Anarchosophy
Revisited
Anarchosophy and Anarchism
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:15 am
Subject: Anarchosophy and Anarchism
Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism. This
was established once and for all when Rudolf Steiner wrote his
major work, "The Philosophy of Freedom," in 1894. In
Chapter 10, "Philosophy and Monism," dr. Steiner lays
the foundation for the individualist anarchism represented by
Max Stirner, John Henry Mackay, and Benjamin Ricketson Tucker,
although Mackay, who had political ambitions with his anarchist
theories, does not seem to have understood Steiner's concept:
That the human spirit could create free actions only through
a developed thinking. What has become known as anarchism in the
ordinary sense, fails to take this principle into account. This
is why we call this Philosophy of Freedom "anarchosophy."
In other words, "anarchosophy" is a word we have coined
for what Rudolf Steiner had in mind when he called himself an
individualistic anarchist in "Magazin für Literatur":
"Until now, I have myself
always avoided using the words 'individualistic' or 'theoretical
anarchism' to describe my world view. Because I care very little
for such labels. But if I, to the extent it is possible to determine
such things, should say if the word individualistic anarchist'
can be applied to me, I would have to answer with an unequivocal
'yes'."
(Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und
Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, GA 31, p. 261.)
Anarchosophy is simply a branch of anarchism
that is not fettered by the Marxist concept of dialectical materialism,
or ensnared by the illusion that natural science somehow proves
atheism to be the only Weltanschauung compatible with rational,
self-dependent, critical thinking. An excellent example of an
anarchosophist is the late Norwegian poet, author, Waldorf teacher,
anthroposophist, anarchist, social rebel, and bohemian Jens Bjørneboe
(1920-1976).
My own understanding of Steiner's Treefolding
idea is a simplified one. Peter Normann Waage has written a book
about it and lectured on the subject in Eastern Europe and elsewhere,
and others have also gone into the details of this idea. Feedback
from listmates conversant with the Threefolding idea would be
interesting.
As I understand it, the concept of the Threefold
Social Order is based on a slogan that became known during the
French revolotion: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."
(For the sake of simplicity and for my lack of thorough research,
I'm skipping the relationship between social threefolding and
the threefold human being here, hoping that others can fill in
this gap).
The failure of the social systems we have
seen in recent centuries - and by "failure" I don't
mean that the regimes collapse right away, but that social imbalances
and dysfunctions develop - is to a considerable extent due to
the ignorance of how these three concepts Liberty, Equality,
and Fraternity should be applied. According to Rudolf Steiner,
we need Liberty in the arts, literature, religion, education
and so on, Equality in the rights sphere, i.e. in the justice
system and law enforcement (everyone should be equal in the eyes
of the law), and Fraternity in the economic sphere.
In this light, we may begin to recognize some
of the pathologies within Communism and Capitalism, for instance.
In Communism, the economy is not ruled by Fraternity, but by
an ill-conceived endeavor to enforce Equality upon the economy,
where it does not belong. In Capitalism, Liberty is enforced
upon the economy instead of the life of culture, education, arts,
and religion. And unfortunately, I believe that social injustice
is rampant within the courts system, the legal system, because
Fraternity has entered the picture. If you're a friend of the
judge and the cief of police, you can get away with a lot of
things. Aldo if you have a lot of money because Liberty rules
where it shouldn't.
These are just some pointers why I think the
threefolding idea may be an effective model for the improvement
of society in the future. And if this model is successful, we
may be evolving in the direction of spiritualized anarchy. Some
people seem to think that anarchism was just a passing phase
Steiner was flirting with in the 1890's, but I recently discovered
evidence that he was an anarchist right up to his final lectures
in 1924.
[from the thread
"Anarchosophy Revisited"]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1586
If we get to know the essential
inner meaning of the Latin word dominus we shall discover
what language itself means in this instance, qute apart from
what spiritual science has to say: A lord is someone on the earth
or in the world who has been chosen to point the direction for
another. How long will outer lords be needed on the earth? How
long will the commandments of outer lords be needed, even the
commandments of those who are outer spiritual lords of the earth?
They will be needed only until the moment when Christ, with the
name that none but he understands, shall dwell within the human
being. Then every human being will be able to follow Christ in
his own being, in his own soul. Then everyone will strive to
realize that in himself which desires to realize the will
of the human being out of inner love. Then will the Lord of Lords,
the King of Kings live in each individual.
Seen spiritually, this is
the time in which we ourselves are now living. The fact that
we are living in this time is merely disguised by the way human
beings continue to live in their old ways, denying as much as
they can in every field the fact that the Christ now dwells in
them."
- "The Book of Revelation and the Work
of the Priest" (Lecture 10, Dornach 14 Sept 1924, GA 346
)
What Rudolf Steiner has done here is to demonstrate
that the message of Anarchosophy, or Divine Anarchism if you
like, is embedded in John's apocalypse. This lends further credence
to my own words from the 1996 article "Anthropos Anarchos":
"The innumerable gods
are man's creators, but they have now withdrawn their authority
so that we shall become mature and self dependent enough to make
it on our own. The gods are in other words anarchists. The free
spirit in man, the anarchist soul, is the goal and purpose of
creation."
Or as RS put it in the 10th chapter of the
PoF:
"Jeder von uns ist berufen
zum freien Geiste, wie jeder Rosenkeim berufen ist, Rose zu werden."
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:26 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism
Tarjei wrote:
Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism
If this is so, you and Peter are indeed strange
bedfellows.
This was established once and for all when
Rudolf Steiner wrote his major work, "The Philosophy of
Freedom," in 1894. In Chapter 10, "Philosophy and Monism,"
dr. Steiner lays the foundation for the individualist anarchism
represented by Max Stirner, John Henry Mackay, and Benjamin Ricketson
Tucker, although Mackay, who had political ambitions with his
anarchist theories, does not seem to have understood Steiner's
concept: That the human spirit could create free actions only
through a developed thinking. What has become known as anarchism
in the ordinary sense, fails to take this principle into account.
This is why we call this Philosophy of Freedom "anarchosophy."
In other words, "anarchosophy" is a word we have coined
for what Rudolf Steiner had in mind when he called himself an
individualistic anarchist in "Magazin für Literatur":
Some time later, Steiner came up with the
Tripartite Society, in which the political state, though reduced
to its legitimate functions, still exists and is operative. I
would call this a development from impractical anarchism to a
more sophosticated, practical (if tried) alternative.
"Until now, I have
myself always avoided using the words 'individualistic' or 'theoretical
anarchism' to describe my world view. Because I care very little
for such labels. But if I, to the extent it is possible to determine
such things, should say if the word individualistic anarchist'
can be applied to me, I would have to answer with an unequivocal
'yes'."
(Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und
Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, GA 31, p. 261.)
pre-threefold society
Anarchosophy is simply a branch of anarchism
that is not fettered by the Marxist concept of dialectical materialism,
or ensnared by the illusion that natural science somehow proves
atheism to be the only Weltanschauung compatible with rational,
self-dependent, critical thinking. An excellent example of an
anarchosophist is the late Norwegian poet, author, Waldorf teacher,
anthroposophist, anarchist, social rebel, and bohemian Jens Bjørneboe
(1920-1976).
My own understanding of Steiner's Treefolding
idea is a simplified one. Peter Normann Waage has written a book
about it and lectured on the subject in Eastern Europe and elsewhere,
and others have also gone into the details of this idea. Feedback
from listmates conversant with the Threefolding idea would be
interesting.
You got mine.
As I understand it, the concept of the
Threefold Social Order is based on a slogan that became known
during the French revolotion: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."
(For the sake of simplicity and for my lack of thorough research,
I'm skipping the relationship between social threefolding and
the threefold human being here, hoping that others can fill in
this gap).
The failure of the social systems we have
seen in recent centuries - and by "failure" I don't
mean that the regimes collapse right away, but that social imbalances
and dysfunctions develop - is to a considerable extent due to
the ignorance of how these three concepts Liberty, Equality,
and Fraternity should be applied. According to Rudolf Steiner,
we need Liberty in the arts, literature, religion, education
and so on, Equality in the rights sphere, i.e. in the justice
system and law enforcement (everyone should be equal in the eyes
of the law), and Fraternity in the economic sphere.
Anarchism wishes to eliminate the state toot
sweet, i.e., immediately, whereas Communism opted for a withering
away after the dictatorship of the prolitariate does its dirty
work.
"Equality in the rights sphere, i.e.
in the justice system and law enforcement (everyone should be
equal in the eyes of the law". And who's to administer this
rights sphere, including law enforcement, defence, anti-trust
and other laws, if not the state?
In this light, we may begin to recognize
some of the pathologies within Communism and Capitalism, for
instance. In Communism, the economy is not ruled by Fraternity,
but by an ill-conceived endeavor to enforce Equality upon the
economy, where it does not belong. In Capitalism, Liberty is
enforced upon the economy instead of the life of culture, education,
arts, and religion. And unfortunately, I believe that social
injustice is rampant within the courts system, the legal system,
because Fraternity has entered the picture. If you're a friend
of the judge and the cief of police, you can get away with a
lot of things. Aldo if you have a lot of money because Liberty
rules where it shouldn't.
These are just some pointers why I think
the threefolding idea may be an effective model for the improvement
of society in the future. And if this model is successful, we
may be evolving in the direction of spiritualized anarchy. Some
people seem to think that anarchism was just a passing phase
Steiner was flirting with in the 1890's, but I recently discovered
evidence that he was an anarchist right up to his final lectures
in 1924.
[from the
thread "Anarchosophy Revisited"]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1586
Steiner said that the threefold society was
meant for the present and immediate future, not forever. I am
inclined to agree that he foresaw anarcism for the distant future
- but not now (the immediate future for him).
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:49 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism
Hi Frank,
Tarjei wrote:
Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism
Frank:
If this is so, you and Peter are indeed
strange bedfellows.
Is Peter S a representative of spiritualized
individual autonomy as this comes to expression in the PoF?
Some time later, Steiner came up with the
Tripartite Society, in which the political state, though reduced
to its legitimate functions, still exists and is operative. I
would call this a development from impractical anarchism to a
more sophosticated, practical (if tried) alternative.
You don't seem to have grasped what I mean
by anarchosophy, i.e. Rudolf Steiner's understanding of anarchism.
The impractical political anarchism you're talking about
was pursued by Steiner's Scottish-German friend Henry MacKay.
It should also be noted that the anarchistic-anarchosophical
remarks by RS (in connection with the Apocalypse) that I quoted
previously were made in September 1924, i.e. after the
Threefolding idea had been launched.
Tarjei:
My own understanding of Steiner's Treefolding
idea is a simplified one. Peter Normann Waage has written a book
about it and lectured on the subject in Eastern Europe and elsewhere,
and others have also gone into the details of this idea. Feedback
from listmates conversant with the Threefolding idea would be
interesting.
Frank:
You got mine.
I'm sorry, but I don't see it. What I was
asking for was a detailed elaboration of the Threefolding idea
beyond my simplified summary.
Anarchism wishes to eliminate the state
toot sweet, i.e., immediately, whereas Communism opted for a
withering away after the dictatorship of the prolitariate does
its dirty work.
Although RS did agree with his MacKay that
the state was an evil which encumbered individual freedom, he
did not propose the immediate elimination of the state by force.
And yet he called himself an anarchist. I cannot avoid getting
the impression that your conception of anarchism is rigid and
inflexible and oversimplified, and that you don't recognize that
the movement may be split into many different schools of thought.
It was precisely because of such rigid misconceptions that I
stopped using the word "anarchist" about myself many
years ago and coined the word "anarchosophist" instead.
Anarchosophy is therefore a type of anarchism, but it is not
identical to the type you describe in your post here.
Steiner said that the threefold society
was meant for the present and immediate future, not forever.
I am inclined to agree that he foresaw anarcism for the distant
future - but not now (the immediate future for him).
That is highly disputable:
[repost]
"Seen spiritually, this
is the time in which we ourselves are now living. The fact that
we are living in this time is merely disguised by the way human
beings continue to live in their old ways, denying as much as
they can in every field the fact that the Christ now dwells in
them."
- "The Book of Revelation and the Work
of the Priest" (Lecture 10, Dornach
14 Sept 1924, GA 346 )
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:08 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism
Me again, Tarjei,
Tarjei wrote:
Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism
Frank:
If this is so, you and Peter are indeed
strange bedfellows.
Is Peter S a representative of spiritualized
individual autonomy as this comes to expression in the PoF?
Not likely, but let's skip down a bit to show
you what I mean.
[Frank:]
Some time later, Steiner came up with the
Tripartite Society, in which the political state, though reduced
to its legitimate functions, still exists and is operative. I
would call this a development from impractical anarchism to a
more sophosticated, practical (if tried) alternative.
[Tarjei:]
You don't seem to have grasped what I mean
by anarchosophy, i.e. Rudolf Steiner's understanding of anarchism.
The impractical political anarchism you're talking about
was pursued by Steiner's Scottish-German friend Henry MacKay.
It should also be noted that the anarchistic-anarchosophical
remarks by RS (in connection with the Apocalypse) that I quoted
previously were made in September 1924, i.e. after the
Threefolding idea had been launched.
You wrote, that RS said:
"The innumerable gods
are man's creators, but they have now withdrawn their authority
so that we shall become mature and self dependent enough to make
it on our own. The gods are in other words anarchists. The free
spirit in man, the anarchist soul, is the goal and purpose of
creation."
Saying that the goal and purpose of creation
is the free man, the anarchist soul, is not the same as saying
that "Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism". Anthroposophy
is now (as well as tomorrow) and the fact that RS metamorphosed
his anarchist leanings into the threefold society and even tried
to put it into practice, indicates to me that what he said above
referred to the ultimate goal of creation, as is clearly stated,
and that the idea of social threefolding is for now, a step on
that road. One's personal experiences influence thinking on such
subjects, and I'm certanly not immune. I called myself an anarchist
once (didn't do anythng, just read the literature and it seemed
to make a lot of sense). Then I came to Argentina, which has
passed through stages of anarchy, when the state collapses and
the thugs takes over, whether they call themselves Peronists,
anarchists, communists, Guevaraists, it doesn't make any difference,
the result is blood and death, and the inevitable outcome is
a dictatorship. When "Basic Issues of the Social Question"
fell into my hands, I thought: fuck anarchism, socialism, communism
and all the isms. This is it. Get what I mean? Now, when you
make a blunt, flat out statement such as "Anthroposophy
is a branch of anarchism", it's raises hackles. Maybe that's
what you want, to provoke a reaction from reactionaries like
me, (I wouldn't put it past you :) ). So IMHO, if you said something
like "Anthroposophy and the concept of the threefold society
is a preview of anarchism" I would have no objection whatsoever,
would even agree with you. And btw, I think I do grasp what you
mean by anarchosophy - but that's not the word you used in your
Dickensian opening statement.
Tarjei:
My own understanding of Steiner's Treefolding
idea is a simplified one. Peter Normann Waage has written a book
about it and lectured on the subject in Eastern Europe and elsewhere,
and others have also gone into the details of this idea. Feedback
from listmates conversant with the Threefolding idea would be
interesting.
Frank:
You got mine.
I'm sorry, but I don't see it. What I was
asking for was a detailed elaboration of the Threefolding idea
beyond my simplified summary.
Not sorry to have disappointed you.
Anarchism wishes to eliminate the state
toot sweet, i.e., immediately, whereas Communism opted for a
withering away after the dictatorship of the prolitariate does
its dirty work.
Although RS did agree with his MacKay that
the state was an evil which encumbered individual freedom, he
did not propose the immediate elimination of the state by force.
And yet he called himself an anarchist. I cannot avoid getting
the impression that your conception of anarchism is rigid and
inflexible and oversimplified, and that you don't recognize that
the movement may be split into many different schools of thought.
It was precisely because of such rigid misconceptions that I
stopped using the word "anarchist" about myself many
years ago and coined the word "anarchosophist" instead.
Anarchosophy is therefore a type of anarchism, but it is not
identical to the type you describe in your post here.
See above: your opening.
Steiner said that the threefold society
was meant for the present and immediate future, not forever.
I am inclined to agree that he foresaw anarcism for the distant
future - but not now (the immediate future for him).
That is highly disputable:
So dispute it.
[repost]
"Seen spiritually,
this is the time in which we ourselves are now living. The fact
that we are living in this time is merely disguised by the way
human beings continue to live in their old ways, denying as much
as they can in every field the fact that the Christ now dwells
in them."
I assume, but am not sure because you don't
say so, that this follows the above quote about the goal of creation.
If it does, it seems to mean that we have already reached the
goal of creation, but we live in our old ways. I agree that we
live in our old ways, or worse, but not that we have reached
the goal of creation, no matter who says it. If it's from a different
context, then I don't see what it has to do with this discussion.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism
Frank wrote:
Steiner said that the threefold society
was meant for the present and immediate future, not forever.
I am inclined to agree that he foresaw anarcism for the distant
future - but not now (the immediate future for him).
Frank
Mike:
Ever seen the movie K-Pax? In it there's a
scene when Prot is asked what kind of societal structure there
is on his home planet - "what kind of laws do you have?"
His answer was, "We have no laws - and
no lawyers."
Boy, did a light-bulb light up in my mind
with that one.
And I think it was Steve Martin (can't remember
the movie) that said that "all of life's riddles can be
solved in the movies."
Laws and Lawyers (for now anyway)
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 12:56 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism
Hi Frank, you wrote:
You wrote, that RS said:
"The innumerable gods
are man's creators, but they have now withdrawn their authority
so that we shall become mature and self dependent enough to make
it on our own. The gods are in other words anarchists. The free
spirit in man, the anarchist soul, is the goal and purpose of
creation."
No I didn't. I was quoting myself, not RS.
Saying that the goal and purpose of creation
is the free man, the anarchist soul, is not the same as saying
that "Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism".
That's why those are two separate statements
of mine.
Anthroposophy is now (as well as tomorrow)
and the fact that RS metamorphosed his anarchist leanings into
the threefold society and even tried to put it into practice,
indicates to me that what he said above
[He didn't say the above]
Now, when you make a blunt, flat out statement
such as "Anthroposophy is a branch of anarchism", it's
raises hackles. Maybe that's what you want, to provoke a reaction
from reactionaries like me, (I wouldn't put it past you :) ).
It was written for anarchists in an anarchist
magazine, but if it raises the hackles of others, so be it.
And btw, I think I do grasp what you mean
by anarchosophy - but that's not the word you used in your Dickensian
opening statement.
Of course not - people don't know what it
is yet.
That is highly disputable:
So dispute it.
[repost]
"Seen spiritually,
this is the time in which we ourselves are now living. The fact
that we are living in this time is merely disguised by the way
human beings continue to live in their old ways, denying as much
as they can in every field the fact that the Christ now dwells
in them."
I assume, but am not sure because you don't
say so, that this follows the above quote about the goal of creation.
If it does, it seems to mean that we have already reached the
goal of creation, but we live in our old ways. I agree that we
live in our old ways, or worse, but not that we have reached
the goal of creation, no matter who says it. If it's from a different
context, then I don't see what it has to do with this discussion.
You're mixing up my own statement with the
RS quote from the Apocalypse cycle.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 3:10 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism
Frank wrote:
You wrote, that RS said:
"The innumerable gods
are man's creators, but they have now withdrawn their authority
so that we shall become mature and self dependent enough to make
it on our own. The gods are in other words anarchists. The free
spirit in man, the anarchist soul, is the goal and purpose of
creation."
I wrote:
No I didn't. I was quoting myself, not
RS.
Clarification:
I quoted myself from my own article "Anthropos
Anarchos" - http://www.uncletaz.com/anthranark.html
- here is the complete passage in question:
Human freedom, the inviolable
sovereignty of the individual - this was Steiner's basic philosophical
point of departure. It was precisely on the premises of freedom
that he praised Nietzsche, Stirner, and Tucker. Steiner claimed,
paradoxically enough for many people, that traditional religious
ideas in terms of theology and the like, belong to a bygone age
and must yield to self-dependent thinking, totally independent
of external or internal authority.
The paradox here is Steiner's
considerable contribution to Christian theology, which was, however,
a result of special requests. Even his theism is thoroughly anarchistic.
The innumerable gods are man's creators, but they have now withdrawn
their authority so that we shall become mature and self-dependent
enough to make it on our own. The gods are in other words anarchists.
The free spirit in man, the anarchist soul, is the goal and purpose
of creation.
Steiner's theism may seem
self-contradictory in relation to monism, which takes only the
empirical world into consideration. This was no problem for the
initiated occultist, considering the fact that all his statements
were based upon supersensory research. Traditional religion,
on the other hand, is dualistic because phenomena beyond man's
empirical potential become objects of blind faith.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 9:46 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism
Tarjei wrote:
You're mixing up my own statement with
the RS quote from the Apocalypse cycle.
Sorry, my mistake - I guess. If you'll re-read
your original post, however, you'll see how the mistake was understandable.
I'll redo my reply with this in mind.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 10:00 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism
Tarjei,
You wrote, that RS said:
"The innumerable gods
are man's creators, but they have now withdrawn their authority
so that we shall become mature and self dependent enough to make
it on our own. The gods are in other words anarchists. The free
spirit in man, the anarchist soul, is the goal and purpose of
creation."
No I didn't. I was quoting myself, not
RS.
Sorry, but your mail seems to indicate Steiner,
with all the quotation marks and gospels. (Maybe you're reading
too much Steiner, if I can't even tell you apart.) Anyway, I
wrote my opionons "no matter who says it", if you remember.
If you wish to reply to my mail with that in mind, please do.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 12:09 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism
Sorry, my mistake - I guess. If you'll
re-read your original post, however, you'll see how the mistake
was understandable. I'll redo my reply with this in mind.
On second thought, my reply would be the same,
only substituting Tarjei for Rudolf.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 4:48 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anarchosophy and Anarchism
At 21:09 01.03.2004, Frank wrote:
On second thought, my reply would be the
same, only substituting Tarjei for Rudolf.
I once read a book by Harry Browne entitled
"How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World." I'm not going
to talk about the content of the book, but its title. Anthroposophy,
anarchism, anarchosophy, call it anything you like or delete
all the labels and isms altogether. We're talking about a quest
for liberty here, which was once so beautifully expressed by
Ben Tucker:
Our Purpose
Liberty enters the field of
journalism to speak for herself because she finds no one willing
to speak for her. She hears no voice that always champions her;
she knows no pen that always writes in her defence; she sees
no hand that is always lifted to avenge her wrongs or vindicate
her rights. Many claim to speak in her name, but few really understand
her. Still fewer have the courage and the opportunity to consistently
fight for her. Her battle, then, is her own to wage and win.
She accepts it fearlessly, and with a determined spirit.
- Benjamin R. Tucker, Liberty,
August 6, 1881.
From this quote alone, it is easy to see why
Benjamin Tucker was praised by Rudolf Steiner as the greatest
champion for freedom and given a column and platform by him when
he was in Berlin. For Tucker and MacKay, this quest for liberty
entailed a political agenda. Steiner, however, experienced MacKay's
ambitions to involve him in this agenda by politicizing the PoF
and making a social ideology out of it, as an ahrimanic temptation:
"Through my experience
with J.H. Mackay and Stirner, my destiny caused me once more
to enter a world of thought where I had to go through a spiritual
test. Ethical individualism, as I had elaborated it, is the reality
of moral life experienced purely within the human soul. Nothing
was further from my intention in elaborating this conception
than to make it the basis for a purely political view. But at
this time, about 1898, my soul with its conception of ethical
individualism, was to be dragged into a kind of abyss. From being
a purely individual experience within the human soul, it was
to become something theoretical and external. The esoteric was
to be diverted into the exoteric."
- Mein Lebensgang, GA 28, Chapter 28.
This is the difference between anarchosophy
- or esoteric anarchism - and political anarchism. It is legitimate
to call Steiner's ethical individualism a branch of anarchism
because he did acknowledge that if he had to say whether or not
he was an anarchist, his answer would be an unequivocal 'yes'.
So although you have problems with these isms, that can be ditched
altogether for all I care, I'm only trying to use the language
in the best way I can. Personally, I think it's beside the point
whether Peter S is an anarchist or a communist or both. What
is interesting is whether or not he is a dialectical materialist.
Steiner argued that dialectical materialism made freedom impossible
because it enslaved thinking in a mechanical universe:
"If the hypothetically
assumed entity is conceived as in itself unthinking, acting according
to purely mechanical laws, as materialism would have it, then
it must also produce out of itself, by purely mechanical necessity,
the human individual with all his characteristic features. The
consciousness of freedom can then be nothing more than an illusion.
For though I consider myself the author of my action, it is the
matter of which I am composed and the movements going on in it
that are working in me. I believe myself free; but in fact all
my actions are nothing but the result of the material processes
which underlie my physical and mental organization. It is said
that we have the feeling of freedom only because we do not know
the motives compelling us."
- Die Philosophie der Freiheit 1894, GA 4:
Chapter 10: Freiheitsphilosophie und Monismus.
Over on the WC list, Walden just wrote about
our list (Sun, 29 Feb 2004):
"What a wonderful chance
for discussion of Steiner's ideas (racism, anti-Semitism - or
not) and what do we see? The Staudenmaier Inquisition complete
with character attacks and paranoia."
Walden has apparently ignored my long essays
about the complexity of Jewry, anti-Semitism, assimilation, Christianity,
Rudolf Steiner's ideas about these things, my personal ideas
about the same, etc. etc. All we're discussing according to these
people is whether or not Peter S is a crocodile. And because
they don't understand our anthro-babble, they return to their
jungle drum and continue beating on the worn-out racist doctrine
slogans and the racism slogans, and they keep doing their Nazi
war dance against us waving swastikas at us, crying anti-Semitism,
totally ignorant of what anti-Semitism is. These attacks come
from a variety of life conceptions and political colors, but
their choir tends to howl after the loudest voice, so if this
voice is atheist-agnostic and anarchist, they're all atheist-agnostic
and anarchists as long as it gives them the illusion that Anthroposophy
is taking a beating.
For this reason, I believe it's important
to establish that Rudolf Steiner has a rightful place in the
anarchist camp, and to wipe the lies against him out of this
camp.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
