Review of Radical Political Economics http://rrp.sagepub.com/ Perishable Money in a Threefold Commonwealth: Rudolf Steiner and the Social Economics of an Anarchist Utopia Guido Giacomo Preparata Review of Radical Political Economics 2006 38: 619 DOI: 10.1177/0486613406293226 The online version of this article can be found at: http://rrp.sagepub.com/content/38/4/619 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Union for Radical Political Economics Additional services and information for Review of Radical Political Economics can be found at: Email Alerts: http://rrp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://rrp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://rrp.sagepub.com/content/38/4/619.refs.html >> Version of Record - Nov 17, 2006 What is This? Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on July 24, 2012 Perishable Money in a Threefold Commonwealth: Rudolf Steiner and the Social Economics of an Anarchist Utopia GUIDO GIACOMO PREPARATA Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences,University of Washington,Tacoma,Box 358436, 1900 Commerce St.,Tacoma,WA 98402-3100; e-mail:[email protected] Received May 25,2004; accepted February 15,2005 Abstract Austrian mystic Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) devoted significant portions of speculative activity to social and economic questions; during the fateful interwar period,he delivered remarkable lectures on the nature of economics and the physiology of the social order. He fashioned analyses consonant with the intuitions of monetary reformer Silvio Gesell and kindred to institutional narratives of the old German school,providing penetrating insight into the (perishable) nature of money,distribution,and the fundamental notion of the gift. His blueprint for social Utopia was the threefold social order,whereby three independent systems of collec- tive life (economy,state,and arts and sciences) are conceived to function as a harmonious whole. Steiner’s contribution to the social sciences, naturally obliterated in our opportunistic times of “ultra-economism,” would deservedly occupy a preeminent place among heterodox thought that awaits impatiently the demise of modern capitalism’s unreasoning appetites with a view to refashioning an alternative,more humane economy. JEL classification:A13; B15; B31; B52; E43; N14 Keywords: anarchism; money; institutions; gift; Utopia 1. Introduction: Anarchism There lingers in the mists of the past age an entire tradition of thought and will that sought to seduce the hearts of men and women and come forth as an alternative to the views prevailing at the turn of the twentieth century. This tradition one may subsume under the rubric of “anarchism.”Anarchism took many forms. Its driving stimulus was the desire to fashion society in ways that afforded no prevarication on the will of individuals: “an- archy”as opposition to all forms of order and discipline,thus a summons to chaos,to com- mitting the releasing infamy against an insufferable world; but also “an-archy,” or rather “anocracy” as a reasoned resistance to domination and centralization of all power (Buber [1949] 1966:43),thus a school of thought,as worthy as any other,striving to map out “the way” in the conduct of human affairs along different, more supple paths of knowledge. Review of Radical Political Economics,Volume 38,No. 4,Fall 2006, 619-648 DOI:10.1177/0486613406293226 © 2006 Union for Radical Political Economics 619 Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on July 24, 2012 620 Review of Radical Political Economics/ Fall 2006 Anarchism (from the Gr. Αν-, and αρχη, contrary to authority), is the name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government— harmony in such a society being obtained,not by submission to law,or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements, concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional,freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption,as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. (Kropotkin 1975:108) The two standard-bearers of this movement during its halcyon days of the mid-nineteenth century were the German Max Stirner (1806-1856) and the French Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865); in them was in fact rooted the Continental, and subsequently the American, tradition of anarchism. Proudhon also came to inspire the volcanic Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), who in turn rose to shock Russia and Europe as the patriarch of a new brand of materialist, subversive anarchism; and although natural scientist Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) was later caught in the Bakunian whirl,he brought himself to wage anarchism’s political battle in the name of peace,brotherhood,and mutual aid,thus exten- uating some of the early extremism of “the Russians.”What of the Germans? Most future notable exponents of German anarchism were born in the 1860s,and all would eventually swear by Stirner’s sole opus—one of anarchism’s sacred texts—The Ego and His Own (Stirner [1845] 1982). History especially remembers the figures of Gustav Landauer (1870-1919) and his colleague and friend Silvio Gesell (1862-1930). They too, like their European brethren, much admired Proudhon. I shall say more of them later. So, in essence, what did they all want, these apostles of freedom? From Stirner, they learned to celebrate individuality; Stirner taught them that one should not thoughtlessly graft society’s incumbent idols, gods, saints, or state law on one’s code of daily conduct, and substitute them for independent, highly personal thinking and wishing. Let the ego find his way,admonished Stirner; let the “I”of each seek the truth,let each think for him- self. Let that happen,and finally collect for society a swathe of such free beings,and there shall be peace,unfettered productive initiative,and dialogue among people—unambiguous and earnest dialogue. It was not clear from Stirner’s collection of exhortations, however, in what, exactly, lay this “egoistic” urge. Such a yearning of the ego: was it an ideal rep- resentation, and if so, of what greater system was it itself an expression? Or was it a purely biological manifestation, a craving of Nature? And if so, what for? No one knew for sure. And so, soon they all disputed and split on the issue. In the Russian camp, Bakunin screamed, “Man, like the rest of Nature, is an entirely material being” (Bakunin [1871] 1970:65),to which his fellow Russian anarchist brethren,literati Leo Tolstoy and Nicolai Berdyaev,retorted that only in God could one find the seed of individuality and hence the practice of freedom; indeed,Tolstoy thought Jesus’Sermon of the Mount the seminal text of compassionate anarchism (Krimerman and Perry 1966:50,152–60). Kropotkin,on his part, sought shelter in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), or only half of it, to be precise; he rejected the Malthusian principle that struggle is dictated by scarcity of resources, and he found evolution’s propeller instead in that peculiar trait of human, and animal,interaction:the drive for cooperation. The time for free agreement and mutual aid had come,Kropotkin clamored at the turn of the twentieth century; it is no use resisting this natural tendency of organized organisms living in groups, he averred. So by this time, on Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on July 24, 2012 Preparata / Rudolf Steiner and an Anarchist Utopia 621 this front,the confusion of ideas and discordance sundering the young anarchist fraternity was already deep. And what of the economics of anarchism? Here,the inconsistency and disagreement among the several currents of the movement were even more profound. They asked one another,Should we strive to establish commu- nism or a regime of private stewardship over resources collectively owned? Or should the struggle be for private property tout court but within strictly regulated boundaries? The Russians—Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Alexander Berkman1 (1870-1936)—advocated pure, cooperative communism. In principle,their argument was faultless:there can be no teacher or administrator, said Kropotkin, without the peasant who feeds him and the weaver who clothes him; therefore,because no one in society can live without anyone else,disparity of remuneration among dwellers of the same community is unwarranted,for no one is “worth more” than the other.2 Plato too would have agreed but then added in his Laws, with real- ism, that such an ideal system is, accordingly, fit for the gods but not for men, alas. So thought Proudhon,who leaned toward a mixed system of property balanced by the redistributive action of the public hand. Most important, Proudhon taught all anarchists that the true seed of injustice,economic and otherwise,resides in privilegeand in the per- fidious laws and institutions introduced by the clans of oligarchy to shield such a privilege. The germ of misery and exploitation for Proudhon festers originally in the kind of legisla- tion that sanctions the exaction of rent and the payment of usury. Rent,interest,dividends, unearned income,and tolls of every specie—in all this lies the original economic sin; it is in the municipal courts,where such laws are enforced,that violence on and exploitation of the weak by the strong is daily consummated.3Thus,the anarchists’invective against cap- italist exploitation does not rely, as does Marxian analysis, on the individuation of some, for them undefinable, value-creating virtue of labor, which the absentee owners allegedly exploit to their advantage by appropriating all means of production (factories, industrial plants, resource corners, distribution, etc.). For anarchism, the oligopolistic, proprietary disposal of the factors of production is indeed a grave impediment, a problem of the first degree, yet it is not, causally speaking, the anchor of their critique. Rather, the crux is the toll fee for the usage of such means of production,which,yes,are in the hands of few; and ultimately these few are by right protected to exact such a tribute. It is precisely thanks to the perpetration of this privilege that the factors of production have accrued in the lap of an elite. There is the (original) rub. Hence,the famous Proudhonian “property is theft,”in which by property,he signified what Thorstein Veblen would come to arraign as “unearned income”(“something for nothing”),4 pecuniary expressions of prerogatives that are gained at the expense of their legitimate owners: workers, craftsmen, and the laboring and thinking collectivity as a whole. In this fashion,anarchism could become not only the political platform of the disinherited masses but that of middle-class entrepreneurs,stewards,and scholars as well. Stirner + Proudhon = a 1. The famous author of the ABC of Communist Anarchism (Berkman 1929) who had also attempted to murder Carnegie’s tough Henry Clay Frick during the Homestead steel strike of 1892. 2. A fine literary transliteration of this stance may be found in William Morris’s News from Nowhere (Morris [1890] 1995). 3. For a discussion of Proudhon’s legacy on Germany’s anarchist tradition,and in particular on the reform schemes of Silvio Gesell,see Preparata and Elliott (2004). 4. See,for instance,Veblen ([1923] 1964a). Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on July 24, 2012 622 Review of Radical Political Economics/ Fall 2006 wish for communal desire within a tempered regime of private property, in which private initiative could have been protected from the sequestering hand of the war-mongering state and the predatory reaping of the corporate combines. God in fine,Bakunin aside,was suitably left to the nurture of the individual, free to worship as he pleased. German poet-anarchist John Henry Mackay (1864-1933),5 Max Stirner’s most successful popularizer, wrote, I should be the last to approve of the crime against the liberty of individuals which should seek by force to prevent a man from adoring God as the Creator,the Christ as the Savior...so long as he did not...demand tribute from me in the name of his infallible faith. (Quoted in Krimerman and Perry 1966:26) So, from the outset, anarchism—this pulsating underground of surcharged animosity versus “the times”—presented itself as a hopeless congeries of often stridently contradic- tory visions, creeds, and existential outlooks. Erudite narcissuses rubbed shoulders (uncomfortably) with naturalist Communist reformers, and lettered visionaries stood side by side with maverick businessmen,and all of them shared much parlor space with gangs of veritable political assassins, who drank from the same philosophical fount. We should not forget that from the mid- to late nineteenth century, it was mostly from the ranks of anarchism that the “terrorist centrals” of the West would fish desperadoes, whom they could fittingly cast for the kill.6 In fact, long after the original brew had evaporated from the cauldron of anarchist ferment, the popular conception of the anarchist is still that of a “ragged, unwashed, long-haired, wild-eyed fiend, armed with a smoking revolver and bomb” (quoted in Riley 1973: 51). Anarchism’s greatest weakness was indeed this inner fragility. Such a collection of activists could be no match for the triumphant march of corporate business enterprise. And, at the far end of the spectrum of dissent,the Communist and socialist “uncles”(especially the Germans of the SPD)7lent no support whatsoever in the struggle against the great “lib- eral” imposture. Rather the opposite, in fact; they immediately turned into anarchism’s deadliest enemies. Anarchism in the narrower form in which we know it today is a late offshoot of the social- ist movements of Europe as their left wing,in direct and violent opposition to them,espe- cially to Marxism . . . .A narchism, the cult of the individual, arose as a reaction to the [Marxist subjugation of the individual to the will of the majority]. . . . It wast herefore not only hostile to capitalism, but just as much to the powerful Marxist socialism from which it sprang. . . . The only government to which an anarchist would submit would [be] a government base d . . . on the unanmious support of all concerned. (Riley 1973:41) Coached by the restless Marx,who spent loads of lifeblood obsessively lambasting anar- chism,Stirner,and Proudhon—to him,the abhorred champions of the “petty-bourgeoisie”— the Communists gave no quarter to anarcho-syndicalism (anarchist trade unionism) or to 5. Born in Glasgow of a Scottish father and a German mother,with whom he returned to Germany as a child shortly after the death of his father. For a study of this interesting character,see Riley (1973). 6. The attempted assassination of the Prussian Kaiser Wilhelm I in 1878 and the murder of Czar Alexander II in 1882 were both carried out by teams of anarchists. 7. The old German Socialist Party,dissolved by Hitler in 1933. Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on July 24, 2012 Preparata / Rudolf Steiner and an Anarchist Utopia 623 any other improvised attempt to set up experiments for the anarchist commune:all powers to the Soviets,and all power should be wielded by the all-seeing,all-possessing (Communist) Party. The savage backstabbing of the Catalonian anarchists by the Russian Soviets and their allies during the Spanish Civil War is well-known in this regard. Today, anarchism is virtually finished; it has been moribund a long time. In restricted political and academic fringes, some wearily recall the presently outmoded anticlerical tirades of Bakunin, and too few mention the anti-Malthusian treatises of Kropotkin.8 But as far as these thinkers’ plans for Communist anarchism are concerned, they seemed to have dissolved forever. And, truly, such plans suffered from excessive vagueness. As to Max Stirner,his legacy appears to have undergone a gradual degeneration (possibly inher- ent to the rather unstructured form and substance of the work) such as to have made him the icon and patron saint of one of the two modern fragments into which anarchism presently vegetates: that of “individualist anarchism,” the other being “social anarchism” (Suissa 2001:630). The former has become a convenient outfit for the phony aesthete,who is by definition too lost in himself to pay significant heed to anything else; a social game of posing, in short, or, as someone suggested, “a mood” (Murtagh 1984: 39). The latter, instead,has been reduced to function as the receptacle of greens and ecological protesters; the American Murray Bookchin is one of their early gurus. And in the best anarchist tra- dition, needless to add, these two languishing halves despise each other.9Anarchism has thus run a wide gamut, from libertine fantasies of carousing parasitism to reasoned formulations of socioeconomic organization, via more or less destructive manifestations of nihilistic detachment, spanning from communal isolationism to a self-confinement of psychological gloom. The companion term most frequently associated with anarchism is Utopia, and this customary attribution is decidedly pejorative: utopian anarchism as a pie in the sky, a lit- erary divertissement at best and a complete waste of speculative time at worst. In any case, an irrelevance. So why bother? Why should dissenters,academic and otherwise,devote at the beginning of the twenty-first century any of their time and energy to something so patently out of commission and historically defeated as “anarchism”? They should indeed, and engagingly so, for two important reasons. First, certain strains of anarchism (the German one in particular, as shall be contended in these pages) merit to be known for their so far obscure,but indisputable scientific,value. Second,such an acquaintance with the German reformulation of Proudhon’s attack on the modern pro- prietary regime is the only means to fathom the true nature of the communal dissenting movements that have lately formed all over the world to march against “global” exploita- tion. These movements, bent as they are on communal self-governance, the protection of local interests, and monetary reform, are nothing but the natural reemergence of the sim- plest,spontaneous life-model of collective cohabitation:the “council”or “soviet”10of old. The notion of soviet, before Lenin appropriated and wholly perverted it for his own pro- pagandistic ends,stood,and still stands,as the primal,unadulterated expression of a com- munity’s conscious desire to live; the council is anarchistic through and through (Buber [1949] 1966:99–128). It is indeed from this perspective and tradition that Noam Chomsky 8. A notable exception is William M. Dugger’s essay on Veblen and Kropotkin (1984). 9. See Bookchin (1997:166). 10. Russian for council. Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on July 24, 2012 624 Review of Radical Political Economics/ Fall 2006 in the United States has borne his testimony denouncing with no relent the abominations committed by the Anglo-American empire. Chomsky’s example has been an inspiration to many activists and scholars, including lately Michel Chossudovsky, who crowned his disquieting analysis of the post-9/11 strategy of world conquest by Bush II with a pas- sionate appeal to communitarian resistance in Europe and the United States (Chossudovsky 2002: 138–43). Therefore,anarchism matters; it matters for civil protest and for purposes immediately at hand, and it is a sine qua non for keeping abreast of the most exciting and captivating phenomenon that has appeared on the horizon of economic dissent, a creative change undertaken in open defiance of corporate and financial oppression, that is, the worldwide associative movement for regional currencies. Within it,most if not all monetary schemes resorted to by local sellers and newly formed economic associations are but reeditions of the monetary schemes proposed in the 1920s by the two maîtres à penser of German anar- chism:Silvio Gesell and the protagonist of the present study,Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925). I shall return to this. It is time that radical political economics receives anew its lost anarchist tradition and that the old Marxian enmities be forgotten and buried for the sake of uniting intellectual and vital forces for the challenges that lie ahead, challenges that do not appear few and minor. By seeing anarchism welcomed back to the fold of organized dissent,we shall also hope that it will (1) contribute to the theory a few simple,yet penetrating analytical tools; (2) resume, as Utopianism benevolently conceived, its role of normative socioeconomic blueprint and thus cease to flutter as an amorphous, free-for-all literary vagary (Kumar 2003); and (3) attract a growing number of radical economists away from the somewhat sterile games of Marxian transformation and into the yet uncharted theory of locally issued means of payment, especially those bearing the device of perishability. This is a fact of economic life—marginal although it may be at this time, yet promising—and theorists must follow it. It is very important. Now to come to German anarchism. Much of this particular production was colored by the rather unique,and often bloody,episode of the Betriebsräte (Workers’Councils,or sovi- ets),which swayed numerous German cities for a brief interval of time after the debacle of the Great War (from November 1918 to May 1919). This is a deeply fascinating,yet poorly known, interlude in the recent history of Europe. The story was that Germany had united fast, indeed too fast, under the aegis of the Prussian kingdom in 1871. The new German reich (the second,that is) that came into being as a result appeared to be a strange,unstable social compound in which martial rigor and chauvinistic bluster were uncouthly blended with philosophical idealism, romantic music, superb scholarship, and state-of-the-art tech- nology. Thus, the Second Reich expanded for forty years while the world witnessed an expansion,the likes of which were unprecedented. This inchoate reich grew blindly until it was,even more blindly,dragged into war (World War I,1914-1918). Possessing in fact no political leadership worthy of the name,Germany came to be governed in war by two gen- erals. When it lost, the old reich crumbled, and out the gaping chasm of Germanhood, before the Allies set up their puppet republic of Weimar, came a number of things. One of these was the councils’ republic, a sudden mushrooming of communal constituencies informed to a variety of degrees by a congenital aspiration to autonomy. Thousands of such councils emerged overnight all across Germany. Munich saw its council proclaimed in April 1919 by a group of pacifist anarchists. It lasted five days, it accomplished nothing, and the Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on July 24, 2012 Preparata / Rudolf Steiner and an Anarchist Utopia 625 extravagant evolution of the revolutionary cabinet in its public display of impotence was possibly taken by the township to be a half-mad fanfare improvised by a troop of baroque thes- pians rather than a trial at responsible administration. Two important lead characters of this theatrical fiasco,its finance and education ministers,respectively,were the aforementioned ex-businessman Silvio Gesell and literary critic Gustav Landauer,whose vision,as will be shown hereafter, bore many affinities to that of another, somewhat different, exponent of this German intellectual oddity:the Austrian Christian mystic Rudolf Steiner. Improbable revolutionary, and a figure seldom classed among the disquieting “anar- chists,” Steiner is generally associated with metaphysical investigation and imaginative pedagogy11: a quiet thinker working in the shadow of enlightened magnates. He had been indeed the spiritual teacher of Elisa von Moltke and her husband, Helmuth, the chief of Germany’s general staff, the general who lost Germany on the river Marne (in August 1914). In spite of such elitist connections,Steiner’s social thinking remained indisputably grounded in the principles of anarchism. A lover of the poetry of Mackay (Riley 1973:7,73) and an admirer of Stirner, Steiner composed his philosophical magnum opus Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path:A Philosophy of Freedom(Steiner [1893] 1995) precisely with the intent of affording a spiritual foundation to Stirner’s ego. The mystic was a knower and teacher whose investigative glance spared nothing. Between 1919 and 1922,he elaborated a respectable corpus of reflections on social and economic themes, which he ardently believed could be enacted without much delay or administrative friction within the ram- shackle confines of what used to be the glorious realm of the central powers. In the fever- ish vigil to the German capitulation (November 11, 1918) and before the outbreak of the conciliar wave, Steiner managed to submit his social proposals to the attention of the last imperial chancellor, Max von Baden, and wrested from the latter a semicommitted assur- ance to include them in a forthcoming political program of the government. Nothing came of it. Von Baden vanished as swiftly as he had arisen,closing the door on the catastrophic epic of the Second Reich, and the Socialists enthroned themselves under the vigilant eye of Woodrow Wilson and the allied forces to govern the no less catastrophic Weimar Republic, whose sole memorable legacy was to be the incubation of Nazism. Allegedly, Steiner suffered bitter disappointment from what he perceived as a missed opportunity of great momentum. Yet, as will become apparent from the subsequent discussion, nothing could have been more out of kilter with the times than Steiner’s reforms. Indeed,they still ring hopelessly visionary to this day,possibly because our time suspiciously resembles the Belle Epoque. Uncompromising and stubbornly opposed to some of the defining institu- tions and supporting pillars of latter-day financial capitalism, these ideas drift further away from conventional economics the more they seek to approach it by means of similar formulations and common language. As Steiner himself impatiently noted, his audience repeatedly accused him of wish- fulness and utopianism,to which critique he always rejoined that human beings,if placed within the system he advocated,would be educated to think along different lines and thus change themselves. Unsurprisingly,the answer was generally thought unconvincing; it was 11. The pedagogical imprint of the Waldorf school system is indeed Steiner’s; the Austrian teacher had won over the philanthropic trust of the homonymous wealthy cigarette industrialist for launching this still success- ful educational project. Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on July 24, 2012 626 Review of Radical Political Economics/ Fall 2006 the customary impassioned defense of a defeated heretic who had not reconciled himself to the adversity of the gods. And the times are no less hostile today than they were eighty years ago. A reflection on the economics of Rudolf Steiner is presented here as an invitation to draw from a diverse source of ideas in dire need of elaboration. From such ideas, it is to be hoped that a comprehensive plan of reconstruction will be erected on the rubble and ashes of a system that, as Steiner and many others, anarchists or otherwise, foresaw sev- eral generations ago, is running maddeningly toward self-annihilation. 2. The Threefold Commonwealth In real life a person today knows little about what a human being is. . . . It is ridiculous to believe that a healthy human being could possibly not have a divine origin. A feeling for “ex deo nascimur”is something that a healthy human being takes for granted in the course of social life. (Rudolf Steiner [1919] 2001:12,59) By way of analogy:just as the human organism comprises three tightly interrelated but functionally independent “systems”(the metabolic system of digestion,the “head”system of brain and nerves,and the circulatory system of blood and lungs),society,likewise,may be construed as a composite body consisting of three conjoined spheres of activity (a tri- articulation of economics, politics, and spiritual dissipation). Contemporaries struggle with such a conception, said Steiner, for by habituation they can only suffer to contemplate aggregate life through the facile perception of a onefold entity. Applying this simple conceptual lens to the late developments of the West,we may see that a century ago,when patriotic affections ran high,the statewas,especially for the German-speaking public, the encompassing whole through which collective interactions could be conceived. Today,after national passion has suffered exhaustion through repeated world clashing,the corporate lobbyhas come to fulfill in the resigned eyes of the common man the institutional role of sovereign caretaker of society. The encroachment of econom- ics on the other two spheres is a process that was already underway at the time Steiner was compiling his observations. The source of social evil,Steiner believed,comes from the trespassing of one particu- lar sphere on the purview of the others. It is as if society becomes transmogrified by devel- oping in excess one particular system at the expense of the other two,so much so that the overswollen organ comes,by tumorous obstinacy,to colonize and assimilate the other vital centers,and thus creates imbalances leading to a variety of more or less virulent reactions and maladies. The body economic can be expected to function properly only if these spheres can be assured of individual independence within the network of mutual interde- pendence that they naturally compose. The three kernels of the social body are as follows:(1) economics should concern itself exclusively with production,circulation,and consumption of commodities (Steiner [1919] 1923:39); (2) the “rights-state,”on the other hand,is the sphere that strives to establish a code of law to shield the dignity of individuals; whereas (3) the domain of the “arts and sciences” embraces all those faculties gathered to “nurture the spirit” (religion, research, and inspired creation). Economics is society’s stomach, in that it procures the necessary sustenance for Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on July 24, 2012 Preparata / Rudolf Steiner and an Anarchist Utopia 627 the perpetuation of the great social hive; laws and rights manage the dynamics of interrela- tionship; and the spiritual sphere sustains the power of the ego: the innovative “I.” Because the economic engine of society has come to be driven by the mechanics of the division of labor, its proper tending seems to intimate that it may function optimally by burning the fuel of brotherhood; whereas the principle animating the legal realm, engrossed as it should be with protecting the rights of individuals, must be that of equal- ity; and, finally, a blossoming of artistic and scientific expression may proceed unham- pered so long as the spiritual sphere is ruled by freedom (Steiner [1919] 1923: 70). Steiner reaffirmed the anarchist belief in self-government and free association of men along lines of purposeful affinity. In other words, the catalysts of human union and asso- ciation must possess a functional aim: craftsmen unite in guilds; engineers may assemble in “societies”; consumers, tradesmen, and entrepreneurs form “interest groups” to weigh on the quality of the commodities they have a mind to purchase; productive and farming nuclei should amalgamate on the basis of territorial,climactic,and geographical likeness; and so on. These natural “attractions” Steiner proceeded to absorb within the three broad groups of his basic articulation: again, economics, rights, and arts. This is a novelty. His predecessors in the tradition of free thought (Bakunin,Kropotkin,and Landauer) had jug- gled uncomfortably with the desire of upholding freedom and the necessitous concession that some form of archè (rule, order) is inescapable in the common drift of things. They granted that, in the community, “order” must be established in some form. [Gustav Landauer] evolved a decentralist and antiauthoritarian critique of Marxis m . . . calling for the replacement of the State with a federation of autonomous communes orga- nized from below. . . . Blending the federalist principle of Kropotkin and Proudhon, Landauer called for a society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid,“a society of equalitarian exchange based on regional communities which combine agriculture and industry.” . . . He called for people to create a free society “outside”and “alongside”the existing one; he urged them to “step outside capitalism” . . . to create what we would now call an alternative society in the form of libertarian enclaves with the established order that would serve as an inspiration and a model for others to follow. (Avrich 1988:250–51) The “old guard”of anarchism often spoke of “institutions”devoted to guaranteeing the fluidity of free association among the members of the community. The sphere of rights in the threefold commonwealth achieves, in theory, precisely this aim. The watchful eye of the state was contemplated by Steiner only in so far as it affords protection of workers’rights in the face of economic prevarication. Although,on one hand, it is understood that politics and governmental meddling should be, as a rule, excluded from all economic action (the libertarian proviso), it is no less evident, on the other, that pressure brought to bear on labor remuneration (to reduce it to bare, “iron” minimum) must be repulsed by an agreed charter drafted by the community under the tutelage of the sphere of rights, whose foundation, guiding impulse, and function are, as mentioned, that of establishing equality for all men and preserving their dignity in the workplace. In the economic domain, workman and entrepreneur produce commodities. Anarchists, includ- ing Steiner, reject the classic theory of value, whereby wages are computed by way of an arithmetic factoring of spent exertion (this theme shall be developed in the following sec- tion); commodities, which are the collective fruit of manifold expenditure of physical, mental, and spiritual effort, bring in proceeds whose partitioning ought to represent the Downloaded from rrp.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on July 24, 2012