Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 105

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraphs 31 and 32 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

In the aftermath of the bloody world war, at the very moment of the greatest upheavals in history against the violence, misery, and exploitation of capitalism, Steiner emerged as an ardent defender of private profit, the concentration of property and wealth, and the unfettered market. Arguing vehemently against any effort to replace anti-social institutions with humane ones, Steiner proposed adapting his "threefold commonwealth" to the existing system of class domination. He could scarcely deny that the coarse economic despotism of his day was enormously damaging to human lives, but insisted that "private capitalism as such is not the cause of the damage":

"The fact that individual people or groups of people administer huge masses of capital is not what makes life anti-social, but rather the fact that these people or groups exploit the products of their administrative labor in an anti-social manner. [ . . . ] If management by capable individuals were replaced with management by the whole community, the productivity of management would be undermined. Free initiative, individual capabilities and willingness to work can not be fully realized within such a community. [ . . .] The attempt to structure economic life in a social manner destroys productivity." [Footnote: From an untitled lecture manuscript in Steiner's archive, reproduced in Walter Kugler, Rudolf Steiner und die Anthroposophie, Cologne 1978, pp. 199-200.]

 It is interesting to note that in any lengthier quote, no matter how chopped up, Steiner appears far more reasonable than in three-word mini-quotes carefully manipulated for maximum impact. In the above paragraph we hear an indignant Marxist decry Steiner's understanding that economics works best on the basis of capitalism. Yet Peter Staudenmaier fundamentally mischaracterizes Steiner's vision of capitalism. For Steiner it was most important that capitalism be humanized; he was explicitly against the unfettered market. Nowhere did Steiner propose adapting his Threefold Social Order to the then-current class system. He proposed a humanized society whose economy was to be run on the basis of capitalism, but restrained by an independent political system. Nor was his proposal specific to any one country; it had enthusiastic supporters in Great Britain, Holland and Scandinavia. This is not to imply that these countries would then suddenly merge into one. The idea of the Threefold Social Order is adaptable to any society large enough to be a country.