Continuing my commentary on the 27th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.
To Mr. Peter Staudenmaier, because Steiner rejected Marxism he must have been a right-winger, since being apolitical is impossible (a classical Marxist stance). Thus Peter Staudenmaier invents a political affiliation for Steiner that Steiner would have flatly rejected: right wing reactionary. This rather facile approach to biography is only possible to a writer unfamiliar with the source material. In the political context in which Rudolf Steiner grew up - the declining Austro-Hungarian Empire - political participation was nearly impossible for the average person, and a substantial number of intellectuals, Steiner included, remained staunchly apolitical. The Empire was politically an autocracy like Russia, complete with an active secret police, and the number of offenses that could get you in trouble were many. Simply calling for a Constitution could at times get you locked up. When a parliament was formed, it was given only token power and was generally ineffective. Intelligent people could see through the illusion, and didn't waste their time participating. Instead they focused their energies on the one area where they had freedom: culture. The period saw one of the greatest explosions of cultural productivity in history. Steiner was part of this. Understanding this background, it is then comprehensible why Steiner remained apolitical throughout his life.
To talk of Rudolf Steiner's “mature” political vision presumes some form of gradual ripening. While Peter Staudenmaier weaves a compelling tapestry depicting Steiner’s maturation from racist through reactionary to nationalist bigot, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to Steiner’s actual biography.
Leave a comment