Social Ecology
From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 8:01 am
Subject: Social Ecology Part One
In an attempt to research exactly what is
meant by "Ecofascism" and the "Social Ecology"
that Mr. Staudenmaier 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. Staudenmaier 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. Staudenmaier'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)
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 8:05 am
Subject: 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 Staudenmaier'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
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 8:36 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part One
Dear Christine,
I am so glad you did this as I am sure is
Peter. You have a great mind that allows you to seek what is
truly being said. Peter will be able to take another gander at
his work and figure out what he is really trying to say.
Now, I am wondering if you or maybe Frank
or JoAnn might be able to share where this differs from Dr. Steiners
Threefold work?
Bradford, I am wondering if you can detect
where specifically this teaching is coming from? Specifically
in the long run of the social questions dating back to the Greeks.
What stream is he swimming in?
And Danny, I am wondering if you might be
able to see what it is that Mr. Staudenmaier is really seeking
through his interactions with Dr. Steiners work? What is he really
trying to get in this particular incarnation?;:))) and how can
the Steiner students help him on the stormy seas to make a safe
harbor?
Love,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:37 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part One
----- Original Message -----
From: dottie zold
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part One
Dear Christine,
I am so glad you did this as I am sure
is Peter. You have a great mind that allows you to seek what
is truly being said. Peter will be able to take another gander
at his work and figure out what he is really trying to say.
Now, I am wondering if you or maybe Frank
or JoAnn might be able to share where this differs from Dr. Steiners
Threefold work?
Bradford, I am wondering if you can detect
where specifically this teaching is coming from? Specifically
in the long run of the social questions dating back to the Greeks.
What stream is he swimming in?
And Danny, I am wondering if you might
be able to see what it is that Mr. Staudenmaier is really seeking
through his interactions with Dr. Steiners work? What is he really
trying to get in this particular incarnation?;:))) and how can
the Steiner students help him on the stormy seas to make a safe
harbor?
Dottie, Dottie, Dottie.......
I can understand your warm-hearted desire
to be openminded and positive towards anyone, including the worst
Ahri's puppet, but I believe that our best thinkers, those you
are referring to above, have a better work to do than "interpretate"
the "social thinking" (in itself total irrelevant)
of an ultra-materialistic snake who calls RS, on and on and in
spite of all the counter evidences "racist" and "antisemite".
"Nolite projcere margaritas ad Porcos" (don't give
pearls to pigs) did say the Christ in the Gospels. So let it
be for us too
Andrea the Choleric Italian.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:34 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part
One
Andrea:
"Nolite projcere margaritas ad Porcos"
(don't give pearls to pigs) did say the Christ in the Gospels.
So let it be for us too
My task is: not until the last blade of grass;
that includes ALL my brothers and sisters.
If others are do not want to indulge me in
this that is fine. I have no quarrel. But Peter Staudenmaier
blinked the other day and I caught it. That is why I ask the
above.
Love to you,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part One
Thanks Christine, you wrote:
In an attempt to research exactly what
is meant by "Ecofascism" and the "Social Ecology"
that Mr. Staudenmaier 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." <snip>
Mike:
I loved your 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
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part One
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
From: Peter Staudenmaier
(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.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part One
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.
I was discussing recently with someone how
to find truth. The question was how an "ordinary" person
could judge whether Steiner was likely correct or incorrect in
some of his more far-out descriptions of spiritual beings. It
was suggested that we could start with the things we could easily
verify, namely how Steiner treats other authors. Is he fair to
other authors? That is, in agreeing or disagreeing with another
point of view, does he present that which he is opposing in a
manner that fairly describes what the original author intended
before beginning with his objections? Steiner wrote a considerable
amount on philosophy and the history of philosophy (for example,
his book "Riddles of Philosophy") so a person knowedgeable
about philosophy in general could establish whether Steiner was
generally trustworthy by how he treats other philosophers.
This type of test is useful for writers beyond
Steiner as well. Take for example Peter Staudenmaier. Is he fair
to other authors? That is, in agreeing or disagreeing with another
point of view, does he present that which he is opposing in a
manner that fairly describes what the original author intended
before beginning with his objections? Does he pass this basic
test of trustworthiness?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:08 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part
One
Andrea:
Dottie, Dottie, Dottie.......
I can understand your warm-hearted desire
to be openminded and positive towards anyone, including the worst
Ahri's puppet, but I believe that our best thinkers, those you
are referring to above, have a better work to do than "interpretate"
the "social thinking" (in itself total irrelevant)
of an ultra-materialistic snake who calls RS, on and on and in
spite of all the counter evidences "racist" and "antisemite".
Okay Andrea so I will have a go at it. In
as far as where this stream of thought comes from.
It seems that, according to the Heavenly Sophia
we have three stages of Sophia: the first being Sophia, during
the Grecian period, where they experienced her as a living being;
second after the founding of Christianity we find Philo-Sophia
portrayed in the arts such as paintings, poems and then philosophers
'feelings for this Lady Philosophy; thirdly we have what we now
call Anthroposophia who leads us to our spirit self. And each
of these coincides with our evolution up till Spirit Man.
Here is an excerpt of what happens during
this last transition and Ahriman comes into play.
pg 86:
However, this relationship
to Philo-Sophia as a living being changes - and in a very radical
way - in the last thrid of the period under consideration (the
beginning of the consciousness soul age), when, after recieving
the substance of the cosmic intelligence into his own being,
man began to engender his thoughts for himself without any connection
with the living being Philo-Sophia. This kind of intellectual
activity, as we have seen, reached its culmination in the philosophy
of Hegel, who brought forth out of himself a whole cosmos of
thought. In a certain sense his philosophy was, therefore, at
once the high-point and the end of all philosophical developement.
For having sundered any living connection with the sphere of
the Sophia, Hegel's thoughts turned into 'pure thought, but only
such as can be grasped with the instrument of the physical body,
which dies with a persons death'. As a result of this, two paths
opened up for philosophy: either to fall from the heights of
intellectual speculation down into matter (and this 'fall' of
philosophy actually took place in the transition from Hegel to
Marx) or to find the path from a purely intellectual understanding
of the world to a spiritual understanding of it, which is possible
for modern man only through spiritual science. The former would
lead to a complete ahrimanisation of human thoughts. Ahrimans
taking hold of cosmic intelligence which has become earthly.
Onto page 98:
In the example of the utterly
materialistic doctrine of Marxism, which emerged in the nineteenth
century on the foundation of the wholly idealistic philosophy
of Hegel, this endeavor of Ahriman to seize hold of intelligence
belonging to man and entice it - and, with it, the whole of mankind
- away into the stream of an ahrimanic evolution which would
ultimately destroy Earth, manifests itself with particular clarity.
It is evident in this most striking of examples that the philosophy
of Hegel, the culmination of earthly philosophy as a whole, it
cannot out of itself prevent humanity from falling prey to the
power of Ahriman unless it is able to make the transition to
the modern science of the spirit or Anthroposophy, which leads
directly into the spiritual world. For that which lives in the
thought of Hegel, despite its being directed towards the ideal
aspect of the world, nevertheless remains mere thought; and this
cannot out of itself find the path to actual supersensible perceptions,
to imaginative consciousness.
So, here it goes back to at least Hegel. And
boy is it difficult to separate what is Steiners thoughts and
that of Mr. Prokofieff. They are so intermingled that one can
not quote it effectively in my opinion. So, within this post
is mostly Prokofieff with a smattering of Dr. Steiner three or
four word quotes that I just do not have the time to seperate:(
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Social Ecology Part One
Hi again Christine, you wrote:
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:
It's cool that you can be so patient and objective
- I think that's great! I on the other hand like to go for the
throat, shoot from the hip (something I've learned from another
prominate list member ;^)), and hopefully try and come close
to telling the truth, about how I feel and why. And if I'm wrong,
well - Oops - sorry! I am by no means a scholar, thus my approach
is very unscholarly, but I'm pretty good at sniffing out rats.
I am so very grateful for people like yourself,
who have the skills and the patients to go toe to toe with PS.
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.
I think your right too! Honesty! Above all
Self 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.
And real scholars probably won't create a
bias Polemic tirade, motivated by concrete and arrogance, with
the intent of smearing RS, Anthroposophy and Waldorf, primarily
for the attention, acknowledgement, or just the plain FUN, that
can be had in doing so.
Rudolf Steiner, in my opinion was a real
scholar by my own definition above.
Me too. He went to great lengths to define
Schopenhauer's and von Hartmann's positions it the POF, before
offering up his opposition, and he even mentioned that he had
great respect for the latter. Something Daniel wrote about in
response to what you wrote above.
Respect speaks volumes to me.
All the best
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re:
To Peter 2
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
