Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 100

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

I share Peter Staudenmaier's concern that "the threefold commonwealth" is not a good translation of "Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus." The most strictly accurate translation would be "The Tripartite Division of the Social Organism," but since that is a rather unwieldy translation the one currently used is "Threefold Social Order." "Commonwealth" was a choice of the British translators of the 1920's and is no longer used, either in the current translations or in conversation or writing among current-day anthroposophists. Only a very few old books even refer to the "Threefold Commonwealth", so by claiming that this phrase is common currency among anthroposophists Peter Staudenmaier shows just how unfamiliar he is with the entire field of discourse on the subject.

Calling human society an organism is hardly biologistic (defined as: using biological principles in explaining human especially social behavior). Biologism refers to individual behavior; the social organism refers to the behavior of a group or groups. Peter Staudenmaier is throwing the word in for its association to "deterministic," trying to subtly imply that Steiner's idea for social organization is a form of biological determinism. Such use of word-associations is a classic propagandist maneuver. However, Steiner is claiming that certain forms are naturally better suited to group interactions than others, based on his insights into group dynamics, and not on individual biological traits.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 99

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

Continuing to look at the origin of the concept behind Rudolf Steiner's Threefold Social Order, I should note that Steiner's thoughts had been directed to the questions of how to best form a social order by von Lerchenfeld's question and the discussions with von Lerchenfeld, and he took up the theme in his lectures. By the end of 1918 he was speaking of the need for social renewal quite frequently. With the collapse of the social order in Germany in late 1918 he increased the intensity of his lecturing. In April 1919 his book Die Kernpunket der sozialen Frage (The Crux of the Social Question) was published.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 98

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

Let us look first at the origin of the concept behind the Threefold Social Order:

Europe is in flames. The First World War has entered its final phase. It is May 1917. Otto von Lerchenfeld, a German diplomat in Berlin, was searching for ideas that might offer a basis for genuine peace once the war finally ended. He decided to turn to the once person whom he believed might have insights that could penetrate to the sources of the social sickness that underlay the war. The person to whom he turned was Rudolf Steiner, whose work he knew. Von Lerchenfeld made an appointment and poured out the despair in his heart, speaking of his realization that Germany and Middle Europe had allowed themselves to be driven into a dead end. Steiner listened intently, asked a few questions, and invited him to return the next day. The result was that these two men worked together daily for more than three weeks to hammer out two memoranda in which Rudolf Steiner presented the ideas that he believed could serve as a foundation for peace.

Von Lerchenfeld circulated the memoranda in the highest echelons of the German government. Somewhat later, through the interest of a mutual friend whose brother was then the cabinet chief of the old Austrian Emperor, the memoranda reached a few officials in the government of Austria-Hungary.*

This memorandum suggested that Central Europe offer peace on the basis of a social order based on the freedom of the individual, and that all social forms be freed from state control, establishing a free cultural life, truly a revolutionary idea for the time and place (though not unknown in the United States).** How Peter Staudenmaier turns a proposal for peace based a federalist system of autonomous social and cultural units and individual freedom into a dangerous theory to be imposed upon a conquered territory is simply incomprehensible.

* Barnes, Henry. A Life for the Spirit: Rudolf Steiner in the Crosscurrents of Our Time. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1997. Page 9.

** See Christoph Lindenberg. Rudolf Steiner: Eine Chronik. Stuttgart : 1988. Pages 614-620 for the full account.

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.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 96

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 29 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

In the midst of the war's senseless savagery, Steiner used his military and industrial connections to try to persuade German and Austrian elites of a new social theory of his, which he hoped to see imposed on conquered territories in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately for Steiner's plans, Germany and Austria-Hungary lost the war, and his dream went unrealized. But the new doctrine he had begun preaching serves to this day as the social vision of Anthroposophy. Conceived as an alternative to both Woodrow Wilson's self-determination program and the bolshevik revolution, Steiner gave this theory the unwieldy name "the tripartite structuring of the social organism" (Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus, often referred to in English-language anthroposophist literature as "the threefold commonwealth", a phrase which obscures Steiner's biologistic view of the social realm as an actual organism). Steiner wrote that "the social organism is structured like the natural organism" in his nationalist pamphlet from 1919, "Aufruf an das deutsche Volk und an die Kulturwelt." The pamphlet is quoted extensively in Walter Abendroth, Rudolf Steiner und die heutige Welt, Munich 1969, pp.122-123.] The three branches of this scheme, which resembles Mussolini's corporatist model, are the state (political, military, and police functions), the economy, and the cultural sphere. This last sphere encompasses "all judicial, educational, intellectual and spiritual matters," which are to be administered by "corporations," with individuals free to choose their school, church, court, etc.Quotes from Steiner as cited in Christoph Lindenberg, Rudolf Steiner, Hamburg 1992, pp. 111-112.]

So now we turn to Steiner's proposal for a Threefold Social Order. As is distressingly typical in this article, both the idea itself and the history surrounding it are factually incorrect. At this point this is not at all surprising, seeing as to how all four "Steiner" quotes are individual words taken from secondary sources. Peter Staudenmaier, it seems, has never attempted to understand Steiner's Threefold Social Order as Steiner explained it. Instead he has formed his opinion from four openly hostile secondary sources. It should thus surprise no one that his grasp of it is faulty.

As to Staudenmaier's footnotes in Paragraph 29, by citing secondary sources Peter Staudenmaier is again admitting to not having read the original. Quotes of quotes are the extent of his scholarship on Steiner. Little wonder, then, that he is so often in error. Lindenberg is a widely acknowledged expert on Steiner, and his two-volume biography published in 1998 is considered the most comprehensive yet. This earlier, and much shorter biography is also excellent. It yields to Peter Staudenmaier a sentence that is factually accurate, for once. In this paragraph, inasmuch as Peter Staudenmaier has quoted Steiner (from a secondary source) he has not distorted the original. That is, he has grasped the barest essentials of the concept of a three-part division of social life. The facile comparison to Mussolini is particularly superficial. Steiner's entire position is fundamentally antithetical to fascism, as fascists ideologues themselves have determined.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 95

Continuing my commentary on the 28th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Finally Peter Staudenmaier says, again without citations, that unnamed anthroposophists in the 1990's insist that Germany bears no responsibility for World War One, and it is implied, though not directly claimed, that they do this because Steiner said so. As is distressingly common in this piece, the footnotes for this section do not substantiate any of the claims (for example, none of them talk about the views of anthroposophists in the 1990's).

Most of paragraph 28 is unsubstantiated misrepresentation woven into a largely fictional narrative. The first quote is blatantly mistranslated (as I explained in part 91).

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 94

Continuing my commentary on the 28th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

For Peter Staudenmaier to make the historical judgment that Steiner railed against France with "rhetoric which matched that of Mein Kampf" would imply that he had read a sufficient amount of Steiner and Mein Kampf as to be able to compare the two. Had Peter Staudenmaier done this, he would perhaps notice that Steiner did not, in actual fact, rail against the French as is here claimed. The absence of any footnote indicating the source for this absurd statement is a fairly decent indication that Peter Staudenmaier has read very little of Steiner's own work. Indeed, we are not even told the secondary source from which Peter Staudenmaier might have borrowed this comparison. This fascist anti-French bigot is the same Rudolf Steiner who in 1919 chose French and English as the foreign languages to be taught in the first Waldorf School, and when asked why in 1924 explained:

"We have introduced French and English into the Waldorf School, because with French there is much to be learned from the inner quality of the language not found elsewhere, namely, a certain feeling for rhetoric, which it is very good to acquire; and English is taught because it is a universal world language, and will become so more and more."

Rudolf Steiner. The Kingdom of Childhood. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1995. Page139. It is in answer to the last question in the question and answer section of the lecture of August 20th, 1924.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 93

Continuing my commentary on the 28th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

For Steiner's alleged high praise for "German militarism," which we are told by the quotes in the text are Steiner's own words, I was not ably to find any evidence among the 90,000 pages of Steiner’s complete works, or among any other primary sources. Where Peter Staudenmaier might have picked this up remains unknown, since he did not cite his sources. In actual fact Steiner spoke out against militarism throughout the entire war, to audiences of all nationalities.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 92

Continuing my commentary on the 28th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Steiner's views on the origins of the First World War are complex, but flatly contrary to Peter Staudenmaier's claims included an acknowledgement of the imperialistic rivalry among the European powers, the unhealthy influence of fanatical nationalism – something Steiner opposed throughout his life – and unbounded militarism. Steiner also mentioned British Freemasons, but the influence Steiner attributes to them, while not insignificant, is also not decisive. I refer the interested reader to chapter 35 of Christoph Lindenberg's biography,* or Steiner's own statements on the subject, given among other places in a series of lectures titled "The Karma of Untruthfulness", a title that concisely summarizes Steiner's view of the ultimate cause of the conflagration.** Steiner lived through the war and spoke and wrote extensively on the subject.

* Lindenberg, Christoph. Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistes Leben, 1997 pages 572-587.

** To Steiner, nationalism and militarism were symptoms of an underlying materialistic trend that he felt was largely responsible for the course of the war. Steiner's relationship with the von Moltkes is well documented, and I refer the interested reader to the excellent book Light For The New Millennium; Rudolf Steiner's Association With Helmuth And Eliza von Moltke edited by T. H. Meyer, as well as Annika Mombauer's Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War (Cambridge University Press, 2001 pages 52, 53, 263, 264 and 274).

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 91

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 28 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Steiner was by his own account "enthusiastically active" in pan-German nationalist movements in Vienna at the end of the nineteenth century.[Footnote: Rudolf Steiner, Mein Lebensgang, Dornach 1983, p. 144.]* He saw world war one as part of an international "conspiracy against German spiritual life."[Footnote: Steiner quoted in Volkmar Wölk, "Neue Trends im ökofaschistischen Netzwerk" in Raimund Hethey and Peter Kratz, In Bester Gesellschaft, Göttingen 1991, p. 132.]** In Steiner's preferred explanation, it wasn't imperialist rivalry among colonial powers or fanatical nationalism or unbounded militarism or the competition for markets which caused the war, but British freemasons and their striving for world domination. Steiner was a personal acquaintance of General Helmuth von Moltke, chief of staff of the German high command; after Moltke's death in 1916 Steiner claimed to be in contact with his spirit and channeled the general's views on the war from the nether world. After the war Steiner had high praise for "German militarism" (his own term), and continued to rail against France, French culture, and the French language in rhetoric which matched that of Mein Kampf. In the 1990's anthroposophists were still defending Steiner's jingoist nonsense, insisting that Germany bore no responsibility for world war one and was a victim of the "West."

The above paragraph, should it prove true, would indeed paint a terrible picture of this Rudolf Steiner. But is it factually accurate? First, the quote "enthusiastically active" is based on a faulty translation. In the original, a paragraph in Steiner's autobiography, Steiner states, “At that time I took a lively interest in the battles that the Germans in Austria were fighting concerning their national existence.”*** As I described in the footnote, Peter Staudenmaier has mistranslated "lively interest" as "enthusiastically active". This is no minor point, and indicative of the type of writing that Peter Staudenmaier is engaged in: character assassination, not scholarship.

* Peter Staudenmaier has blatantly mistranslated this quote, even while citing the original German. See *** below.

** Yet again Peter Staudenmaier is lifting a short-phrase quote from a secondary source and constructed a damning portrait of Steiner’s complex position on a complex subject. Steiner addressed the origins of the war at length in numerous contexts. The scholarship on the issues is considerable, yet Peter Staudenmaier’s grasp of it is feeble. While Steiner did mention conspiracies and "secret societies" (but not Freemasons) as factors, he did not consider these the sole, or even principle, causes of the war. Freemasons show up because the Nazi's frequently blamed them, and this is supposed to make Steiner appear more Nazi. However, the Nazi's also blamed Steiner for the loss of the war, a point which Staudenmaier neglects.

*** The German reads: "Nun nahm ich damals an den nationalen Kämpfen lebhaften Anteil, welche die Deutschen in Österreich um ihre nationale Existenz führten.” (Steiner, Mein Lebensgang, Dornach 1925, p. 132) The phrase "Anteil... nehmen... an" - the phrase used in the sentence - is translated as "take an interest in;" or, if indicating sympathy, "sympathize with" (Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch, Berlin 1996, p. 807). Further, "lebhaft" as an adjective is translated "lively" when indicating interest or imagination (same dictionary, p. 1136) and I should note that by no definition given does it mean "deeply" or "enthusiastically," though both these would seem reasonable to a translator trying to improve the flow. So "enthusiastically active in" is widely off the mark, "deeply sympathetic" is also off the mark (individually each word could go that way, but together in the context of the sentence a far better alternative exists) and the straight dictionary translation would be: "At that time I took a lively interest in the battles that the Germans in Austria were fighting concerning their national existence." The verb in the sentence ("führten") refers strictly to the Germans, and Steiner's position was limited to his "lively interest" in the form of a prepositional phrase.

I should note that the phrase has been mistranslated in the 1978 English edition of Steiner's autobiography. Four other editions translate it correctly. Staudenmaier cited the original German, so this can't be an excuse.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 90

Continuing my commentary on the 27th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

To Mr. Peter Staudenmaier, because Steiner rejected Marxism he must have been a right-winger, since being apolitical is impossible (a classical Marxist stance). Thus Peter Staudenmaier invents a political affiliation for Steiner that Steiner would have flatly rejected: right wing reactionary. This rather facile approach to biography is only possible to a writer unfamiliar with the source material. In the political context in which Rudolf Steiner grew up - the declining Austro-Hungarian Empire - political participation was nearly impossible for the average person, and a substantial number of intellectuals, Steiner included, remained staunchly apolitical. The Empire was politically an autocracy like Russia, complete with an active secret police, and the number of offenses that could get you in trouble were many. Simply calling for a Constitution could at times get you locked up. When a parliament was formed, it was given only token power and was generally ineffective. Intelligent people could see through the illusion, and didn't waste their time participating. Instead they focused their energies on the one area where they had freedom: culture. The period saw one of the greatest explosions of cultural productivity in history. Steiner was part of this. Understanding this background, it is then comprehensible why Steiner remained apolitical throughout his life.

To talk of Rudolf Steiner's “mature” political vision presumes some form of gradual ripening. While Peter Staudenmaier weaves a compelling tapestry depicting Steiner’s maturation from racist through reactionary to nationalist bigot, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to Steiner’s actual biography.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 89

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 27 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

In the heady turn-of-the-century atmosphere, Steiner flirted for a while with left politics, and even shared a podium with revolutionary socialist Rosa Luxemburg at a workers' meeting in 1902. But Steiner consistently rejected any materialist or social analysis of capitalist society in favor of "looking into the soul" of fellow humans to divine the roots of the modern malaise. This facile approach to social reality was to reach fruition in his mature political vision, elaborated during the first world war. Steiner's response to the war was determined by the final, decisive component in his intellectual temperament: chauvinist nationalism.

Let us contrast Peter Staudenmaier's description of Steiner's "flirtation" with left politics with a description by Henry Barnes:

During these years Steiner was asked to give courses in history and public speaking at the Berlin Worker's School (Arbeitersbildungschule), founded by Karl Liebknecht in 1891. Steiner's view of history directly contradicted the Marxist view that dominated the Worker's School. To Marx, economic and material forces were the only realities involved in shaping the historical process. Cultural ideals, as expressed through intellectual life, art, and religion were only froth on the surface of historical reality. They were, in his view, unrealistic ideologies – merely bourgeois self-indulgences. Steiner made it clear to the school's executive committee that he had to lecture and teach entirely in accordance with his own views. The committee made no objection to this, and Steiner began an activity that gave him great satisfaction. In many of his pupils – mostly working men and women of mature years – he experienced a yearning for knowledge and an untapped vigor of soul that lived beneath the surface of their social-democratic, Marxist indoctrination.

That his teaching was very welcome is shown by the students' request that, in addition to his history and public speaking courses, he speak to them about the sciences as well. Steiner was eventually speaking to groups within and outside the school every night of the week.*

Steiner did not "flirt" with left-wing politics. Steiner held courses in an institution for the education of the proletariat, having first informed the directors that he opposed the Marxist interpretation of history. They hired him anyway, and he was the single most popular lecturer. He taught there for almost five years before being forced out by more doctrinaire functionaries. It was in this context that Steiner "shared a podium" – in the literal, and not ideological, sense – with Rosa Luxemburg in 1902.** The derisive “looking into the soul” quote is not cited, so the context cannot be examined.

* Barnes, Henry . A Life for the Spirit: Rudolf Steiner in the Crosscurrents of Our Time. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1997. Pages 70-72.

** Lindenberg, Christoph. Rudolf Steiner: Eine Biographie. Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistes Leben, 1997 pages 300-305.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 88

Continuing my commentary on the 26th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Hemleben, cited by Staudenmaier, carefully shows the extent and limits of Steiner's admiration for Haeckel, and demonstrates conclusively that Steiner never subscribed to the Monist platform. If Peter Staudenmaier is citing Hemleben to show that he has read extensively in the field, he might consider mentioning that Hemleben's work directly contradicts his own thesis. However, it is also possible that this book is mentioned only for its title (like Hans Mändl's Vom Geist des Nordens in his very first footnote) without  ever having glanced at its contents. The book is cited in Gasman as documenting the link between Steiner and Haeckel, but there is no evidence here or anywhere else that Peter Staudenmaier has seen it himself. That is dubius scholarship indeed, citing a book for its title when the contents actually contradict your thesis!