Peter Staudenmaier's Communism

Paulina (February 26th, 2004):
Here comes more word games, folks, but, whatever...
Did you, Peter, not write the following excerpt:

"Instead of remuneration for effort, social ecologists propose libertarian communism as the eventual goal of a free society." Albert rejects this approach to distributing social wealth
as unfeasible, but I think this dismissal is too hasty. Like all economic systems, communism recognizes that total consumption is limited by total production, but it does not assume the predominance of private material interest or of generalized scarcity; it sees these phenomena
as a legacy of capitalism and hierarchical society. Social ecology foresees the potential for all community members to articulate their own needs and desires in a responsible fashion, shaped by their experience of participatory self-management, as part of a social process guided by
reason and an ethos of mutual aid and interdependence."

And I espically love this snip...

"In a communist society, the incentive to work would be exactly what it is today, in those
few situations where coercion is not omnipresent -- the desire to create useful things and live comfortably with one's neighbors. As long as we are envisioning a fully developed free society which realizes the finest aspirations of our history of struggles for human fulfillment and against privation and oppression, it would be imprudent to abandon the ideal of libertarian communism as part of a possible future."

Communism is communism, no matter how you try and dress it up, and if you "hate" the lenin or
marxist verison then it's only because you think yo have a better version to offer the world, right?

Peter Staudenmaier (February 26th, 2004):
Yup, I sure did. It's from a debate with Michael Albert, the chief theoretician of Participatory Economics. I am indeed a proponent of the tradition of libertarian communism (note the small "c"), which is radically opposed to leninism. I recommend consulting Lenin's pamphlet "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder". It's about people like me.

Christine Natale (February 28th, 2004):
In an attempt to research exactly what is meant by "Ecofascism" and the "Social Ecology" that Mr. Staudenmeier declares himself to be an adherent of, I have read and analyzed the article below. This will need to be in parts, due to the limitations of length allowed by my e-mail server.

I am presenting here an article by Peter Staudenmeier published on the website of "The Institute for Social Ecology."

http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031118120303576

I recommend first linking to the website above and reading the article in its entirety before going through it with my highlights and commentaries.

Due to the limitations of my internet provider in being able to use font formatting to show my highlighting of certain phrases for emphasis, I will enclose some of Mr. Staudenmeier's phrases that I want to highlight in brackets. All such emphasis as such is my own and are used as substitute for yellow highlighter. My commentary will be between lines of asterisks and as such, sometimes entail dividing original paragraphs.

None of these techniques are meant to change any of the words of Mr. Staudemeier or their context or meaning. They are only being used as a means of showing relationship between his words and my commentary.

If such techniques are not acceptable, I apologize in advance and will try to learn a better way of "discussing" such articles.

Christine Natale

Copy of original article posted on the website above:

Economics in a Social-Ecological Society
By Peter Staudenmaier

In the midst of our struggles for a better world, social ecologists have frequently engaged in critical dialogue with other strands of radical thought about just what kind of world we're struggling for. Such dialogues often address the question of how people in a liberated future will organize their material relationships with one another and with the natural world. What would economics look like in an ecological society? How might free communities arrange their livelihood?

Exploring questions such as these requires us to exercise an important faculty of dialectical philosophy: the capacity to think speculatively. [Envisioning a future beyond capitalism and the state] means thinking past the world around us and putting ourselves inside of a different world, a world structured in a very different way, a world that has developed some of the social and ecological potentials that we see around us, in distorted form, today. It means trying to see the world not merely as it is, but as it ought to be.

******************* (Christine)
But he does not specify what this "ought to be."

*******************
Social ecologists have put forward a number of [concrete proposals] over the years for a municipalized economy and a moral economy. These proposals point toward what Bookchin calls "the recovery of the productive process itself as an ecological mediation of humanity with nature." What these [practical proposals] have in common is an underlying conception of how complex economies could be run differently, without markets or classes or bureaucracy, along
egalitarian and participatory lines. Social ecologists argue that the economic mechanisms of a free society, whether for production, distribution, or reproduction, should have four basic characteristics: they should be conscious, transparent, alterable, and integrated.

Conscious: We want economic mechanisms to [deliberately chosen and deliberately structured,] so that they fulfill the purposes that [we collectively give to them], rather than the economic structures forcing us to fulfill their purposes.

******************* (Christine)
How would these mechanisms be determined?
*******************

Transparent: We want every member of society to be able to grasp how society's economic mechanisms function.

******************* (Christine)
Does this indicate an educational system? Level of education?
*******************

Alterable: We want to be able to change our economic structures according to [ecological and social needs.]

******************* (Christine)
By whose determination?
*******************

And last, we want economic mechanisms to be comprehensively integrated with all other aspects of [communal self-management.]

******************* (Christine)
How?
*******************

What might these values look like in practice? How could this ensemble of speculative postulates actually be implemented? What follows is a brief attempt to sketch a reconstructive vision of economics in a social-ecological society.

The World Social Ecologists Envision

The world we envision is one of adventure and possibility, of radically new relationships and potential [forms of social and individual life that are difficult to imagine, much less describe,] from the perspective of the present. Most of what will happen in a social-ecological future, whether at an environmental level, a personal level, or a communal level, will be spontaneous and creative-and these are things we can neither plan nor propose nor predict. Nevertheless, such spontaneous and creative unfolding of potentials will require both [an institutional framework and an ethical vision] if they are to become more than mere dreams. Thus we must turn our attention to the [social structures] that might make free nature and a free society more likely.

Social ecologists work toward a society structured around [freedom, cooperation, and ecological and social diversity.] Our vision of a better world draws on a wealth of practical experiments and utopian hopes raised throughout history by emancipatory movements from below. At the center of our vision of free communities [is direct democracy.] Direct democracy means people managing their own lives, consciously and collectively, for the good of the communities they are part of. Instead of handing over decision-making power to experts, professionals, representatives, or bureaucrats, social ecology foresees [all people participating directly in the self-management of their communal affairs.]

******************* (Christine)
MARXISM???!!!! Sounds like the polit-bureau of the Soviets - the local cadres
*******************

Because we oppose institutionalized forms of domination and hierarchy, [social ecologists reject the state] as such. Instead of positing a separate body that stands apart from society and makes decisions on its behalf, we envision [a network of community assemblies as the basic decision-making body and as the primary venue for practicing direct democracy.] These assemblies include all the residents of a local area (in cities at the neighborhood level and in rural areas at the township level), who meet at regular intervals to discuss and decide on the issues before them: political as well as economic decisions, indeed any social decision that significantly affects the life of the community as a whole.

The popular assembly includes everybody who is willing to participate in it and provides a democratic forum for all community members to engage one another on an equal basis and actively shape social life. Ongoing interactions of this kind encourage a sense of shared responsibility and interdependence, as well as offering a public space for resolving disputes and disagreements in a [rational and non-coercive way.] Recognizing that people have differing interests, aspirations, and convictions, the neighborhood assembly and its accompanying
civic ethos present an opportunity for [reconciling particular and general objectives.] Direct democracy, in this view, involves a commitment to the wellbeing of one's neighbors.

******************* (Christine)
How would 1. "the commitment to the well-being of one's neighbors" be fostered in the group? And 2. What would be the mechanisms for "reconciling particular and general objectives"? In other words, for resolving disputes?

This sounds generally like a throw back both to early American "town hall" politics and yet, the ideals of communism. What about Ayn Rand? I need to re-read her, but I think this co-relates.
*******************

[Communal wellbeing], in turn, implies an active respect and appreciation for the natural context within which local communities exist. No social order can guarantee that the ecosystems and habitats that host our various settlements will thrive, but social ecologists believe that [communities built around free association and mutual aid are much better suited to fostering environmental diversity and sustainability] than those built around authoritarian systems of power. In societies that have overcome domination and hierarchy, ecological flourishing and human flourishing can complement and reinforce one another.

The [ethical] outlook that embodies these potentials is as important as the [practical methods]

******************* (Christine)
(he hasn't specified ANY practical methods yet.)
*******************

themselves. Social ecologists want to create social forms that promote[freedom and solidarity] by building these values into the[ very fabric of social relations and public institutions.] Thus, our emphasis on face-to-face assemblies open to all is meant to encourage, not preclude, the creation of other [libertarian and cooperative social forms.]

******************* (Christine)
This sounds like a lot of gobbledy-gook backtalk. A mish mash of early
American independent communities and bolshevism ) In the best sense of the ideology
of Marxism, the individual and local body should be supreme, while at the
service of the good of the "collective".
*******************

An enormous variety of spontaneous associations, living arrangements,
workplaces, family structures, and so forth all have an important place in our vision
of a free world. The only forms that are excluded are ones based on
exploitation and oppression.

******************* (Christine)
How specifically would the society prevent the "freedom" of the individual
from leading to exploitation of other individuals? What about when the "good of
the collective (so to speak)" impinges on one or more members of that
community? How does one distinguish & define oppression?
*******************

Social ecology's model of direct democracy can therefore be realized in a
number of different ways depending on the needs, desires, and experiences of
those who are inspired by it. This is especially true of economic processes, and
the [scenario outlined here is only one possible interpretation of the economic
aspects of a social-ecological society.]

******************* (Christine)
(he hasn't' outlined ONE specific example of how any economic process would
work.)
*******************

The fundamental shared perspective is that of a [moral economy,] in which the
material conditions of our existence are reintegrated into a broader ethical
and institutional framework. [A moral economy means making decisions about
production and consumption part of the civic life of the whole community.]

******************* (Christine)
How? Who controls the materials and means of production and distribution of
goods? How exactly are these decisions to be made? By vote? By consensus?
*******************

Communal Self-Management in Practice

In this scenario, [workers' councils] play a crucial role in the day-to-day
administration of production, while [local assemblies] have the final say in
major economic decisions. All members of a given community participate in
[formulating economic policy, which is discussed, debated, and decided upon within
the popular assembly.]

******************* (Christine)
How does this differ from Marxism?
*******************

Social ecology foresees an extensive [physical decentralization of
production], so that workers at a particular enterprise will typically live in the same
municipality where they work.

******************* (Christine)
How would this take place? By force? As this society, especially in
economics, gets more and more centralized, how would production be "taken" back to
grassroots levels? For example? Who will produce automobiles, (or similar
futuristic means of transportation)? Will there be a car factory in every village?
Town? City? County? That will produce cars just for that locality? Or, if one
municipality produces cars and another one produces garments, what is the
mechanism of distribution? Who controls this mechanism?
*******************

We also foresee a continual voluntary rotation of jobs, tasks, and
responsibilities and a radical redefinition of what 'work' means. Through [the
conscious transformation of labor into a free social activity] that combines physical
and intellectual skills, we envision the productive process as a fulfillment
of [personal and communal needs, articulated to their ecological context.]

******************* (Christine)
What does "articulated to their ecological context." mean?

*******************

Along with [the rejection of bosses, profits, wages, and exchange value,] we
seek to overcome capitalism's reduction of human beings to instruments of
production and consumption. Social ecology's assembly model [encourages] people
to approach economic decisions not merely as workers and consumers, but as
[community members committed to an inclusive goal of social and ecological
wellbeing.]

******************* (Christine)
How are people "encouraged"?

*******************
While the broad outlines of [communal production] are established at the
assembly level, they are implemented in practice by smaller collective bodies
which also operate on an egalitarian, participatory, and democratic basis.
[Cooperative households and collective workplaces] form an integral part of this
process. Decisions that have regional impact are worked out by [confederations of
local assemblies], so that everybody affected by a decision can participate in
making it. Specific tasks can be delegated to [specialized committees,] but
substantive issues of public concern are subject to the discretion of each
popular assembly. Direct democracy encourages the [formation and contestation of
competing views and arguments], so that for any given decision there will [be
several distinct options available], each of them crafted by the people who
will carry them out. Assembly members consider these various proposals and debate
their merits and implications; they are discussed, revised and amended as
necessary. [When no clear consensus emerges, a vote or series of votes can be
held to determine which options have the most support.]

******************* (Christine)
How would this work in "real time?" Would this process take place for every
issue from where to buy office supplies and what to buy to the decision to
plant wheat or oats on a local collective farm? Is there no need for decision
makers, presumably people with expertise in a particular area?
*******************

Social ecology's vision of a moral economy centers [on libertarian
communism,] in which the fruits of common labor are freely available to all.

******************* (Christine)
How does he leap from "Direct Democracy" to "Libertarian Communism"?
*******************

This principle of ["from each according to ability and to each according to
need,"] which distinguishes our perspective [from many other anti-capitalist
programs], is fleshed out by a civic ethic in which concern for the common
welfare shapes individual choices.

******************* (Christine)
Distinguishes it from WHAT other anti-capitalist programs? I haven't heard
anything new in this proposal. Isn't of "from each according to ability and to
each according to need," the very essence of Marxism? Was it coined by Marx?
This "civic ethic" is the very ideology of Marx and Engels, is it not?
*******************
In the absence of markets, private property, class divisions, commodity
production, exploitation of labor, and accumulation of capital, [libertarian
communism] can become [the distributive mechanism for social wealth]

******************* (Christine)
(HOW?)
*******************

and the economic counterpart to [the transparent and humanly scaled political
structures that social ecology proposes.]

In such an arrangement, the interaction between smaller committees and
working groups and the full assembly becomes crucially important to maintaining the
democratic and participatory nature of this deliberative process. Preparing
coherent proposals for presentation to the assembly will require both
[specialized work and scrupulous information gathering,] as well [as analysis and
interpretation.] Because these activities can subtly influence the eventual outcome
of any decision, the [responsibility for carrying them out should be a
rotating task entrusted to a temporary commission chosen at random from the members
of the assembly.]

******************* (Christine)
How is this choice to be made? Through lottery? Does this pre-suppose that
every member of society is both equally educated to deal with every issue that
arises AND that every member is equally disinterested in a personal way? What
is the time frame for decision making? How much "red tape" will this create and
how much forestalling of individual initiative while either the minutae or
overall benefits of each decision are weighed?
*******************

Confederal Economic Democracy

When the assembly has considered and debated and fine-tuned the various
proposals before it and has agreed on an overall outline for the local economy,
community members continue to refine and realize this outline while implementing
it in their workplaces, residences, and elsewhere. If obstacles or
disagreements arise that cannot be resolved at the immediate level of a single
enterprise, institution, or household, they can be brought back to the full assembly for
discussion and resolution. If some aspects of an agreed-upon policy are not
fulfilled for whatever reason, this will quickly become apparent to community
members, [who can then alter or adapt the policy accordingly.]

******************* (Christine)
How? Back to the "drawing board"? What kind of time frame is needed? Would
production be halted while this process is being enacted?
*******************

While most of economic life will be carried out within [smaller
collectivities], in direct cooperation with co-workers, housemates, associates and
neighbors, overarching matters of public economic direction will be worked out within
the [assembly of the entire community.] When necessary, city-wide or regional
issues will be addressed at [the confederal] level, with final decisions
remaining in the hands of each local assembly.

******************* (Christine)
What exactly is a confederal level? How are the political boundaries drawn?
Is there any freedom of movement for the individual? From one "confederacy" to
another?
*******************

The reason for this emphasis on assembly sovereignty is two-fold. First, the
local assembly is the most accessible forum for practicing direct democracy
[and guarding against the re-emergence of power differentials and new forms of
hierarchy.] Since the assembly includes all members of the community on equal
terms and operates through direct participation rather than representation, it
offers the best opportunity for extending [collective self-management] to [all
spheres of social life.]

******************* (Christine)
ALERT!!! ALERT!!! ALERT!!! HOW DOES THIS COLLECTIVE SELF-MANAGEMENT EXTEND TO ALL SPHERES OF SOCIAL LIFE???? HOW DID WE JUMP FROM ECONOMIC PRODUCTION TO "ALL SPHERES OF SOCIAL LIFE"?? NOW IT SOUNDS REALLY TOTALITARIAN!!!
*******************

Second, the local assembly makes it possible for people to decide on their
economic and political affairs in a comprehensive and coherent manner, through
face-to-face discussion with the people they live with, play with, and work
with. The popular assembly encourages a [holistic approach]

******************* (Christine)
(co-opting double-speak)
*******************

to public matters, one that recognizes the myriad interconnections among
[economic, social, and ecological concerns.]

Much of this vision will only be practicable in conjunction with [a radical
overhaul of the technological infrastructure,] something which social
ecologists support on [environmental] as well as democratic grounds. We foresee most
production taking place locally, with specialized functions socialized and
conceptual and manual labor integrated. Still, there will be some important social
goods that cannot or should not be completely decentralized; [advanced
research institutes], for example, will serve large regions even though they will be
hosted by one municipality. Thus [confederation, which offsets parochialism
and insularity,] plays an essential role within social ecology's political
vision.

******************* (Christine)
How is this "radical overhaul of the technological infrastructure" to be
brought about? Through vote? Or revolt? How is this infrastructure to be broken
up? What would the consequences be?

Who would control the "advanced research institutes"? Who would oversee what
they are researching and how they are performing such research? Where would
the funding come from?
*******************

While the primary focus of this scenario is on local communities generating
economic policies tailored to their own social end ecological circumstances,
social ecologists reject the notions of local self-sufficiency and economic
autarchy as values in themselves; we consider these things desirable if and when
they contribute [to social participation and ecologically nuanced democratic
decision making.]

******************* (Christine)
Double-speak!! What is the DIFFERENCE between ".local communities generating
economic policies tailored to their own social and ecological circumstances."
and "local self-sufficiency and economic autarchy."? How is it to be
determined, who makes the decision as to whether or not a local decision
".contribute(s) to social participation and ecologically nuanced democratic decision
making." ? What does "ecologically nuanced democratic decision making" mean??
*******************

We foresee a confederation of assemblies in consistent

******************* (Christine)
(?) (Does he mean constant?)

*******************

dialogue with one another via confederal bodies made up of [recallable and
mandated delegates]

******************* (Christine)
(voted for?) (how chosen?)
*******************

from each constituent assembly. These bodies are established as outgrowths of
the directly democratic local communities, not as substitutes for them. Since
economic relations, in particular, often involve cooperation with distant
communities, confederation offers a mutually compatible framework for sharing
resources, skills, and knowledge.

******************* (Christine)
How is this confederation structured? How is it different from federal
government of locally elected representatives?
*******************

A confederal network of popular assemblies offers a practical way for all
people to consciously direct their lives together and to [pursue common goals as
part of a project of social freedom.]

******************* (Christine)
(Double Speak)
*******************

Bringing together solidarity and autonomy, we can recreate politics, [the art
of communal self-management,] as the highest form of direct action. In such a
world, [economics as we know it today will no longer exist.] When work
becomes creative activity, when production becomes the harmonization of human and
ecological potentials, when economics becomes collective self-determination and
the conscious unfolding of social, natural, and ethical possibilities as yet
unimagined, then we will have achieved a liberated society, and the ideas
outlined here will take on concrete form as lived realities and direct experiences.

(end of Mr. Staudemeier's article)

******************* (Christine)
How is work NOT creative activity in our society as it is today? How does
this political ideology propose to ensure that it becomes "creative activity"?

How does " production become(s) the harmonization of human and ecological
potentials"?

How does "economics become(s) collective self-determination and the conscious
unfolding of social, natural, and ethical possibilities as yet unimagined"?

How will "the ideas outlined here will take on concrete form as lived
realities and direct experiences"?

Ayn Rand?
******************* (Christine)

(End of Part One - see Social Ecology - Part Two)

Please see "Social Ecology Part One"

Christine's Commentary:

This whole article is a mish mash of standard collectivist material with
"sound bytes" like "wholistic" and "social freedom" and "democracy" thrown in.
Personal freedom as the highest ideal YET submitted to the greatest "well-being"
of the social collective. No real practical mechanisms are presented here and
nothing new. Both American "Democracy" and Russian "Communism" contain pretty
much all of these mechanisms - decision making at the local level with all
members of the local community participating (for example) belong to both. The
need for communication and cooperation between individual communities is
recognized and worked with. Representatives are chosen to work at decision making for
broader based regions. And ultimately, there is a need for the "confederal"
level of decision making.

Neither American "Democracy" nor Russian "Communism" has really achieved
social, political or economic realities that live up completely to the common
idealism that lives in both.

In American "Democracy" there has been a swing of the pendulum more to the
side of the local and independent "free enterprise". Drawn to its logical
conclusion, "free enterprise" without control by a government that expresses and
enforces the "will of the people" collectively for fair practices, human rights
and dignity and workers' benefits - becomes a devouring monster that serves
fewer and fewer members of society as it grows. There has to be a mechanism that
ensures that the profits of "free enterprise" are shared by all who
participate in its success. And there has to be a mechanism that works from "outside"
its own power structure to protect those who contribute to that success from
social and economic exploitation and abuse. In America, this has been perceived
as the arena of the government - local, state and federal. However, the very
way that government representatives are elected "by the people" and the relative
freedom of decision making given to American government on the whole, allows
it to be "infiltrated" by special interest groups. Historically, this has
meant the great influence of private enterprise over individual politicians and
the decisions of political bodies in favor of laws and privileges which have
benefited industrialists greatly over the needs and concerns of local
communities. Only the social radicalism of the second half of the 20th century has forced
the American government to be "tried" in the court of public opinion at a
grassroots level. The right to object to participation in war, to demand economic
fairness and protection of workers' rights and benefits as well as social and
economic equality of opportunity regardless of race, creed or sex have all
been achieved by local, grassroots organizations and "collective" participation,
albeit often at a high cost. While much has been achieved, there are further
battles to be fought. And we have seen in recent years a conscious and
concerted effort to rescind many of the social, political and economic gains of the
past half century and to place "free enterprise" outside the bounds of social
justice, both in the United States and around the world.

On the other side of the pendulum swing, Russian "Communism" sought to
enforce "moral economy" through indoctrination and social and political control. The
decision making in the economic sphere became so complicated and ponderous
that it interfered with individual initiative. Also, decisions about the
necessity for production of certain "commodities " such as scientific and
technological research and development were made at a much higher level than local and
did not originate from the grassroots level. Even though equality of
distribution of goods and profit was ideologically incorporated in the social philosophy
and political construct, there was, in fact an unequal distribution process in
effect. There was a perceived dichotomy between the ideals of a "common good"
and the actual economic distribution process that the individual was forced
to live with. The lack of incentive to improve the one's economic and social
condition led to indifference and apathy, rather than creativity and drive.
While local workers ostensibly had a collective ownership of raw materials, tools
and other means of production, there was little local incentive for initiative
in the economic arena. All results of production were sucked up by the
"collective society" where they subtly rose to the upper levels of the power
structure to benefit the few.

In the article above, "Social Ecology" is not actually defined in practice.
While it uses terminology which may link it in the mind of the casual reader to
good ideals common to both the capitalist and communist systems and may
appear to be trying to extract and combine the best of both, in fact, it proposes
no new mechanisms which can protect people from the abuses of either system.
There are gaping holes in its ideology at both the practical and idealistic
levels. It pre-supposes a universally high level of intellectual education and
ethical development in all "citizens" of its society. It does not define the
ownership and distribution of materials and means of production or of the profits
of economic enterprise. It does not define the mechanisms by which dissent and
opposition to collective decisions will be handled. It does not define the
role and responsibility of the "confederal" level of government or its
accountability. It does not define the nature of "advanced research institutes" and
what they are permitted to do that would be beyond the control of local community
decision makers.

The lack of definition combined with the continual use of "double-speak" in
its descriptions lead the reader to imagine the worst consequences of both
political philosophies to arise. On the one hand, the removal of "local"
enterprise from government control completely, which would leave the granting of
workers' right and benefits solely to the discretion of the local enterprise itself.
On the other hand, a "collective" mentality which expects every member of the
society to willingly submit themselves to the demands of the local,
collective or "confederal" decision makers for the "common good."

The balancing of the two seemingly opposing sets of interests - those of
economic enterprise with the social collective - has been the main struggle of the
intellectual and political communities of the past three hundred years, since
the French and American Revolutions. In the process of attempts to put
social, political and economic ideologies into practice, humanity has witnessed
great progress and great tragedy. In every social philosophy, whether based on
religious or strictly humanitarian ethical ideals, there is inherent danger in
its practice. The basic dichotomy that lives in every human individual between
self-interest and willingness to sacrifice for the benefit of another,
expresses itself a thousand- or a million-fold in the creation and practice of various
forms of government.

One can take hope in the perspective that over the past few hundred years (a
short period indeed when considering human history), despite the abuses and
atrocities committed in the name of social, political and economic ideals, some
real progress has been made. Free Enterprise, in spite of its dragon-like
nature of wanting to accumulate greater and greater personal wealth, has in fact
raised the physical standard of living for a larger percentage of people in the
world than ever before. The "average" American or European citizen lives more
comfortably and has greater access to medical care, education and social
protection that could even have been conceived of until this past century. This
has, of course, come at a high cost in terms of human life and sacrifice. And
the somewhat ironic reality is that the "dragon" forces of the free enterprise
system require greater and greater levels of health and education in its
workers for the very continuation of its own progress. Technology increases
production, but increased education and health are needed to maintain and grow
technology. Raw muscle and sweat created the foundation of our production systems,
but mental labor has supplanted physical in our current technological societies.
Of course, there is still a need for human physical labor in production and
the technological society must continue to exploit less "developed" societies
for its labor pool. But the more production is mechanized, the more education
will be required of all of the world's population.

Communism, or Social Collectivism on the other hand has made sweeping and
profound contributions to the quality of life over the past century by supporting
and contributing to the fight for social, political and economic justice.
More individual members of society than ever before are being allowed to share in
the kinds of rights and privileges once enjoyed by very few. The demand for
social justice and political equality has led to the adoption of legislation
and creation of social institutions to oversee the personal freedom of
expression by individuals and their protection from persecution and abuse under the
law. As rights have been fought for and won which allow workers greater amounts
of personal time and availability of education and health care, there has been
more opportunity for individuals and small groups to pursue more creative and
socially oriented economic projects. Awareness of human rights and individual
self-worth has promoted the creation of many humanitarian and socially
progressive organizations. Greater educational opportunities have led to greater
understanding of the history of human political and social development and its
triumphs and pitfalls. A greater sense of responsibility has grown in society at
large for the health of the planet and all of its occupants, human and
otherwise. The interconnectedness of all life has become a common awareness.
Development of the technology and tools of global communications has spread a social
and environmental message world wide. As we begin to witness through the media
how the abuse or destruction of an animal species in one remote corner of the
world has a destructive chain reaction effect on the opposite side of the
world; as we learn about how the release of a toxic chemical in one country can
have devastating consequences in another country thousands of miles away; as we
become aware of the myriad factors which influence our very personal
experience of the quality of life, we rise to the level of social consciousness which
was once only a dream of political philosophers and ideologues.

Attempts have been made over the past three hundred years to put into effect,
often by force, ideals which in and of themselves have been a true expression
of the great goodness inherent in humankind. But, as with all development
that is forced and brought into being ahead of its time, there is usually
corruption, distortion, defect and miscarriage. Nevertheless, even in the most
gruesome situations that we have lived through collectively, seeds for future human
development have been planted. And there is reason to believe that mankind has
the ability, the will and yes, the love within our very nature to continue to
develop social, political and economic forms which will always have as their
highest ideal the combination of individual freedom with the benefit to
mankind as a whole.

However, the concept of "social ecology" as outlined in Peter Staudemeier's
article above gives us no new insights as to the forms of positive social
development nor to the protection from abuses which humanity has lived through in
the past and is continuing to struggle with today. In fact, the concept itself
is only vaguely defined and opened to the worst possible interpretations. One
would be wise to use intellectual and practical caution in regard to the
formulations of its adherents.

Christine Natale

February 28, 2004

Christine's Commentary:

This whole article is a mish mash of standard collectivist material with "sound bytes" like "wholistic" and "social freedom" and "democracy" thrown in. Personal freedom as the highest ideal YET submitted to the greatest "well-being" of the social collective. No real practical mechanisms are presented here and nothing new. Both American "Democracy" and Russian "Communism" contain pretty much all of these mechanisms - decision making at the local level with all members of the local community participating (for example) belong to both. The need for communication and cooperation between individual communities is recognized and worked with. Representatives are chosen to work at decision making for broader based regions. And ultimately, there is a need for the "confederal" level of decision making.

Neither American "Democracy" nor Russian "Communism" has really achieved social, political or economic realities that live up completely to the common idealism that lives in both.

In American "Democracy" there has been a swing of the pendulum more to the side of the local and independent "free enterprise". Drawn to its logical conclusion, "free enterprise" without control by a government that expresses and enforces the "will of the people" collectively for fair practices, human rights and dignity and workers' benefits - becomes a devouring monster that serves fewer and fewer members of society as it grows. There has to be a mechanism that
ensures that the profits of "free enterprise" are shared by all who participate in its success. And there has to be a mechanism that works from "outside" its own power structure to protect those who contribute to that success from social and economic exploitation and abuse. In America, this has been perceived as the arena of the government - local, state and federal. However, the very
way that government representatives are elected "by the people" and the relative
freedom of decision making given to American government on the whole, allows
it to be "infiltrated" by special interest groups. Historically, this has
meant the great influence of private enterprise over individual politicians and
the decisions of political bodies in favor of laws and privileges which have
benefited industrialists greatly over the needs and concerns of local
communities. Only the social radicalism of the second half of the 20th century has forced
the American government to be "tried" in the court of public opinion at a
grassroots level. The right to object to participation in war, to demand economic
fairness and protection of workers' rights and benefits as well as social and
economic equality of opportunity regardless of race, creed or sex have all
been achieved by local, grassroots organizations and "collective" participation,
albeit often at a high cost. While much has been achieved, there are further
battles to be fought. And we have seen in recent years a conscious and
concerted effort to rescind many of the social, political and economic gains of the
past half century and to place "free enterprise" outside the bounds of social
justice, both in the United States and around the world.

Christine Natale

February 28, 2004

Paulina (February 28th, 2004):
Peter's writing appear to me to demonstrate an externalization process which underscores a psychological tear so often found at the heart of those who crave unity with their fellow man, but,
find themselves adrift in distrubing, unbounded lonliness and a disconnectedness of spirit. Such souls often seek answeres in externalizing solutions to the problems of the world. They would
change others, even to bringing down govenments, rather than work on themselves. Their ideologies are nothing more than versions of the blame game. How much easier for such immature souls to fret upon the stage of of their outwardly dircted lives then to focus on individual responsibility. Only the wise man, the mature man knows there is no such thing as Utopia nor any
ideal situation on earth.

"The negation of the sanctity of the individual obstructs direct conduct not only between man and man, but, also between man and his ideals. for if the worth of the individual and its increase by his life's process be not itself a cardinal ideal, any ideal to the realization of which the individual devotes his lie and energy must be more or less external to him: not, of course, entirely external since the ideal must find expression in the individual, but external to the individual's broad humanity"
[Butler, THE ROOTS OF NATINAL SOCIALISM].

Mike Helsher (February 28th, 2004):
I loved you critique of this article. Interesting that there is no mention of any means to promote an idea of religious freedom. It seems very akin to the "religion is a disease" Marxist maxim, without actually coming out and saying it.

But I think most people who have a sense for metaphorical meaning, and a taste for religious freedom (which is ultimately freedom from religious organizations) can see right through this.

It also makes sense to me now more that ever, why someone who is religiously committed to this Ideology, would wage an intellectual war against it's most prolific rival.

Christine Natale (February 28th, 2004):
Thank you for the compliment Mike,

However, I think it is important to be able to take a work on the basis that the author intended. Since the article is a political and economic polemic, I just wanted to approach it on its own terms as I understand them at a layman's level. The only time the "social" per se came in was when he specifically stated:

(Peter - with my brackets for emphasis)
The reason for this emphasis on assembly sovereignty is two-fold. First, the local assembly is the most accessible forum for practicing direct democracy [and guarding against the re-emergence of power differentials and new forms of hierarchy.] Since the assembly includes all members of the community on equal terms and operates through direct participation rather than representation, it
offers the best opportunity for extending [collective self-management] to [all spheres of social life.]

And I said:
******************* (Christine)
ALERT!!! ALERT!!! ALERT!!! HOW DOES THIS COLLECTIVE SELF-MANAGEMENT EXTEND TO ALL SPHERES OF SOCIAL LIFE???? HOW DID WE JUMP FROM ECONOMIC PRODUCTION TO "ALL SPHERES OF SOCIAL LIFE"?? NOW IT SOUNDS REALLY TOTALITARIAN!!!

There were many areas of life that were not brought forward in the article and therefore, to me they do not serve to refute or support his political construct. Such considerations might well need to be brought forward if he or the other "Social Ecologists" become more specific in their proposed means of enforcement of this "ideal state". They may well do so elsewhere, but I don't have five or six years of experience with these ideas, so I can only take it one article at a time.

Personally, I think that the reason that Peter said to me in the post below:

Subj: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: agreement and disagreement
Date: 2/22/2004 12:58:26 PM Eastern Standard Time

(Christine)
"While your scholarship on the issue is profound and has involved many hours of research and thought, do you think that you have presented it in a way and through a medium that would keep the discussion in an academic and objective realm?"

(Peter) (Christine's brackets for emphasis)
I hope not! [I am very critical of the academic realm]and the stultifying conception of objectivity that is so often associated with it. That is one of the main reasons I have avoided an academic career so far and remained an independent scholar (though I must confess that I am currently in the midst of throwing in that particular towel); [one of my goals is to move historical discussions
out of the academic realm] so that non-academics can participate in them. [My published work on anthroposophy is not objective] in the sense I think you mean, and no competent reader could mistake it for such; I am very up front about my own skeptical stance. Much of what I write on anthroposophy is a mixture of scholarship and polemic, addressed to a non-specialist audience. It is not a neutral reflection on the pros and cons of Steiner's various doctrines.

(Christine again)
is basically, because his political/ economic/ & social constructs cannot survive in the light of day of contemporary academic study. Since I am not an academic, I cannot speak for the whole academic community, but if a layman like myself can see the flaws in the construct and the holes in the arguements, then surely those who are truly working in the "real worlds" of social, political
and economic thought must have long ago consigned this dilletante effort to the circular file. N'est pas?

: ) Christine

PS - I think I am right in saying that one can be "pro" or "con" any idea, philosophy, religious belief system or political ideology and STILL be objective in one's work. Objectivity, to my understanding does not require neutrality, only honesty and a willingness to take another point of view into serious consideration. What academic study requires, to my understanding is (in addition to objectivity) the readiness of the scholar to not only entertain opposing ideas, but to surrender his or her own pre-conceptions in the face of facts brought forward that remove the foundations of those pre-conceptions. This is an expanded form of honesty. Real scholars, in my opinion, are less concerned with "addressing a non-specialist audience" than in contributing something of substance to their chosen field of research. Rudolf Steiner, in my opinion was a
real scholar by my own definition above.

Paulina (March 2nd, 2004):
[Responding to a frivilous objection that I have omitted]

If you believe that [Peter Staudenmaier] has been up front about his communist ideology since first coming on to [Waldorf Critics List], perhaps you will be good enough to show where you find this indicated in any of his WC post?

As for why it took me two years before labeling him a communist?

The answer is that I did not want to fall into the same catagory of Peter and others at WC who slander and smear by careless association and manipuation of distorted facts. I consider to call someone a communist to be a really serious matter. I wanted to be very certain I was not looking and seeing something that was not really there.

I believe the problem with the failed correspondences here and elsewhere has to do with what another posted said on another list, as being a problem without resolution, arising from different
paradigms: "When even the basic concepts used in a discussion can mean different things, it is hard to come to some reasonable conclusion".
Additionally, thre are psychological issues on the part of ex-WE [Waldorf Education] parents at WC [Waldorf Critics List]. It is not easy when feeling one has been deceived or had a child hurt to continue to remain objective about a world philosophical view one feels to be the reason for the deception and or harm experienced. I am very sympathetic to what you and others have expereinced of an unhappy nature via Waldorf, and although firmly committed to an Anthro-paradigm, will not defend what is not defensible. I personally feel that Steiner would be incredibly disappointed with much that has been etched into stone in Waldorf (and misunderstood) causing so many of the problems.
But, I won't discuss spiritual realities with a communist, and to misrepresent oneself as being interested in Waldorf rather than being up front about their ideological agenda is something with which am totally unsympathetic . I was actually having what I thought was a very positive exchange with Dan on the issues of the Nazis and Aryan racial views until Peter showed up. I do, indeed believe that people should be up front and forthcoming, and the games played by
Peter S. about Steiner, Aryan supremacy, racism and anti-Semitism to be dishonest and based on untruthfullness.

As for being in a group who thinks that we "know everything that happened in Western civilization", I'm unsure what you mean? My own life journey has been one of questioning and doubt. In Steiner's worldview I have found the most satisfactory answers for myself and answers that have stayed me through some very very difficult, even tragic life expriences. Even so, I continue to question everything and strive to stay firmly planted on terra firma.

I do not find myself in agreement with many of the things said by others on a number of topics and threads. I'm on my own journey and can not be held accountable for what others say, nor is it fair or reasonable to try and attatch by way of association what I might believe from what others post here.