typeset by DP Photosetting, Neath, West Glamorgan Printed and bound by Gutenberg Press Ltd., Malta

CONTENTS

Editor’s Preface

Introduction by Matthew Barton

LECTURE 1

DÖRNACH 15 FEBRUARY 1919

The Paris Peace Conference andthe Bern Socialists Congress; the social question: its solution must depend on far deeper foundations. The problem of laziness and comfort-loving in thinking, judgements based on mummified thoughts; the need for an understanding of the new. The appeal To the German People and the Civilized World; signatories being sought. The character of this appeal: not a programme but a pointer to forces at work in reality today. The war was only possible because no account was taken of real evolutionary needs when the empire was founded in 1871. The close connection between fantasy and ‘pragmatism’ (Ludendorff) must be overcome by grasping reality.

LECTURE 2

16 FEBRUARY 1919

The need for social insights. The difference between the proletariat and its leaders, who are the inheritors of a bourgeois outlook. We needconcepts commensurate with reality. Threefolding: not a system but something gained from observation of the deeper will of humanity. Real founding ideas, e.g. ground rent and subsistence minimum. The life of spirit andculture, the life of the state, and the life of the economy, andtheir relationship to pre-birth, earthly andafter-death conditions. Perception of God and Christ. Harnack. Two paths to Christ: tolerance in thinking; self-acquired idealism in the will. Wilson’s definition of freedom. The need to overcome the gentrifieddivision between abstract culture and real life.

LECTURE 3

21 FEBRUARY 1919

The social understanding we need must come from new, spiritual-scientific thinking. Modern, mummified, programmatic judgements in the social domain. Marx’s form of thought: analysis of the conditions that have arisen in society but no productive ideas for the future. Taking thoughts to their ultimate conclusion. Radicalization of these thought forms by Lenin: the bourgeois state, taken over by the proletariat and perfected, will die away. Thoughts formed in accord with reality as it has been will leadnowhere. In relation to the future: ‘social ignorabimus’. The two phases in Marxist-Leninist reform of society. The superstition that human renewal can come about through economic organization; failure to acknowledge the spirit. The need to overcome everything schismatic in spiritual science. The socialist faith in modern science; the need to emancipate it from narrow, bourgeois limits.

LECTURE 4

1 MARCH 1919

The contrast between endeavours at the forefront of consciousness and in the depths of the soul: a materialistic view of history, the theory of class warfare and added value contrasted with the yearning for spiritual science, freedom of thinking andtrue socialism. The materialist view of history: a consequence of the materialism of gentrifiedscience, art andreligion. The true, spiritual sources of the five post-Atlantean cultural epochs. Class consciousness: a consequence of middle-class faith in the authority of the state; anti-state, international, but uniform; no individual awareness arising from freedom of thinking. The added value doctrine: a consequence of anti-social, bourgeois egotism. To understand added value as the foundation of cultural life, the proletariat must truly participate in culture. Threefolding of the social organism corresponds to humanity’s deeper striving. Spiritual science must not become gentrifiedandschismatic. The Goetheanum building.

LECTURE 5

2 MARCH 1919

Distortion of the real striving of the proletarian movement. J.G. Fichte as Bolshevik thinker in his The Closed Commercial State. Thinking born solely from the I cannot grasp andshape social reality. Fichte’s Theory of Scientific Knowledge: a necessary stage in strengthening individual thinking before entering upon spiritual experience, but applied to sense reality it becomes destructive. Evil as distorted good. In the social realm: allowing hidden imaginations to take effect. Added value theory: maskeduntruthfulness in the relationship between employer and employee; the concept of commodity. Economic life and its relationship to natural foundations, on the one hand, and to the life of rights on the other. The true nature of the employment contract. Aspects of the relationship between economic life and the life of rights. Taxation legislation. Spiritual andcultural life, andalso taxes to sustain them, must be founded on trust and freedom.

LECTURE 6

7 MARCH 1919

Kurt Eisner. The necessity of understanding reality through spirit-oriented thinking. F. Mauthner; the difficulty of forming positive concepts of the state, which is a reversal of conditions in the world of soul and spirit. Earthly culture as a continuation of pre-birth life from residual antipathies. Economic life as the foundation for post-mortem sympathies. The loss today of a connection with the reality of spirit. Anti-social division between material life and a bourgeois existence that has grown decadent and luxurious. The worker’s sense of being excluded. The need for a universally human education and culture, a new language in all fields. The Goetheanum building. The need to resort to primary, archetypal thoughts. The nature of money, which must be administered within economic life: capital. The healthy relationship between work andcapital in the concordbetween free enterprise/initiative and the worker’s free understanding, within a spiritual, cultural life in which both share.

LECTURE 7

15 MARCH 1919

Modern thinking today refuses to learn from historical reality. J. Ude at the League of Nations conference. Modern thinking only encompasses the lifeless realm. Abolishing capitalism means destroying the social organism. A thinking that orientates itself to life must include the temporal aspect. Capital creation and its later reconfiguration in the threefoldsocial organism. Gaining reality-attuned ideas by consciously raising oneself to imaginations. Organization of the head by the forces of the rest of the body from the last incarnation; tendencies which are consequently active in modern thinking. Reality-estranged thinking, e.g. Wilson’s League of Nations idea of 1917 after the worldwar. The pacifist Schücking. World parliament basedon the Weimar model. The basis for social renewal is a self-sustaining life of spirit andculture. The needto liberate the sciences from state supervision, which wouldalso transform capitalism.

LECTURE 8

16 MARCH 1919

Wilson’s conditions for a League of Nations. The need to transform our thinking and integrate it with the social realm, but not without spiritualizing it. The emergence of socialist thinking from the thinking of the modern era. Fichte. Hegel’s objective idealism: logic—nature—spirit; an organism of abstract ideas, but one relating only to the sensory realm, and excluding the real sphere of spirit (God, pre-birth life, postmortem life). How Marx draws on Fichte, applying the triad of thesis—antithesis—synthesis to economic and material realities. Today a different trinity is needed: the human being between Lucifer andAhriman; a human equilibrium between spirituality andmaterialism. The Philosophy of Freedom: a path to the reality of the spirit. The needtoday for an awareness of time. Socialization of thinking: empathy with all humanity. Cardinal Rauscher; Pobedonoszew. ‘Historical obstinacy’ and the need for new thinking to embrace what already lives today subconsciously in the world.

Notes and References

Rudolf Steiner’s Collected Works

Significant Events in the Life of Rudolf Steiner

Index

EDITOR’S PREFACE

These lectures, first compiledunder the title Die soziale Frage als Bewusstseinsfrage were given to members of the Anthroposophical Society between 15 February and 16 March 1919, at a periodof cultural andsocial chaos. These lectures formedpart of energetic public efforts to cultivate social understanding and renew culture through innovative ideas relating to the threefold social organism. This periodsaw numerous public lectures held in the big cities of Switzerland, planning and launch of the appeal ‘To the German People and the Civilized World’, various attempts to contribute to the critical question of ‘war guilt’, transcribing andcompilation of the book Towards Social Renewal, as well as the first public eurythmy performances in Zurich and Dornach. Hella Wiesberger chronicled Rudolf Steiner’s activities in this period in the text ‘Rudolf Steiners üffentliches Wirken für die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organimus. Von der Dreigliederungs-Idee des Jahres 1917 zur DreigliederungsBewegung des Jahres 1919’, published in two parts in the newsletter of the Rudolf Steiner Estate, no. 24/25 Easter 1969, p. 6-31, and no. 27/28, Michaelmas/Christmas 1969, p. 2–60.

INTRODUCTION

If we look around us at the physical world, its landscapes, buildings, roads, cars, bright lights, bridges, we see the tangible results of past human thinking and all the activity that has sprung from it. The same applies to our social institutions and the way we arrange, regulate, govern andperceive society. In other words, as Steiner says here, thoughts create reality, andso it is vital how—more so perhaps than what—we think. At this very moment, even if we think we are powerless to make a difference (and that belief is a thought too) we are helping create the world our descendants will inhabit. In the process we are either perpetuating old ideas, endlessly creating more of the same, or, perhaps painfully slowly, developing new ways of thinking andtrying to act on them.

We can of course think anything we like, to the degree that we are self-aware enough not to succumb to inculcatedideas or misplaced faith in the authority of others. But once thinking has gone on to create its solidstructures in the world, it seems hardto know how to change them radically without revolutionary chaos and attendant misery. The Marxist experiment, to which Steiner refers a gooddeal in these pages, did not have any fundamentally innovative ideas for reforming society. Rightly concernedat the plight of a whole downtrodden class of workers, it nevertheless had nothing to offer but an exchange of one autocracy for another, andit became clear that simply turning the tables on the aristocracy was not in itself sufficient to create a harmonious andhealthy society. For Marxism, which pickedup the baton of scientific materialism and ran with it, economics, andeconomic injustices, are paramount, the only acknowledged driving force and the root of all social malaise. While Marx and, around the time of these lectures, Lenin, had been giving workers a class identity and new outrage at the exploitation they suffered, rightly galvanizing them as a political force, they were also unwittingly feeding them only a materialistic view of the world, a ‘surface ideology’ that could not give them a deeper sense of their humanity andspiritual integrity. Everything pivotedon wages and economic power, on who heldthe reins of this power, andnot on a deeper view of the very nature of the human being and what that view might leadto in terms of really new social structures.

Putting the human being, not just our economic activities, back at the centre of society, Steiner developed an incredibly subtle and discerning perception of how social dynamics could change and heal if they were founded on real insight into our threefold nature as individuals, social beings and economic participants in the world. The three, as he is always at pains to show, continually interact, but each is also a distinct ‘sphere’ in the same way that our single bodily organism can be seen, broadly, in terms of head, perception and thinking, heart, rhythm andfeeling, and limb activity andwill. Economics is therefore only one aspect of our human experience, which needs to be balanced against, and not swallow up, the very different needs and dictates of, on the one hand, human culture, art, religion and education, and, on the other, our legal equality as human beings, our inalienable rights. This tripartite thinking is very subtle because it recognizes that liberty, equality and fraternity are not universally valid principles in themselves but each only applies in one of these particular spheres.

Between the two extremes of revolutionary upheaval and a sermonizing Christianity, with its ineffective and status quo-maintaining code of ethics and exhortations, Steiner clears a truly middle ground and then starts exploring and expanding it. In the process he unfolds a vista of how past, present and future are at work within us—from which, if we grasp it, modes of social co-existence could develop that are truly innovative without being violently revolutionary. Striking is his insight that, with our narrowly materialistic perception of human nature and potential, we are all ‘part of what’s wrong’, and that society will only change as we hone our own thinking and make ‘perceiving reality’ our ‘inner soul practice’. Steiner, as he keeps reiterating, is not offering a programmatic agenda for change but a real foundation from which it can organically grow. Social forms and reforms, he says, are ‘created together’ not imposedby lone geniuses. Nevertheless, the detail of some of the thoughts and ideas he propounds here as a possible model for social thinking—down to the economic specifics of such things as commodity, labour, taxation, ground rent and capitalism itself—are staggering in their clarity and originality. This is no mystic effusion but a heartfelt plea, backedby profoundinsights, to change our thinking and therefore, in time, the worldwe ourselves must live in.

Matthew Barton

LECTURE 1

DORNACH, 15 FEBRUARY 1919

THE lectures I have given here recently1 included a number concerning the social question that has come to be of such burning importance today. Unless we sleepwalk through events with which our own life is inextricably entangled, we will not fail to notice that this social question, as it has come to be called, really is of urgent and burning concern. You will be able to see from these lectures—some of which, in essence at least, I have also given as public talks in various places in Switzerland—that this social question has assumed a form very critical to the existential needs of modern humanity, and relates to all recent developments in human society. In our own circles, too, within the anthroposophic movement, a need has arisen to consider the destiny of humanity, as this relates specifically also to the social question, and to form judgements, drawn from our outlook, that could be turned into reality in the way in which we are capable of doing this.

For a long time now, some of our members have made efforts to place their strength in the service of these very difficult times in which we now live. In the process, various ideas and objectives have been pursued. It is of course true to say, my dear friends, that each person can only intervene in events in which he is destined to participate by his destiny, his karma, let us say by his place within humanity. The diverse aspirations that have arisen within our movement have led to the following: the three gentlemen who set themselves the task of working in Stuttgart in a way that addresses the existential need of our time, these three gentlemen whom you know well—Herr Molt, Dr. Boos, Herr Kühn2—came to see me at the beginning of February. We formulated the aim, as far as possible and useful, to realize in practice what we can draw from our outlook and worldview. Now my dear friends, when we are concerned not with reflections but with realities, it can only ever be a question of what is fitting and appropriate at a very particular time; what can be initiated in a particular respect and context. Not much will be gained usually by raging like a bull in a china shop. We have to make a tentative beginning in some way.

Given existing realities and precedents, it seemed to us appropriate firstly to do something that can at present seem the right course of action for the sorely burdened German people. If we look at current events, the first thing that strikes us—and I have often described this—is the chasm existing between different social classes: on the one hand what we can call the ruling classes as they have been up to now, and on the other the proletariat, the working classes who have been at the forefront of real demands relating to the social question. But a careful scrutiny will show that this proletariat appears in two forms: the proletariat as such, and then its leaders. I have often spoken here of the fact that all the ideas, feelings, aspirations and impulses which these proletarian leaders have in their heads, which gain sway over the working classes, are basically the legacy of the bourgeois thinking of recent centuries. We discussed these things from all kinds of angles, and have tried to consolidate our understanding of them.

But at the end of the day, we came back to the fact that a deep chasm does indeed exist between these social classes. In the last few days all of us will have been made aware, once again, of the depth of this divide: on the one hand Paris, where, based on their particular outlook, the ruling classes took in hand the fate of modern humanity;3 and on the other, Bern,4 with an assembly testifying to the chasm dividing its participants from those others. If you carefully followed what is emerging from Paris, as well as efforts being made at the Socialist Congress in Bern, you will have to acknowledge that the ideas and intentions issuing either from Paris or Bern are not the important thing. The thing that is really incisive for humanity’s evolution in the long term is the fact that two radically divergent social languages are being spoken in these two places. If we are truly honest we have to acknowledge this: there are two completely different languages being spoken here, and no possibility of mutual understanding between them.

This phenomenon is so fundamentally important that anyone who properly reflects upon it must acknowledge what I have often said here: that we need to seek much deeper foundations than those usually sought if we are to understand what is at work here, and if we are to work towards possible solutions. As I said the day before yesterday in the public lecture in Basel,5 the social question, the social movement, is of such pressing importance for a large swathe of civilization today, requires such urgent response, appears so incisive in historical terms, that it is hard to conceive of any previous time in humanity’s history where things were as pressing. We need therefore to draw on deeper foundations. And, as I have so often suggested, we only find these deeper foundations in an outlook on reality which is the point of departure—also for studying social aspects of life—of our spiritual-scientific movement, of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

At our New Year gathering6 I believe I pointed to something important: that one can certainly be very pessimistic about humanity, not only in some vaguer emotional way but based on a real appraisal of society. I read to you an essay by a man who is well qualified to make such an appraisal.7 And then I said that such a sober and pessimistic outlook as he was expressing is nevertheless only possible if we are unaware of the help we can get by turning to the spirit. This awareness should become ever more widespread: that destructive forces, which will take dire effect in the forthcoming decades, can only be seen as inevitable if we refuse to turn to a view of reality that emerges from spiritual science. Of course I do not mean by this the dogmas of this or that spiritual movement; I mean in general the invoking of spiritual forces that, at this important turning point of humanity’s evolution, are the only available wholesome and healing powers.

Thus we can say that one aspect of this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science will at the same time, in the most eminent sense, provide a cure for the ills of our era, since it does not issue from anything arbitrary but from true observation of the forces currently at work in the world. It really is not randomly conceived; it really is not a programme devised by one person or a group of people but has emerged from observation of what the spiritual guidance of the cosmos itself dictates as a necessary influx into humanity’s current development. This alone allows us to speak as we do of anthro-posophically oriented spiritual science—for otherwise it would be arrogance to do so. But what originates, in fact, from honest humility, need not fear the foolish objections it meets with, as it seeks expression, from those who label it arrogance.

From Paris, we can say, issues all that is borne on the grandiose wings of an outlook that has clearly led to absurdity over the past four and a half years. From Bern has issued something that a number of people regard as a remedy but which does not draw on a deep enough source. From Paris there issues something that alarms almost all of humankind; from Bern came something a great number of people pinned their hopes on. These two things still speak a completely different language, and there is no communication across the chasm dividing them. This communication will only become possible when the soul seeks to appeal inwardly to spiritual science.

It was this that gave rise to the thought of reaching out to one part of humanity at least, seeking its understanding. For understanding is what is required. I have repeatedly stressed that we will make no headway in the chaos in society without first gaining understanding from a sufficiently large number of people in the civilized world, and doing so before instincts start to run rampant. This is also what underlay the spirit of my lectures in Zurich, Bern and Basel. What I have continually discussed with various people recently is how we can appeal to people’s understanding, and whether it is even possible at all to count on some degree of understanding before a full-scale debacle breaks out. Now this latter question is not in fact one that we can ask if we are in tune with reality, for then we do not establish hypotheses about what may or may not be possible but instead we take the measures we consider necessary. When we embark on a path we have to take the first step. And we should not think, if this first step does not immediately appear to be identical with the desired goal, that it should therefore be discounted. After all, the first step on a long journey can only ever cover a very small part of it. All that matters in aiming for a particular goal is that we do not start by heading in the opposite direction, or deviate to left or right; and secondly that we maintain the will to persist in our intent, once we have embarked on it, and do not allow ourselves to be pushed to left and right by all the obstacles we might encounter. Besides this, if we wish to root ourselves in reality we have to relate to actual contemporary conditions, to what exists, and not build castles in the air. our ideas have to relate to something already manifest, already present as a real tendency. It can sometimes actually seem as if our first step were a very hapless one, and it may only become clear that it is not after we have gone a little further down the road.

When these three gentlemen, Molt, Boos and Kühn, came to discuss these things with me, firstly we had to ask—since after all a spiritual impulse was necessarily involved, and an appeal to people’s insight—what, in our experience, meets with a response from human thinking. You will recall the ‘Appeal to the Civilized World’ (well, the supposedly civilized world) made once by, I think, 99 professors, people well-known in Germany.8 If we judge according to reality rather than simply out of emotion, we are likely to consider this appeal to have been extremely inept. Well, of course most of them were professors. Nevertheless, it made an impression, it found its way into people’s minds in a very unfortunate manner. And the effects still echo on today. In some respects it was a reality, one that contributed more to the downfall of the German people than many other things. It created waves.

And so this thought occurred: how would it be now, at a time when things are so desperate, to counter this sum of ideas that were issued back then, were unleashed on humanity—ideas that were blatantly outmoded—by doing something to nurture communication and understanding: an appeal to humanity drawn now from real, existing conditions? Initially, as seems self-evident, this appeal would be directed to the German people whose destiny it has been to see its supposed task swept away along with its whole legislature. one could initially appeal to this German nation, pointing out what realities themselves make plain—not mere words, judgements and thoughts, but facts and realities. While such an appeal might be addressed in vain to a great part of humanity, because the old frameworks still survive, it is conceivable that the German people would hear it, since their old foundations have simply been pulled from under their feet. They might recognize that the old certainties no longer sustain them but that a new basis must be found for their task in the world. That is how people are, after all: as long as the old sustains them a little—even if they change their outward garb—they cling to old customs and ignore everything that is telling them they can’t actually go on clinging to it any longer. You have scarcely any idea what a role comfort plays in the inner life of humankind.

Well, with these thoughts in mind, my dear friends, I wrote a kind of manifesto,9 which I think might be heard by souls who, in respect of the question of our culture, are open to communication founded on a healthy ground of reality. I think it might be understood, initially, by insightful people in the German nation, to whom it is specifically directed. But it also seems to me that it should be read by enemies of the German people—as something that can be seen at present as appropriate for this German nation to consider and realize. In view of the fact that the earlier appeal I mentioned was signed by 99 people, I thought it might be good if once again we could find another 99 within the boundaries of German Germany, of former Germany, of former Austria; and that perhaps these 99 might be joined by a small number of others in neutral countries—particularly in Switzerland—who are open to understanding present existential needs. If all this were possible, it seemed to me, we might achieve something positive to redress the previous negative influence of those other 99 figures.

I hope you will understand me aright! The appeal is first and foremost addressed to the German nation. But what is aired in this way within the German nation should also be heard throughout the civilized world. I will now read the appeal. The ideas it contains will be familiar to you, my dear friends, since we have often discussed them. of course they can be only briefly expounded in this succinct form. The aim here is not to instruct anyone but to say something that can point people’s attention to the existence of a way forward, and to the right way of embarking on it. Naturally some may object to the brevity of this appeal. Yet it is not a manual but merely a pointer to the fact that there are sources of help within humanity. Here it is.

To the German People and the Civilized World

The German people believed that the edifice of their empire constructed half a century ago was assured forever. It seemed to them in August 1914, at the outset of the catastrophic war, that this edifice would prove invincible. Today they gaze upon its ruins. Such experience—given that it has shown half a century’s beliefs, and especially the prevailing outlook of the war years, to be a tragic error—must be followed by self-reflection. What were the causes of this fateful error? This question must inevitably lead to long and deep self-examination by the German people. Their capacity to survive and develop will depend on whether they can find the strength for such self-examination. Their future depends on whether they can truly take this question to heart: how did I succumb to this error of mine? If they can ask this question of themselves today, it will dawn on them that half a century ago they founded an empire and yet omitted to assign it a task that sprang from the intrinsic nature of German culture, of the German people. An empire was founded; and in its early period, efforts were made to organize its living inner potential in accordance with the needs arising from year to year from both old traditions and new demands. Later this changed, so that instead an outward sway and power rooted in material forces was consolidated and enlarged, connected with measures relating to the social demands emerging in the new era. While these measures did take some account of much that arose as current necessity, they lacked the larger vision that should have arisen from insight into the developmental powers toward which modern humanity must turn. Thus the empire was embedded in a world context without having an essential goal that justified its existence, and this became sadly apparent as the catastrophic war unfolded. Before the outbreak of the war, non-German countries of the world could have seen nothing in the conduct of this empire that might have suggested that those governing it were in any way fulfilling a world-historical mission, one that ought not to be brushed aside. Its failure to find such a mission inevitably led to the view amongst other nations that, for people with real insight, is the deeper cause of the German collapse.