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

Threefold Social Order -Pt. 2

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Dec 25, 2012

      ******* 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 2 of 9 , Dec 25, 2012


         


        ******* 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 3 of 9 , Dec 26, 2012

        ******* 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 4 of 9 , Dec 26, 2012
          ******* 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 5 of 9 , Dec 26, 2012

            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 6 of 9 , Dec 27, 2012
            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.