Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5627Threefold Social Order -Pt. 3 Commentary

Expand Messages
  • Durward Starman
    Dec 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      ******* Steiner began by saying that, where socialist theory believes that all that is necessary to do is to change the economic system, actually the problems come about when the economic sphere intrudes into the legal-political sphere (the state) and/or the spiritual/cultural sphere. Steiner then went on to say that the problem is never solved by having politicians take over the economy, because that destroys the individual initiative and talent that makes a modern economic system work, just as economic actors moving into politics will not judge according to rights only, as the political state must.  If instead we have the state never intrude into the economy but only judge on legal bases--- then it doesn't matter how much economic power this or that individual gathers, because it will only be usable in the economic sphere and can't corrupt the State. 
        He then goes on:

         "An obvious objection is that political and legal questions do after all arise in people's dealing with one another in business, so it is quite impossible to conceive of them as something distinct from economic life. Theoretically this is right enough, but it does not necessarily follow that in practice economic interests should be paramount in determining these legal relations. The manager who directs a business must necessarily have a legal relationship to manual workers in the same business; but this does not mean that he, as a business manager, is to have a say in determining what that relationship is to be. Yet he will have a say in it, and he will throw his economic predominance into the scales if economic cooperation and legal administration are conjoined. "



      *******In other words, as long as the political state acts on the basis of laws defined by IT, not the economic factors---the famous goddess of "blind justice" who judges all irrespective of position or wealth---there will be fairness; but not when the economic becomes entangled in the political.



      Steiner:

      "Only when laws are made in a field where business considerations cannot in any way come into question, and where business cannot gain any power over this legal system, will the two be able to work together in such a way that our sense of justice will not be violated, nor business acumen be turned into a curse instead of a blessing for the whole community.     

                                    

            When the economically powerful are in a position to use that power to wrest legal privileges for themselves, among the economically weak will grow a corresponding opposition to these privileges. As soon as it has become strong enough, such opposition will lead to revolutionary disturbances."



      *******So when the wealthy tip the scales of justice too much in their favor, it plants the seeds of revolution among the poor... as seen in the lead-up to the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution.... the problem was not wealth, but the wealthy influencing the political sphere.


      Steiner:

         "If the existence of a separate political and legal province makes it impossible for such privileges to arise, then disturbances of this sort cannot occur. What this special legal province does is to give constant orderly scope to those forces which, in its absence, accumulate until at last they vent themselves violently. Whoever wants to avoid revolutions should learn to establish a social order that shall accomplish in the steady flow of time what will otherwise try to realize itself in one historical moment.



      *******Then Steiner goes on to say that many would-be revolutionaries aren't really aware of what they're protesting, which is really the entanglement of the economy and the State...


           "It will be said that the immediate concern of the modern social movement is not legal relations, but rather the removal of economic inequalities. One must reply to such an objection that our conscious thoughts are not always the true expression of the real demands stirring within us. Our conscious thoughts are the outcome of immediate experience; but the demands themselves originate in far deeper strata that are not experienced immediately. And if one aims at bringing about conditions that can satisfy these demands, one must attempt to penetrate to these deeper strata. A consideration of the relations that have come about in modern times between industrial economy and law shows that the legal sphere has become dependent upon the economic. If one were to try superficially, by means of a one-sided alteration in the forms of economic life, to abolish those economic inequalities that the law's dependence on the economy has brought about, then in a very short while similar inequalities would inevitably result as long as the new economic order were again allowed to build up the system of rights out of itself."



      ******* As the elite class that took over the Soviet Union became just like the Czar--- or the new rich rulers in China today that are a new aristocracy....putting all the means of production in the hands of the state (communism) achieved nothing, because it just created a new corrupt legal system favoring a new elite.

          In other words, as Pete Townsend said about revolutions: "Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!"



         "One will never really touch what is working its way up through the social movement to the surface of modern life until one brings about social conditions in which, alongside the claims and interests of the economic life, those of politics and law can be realized and satisfied upon their own independent basis."


      *******People think it's only about economic giants and money, but it's about keeping the economic activities separate from the legal-political State. Putin keeps judges away from passing sentence upon his KGB murderers in Russia (like those that killed Magnitsky and all the reporters in Moscow who have died in 'unsolved' murders the past 10 years) the same as if he were a member of the old untouchable aristocracy. He crushed the independent oil company Yukos by a sham trial of its leader Khodorkovsky, to have the State take over the economic forces that were gaining freedom under Yeltsin. No independent judiciary and no independent economy= no freedom.


      To Be Continued....





    • Show all 9 messages in this topic