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

Threefold Social Order -1

Expand Messages
  • Durward Starman
    ******* We ll begin this Holy Nights study with the first part of an article Steiner wrote on hisideas for the healthy working of society in 3 spheres. The
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 24, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      ******* We'll begin this Holy Nights study with the first part of an article Steiner wrote on his
      ideas for the healthy working of society in 3 spheres. The article is entitled "Culture, Law, and Economy" and was published in Sept. 1919. I'm going to take it section by section, but I'll put the entire article in the Files section for anyone who wants to read the whole.

      Culture, Law and Economy
      by Rudolf Steiner Sept. 1919


           "In the present social movement there is a great deal of talk about social
      institutions, but very little talk about social and antisocial human beings.
      Very little regard is paid to the "social question" that arises when one
      considers that institutions in a community take their social or antisocial stamp
      from the people who run them. Socialist thinkers expect to see in the
      community's control of the means of production something that will satisfy the
      demands of a wide range of people. They take for granted that, under communal
      control of the economy, human relations will necessarily assume a social form as
      well. They have seen that the economic system along the lines of private
      capitalism has led to antisocial conditions. They believe that when this
      industrial system has disappeared, the antisocial tendencies at work within it
      will also necessarily come to an end.
      .
      .     Undoubtedly, along with the modern private capitalist form of industrial
      economy there have arisen social evils — evils that embrace the widest range of
      social life; but is this in any way a proof that they are a necessary
      consequence of this industrial system? An industrial system can, in and of
      itself, do nothing beyond putting men into life situations that enable them to
      produce goods for themselves or for others in a more or less efficient manner.
      The modern industrial system has brought the means of production under the power
      of individual persons or groups. The achievements of technology were such that
      the best use could be made of them by a concentration of industrial and economic
      power. So long as this power is employed in the one field — the production of
      goods alone — its social effect is essentially different from what it is when
      this power oversteps its bounds and trespasses into the fields of law or
      culture. It is this trespassing into the other fields that, in the course of the
      last few centuries, has led to the social evils that the modern social movement
      is striving to abolish."

      To Be Continued....
      Commentary to follow.


    • Durward Starman
      Dr. Steiner: In the present social movement there is a great deal of talk about socialinstitutions, but very little talk about social and antisocial human
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 24, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Dr. Steiner:

             "In the present social movement there is a great deal of talk about social
        institutions, but very little talk about social and antisocial human beings.
        Very little regard is paid to the "social question" that arises when one
        considers that institutions in a community take their social or antisocial stamp
        from the people who run them. Socialist thinkers expect to see in the
        community's control of the means of production something that will satisfy the
        demands of a wide range of people. They take for granted that, under communal
        control of the economy, human relations will necessarily assume a social form as
        well. They have seen that the economic system along the lines of private
        capitalism has led to antisocial conditions. They believe that when this
        industrial system has disappeared, the antisocial tendencies at work within it
        will also necessarily come to an end.
        .
        .     Undoubtedly, along with the modern private capitalist form of industrial
        economy there have arisen social evils — evils that embrace the widest range of
        social life; but is this in any way a proof that they are a necessary
        consequence of this industrial system? An industrial system can, in and of
        itself, do nothing beyond putting men into life situations that enable them to
        produce goods for themselves or for others in a more or less efficient manner.
        The modern industrial system has brought the means of production under the power
        of individual persons or groups. The achievements of technology were such that
        the best use could be made of them by a concentration of industrial and economic
        power. So long as this power is employed in the one field — the production of
        goods alone — its social effect is essentially different from what it is when
        this power oversteps its bounds and trespasses into the fields of law or
        culture. It is this trespassing into the other fields that, in the course of the
        last few centuries, has led to the social evils that the modern social movement
        is striving to abolish..."

        Commentary:

        *******For those who have not yet run across it, one of the heritages left to us from Steiner's work is his ideas about organizing society to ensure justice and stability. In the last seven year cycle of his life, something which had always been in his work became very explicit -- -- -- the teaching of the threefoldness of everything. This is because this final seven-year cycle was ruled by Saturn, which governs the basic structure of the universe, time and space, all of which are threefold (past present and future, lane width and height, positive negative and neutral etc.). His teaching of threefold man which underlies anthroposophical medicine dates from this time; he first published this in his book The Riddles of Man in 1916. Two years later, the First World War came to an end, bringing chaos to Germany; it was then revealed to Steiner how these same three principles could be used to ensure a healthy society, and he wrote his book The Threefold Social Order at this time and gave numerous lectures, trying to get these ideas adopted. In fact, the first Waldorf school was intended to be started as part of this social movement, but, despite his best efforts, within a few years it became clear that the political will was not there to take up his social order ideas, and the school was begun on its own.

           In the 90 years or so since that time, many anthroposophists have talked and written about these ideas, and in some communities an attempt at this threefold organization has been made. Speaking for myself, two of the things which make me the saddest are that, first, the spontaneous experiences of Christ in the etheric which Steiner predicted have been going on since the 1930s but, primarily because of reincarnation, there is almost no communication between these "born-again" Christians and the anthroposophical movement; and second, that almost all the writers I encounter discussing Steiner's social ideas are socialists or communists, which is an ideology flatly the opposite of what he tried to bring into the world, as will be clear in this article. In fact, here in the United States, almost all the people involved with the Waldorf schools and the anthroposophical movement are leftists, & his ideas are routinely mischaracterized or completely distorted to support alien political views. Instead of these distortions, here you can see Steiner's ideas clearly stated.

          He begins by making the point which 70 years of experimenting in the Soviet Union has now proven, that, one doesn't only need to rearrange the external conditions of life in order to make human beings different. This is the point of view of Marx's dialectical materialism, that the only thing that matters is physical objects and the economic system which produces and distributes them. Just change that and everything will be wonderful, was the religion of Marxism-Leninism, and as life got worse and worse in Russia or in China, people were forced to pretend it was still working and the entire society became dishonest and corrupt. What causes strife between people is when human beings are antisocial, Steiner says, and all the socialist theory which says the problem is the means of production and all you have to do is get hold of that to change things IGNORES THE HUMAN BEING IN HIS REALITY, HIS INNER SELF. It was always assumed, and still is by leftists, that Man is a "tabula rasa", a blank slate, at birth, and can be shaped into whatever society desires. So, change the external society around human beings and you get all new types of human beings. If there is inequality of wealth and material goods, have the government take over the economic system and distribute everything fairly, and everybody will be equal and happy. But Steiner says this is looking only at the economic part of society, the production and distribution of goods using modern industrial technology. Has this part of society truly caused the social evils that people object to? Must modern industrial society necessarily cause evil? 

           No, Steiner answers. It is neutral. It's what we human beings bring into existence to most efficiently distribute goods. The concentration of industrial power into a few large businesses always will be found to be necessary for the most efficient use of technology: the "best use" could be made of them by this concentration, he says, contradicting the mantra of leftists about "big corporations". Industry is not the source of problems, nor largeness. THE PROBLEMS BEGIN WHEN THE ECONOMIC SPHERE INTRUDES INTO THE POLITICAL STATE (AND VICE VERSA, AS WE SHALL SEE).

        To Be Continued...




      • juancompostella
        We must ask ourselves: What is the relation between people with regard to social and anti-social forces? We need to see that the relationship between people
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 24, 2012
        • 0 Attachment

          "We must ask ourselves: What is the relation between people with regard to social and anti-social forces? We need to see that the relationship between people is fundamentally a complicated matter. When one person meets another, I would say we must look into the situation radically. Meetings of course point to differences which vary according to specific circumstances; but we must fix our eyes on the common characteristics, we must clearly see the common elements in the meeting, in the confrontation between one person and another. We must ask ourselves: What really happens then, not merely in that which presents itself to the senses, but in the total situation, when one person stands opposite another, when one person meets another? Nothing less than that a certain force works from one person to the other. The meeting of one with another leads to the working of a certain force between them. We cannot confront another person in life with indifference, not even in mere thoughts and feelings, even though we may be separated from them by distance. If we have any kind of relation to other people, or any communication with them, then a force flows between us creating a bond. It is this fact which lies at the basis of social life and which, when broadened, is really the foundation for the social structure of humanity.

          One sees this phenomenon most clearly when one thinks of the direct interchange between two people. The impression which one person makes on the other has the effect of lulling the other to sleep. Thus we frequently find in social life that one person gets lulled to sleepiness by the other with whom he has interchange. As a physicist might say: a "latent tendency" is always there for one man to lull another to sleep in social relationships."

          http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/SocFor_index.html

           

          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
          >
          > Dr. Steiner:
          > "In the present social movement there is a great deal of talk about socialinstitutions, but very little talk about social and antisocial human beings.Very little regard is paid to the "social question" that arises when oneconsiders that institutions in a community take their social or antisocial stampfrom the people who run them. Socialist thinkers expect to see in thecommunity's control of the means of production something that will satisfy thedemands of a wide range of people. They take for granted that, under communalcontrol of the economy, human relations will necessarily assume a social form aswell. They have seen that the economic system along the lines of privatecapitalism has led to antisocial conditions. They believe that when thisindustrial system has disappeared, the antisocial tendencies at work within itwill also necessarily come to an end... Undoubtedly, along with the modern private capitalist form of industrialeconomy there have arisen social evils — evils that embrace the widest range ofsocial life; but is this in any way a proof that they are a necessaryconsequence of this industrial system? An industrial system can, in and ofitself, do nothing beyond putting men into life situations that enable them toproduce goods for themselves or for others in a more or less efficient manner.The modern industrial system has brought the means of production under the powerof individual persons or groups. The achievements of technology were such thatthe best use could be made of them by a concentration of industrial and economicpower. So long as this power is employed in the one field — the production ofgoods alone — its social effect is essentially different from what it is whenthis power oversteps its bounds and trespasses into the fields of law orculture. It is this trespassing into the other fields that, in the course of thelast few centuries, has led to the social evils that the modern social movementis striving to abolish..."
          > Commentary:
          > *******For those who have not yet run across it, one of the heritages left to us from Steiner's work is his ideas about organizing society to ensure justice and stability. In the last seven year cycle of his life, something which had always been in his work became very explicit -- -- -- the teaching of the threefoldness of everything. This is because this final seven-year cycle was ruled by Saturn, which governs the basic structure of the universe, time and space, all of which are threefold (past present and future, lane width and height, positive negative and neutral etc.). His teaching of threefold man which underlies anthroposophical medicine dates from this time; he first published this in his book The Riddles of Man in 1916. Two years later, the First World War came to an end, bringing chaos to Germany; it was then revealed to Steiner how these same three principles could be used to ensure a healthy society, and he wrote his book The Threefold Social Order at this time and gave numerous lectures, trying to get these ideas adopted. In fact, the first Waldorf school was intended to be started as part of this social movement, but, despite his best efforts, within a few years it became clear that the political will was not there to take up his social order ideas, and the school was begun on its own.
          > In the 90 years or so since that time, many anthroposophists have talked and written about these ideas, and in some communities an attempt at this threefold organization has been made. Speaking for myself, two of the things which make me the saddest are that, first, the spontaneous experiences of Christ in the etheric which Steiner predicted have been going on since the 1930s but, primarily because of reincarnation, there is almost no communication between these "born-again" Christians and the anthroposophical movement; and second, that almost all the writers I encounter discussing Steiner's social ideas are socialists or communists, which is an ideology flatly the opposite of what he tried to bring into the world, as will be clear in this article. In fact, here in the United States, almost all the people involved with the Waldorf schools and the anthroposophical movement are leftists, & his ideas are routinely mischaracterized or completely distorted to support alien political views. Instead of these distortions, here you can see Steiner's ideas clearly stated.
          > He begins by making the point which 70 years of experimenting in the Soviet Union has now proven, that, one doesn't only need to rearrange the external conditions of life in order to make human beings different. This is the point of view of Marx's dialectical materialism, that the only thing that matters is physical objects and the economic system which produces and distributes them. Just change that and everything will be wonderful, was the religion of Marxism-Leninism, and as life got worse and worse in Russia or in China, people were forced to pretend it was still working and the entire society became dishonest and corrupt. What causes strife between people is when human beings are antisocial, Steiner says, and all the socialist theory which says the problem is the means of production and all you have to do is get hold of that to change things IGNORES THE HUMAN BEING IN HIS REALITY, HIS INNER SELF. It was always assumed, and still is by leftists, that Man is a "tabula rasa", a blank slate, at birth, and can be shaped into whatever society desires. So, change the external society around human beings and you get all new types of human beings. If there is inequality of wealth and material goods, have the government take over the economic system and distribute everything fairly, and everybody will be equal and happy. But Steiner says this is looking only at the economic part of society, the production and distribution of goods using modern industrial technology. Has this part of society truly caused the social evils that people object to? Must modern industrial society necessarily cause evil?
          > No, Steiner answers. It is neutral. It's what we human beings bring into existence to most efficiently distribute goods. The concentration of industrial power into a few large businesses always will be found to be necessary for the most efficient use of technology: the "best use" could be made of them by this concentration, he says, contradicting the mantra of leftists about "big corporations". Industry is not the source of problems, nor largeness. THE PROBLEMS BEGIN WHEN THE ECONOMIC SPHERE INTRUDES INTO THE POLITICAL STATE (AND VICE VERSA, AS WE SHALL SEE).
          > To Be Continued...
          >

        • Durward Starman
          ******* After his opening statement that, where socialist theory tries to identify all the problems in society as stemming from the economic sphere, and
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 25, 2012
          • 0 Attachment

            ******* After his opening statement that, where socialist theory tries to identify all the problems in society as stemming from the economic sphere, and believes that all that is necessary is to change that, actually the problems come about when the economic sphere intrudes into the legal or political sphere (the state) or the spiritual/cultural sphere---then Steiner goes on:.


               "So long as this power is employed in the one field — the production of goods alone — its social effect is essentially different from what it is when this power oversteps its bounds and trespasses into the fields of law or culture. It is this trespassing into the other fields that, in the course of the last few centuries, has led to the social evils that the modern social movement is striving to abolish. He who possesses the means of production acquires economic power over others. This economic power has resulted in the capitalist allying himself with the powers of government, whereby he is able to procure other advantages in society, opposing those who were economically dependent on him — advantages which, even in a democratically constituted state, are in practice of a legal nature. This economic domination has led to a similar monopolization of the cultural life by those who held economic power.


                The simplest thing would seem to be to get rid of this economic predominance of individuals, and thereby do away with their dominance in the spheres of rights and spiritual culture as well. One arrives at this “simplicity” of social thought when one fails to remember that the combination of technological and economic activity afforded by modern life necessitates allowing the most fruitful possible development of individual initiative and personal talent within the business community. The form production must take under modern conditions makes this a necessity. The individual cannot bring his abilities to bear in business if in his work and decision-making he is tied down to the will of the community. However dazzling is the thought of the individual producing not for himself but collectively for society, its justice within certain bounds should not hinder one from also recognizing the other truth — collectively, society is incapable of giving birth to economic schemes that can be realized through individuals in the most desirable way. Really practical thought, therefore, will not look to find the cure for social ills in a reshaping of economic life that would substitute communal production for private management of the means of production. Rather, the endeavor should be to forestall evils that may spring up along with management by individual initiative and personal talent, without impairing this management itself. This is possible only if neither the legal relationship among those engaged in industry, nor that which the spiritual-cultural sphere must contribute, are influenced by the interests of industrial and economic life.


                It cannot be said that those who manage the business of economic life can, while occupied by economic interests, preserve sound judgment on legal affairs and that, because their experience and work have made them well acquainted with the requirements of economic life, they will therefore be best able to settle legal matters that may arise within the workings of the economy. To hold such an opinion is to overlook the fact that a sphere of life calls forth interests arising only within that sphere. Out of the economic sphere one can develop only economic interests. If one is called out of this sphere to produce legal judgments as well, then these will merely be economic interests in disguise. Genuine political interests can only grow upon the field of political life, where the only consideration will be what are the rights of a matter. And if people proceed from such considerations to frame legal regulations, then the law thus made will have an effect upon economic life. It will then be unnecessary to place restrictions on the individual in respect to acquiring economic power; for such economic power will only result in his rendering economic services proportionate to his abilities — not in his using it to obtain special rights and privileges in social life."




          • Durward Starman
            ******* After his opening statement that, where socialist theory tries to identify all the problems in society as stemming from the economic sphere and
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 25, 2012
            • 0 Attachment


               


              ******* After his opening statement that, where socialist theory tries to identify all the problems in society as stemming from the economic sphere and believes that all that is necessary to do is to change that, actually the problems come about when the economic sphere intrudes into the legal/political sphere (the state) or the spiritual/cultural sphere--- Steiner goes on:

                 "So long as this power is employed in the one field — the production of goods alone — its social effect is essentially different from what it is when this power oversteps its bounds and trespasses into the fields of law or culture. It is this trespassing into the other fields that, in the course of the last few centuries, has led to the social evils that the modern social movement is striving to abolish. He who possesses the means of production acquires economic power over others. This economic power has resulted in the capitalist allying himself with the powers of government, whereby he is able to procure other advantages in society, opposing those who were economically dependent on him — advantages which, even in a democratically constituted state, are in practice of a legal nature. This economic domination has led to a similar monopolization of the cultural life by those who held economic power.


                  The simplest thing would seem to be to get rid of this economic predominance of individuals, and thereby do away with their dominance in the spheres of rights and spiritual culture as well. One arrives at this “simplicity” of social thought when one fails to remember that the combination of technological and economic activity afforded by modern life necessitates allowing the most fruitful possible development of individual initiative and personal talent within the business community. The form production must take under modern conditions makes this a necessity. The individual cannot bring his abilities to bear in business if in his work and decision-making he is tied down to the will of the community. However dazzling is the thought of the individual producing not for himself but collectively for society, its justice within certain bounds should not hinder one from also recognizing the other truth — collectively, society is incapable of giving birth to economic schemes that can be realized through individuals in the most desirable way. Really practical thought, therefore, will not look to find the cure for social ills in a reshaping of economic life that would substitute communal production for private management of the means of production. Rather, the endeavor should be to forestall evils that may spring up along with management by individual initiative and personal talent, without impairing this management itself. This is possible only if neither the legal relationship among those engaged in industry, nor that which the spiritual-cultural sphere must contribute, are influenced by the interests of industrial and economic life.


                  It cannot be said that those who manage the business of economic life can, while occupied by economic interests, preserve sound judgment on legal affairs and that, because their experience and work have made them well acquainted with the requirements of economic life, they will therefore be best able to settle legal matters that may arise within the workings of the economy. To hold such an opinion is to overlook the fact that a sphere of life calls forth interests arising only within that sphere. Out of the economic sphere one can develop only economic interests. If one is called out of this sphere to produce legal judgments as well, then these will merely be economic interests in disguise. Genuine political interests can only grow upon the field of political life, where the only consideration will be what are the rights of a matter. And if people proceed from such considerations to frame legal regulations, then the law thus made will have an effect upon economic life. It will then be unnecessary to place restrictions on the individual in respect to acquiring economic power; for such economic power will only result in his rendering economic services proportionate to his abilities — not in his using it to obtain special rights and privileges in social life."


              Commentary:


                ******* In the first part, Steiner says there's nothing inherently wrong with our economic system of industry and technology, nor even with the concentration of such industry in large companies---in fact that this is necessary for the industrial economy to work best. A Bill Gates or a Steve Jobs can work no evil as a captain of industry. To people who think objectively, this is obvious because, contrary to the leftist denunciations of "big corporations" and such, the heads of large businesses can do nothing economically except supply what consumers demand: a popular rabble-rousing filmmaker started his career in the 1980s with a film denouncing the head of General Motors, but who considers General Motors as a tremendous economic power today? They kept trying to sell big cars in the US when consumers wanted small ones, and so the Japanese took over the market and GM eventually filed for bankruptcy. There can be no monopolization of power purely in the economic sphere because the consumer is king: businesses produce what the market wants, and are followers, not leaders. (I could produce 100 examples here besides the Detroit auto industry to counter the left-wing canard that modern-day businesses are so big that they manipulate people into buying whatever they want to produce; for instance, the music industry kept trying to sell eight-track tapes when the market wanted to go towards cassettes, the cable television industry is trying to hold on to consumers right now when Internet TV is inevitable, the largest seller of organically grown food in the United States last year was Wal-Mart, etc.)


                 Problems arise because wealthy people and businesses intrude into the political sphere or the cultural sphere. The political state, here in the US and in many other countries, is quite properly dominated to a large degree by lawyers, because it is essentially legal in its nature: the courts settle whether one man in the free exercise of his powers has infringed on the rights of another man, and attached to this are the jails and the lawmakers and law enforcers. But when large economic powers get involved with the state, they buy preferential treatment for themselves. This is the root of the problem, not the economic powers themselves, but that they are allowed to influence the political state. Since the 1970s here in the United States this has been the fundamental teaching of the libertarian movement, that the problem is that we have given the political state too much power to pass laws affecting the economic sphere, especially since the 1930s. This invites the moneyed interests to bribe legislatures to pass laws favorable to them. If we simply passed laws saying that the political state could have no influence over economic matters -- -- -- as things once were, when it was known as laissez-faire economics -- -- -- then the titans of industry would never bribe lawmakers because those politicians could do nothing to benefit them. In other words, in Steiner's view the political state must be kept as separate as possible from the economic sphere. (This is of course the diametric opposite to socialism and communism and all leftism, which wants ever more control of the free market by the government; yet so many people studying Steiner hold leftist views and pretend to be acquainted with his threefold social order ideas!)


                 Steiner directly addresses this foolishness of simpleminded Marxism in the second paragraph above. "Have the government take over all industry and run it all, and then there will be no more titans of industry!" is the socialist mantra.  Unfortunately, he points out (as so many have) that there will also be no more industry!  "(T)he combination of technological and economic activity afforded by modern life necessitates allowing the most fruitful possible development of individual initiative and personal talent within the business community. The form production must take under modern conditions makes this a necessity. The individual cannot bring his abilities to bear in business if in his work and decision-making he is tied down to the will of the community." You might not be reading this now and there might not be personal computers and the Internet, were it not for individuals like Steve Jobs being free to use their talents and abilities without being directed by the government, tied down by rules and regulations. The political state is completely unsuited for running the economic sphere. Just look at your interactions with businesses, and compare them to your interaction with government: where do you have to wait on line the longest? Which is the less efficient, the Department of Motor Vehicles or your local restaurant?


                 Steiner goes on: "However dazzling is the thought of the individual producing not for himself but collectively for society, its justice within certain bounds should not hinder one from also recognizing the other truth — collectively, society is incapable of giving birth to economic schemes that can be realized through individuals in the most desirable way. Really practical thought, therefore, will not look to find the cure for social ills in a reshaping of economic life that would substitute communal production for private management of the means of production. Rather, the endeavor should be to forestall evils that may spring up along with management by individual initiative and personal talent, without impairing this management itself. This is possible only if neither the legal relationship among those engaged in industry, nor that which the spiritual-cultural sphere must contribute, are influenced by the interests of industrial and economic life."

               

                 The creative individual such as the entrepreneur, the man who starts up small businesses, does so in response to what lives within him, not at the will of a collective (as we were discussing here in relation to the philosopher Ayn Rand a few months ago). And he will do so only if he expects to be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor, not to be treated as a mere serf obeying the dictates of society as a whole. No, all schemes to take over the economic sphere must fail, because it must be run according to economic principles known by the actors in that sphere, not the political state. But it must be kept within its proper bounds; it is just as wrong to have bankers brought in to run the political state ( but we don't know any president would do that, do we? Anyone know how to say Goldman Sachs?), because their legal judgments will just be disguised economic judgments. In the next section, Steiner will go into more detail about how to keep a healthy economic life going while preventing this from having negative effects on the two other spheres, the political and cultural.


              To Be Continued...





            • Durward Starman
              ******* Steiner began by saying that, where socialist theory tries to identify all the problems in society as stemming from the economic sphere, and believes
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 26, 2012
              • 1 Attachment
              • 76 KB

              ******* Steiner began by saying that, where socialist theory tries to identify all the problems in society as stemming from the economic sphere, and believes that all that is necessary to do is to change that, actually the problems come about when the economic sphere intrudes into the legal-political sphere (the state) 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 legal-political state must. Thus no socialist kind of solution does anything but make matters worse. If instead we do the opposite of having the state intrude into the economy--- namely make sure the state can only judge on legal bases--- then it doesn't matter how much economic power this or that individual gathers: 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. 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. 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.

              .

                   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. 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."


              To Be Continued....

              And Commentary to follow.



            • Durward Starman
              ******* 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
              Message 7 of 9 , 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....





              • juancompostella
                Steiner gave lectures about four months after this article from September 1919, in which he shows a very interesting diagram in the last lecture, given on
                Message 8 of 9 , Dec 26, 2012
                • 0 Attachment

                  Steiner gave lectures about four months after this article from September 1919, in which he shows a very interesting diagram in the last lecture, given on December 15, 1919.  Herein, the flow is from left to right, or East to West, and wherein the 'Spiritual Life' must  become the prominent theme of life again.  I thought to present it again because of this very interesting discourse on these 12 Holy Nights

                  http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/MystLight/19191215p01.html

                  A "ball of yarn" is described in these complex interactions, and thanks to Starman for making the effort on these Holy Nights.  I see it as an effort at social interaction, which is why I made the comment about the prevailing anti-social forces working in the world at this time. 

                  It seems to me that this is the first obstacle that will have to be resolved in order that threefolding  might have a chance of success.  Self-protection will only enable those with controlling aims to rule, which equates to why the 'Economic Life' rules the world today.  Spiritual Science exists for a reason.

                  Juan

                  Diagram 13

                   

                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman wrote:
                  >
                  > ******* 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....
                  >

                • Durward Starman
                  I was pondering what Steiner wrote: When the economically powerful are in a position to use that power to wrest legal privileges for themselves, among the
                  Message 9 of 9 , Dec 27, 2012
                  • 1 Attachment
                  • 1 MB
                  I was pondering what Steiner wrote:
                      "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."

                  And I remembered this song....

                  Corruption of the legal system by the economic---preferential treatment in court for the wealthy, Exhibit A:

                  Bob Dylan-The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll

                  William Zanzinger killed poor Hattie Carroll
                  With a cane that he twirled around his diamond ring finger
                  At a Baltimore hotel society gath'rin'.
                  And the cops were called in and his weapon took from him
                  As they rode him in custody down to the station
                  And booked William Zanzinger for first-degree murder.
                  But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
                  Take the rag away from your face.
                  Now ain't the time for your tears.

                  William Zanzinger, who at twenty-four years
                  Owns a tobacco farm of six hundred acres
                  With rich wealthy parents who provide and protect him
                  And high office relations in the politics of Maryland,
                  Reacted to his deed with a shrug of his shoulders
                  And swear words and sneering, and his tongue it was snarling,
                  In a matter of minutes on bail was out walking.
                  But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
                  Take the rag away from your face.
                  Now ain't the time for your tears.

                  Hattie Carroll was a maid of the kitchen.
                  She was fifty-one years old and gave birth to ten children
                  Who carried the dishes and took out the garbage
                  And never sat once at the head of the table
                  And didn't even talk to the people at the table
                  Who just cleaned up all the food from the table
                  And emptied the ashtrays on a whole other level,
                  Got killed by a blow, lay slain by a cane
                  That sailed through the air and came down through the room,
                  Doomed and determined to destroy all the gentle.
                  And she never done nothing to William Zanzinger.
                  But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
                  Take the rag away from your face.
                  Now ain't the time for your tears.

                  In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
                  To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
                  And show that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
                  And that even the nobles get properly handled
                  Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
                  And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
                  Stared at the person who killed for no reason
                  Who just happened to be feelin' that way without warnin'.
                  And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished,
                  And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
                  William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
                  Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
                  Bury the rag deep in your face.
                  For now's the time for your tears.

                  Read more at http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/1122/#5bYS1JlFyhzV6XE3.99 


                     -starman                .              

                  Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (6)
                  Recent Activity:
                  Post to steiner@egroups.comSearch the archives of the group at:
                  http://www.esotericlinks.com/egroupsearch.html

                  Recommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
                  http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html

                  ommended books by Rudolf Steiner at:
                  http://www.esotericlinks.com/steinerbooks.html

                  .

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.