Well I ve been following this discussion for a while and will like to make a few comments. First I think it is imporatant to seperate the idea of the socialMessage 1 of 5 , Apr 11, 2000View SourceWell I've been following this discussion for a while and will like to
make a few comments.
First I think it is imporatant to seperate the idea of the social
threefold order from anthroposophy. Steiner clearly stated that you can't
be a anthroposoph without working for a social threefold order, BUT you can
work for the social threefold order without being an anthroposoph.
As I can see it you can even be a materialist, and come to the conclusion
that the threefolding is a good way of organizing society.
To label social threefolding with the political labels is impossible.
When you search Steiner at the right, he's at the left, when you seek him
atthe left, he's at the right :-) And that's the whole point, in certain
areas within social life we need the socialism, in others liberalism, in
others conservatism, aso aso.
To believe Social Threefolding and Anarcho-Capitalism/Minimalism is
closely related is a great misunderstanding. Do you use the same
translations of Steiners works over there as we do in Sweden ????????
I think it would be more correct to define Steiners views on economics
and cultural life as libertarian socialist, or social anarchist. With the
imporatant addition in social threefolding, which is the weak point in
libertarian socialism, the question about rights.
The problem concerning socialism is that you confuse the concept of
socialism, the true socialist impulse in the social life, with the
theoretical socialism created by Marx/Engels, and totally perverted by
Lenin. This has nothing to do with socialism or communism, what these
ideologists came up with can more correctly be defined as State-Capitalism.
Well, so what do Steiner says about capitalism in the economic life.
What is the key question for capitalism, well the ownership to the means of
production. Dear Starman, can you tell me what is said about that in the
works about social threefolding ????
You can be right that in the brotherhood in economics, Steiner wants a
free market, where producers and consumers in associations set the price.
But what can be bought and sold on this free market. A libertarian or
Anarcho-Capitalist, would say almost everything. Social Threefolding
clearly diminish this market to goods and services. A lot of things which
tody is in the economic life, and are bought and sold, doesn't belong
there. So they should be taken out of the economic life, but not in the
marxist way, by putting them under state control, no they belong either to
the free cultural life, or should be regulated through democratic right,
securing equal right for all. This is strongly opposed to capitalism. The
right to use land, means of production can't be bought and sold in the
treefold social order, which leads to the fact that noone through the
ownership to land, property or means of production have the power to buy
other peoples labor. As soon as a machine is produced and start producing,
it shakk no longer be owned, and you can't buy or sell the right to use it,
it is not owned by the state or private persons, the ownership is neither
Private-Capitalist or State-Capitalist, no it seizes to be owned, it is
owned by it's purpose, to produce for fullfilling needs, and it shall be
managed by those best capable of doing it for the common good. In
Private-Capitalism, this turns out to be the guys with most money in the
sack. In State-Capitalism it turns out to be the guys who understand to get
positions within the political system. In social threefold order it will be
the workers of the mind in cooperation with the workers of the hand, who in
solidarity produces for the benefit of the whole. Steiner never talks about
freedom in economics, he talks about brotherhood. !!!!
Now how about distribution of the wealth, this is not an economic
question, but a rights question. Steiner claims the truly communist view,
that each one should contribute according to his skills, and get according
to his needs. The value of your work and what you get paid, is thereby
totally seperated, and not regulated in a market process. Your work is a
free cultural contribution to the world, what you get paid is a right to
have your needs fulfilled. This is the true Christ impulse "give without
concerning about what you get". Needless to say this can never work, when
there is forces in economic life that have the power to take much without
contributing anything, either they are capitalists or political broilers.
Thx for the word
At 18:20 2000-04-10 -0400, you wrote:
> > ... theSören Groth
> > > ideas of the Threefold Social Order are distinctly Libertarian (separate
> > > economics from government, free education from State control, etc.)
> > [Are you sure there is any real correspondence between libertarianism and
> > threefold? I thought libertarians were near anarchists, wanting almost no
> > government (i.e. no rights sphere, no standard of equality).
> > *******There is a camp of anarcho-capitalists who think nothing is
> needed but
> > the free economic process, and a camp of minimalists, like myself, who
> > nothing is needed but that and a government for minimal purposes (i.e.,
> > national defense).
For a World Economy with Ecological and Social Responsibility
... Dear Danny, I agree I was making an oversimplification, and therefore used language in a way that really isn t quite justified. But the time constraintsMessage 1 of 5 , Apr 11, 2000View SourceDanny F. wrote:
> What is it Joel, or anybody else, 'karmically determined',Dear Danny,
> 'karmically impossible'?
I agree I was making an oversimplification, and therefore used language
in a way that really isn't quite justified. But the time constraints of
e-mail messages means that corners have to be cut. If I spent time
"explaining" every word usage, it would get real boring fast.
Clearly each individual biography has different causative factors of a
complicated and highly individualized nature. Factually we don't know these
factors in anyone, even ourselves.
I have spent some time looking at human existence and reading what
others have thought, and it is pretty much a fact to me that most people are
a mixed bag of good and evil, of a variety of capacities, and a variety of
intentions. Having worked in the field of psychology, and also having
worked a number of ordinary jobs, I have had many conversations with people,
over many years, during which I simply took an interest in who they were and
encouraged them to talk about themselves.
It becomes possible, over time, to see the art-work in the biography,
and to appreciate its truth, goodness and beauty. Most people I have come
to know in this way are struggling to become their better selves, each in
their own individual way. Following out Steiner's indication, in The Inner
Aspect of the Social Question, to learn to listen to the Christ Impulse in
the other's thinking, I have basically been able to observe that most people
are on a spiritual journey. It just doesn't take the form of something
highly intellectual, but is rather more grounded in practical struggles in
life. I have met many people of Michaelic courage and Christian love, who
would never use those terms to describe themselves, as these words are not
part of their ordinary vocabulary and conceptual frame of reference.
We know that Steiner anticipated several million souls to be incarnated
in the present, who experienced the Michael School during their last time in
the spiritual world between death and rebirth. Yet, formal anthroposophy is
less then 100,000 souls, of which a much smaller portion seeks to bring
forth the cognitive metamorphosis that is characteristic of the
anthroposophical path. At the same time it is possible to meet people whose
experience of the consciousness soul is fully developed, but who could never
speak of this lacking the language.
When I put this all together (along with a lot of other facts and
observations), I am unable to come to the conclusion that there is some
general failure in ordinary people made evidenced by the fact that they have
not come to spiritual science. In fact, if I was to look for failures, it
would be on Steiner himself, and many of his followers, for not having
planted the seeds in the appropriate social fashion. The Way of
Anthroposophy does not live in modern culture in the way that it might, and
one of the big problems with many of its adherents is the tendency to judge
and expect other people to live up to our ideal version of the world. The
fact is that most people struggle to live up to their own ideal version of
the world, and in the age of the consciousness soul, it is not only their
right to do so (spiritual freedom), but the real necessity of the time.
Spiritual Science is a few hundred years from appearing in the world in
such a way that ordinary people can justifiably be said to have a real
choice to engage in it. To think otherwise seems to me to be very
confused. A student of Steiner, who has divided the world up into those who
are spiritually scientific and those who are not, might need to reconsider
whether they understood anything Steiner wrote about spiritual freedom.
... Dear Danny, I did want to get into this a little more, because there is an issue here that might benefit from some clarity. The question I put to my ownMessage 1 of 5 , Apr 16, 2000View SourceDanny F. wrote:
> I think Steiner was relying on the strenght and content of hisDear Danny,
> discourse and the revelations he offered, we can't add to truth,
> we can only hope that it will be seen for what it is. If you are
> to reproach Steiner to not have planted the seeds in an appropriate
> social fashion, then you must also extend it to Christ-Jesus as well.
I did want to get into this a little more, because there is an issue
here that might benefit from some clarity.
The question I put to my own thinking is: Could Steiner form karma? I
am unable to conclude that he could not, which means that he could "error".
I do not see Steiner as so intimately linked with Christ, in the nature of
his (Steiner's) own being, that Christ's qualties are automatically
Steiner's biography shows clearly that he had to make many choices, and
that at times he was "blind" as to the consequences of his actions. He,
like all striving and suffering human beings, had to take "risks". We
assume that all his "choices" were perfect, and I believe this is a very
terrible illusion for anthroposophists to hold. I think he made choices and
that often agreeable results appeared, but that also there were consequences
that were not so agreeable, albeit often unintended.
It is also clear that those who attempted to follow him were also human
and made errors. These errors accumulate over time. Where Steiner may have
made a subtle social miscalculation, this becomes multiplied over time
through the acts of anthroposophists, who, assuming that following Steiner's
perfect mastery protects them, just make all kinds of mistakes because they
won't think for themselves.
This is all very clear if one follows in thought the history of the
Waldorf School movement through to its current state of crisis in America.
I would put Steiner's principle error as follows: Too much information
in order for freedom to manifest in accord with the realities expressed in
the Philosophy. By overwhelming the soul with his "indications", he creates
the very "unfreedom before the concept" the Philosophy tries to warn
against. Now in fairness, he did try to direct people away from the
lectures, but he ought to have seen that they were not going to do this, and
also that (since he clearly understood how people were treating him) they
would abuse this situtation in the future.
This is made all the more peculiar by his clear statements that he felt
the Philosophy would be his major legacy to the future.
Now in saying this I am not trying to drag Steiner down. The issue is
more subtle and has to do with whether the anthroposophical movement can
become awake to its difficulties with enough clarity to actually heal the
problems that have arisen over time, due to the natural accumulation of
error. The point is to go to the roots, to appreciate them, and then to see
how (through the Philosophy) to get Anthroposophy back on the right note in
the theme. Otherwise the rot at the core of the movement will consume the
good with the bad, as the left-hand brotherhoods seem clearly to want.
The whole thing has to do with whether we are going to "think", not just
meditatively, but to "think" about what we are doing, what it means and what
is really happening in the social interactions between the anthroposophical
impulse and the world who we are meant to serve. At present these matters
move forward with the most terrible unconsciousness, mostly promoted by the
situation in Dornach, where the left-hand brotherhoods have insinuated their
own servants right at the very top of the anthroposophical movements