Anthroposophy and Ecofascism IX
Continuing my commentary on the second paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.
Staudenmaier at one point acknowledges that the official policy of the Nazi state was to ban anthroposophy as incompatible with fascism, but dismisses this as petty bureaucratic squabbling. Real fascism, he informs us, was pro-anthroposophy. Aside from demonstrating rather questionable judgment, such a stance from a self-proclaimed expert on fascism shows not a little bit of arrogance mixed with a studied ignorance of the broader context.
Staudenmaier's statement "the actual politics of Steiner and his followers have consistently displayed a profoundly reactionary streak" is simply untrue. For clarity we should first separate the politics of Steiner and those of his followers. Steiner's politics will be discussed at length below. Of his followers I will admit that a number, both in the 1930's and later, can be described as "profoundly reactionary." Indeed, every single one of these cases is very well known to Staudenmaier and those upon whose opinions he relies. However, I maintain that even in the 1930's the number of anthroposophists sympathetic to fascism was the smallest minority, and today is minuscule. The vast majority of Steiner's followers all over the world today are politically left of center. While making this assertion I will acknowledge that no scientific research exists on the subject. No surveys have been conducted. I draw on years worth of anecdotal evidence from my many interactions with anthroposophists, as well as discussions in several countries with numerous people on the topic.
Hitler himself attacked Steiner in print in 1921, and the Nazi regime banned anthroposophy in 1935.
Staudenmaier at one point acknowledges that the official policy of the Nazi state was to ban anthroposophy as incompatible with fascism, but dismisses this as petty bureaucratic squabbling. Real fascism, he informs us, was pro-anthroposophy. Aside from demonstrating rather questionable judgment, such a stance from a self-proclaimed expert on fascism shows not a little bit of arrogance mixed with a studied ignorance of the broader context.
Staudenmaier's statement "the actual politics of Steiner and his followers have consistently displayed a profoundly reactionary streak" is simply untrue. For clarity we should first separate the politics of Steiner and those of his followers. Steiner's politics will be discussed at length below. Of his followers I will admit that a number, both in the 1930's and later, can be described as "profoundly reactionary." Indeed, every single one of these cases is very well known to Staudenmaier and those upon whose opinions he relies. However, I maintain that even in the 1930's the number of anthroposophists sympathetic to fascism was the smallest minority, and today is minuscule. The vast majority of Steiner's followers all over the world today are politically left of center. While making this assertion I will acknowledge that no scientific research exists on the subject. No surveys have been conducted. I draw on years worth of anecdotal evidence from my many interactions with anthroposophists, as well as discussions in several countries with numerous people on the topic.
Hitler himself attacked Steiner in print in 1921, and the Nazi regime banned anthroposophy in 1935.
posted by Daniel | 7:32 AM
<< Home