Anthroposophy in Hawkes Bay       
Rudolf Steiner Centre, 401 Whitehead Road, Hastings 

Events over next 2 weeks

[31 August  to 14 September]

• Friday 5 to Sunday 7 September. "Enlivening the Earth" Introductory Biodynamic Weekend Workshop.  See www.taruna.ac.nz 
• Saturday 6 September. 9:30 am. School of Spiritual Science. Recapitulation Lesson given in Berne.
• Monday 8 September. 5 pm. A talk by David Urieli "On the Journey from Death to a New Birth" Soup will be served,at 5p.m.  prior to this talk.
  
• Friday 12 to Sunday14 September Taikura Class 12 Project displays and talks
• Friday 12 September. 7 pm. Study Group: Michael Letter p201 "Memory and Conscience". Leading Thoughts 174-6.

Support for Dan Freeman's Family & his Recovery Journey

Dan's progress after surgery for aortic aneurysm

On the Journey from Death to a New Birth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Future Events  Regular Groups   

Items, Notices, Letters, or articles of interest to the Hawkes Bay Anthroposophical community
ARE MOST WELCOME
Please email your text by midday Saturday to the Editor at info@anthrohb.nz with"For AnthroHB News"  in the subject line.
Diagrams and pictures need to be in .jpeg or .jpg format. 

Robin Bacchus, Editor

~~~~~

Threefold Musings 

 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.)

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 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

~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting books relating to Social structure.

Threefold Musings archive