Steiner's diagnosis that industrial production, unlike farming or commerce, arrived without a matching social order: its technical structures matured while its social structures were never found.
Industrialism Without Its Social Form in Anthroposophy is Rudolf Steiner's diagnosis, given in The Tension Between East and West (GA 83, Vienna, 1922), that each mode of production in history found the social mould that matched it except the newest one. Theocratic and patriarchal thinking grew together with land cultivation: the arable economies of the ancient Orient were ordered by priest-kings and divine commandment. Legal and contractual thinking grew together with commerce: what passes between merchants requires agreed form, so trade found its home in Roman law and the political state. Industrialism alone, however far its technical structures have developed, has still not assumed the social structures appropriate to it. It borrows its forms from the older currents, running factories on commercial and parliamentary habits. For Steiner the missing form must be built consciously, which is the task his threefold social organism answers, and the reason economic life needs its own associative organs today.
Industrialism Without Its Social Form names the gap Steiner placed at the centre of the modern social question. Agriculture had its theocratic mould and commerce its legal one, but the factory economy of the West emerged inside borrowed clothing. In the Vienna lectures of June 1922 he traced how trade unions, parliaments, and commercial habits all fail to fit industrial life, and why a new social form must be found for it.
In Steiner's Own Words
Yet industrial thinking today, however much it has developed its technical structures, has still not assumed the social structures appropriate to it. On the one hand, we can see the correlation between the theocratic mode of thought, with its patriarchal essence, and the agrarian system. We can see, for example, that in Germany, right down to the present day, it has been impossible for agrarian thinking and industrial thinking to come to terms properly, for reasons I have indicated. We can see this correlation, therefore; but on the other hand we can also see how everything appertaining to commerce is, in the last analysis, correlated with politics and the law.
What it Means Today
Twenty-two years after the Vienna lectures, the economic historian Karl Polanyi published The Great Transformation (1944), a study of England's industrial revolution that reads like an extended commentary on Steiner's diagnosis. Polanyi argued that in every earlier society the economy was embedded in social relations: land moved through kinship and religious obligation, trade through civic and legal codes. The self-regulating market of the machine age was the anomaly, an economy torn loose from social form, and Polanyi traced the strains it produced: the Speenhamland crisis, the commodification of labour and land, and the protective "double movement" through which society improvised defences against it. He wrote without any reference to Steiner, which makes the convergence more striking, since Steiner had located the same vacancy in 1922 and had named the two older moulds, theocratic and legal, from which industrial life still borrows.
The Thalira synthesis: Polanyi shows that the missing social form was not lost but never yet created, and Steiner's associative economics is a proposal for creating it, an economy given organs of its own rather than clothes inherited from temple and courtroom. A reader who wants to work with this term can hold the two books side by side. GA 83 supplies the diagnosis in the wide frame of East and West, while The Great Transformation supplies the documentary record of what an economy without its social form does to labour, land, and money.
Where to Read More