Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 97

Continuing my commentary on the 29th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

To correct a few very mistaken statements in the 29th paragraph. First, the Threefold Social Order was intended to be implemented in Austro-Hungary and/or Germany. It was not dreamed up as something to be imposed on the "conquered territories in Eastern Europe." I personally find this particular distortion to be a disgusting perversion of historical facts, especially for the implications.* Second, it arose from questions that were brought to him, and not from his own initiative. It was first offered at a time when Germany was clearly already losing, and most of Steiner's popular efforts to see it implemented were after the wars end, so the phrase "unfortunately for Steiner's plans, Germany and Austria-Hungary lost the war" is entirely mistaken; the perverse conclusion of an egregious distortion. As to Steiner's motives, I find it hard to trust the judgment of a "historian" who can't even understand the basic idea in the first place. Peter Staudenmaier would have us believe that it was conceived to avoid the partition of the Hapsburg Empire and to prevent a Bolshevik revolution. Even if that were correct, it hardly seems an ignoble goal. The Bolshevik revolution cost some 60 million lives in Eastern Europe, and one can only imagine the toll had central Europe also undergone a similar process of forced collectivization. As an alternative, one can also imagine a democratic Austro-Hungarian state thriving in central Europe, first as a counter-pole to Prussian-influenced Germany, and possibly even averting the many deaths that resulted from the transition to Communism throughout the region about 30 years later. Steiner's primary goal, stated frequently, was to reform the social sphere, and not save the old order.

* Steiner wished to reform social, economic and political life within Austria and Germany, and after failing to interest sufficient government officials, attempted to do so from the ground up through popular consensus. Steiner did not attempt to foist some reactionary scheme on enslaved people. How Peter Staudenmaier manages to come to this conception is simply incomprehensible to me. Steiner's efforts are well documented in over a dozen volumes of primary source material, and there are dozens of additional books and commentary that have been written on the subject over the past 80 years.