Chapter 16: Political Ideology

Where did Left and Right as political descriptors come from?

The origin of the left/right political axis is generally dated to 1789,[just before the French Revolution] when the French National Assembly met in Versailles, where the French King, Louis XVI, had his grand Palace.

During this meeting, the legislators who upheld revolutionary values tended to group themselves on the presiding officer’s left, while those who supported the monarchy were grouped on the right. This helped establish a persistent association between the left, "the party of movement" and revolutionary, progressive, liberal values, which tended toward egalitarianism, and between the right, "the party of order" and conservative, traditionalist or hierarchical values.

This was binary or 2fold, not 3fold.  Even today most Parliaments are binary,consisting of Government (Executive) and Opposition.

Motto of the Revolution

During the Enlightment of the 18th Century, philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, creating a social contract between the rulers and the ruled.  They challenged the idea of divine right monarchy, advocating for limited government and the separation of powers to prevent tyranny. 

Out of this, Robespierre (one of the great figures of the French Revolution) suggested that the words "Liberty - Equality - Fraternity" be written on the flags and uniforms of the National Guard in 1790.

 

The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen explained these terms:

Liberty consists of being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.

Equality was defined in terms of judicial equality and merit-based entry to government:
The law must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.

The third term, Fraternity, was the most problematic to insert in the triad, as it belonged to another sphere, that of moral obligations rather than rights, harmony [good will] rather than contract, and community rather than individuality.  Various interpretations of fraternité existed. One was "fraternité de rébellion" (Brotherhood of the Rebellion), that is the Union of the National Assembly deputies refusing its dissolution as ordered by King Louis XVI: "We swear never to separate ourselves from the National Assembly, and to reassemble wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the realm is drawn up and fixed upon solid foundations."  
Fraternity had the quality of solidarity.  It soon became “Fraternité, ou la Mort” – Brotherhood or Death.  The introduction of the guillotine showed what they meant!

The French flag, the Tricolore (3 vertical strips of blue, white, and red) was adopted during the French Revolution and is related to the motto: 

• Blue: often associated with freedom and peace, and historically
  represents independence and justice. Liberty
• White: traditionally linked to the Bourbon monarchy, but also symbolizes truth, community, and unity. Equality
• Red: represents courage and tenacity, and honoured those who sacrificed during the revolution. Fraternity

Rudolf Steiner revived and deepened this motto when he developed his Threefold Social Order.

• Liberty, Freedom, Independence as a principle for the Cultural Realm; for Individuals, citizens
• Equality, Fairness, Justice as a principle for the Rights Realm; for Groups (family, clubs, associations, companies, regions, states, countries, ...)
• Fraternity, Community, Cooperation as a principle for the Economic Realm. for Whole world without boundaries, everyone)

It is interesting to note how many powerful mottos and phrases in our language have this tripartite form:

• "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
• "Citius, Altius, Fortius" ("Faster, higher, stronger") is the official Olympic motto
• "Veni, vidi, vici": (I came, I saw, I conquered) Julius Caesar reporting to the Senate.
• "Live, laugh, love"
• "Faith, hope, and charity"
• "God, family, and country"
• "Gold, frankincense and myrrh", the Biblical gifts of the Magi
• "Hook, line, and sinker"
• "In no way, shape, or form"
• "Lock, stock, and barrel"
• "Every Tom, Dick and Harry"
• "Reading, writing, and arithmetic"
• "Reduce, reuse, recycle"
• "Sun, sea and sand"
• "Wine, women and song" 

Rudolf Steiner used this technique, (called Hendiatris, in which three words are used to express one idea) in his verses, meditations and mantra.  In the German language he combined three nouns used in earthly language terms to create one new dynamic word to express a spiritual reality.  Some examples from his “Foundation Stone Mediation:

German	English (as translated by Julian Pook)
GeistesMeeresWesen	Spirit-ocean-being
MenschenWeltenWesen	Cosmic human being
HerzensLungenSchlage	Beat of heart and lung
MenschenGeisteGründen	Human spirit-grounds

 In the English language, words based on Latin or Greek roots often have a triPARTite form of prefix-ROOT-suffix such as monARCHy, bioGRAPHy, unFOLDing and so on.....

RB

Chapter 17 Recognising 3foldness around us.

Many writers and speakers recognise the threefold nature of our society, and also the three related principles of Freedom, Equality and Cooperation in various ways.

The particular insight that Rudolf Steiner brings towards threefoldness is the recognition that each of the 3 Realms needs to have one and only one of the principles ruling, and not the others.  The principles are mutually incompatible, acting like a poison that causes an illness when applied in the wrong Realm.

The healthy connection of principles to Realms, he saw as:

Cultural Realm	Political Realm	Economic Realm
Personal: introspection	Meeting face-to-face	Working side-by-side
Learning; self-development, knowledge, skills. talents	Agreements; contracts. Rights - obligations	Creating commodities for others, not for self
Freedom, independence	Equality, fairness	Community, cooperation
Individual, personal	Small groups with boundaries	The whole world without boundaries

 If we look around us, can we see examples of principles being applied in the wrong place causing distractions and thus reducing the effectiveness of what is being done. Here is one example:

What happens when we bring Equality into the Cultural Realm, for example, in education.  Do we expect everyone to be the same (equal) as a result of their education?  Well, let’s make all children sit the same exam and measure them by some external standards.  And while you at it, get someone who has never met the child to set the exam!  Nothing personal or individual here.

On the other hand, what if a teacher gets to know a child, and “reads” by introspection what the child needs by way of experience to develop its faculties and talents, and teacher and child mutually set tasks for the child to achieve?

So where does Equality belong?  It belongs to the Right of every child to an equal opportunity for a quality education -- which may be expressed by financial support.

*****

A key component of the Cultural Realm is the activity of education.  The task of education [based on Latin ‘e’ or ‘ex’ = 'out of' or 'forth'; and ‘ducere’ = 'to lead' or 'guide'] is to support, particularly in the first couple decades of life, the incarnation of the human Ego into its bodies [physical, etheric, astral] inherited as a gift from its parents.  The incarnation process involves adapting one’s bodies to better suit the spiritual intentions of one’s Ego or Self.  The role of teachers is to sympathetically observe their pupils and ‘read’ [with the help of the knowledge of human development derived through spiritual science] their individual evolving situation and create opportunities and activities for the pupils to engage with the world around them – to open the eyes (and indeed all senses) of the pupils to their environment.  In this process they engage the pupil's soul processes of thinking, feeling and willing, which leads to them acquiring

• spiritual and scientific knowledge,

• an ability to express oneself artistically, and

• to develop manual and other skills and talents.

So how do exams get into this process?

When parents enrol a child in a school, they sign a contract with the school which will specify the rights and obligations of each party.  No doubt part of this will be based on a school brochure describing the educational process the school promises.  This will presumably include the school’s intention to offer senior students an opportunity in certain classes to test their educational achievement.  For this, the school will have contracted with a testing service provider, such as NZQA for NCEA [National Certificate of Educational Achievement], the CAIE [Cambridge Assessment of International Education] or IB [International Baccalaureate].  This, as a service, falls into the Economic Realm.  Parents, student and teachers need to be free to assess if sitting such an exam will be educationally beneficial for the student.

**** 

Some goals of Rudolf Steiner’s ‘Art of Education’ are:

• to enable young people to go into the world with a sense of their own destiny.

• to be awake to what comes to meet them (their destiny) with a capacity to respond effectively and appropriately.

• to evolve, able freely to give shape, direction and purpose to their own lives in the world (not to fill slots created by past society for its perpetuity).

The structure of Rudolf Steiner’s education is threefold:

• First seven years: Home and Early Childhood; 

  Receive the child with reverence.

• Second seven years: Primary; 

  Educate the child in love.

• Third seven years: Secondary,

  Send the child forth in freedom.

Each stage develops capacities useful in social life

• EARLY CHILDHOOD:

  The attitude of the kindergartener leads the children towards a reverence for all creation and an experience that the world is good (of god).  This childhood experience of reverence and freedom-to-play transforms, in later life, into a reverent respect for the freedom of each individual human spirit, which is the basis for an INDEPENDENT CULTURAL LIFE in adult society.

• PRIMARY:

  When it is a matter of discipline, developing a pictorial understanding of the consequences of one's actions, remorse for hurt feelings and the desire to do better is used in gentle guidance rather than more forceful intimidation, discrimination, sarcasm or negative comparison. 

  For instance, if there has been a transgression, a story picturing a similar situation can be told where the feelings of the victim are graphically depicted and a healing process is worked through.

  This maintenance of human dignity in personal relations lays a foundation for the feeling of equality of opportunity or consideration between human souls, which is the basis for a HEALTHY RIGHTS LIFE in adult society.

• SECONDARY:

  level in the High School, students continue their studies in all subject areas, balancing the academic with artistic and practical activities. 

  The emphasis now is on seeking the truth, true knowledge - knowledge of one-self and knowledge of the world. 

  From an awareness of the true needs of the world and of one's own capacities arise the call of vocation and a love of the human ideals of freedom, equality and community. 

  A COMPASSIONATE WORLD ECONOMY in adult society will grow when our work (production) focuses in a brotherly-sisterly way on meeting the needs of others rather than merely satisfying ourselves.

RB 

~~~~~

Chapter 18

Rudolf Steiner views on land ownership

Rudolf Steiner considered that private land ownership is detrimental and should be replaced by a system where land is held in trust for the community.

This concept is a key part of "social threefolding," which considers a radical restructuring of society into independent cultural, political/rights, and economic realms. 

In Steiner's view, land and the means of production should not be treated as capital to be bought and sold for private gain, but as a shared resource managed for the benefit of all members of society. 

The problem with private land ownership:

Steiner viewed land as being in a category distinct from other economic goods. 

Land is a finite resource; it is not manufactured.   Other than Hong Kong Airport, we cannot make any more of it even if we want more.

For most goods, when we have used or consumed what has been made, we can manufacture more as needed.   The private ownership of consumer goods, which are meant for immediate use, is entirely appropriate in Steiner's model.   This is because their value is tied to their function in satisfying human needs, not to capital accumulation.

When land becomes a commodity (that is it can be sold and bought, as it can be now, for exclusive ownership without end), its value is determined by speculation and its potential to generate capital, not by cultural or community needs.  This, unfortunately, encourages the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few [oligarchs], which Steiner considered socially destructive.

For example, a piece of land might be exploited in a way that generates the highest profit, even if that use is spiritually or culturally harmful to the community.

Rudolf Steiner believed that true equality is impossible when Economic interests favouring a few dominate the Rights and Cultural spheres. 

The solution: Instead of private ownership, Steiner proposed that LAND be held in "common" by self-governing, non-profit community trusts acting as stewards.

Under this system, the land would be owned by the community, while the right of access and to use it for a specific purpose (such as farming or housing) by individuals or by corporations for industry, would be determined by the Community Land Trust. 

The users of the land would pay a regular lease, much like home owners now pay rates to a local body for infrastructure and services such as “3 waters”, and possibly insurance.   

When a lease expired, the Community Land Trusts would hold hearings to determine who would be the next best person to farm/use a tract of land in terms of value to the community.  This would be a democratic process, not dependent on the size of one’s purse but on relevant skills and talents.

Farmers and residents would "own" the improvements they make, such as the house on the land, but not the land itself.   The departing lessee would sell the improvements to the new lessee.   This allows them to benefit from their labour while preventing the speculative capture of land value.

In Scandinavian countries municipalities own a moderate proportion of the land.   For example, In Oslo more than a third of the city area is ‘publicly owned’.

In China, the State owns all urban land.  Collectives own land in rural areas (villages).   Individuals and entities can acquire land use rights for a fixed period (70 years – about a ‘lifetime’ – in urban areas), but they do not own the land itself.   These land use rights can be traded and are subject to the state's power to requisition land for infrastructure or development, making development processes faster than in countries with private land ownership.

Māori traditional concepts of land ownership emphasize collective responsibility and belonging to the land, rather than private ownership, with whānau (family) and hapū (sub-tribes) holding rights to specific areas for various purposes.  (Many Indigenous cultures are similar.)  For Maori land is central to cultural identity and tūrangawaewae (a place to stand).  Kaitiakitanga, or guardianship, is the responsibility to protect and care for the land for future generations, which includes respecting the land itself. 

This contrasts with the European/British (colonisers) concept of individual, absolute ownership, leading to misunderstandings of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi and later to the NZ Land Wars.

~~~~~

Steiner's views on land ownership need to be seen within the framework of social threefolding, which seeks to differentiate and balance three autonomous spheres of society. 

• Economic (solidarity): Manages production and distribution, without dominating other spheres.
• Rights (equality): Democratic laws regulate but do not own economic assets.
• Cultural (freedom): Education, art, and science remain free from state and market control.

By placing land and productive assets in Community Trusts, the economic sphere is prevented from dominating the other two, leading to a healthier, more balanced society. 

Aspects of Ownership

While private ownership is commonly understood as a single, unified concept, Rudolf Steiner saw it as having different aspects depending on the type of asset.

His views fundamentally distinguish between capital (such as land, buildings, infrastructure, machinery, etc.) and goods produced for consumption, which are destroyed and disappear. 

The nature of capital

In Steiner's view, CAPITAL — especially land and the means of production—is a product of the collective efforts of society over generations.   It should not be treated as a private commodity for several reasons: 

• No single person can create capital alone; it is always dependent on the collective activities, knowledge, and infrastructure of the wider society (education, universities, research institutes).
• Treating land as a commodity disconnects its value from the actual labour put into it, leading to property speculation that can create cycles of economic instability.
• When the economic sphere, with its focus on capital accumulation, dominates society, it corrupts the other two spheres: the political and the cultural.   For instance, private wealth buys political influence or determines the direction of cultural institutions like education (research grants).   

When Rudolf Steiner gave a 8-lecture course on Biodynamic Agriculture in June 1924, in Koberwitz (Poland) he built a holistic picture of a farm as a singular, living entity, akin to a human body, where all parts (soil, plants, animals, humans) work together in a dynamic, integrated system.

Each farm is unique, an Individuality with its own specific characteristics and potential, requiring a deep, intimate understanding of its elements—from soil types to local ecosystems—to work in harmony with nature. 

There is a focus on the interwoven relationships and dependencies between the soil, plants, animals, and the people working the land. 

Land, including farmland, is prohibitively expensive for young farmers, who have the energy for it.  They saddled with debt mortgage for most of their lives.  Is there a better system?

Demeter International and national associations support Biodynamic farming.  Several countries [UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, USA, Canadian provinces, Egypt, New Zealand] have established Trusts owning a farm or farms for Biodynamic farming.  It is small, but a beginning.

RB

~~~~~