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.

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.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 103

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 30 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

Anthroposophists consider this threefold structure to be "naturally ordained." [Footnote; Abendroth, p. 120.]* Its central axiom is that the modern integration of politics, economy and culture into an ostensibly democratic framework must falter because, according to Steiner, neither the economy nor cultural life can or should be structured democratically. The cultural sphere, which Steiner defined very broadly, is a realm of individual achievement where the most talented and capable should predominate. And the economy must never be subject to democratic public control because it would then collapse. Steiner's economic and political naiveté are encapsulated in his claim that capitalism "will become a legitimate capitalism if it is spiritualized."[Footnote: Steiner quoted in Thomas Divis, "Rudolf Steiner und die Anthroposophie" in ökoLinx #13 ( February 1994), p. 27.]**

* Peter Staudenmaier claims that Abendroth wrote of Steiner’s Threefold Social Order that it is "naturally ordained". Aside from the fact that the translation is by Peter Staudenmaier, the context has once again been obscured. Peter Staudenmaier would like to demonstrate a rigidity and harshness of worldview to anthroposophists that is simply not there. Steiner’s proposal itself is remarkably open and adaptable. It is couched on certain a priori premises, such as the fundamental right to individual freedom in the political sphere. If you “hold these truths to be self-evident” (borrowing from Jefferson) then it is proper to call Steiner’s view “naturally ordained”. It is “naturally ordained” that individuals should be free. If, on the other hand, you claim that economic exploitation is a requirement of Steiner’s political vision then you have simply not studied Steiner.

** This eight-word quote is not nearly as disturbing as Peter Staudenmaier would make it. If you consider it for even a moment it makes perfect sense. The basis of western liberal capitalism is that government regulation is necessary to preserve human values (spiritual beliefs and fundamental human rights) from unfettered capitalism, the very point Steiner was making that Staudenmaier calls naive. In fact, whenever Peter Staudenmaier quotes Steiner for more than a few words Steiner comes off as remarkably cogent.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 102

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

Regarding Steiner's relationship to fascism two points should be mentioned. The first is the attack by Adolf Hitler on Steiner and Steiner's Threefold Social Order in 1921. Steiner's proposed social reforms were decried as "one of the many completely Jewish methods of destroying the peoples’ normal state of mind"*. Hitler had a number of reasons for disliking Steiner. Steiner's Threefold Social Order was a real alternative at the time, and as such was a threat to Hitler's "national" socialism. Indeed every aspect of Steiner' philosophy is antithetical to Nazi fascism. This is evident in the second point:

"Which social forms can be the only acceptable ones if all social development is tending towards individualization? The answer cannot be too difficult. Any state or society that regards itself as an end in itself has to aim for control over the individual, regardless of the way in which such control is exercised, whether it be an absolutist, constitutional or republican manner. As long as the state no longer regards itself as an end in itself, but as a means towards an end, the principle of state control will no longer be emphasized. All arrangements will be made in such a way that the individual receives the greatest scope. The greatest ideal of the state will not be the control of anything. It will be a community that wants nothing for itself, everything for the individual."

This is Steiner writing in 1898, 35 years before Hitler took power in Germany. Contrast this with the basic description of fascism from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"… fascism extolled the supreme sovereignty of the nation as an absolute. It demanded the revival of the spirit of the ancient polis (city-state), above all of Sparta with its discipline and total devotion to duty, and of the complete coordination of all intellectual and political thought and activities against modern individualism and scientific skepticism."***

Steiner flatly rejected the very premise of fascism. Little wonder the Anthroposophical Society in Germany was banned shortly after the Nazi's seized power.

* Hitler, Adolf. Völkische Beobachter. 15 Mar 1921.

** Steiner, Rudolf. Social and Political Science. Ed. Stephen Usher. Forest Row, UK: Sophia Books, 2003. Pages 32-33.

*** Kohn, Hans. "Fascism". Encyclopedia Britannica. 2002 ed. CD-ROM. New York: Britannica, 2002.

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 101

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

In Staudenmaier's essay, a superficial comparison to Mussolini furthers the association of Steiner with fascism. However, Steiner's presentation predates Mussolini by 20 years and bears only superficial resemblances. But to Peter Staudenmaier a superficial similarity is always a major point if it serves to put Steiner in a negative light. In the sentence-and-a-half that actually describes Steiner's proposed social order it becomes clear that the idea itself is hardly earth shattering. As I have shown in previous posts, Steiner was fundamentally opposed to fascism, and target as an enemy by early fascists such as Adolph Hitler.