Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 104

Continuing my commentary on the 30th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner conceived of the Threefold Social Order out of the questions that were put to him, and from a sense for what could serve as a fair and free basis for human society. Flatly counter to Peter Staudenmaier’s claim, Steiner did not predict the failure of democracy. Had he done this it would place him in the company of any number of political reactionaries – among them the early Nazis. This is clearly Peter Staudenmaier’s intention. But Steiner clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly called for individual equality to be the basis of any political system. Steiner also called for political - that is democratic - control of the economy as a whole. That is, Steiner considered the details of working conditions, contracts between workers and employers, hours worked, and so forth to be political decisions, decisions to be reached in the political sphere on the basis of equality and then dictated to businesses. Firms would have to accept political decisions about working conditions in the same way that today US businesses have to accept minimum wage and overtime laws. Steiner’s analogy was that politically-imposed working conditions in his Threefold Social Order would have to be taken as a given in the same way that the length of the growing season or the availability of raw materials in a region is factored as a given. At the same time Steiner predicted that if all business decisions were subject to a majority vote of all workers, such a business would fail. Steiner felt that meritocracy was the most efficient way to run a business, while emphasizing the need for fair working conditions and equitable compensation. By moving the word order around, Peter Staudenmaier has misrepresented Steiner and painted him a heartless radical libertarian and anti-socialist, positions distant from Steiner’s own views.

Peter Staudenmaier’s point in this paragraph is actually quite illogical. Steiner is claiming that with greater concern for individual well-being, capitalism can be improved. This is the same fundamental assumption that underlies all current western capitalist societies. It is the philosophical basis for any and all regulation of business by government. Yet in articulating this belief Steiner is supposedly demonstrating political naiveté. This simply does not follow.

Steiner’s astute views on politics, economics, and culture are nothing like those attributed to him by Peter Staudenmaier.