Thursday, August 30, 2012
Introduction to the Third Edition (August 23, 2001) - An International Council for Responsible Globalization instead of Global Economic Association?
Since the last foreword to this booklet on social organics was written (July,1999), humanity has managed to enter the third millennium - and certainly one of the most striking developments that has since come to the fore is the increasing vehemence and fervor with which the issue of globalization, the world economy is not only being addressed in all sorts of United Nations and World Forums and academic – including anthroposophic – conferences, position papers and books, but is also being fought out violently by extremists of all shades and colors in the streets. Who has not heard and been struck by the violence of the “Battle of Seattle” during the World Trade (WTO) Summit in the fall of 1999, the subsequent skirmishes and clashes at similar high-profile events in Prague and Quebec and the most recent tragic shooting of a violent demonstrator by police in the streets of Genoa during a meeting this summer of the G-8, the political leaders of the eight leading industrialized nations in the world? It is indeed difficult to imagine a more pressing and explosive issue facing humanity on earth than this question of addressing hunger, poverty, ill health, poor housing in the third and fourth worlds and the preservation of the global environment in the face of a rich and prosperous first world consisting of the three current world power centers: North America (Canada and the USA), Western Europe and the industrialized nations in the Pacific (mainly Japan, Korea and Singapore). To put it in a nutshell: globalization is in. An example:
"When we focus on globalization, we are focusing on the number one problem. Globalization must remain constantly in view. Our Forum makes it clear that we need a permanent network structure allowing civil society to interact with the UN and the media. I suggest an International Council for Responsible Globalization. I see support for this idea. So let us discuss this possibility together and hope that it works. I am, as always, optimistic."
With this message, Mikhael Gorbachev opened the State of the World Forum 2000, “Shaping Globalization: Convening the Community of Stakeholders” that took place from September 4-10 in New York.
When I read a report by Ulrich Morgenthaler on this and events surrounding the UN Millennium Summit at that time, my immediate reaction was to try to draw attention again to the contents of this little but remarkable booklet of three introductory lectures on Rudolf Steiner’s Course on World Economy. For much more than the scarce allusions that Gorbachev makes to “a permanent network structure allowing civil society to interact with the UN and the media” and then already expressing the hope “that it works”, The Just Price develops after all a much more detailed as well as intrinsic and all-encompassing guideline for the justification, constitution and task of such an International Globalization Council: economic associations consisting of consumers, traders and producers to establish through the new royal art and science of social organics the so badly needed just prices for the commodities and services that humanity requires in order to live and progress comfortably and safely on this earth. Or to put it in words of the last paragraph of these three lectures:
"The working world economy and the social community will not be rescued by a world computer (internet), but by a network of associations covering the whole earth, a network in which community consciousness and consciousness of productive and creative freedom can meet and confer in human beings, because they have become capable of speech."
So I sent an e-mail the next day under the heading “Real Alternatives to Current Globalization” to various friends and colleagues including Bernard Wolf and Claus Sproll from the Social Science Section in America, Nicanor Perlas, author of the book Shaping Globalization – Civil Society, Cultural Power and Threefolding, the Working Group Global Threefolding (GlobeNet3) and the Anthroposophical Society (Forum 3) in Germany, who together had issued an invitation the “people all over the world all over the world to work with spiritual substance and explore practical ways to engage in the social movements of our time” (Das Goetheanum, nr 8/2001) during their conference “Building a New Global Culture of Spirit” from June 20-24 in Stuttgart, Germany and other friends and colleagues. I referred in this email to the news in the said report by U. Morgenthaler that the IFG (International Forum on Globalization) is planning a position paper “Beyond the WTO: Alternatives to Economic Globalization” to answer the question often put to them: “If you are an opponent of the current global regulation inclusive the WTO, what are you for?”
I now quote from an updated, and here slightly revised version of this e-mail done in Hillsdale, NY on July 31, 2001 that was sent to, among others, Stuart Weeks of the Center for American Studies in Concord, MA and John Friede from the Worldview Institute and Lisa Beaudoin, who is campaigning for environmental justice in the New Hampshire area. Why I am repeating this here will hopefully become clear in due course:
"Now, as some of you may know, in the summer of 1999 I translated and published with the help of among others economist David Gilmartin in New York a working translation of Herbert Witzenmann's introduction to Rudolf Steiner's course on World Economy, entitled The Just Price – World Economy as Social organics. This project grew out of my experiences of the first meeting of the Social Science section of the Goetheanum in North America that I attended in the summer of 1998 in Kimberton Hills, Pennsylvania and where I presented a working translation of Herbert Witzenmann's social-esthetic study The Principles of the Anthroposophical Society as a Basis of Life and Path of Training.
In a report about this conference that the Willehalm Institute in Amsterdam published in a booklet Munsalvaesche in America – Towards the New Grail Community  I wrote (on. p. 23 ff.) the following remarks, which have in essence not been outdated by the march of time:
‘Having hopefully made the point that mutual brotherly criticism, if it is immanent, can be constructive and even uplifting, let me now proceed to some fundamental observations I felt called upon to make during the conference, and concerning which it is necessary to gain clarity in our ranks, if the goals set by the conference are to be properly realized.
The first one recalled to mind that Rudolf Steiner, to my knowledge, never once spoke or wrote of the threefold society as such, but always of the threefold social organism. This is of fundamental importance, because the concept of the social organism includes the whole earth, while the concept of society does not. Secondly, this social organism is the functional counterpart of the threefold physical human organism, and in the first instance not of the human being as body, soul and spirit as was maintained during the conference. (Why the economic life for example is functionally related to the nervous and sense system, the rights sphere to the rhythmic system and spiritual life to the metabolism of man cannot be dealt with here. See Rudolf Steiner’s book Threefold Social Renewal).
Thirdly and most important of all, if we are speaking of the threefold social organism, it is important to realize the weight of Rudolf Steiner's indication in his lectures on World Economy, already referred to here, that the form in which the idea of the threefold nature of the social organism is presented must, from now on, be based on these very same lectures. Concerning this point, I allowed myself the sad but true observation that, apart from a few true and hardy souls, this crucial change of form has not (yet) been taken to heart within our movement, including the Social Science Section under the current leadership, with all the dire consequences for humanity and the earth. This point seems especially important for the following conferences that the Social Science Section in America as a three-year plan has in mind, namely, as the conference text further stated "to support the developing of threefold concepts and recognizing their emergence. Future conferences concerning threefoldness on a world-scale and threefoldness in the individual are planned."
Lastly, if we are speaking of a threefold society, we can, nay must look at the Anthroposophical Society as the universal prototype for such a society, i.e. regard the 'principles' as the archetypal charter for a general human society on earth (see Herbert Witzenmann’s booklet on The Principles of the Anthroposophical Society).
Grasping this distinction may be especially relevant to someone who not only spoke with great enthusiasm about the threefold society, but also has written and acted on it, namely Nicanor Perlas from the Center for Alternative Development Initiatives (CADI) and author of the Philippine Agenda 21 Handbook (PA21). What is striking about this Agenda, which is fully endorsed by the current government of Philippine President Ramos, is the implicit similarity between the central objective of this official document, which sees a threefold society in terms of Civil Society, Polity and Economy (Business), and the first (central) paragraph of the 'principles' (originally called statutes) of the Anthroposophical Society! For the central tenet of PA 21 is sustainable human, spiritually liberating development. Is this not another way of saying that the Philippine people are striving to be "a union of people who wish to cultivate the life of soul in the individual as well as in human society on the basis of a true knowledge of the spiritual world" – the first statute of the Anthroposophical Society? This striving could be a fruitful basis for further dialogue and deliberation during the proposed international conference on Shaping The Future: Globalization, Anthroposophy And The Threefold Social Order form October 26 to 30, 1998 in Metro Manila, Philippines on, among other things, the all important question on how to realize the objectives of this PA 21 in the light of the research already done on the 'principles' of the Anthroposophical Society and the experiences (and mistakes) made in the attempt to implement them.
Having translated this booklet by Herbert Witzenmann on World economy as social organics during two sizzling hot summer weeks in the cool marble halls of the New York Public Library, I was able to refer to it during the social science meeting in Upstate New York later that summer of 1999 and provide some copies to friends and the bookstore of the New York branch of the Society.
But the point I want to make, or rather the question I want to raise is this: Why has this booklet – apart from criticism by Gary Lamb, co-editor of the American journal "The Threefold Review", in a (private) letter, which we will deal with shortly – been largely, if not completely ignored (as far as I can see) in the subsequent world-wide discussions about Globalization and World Economy, and, more important:
Is it not finally time to start considering, and if found to be valid to start acting on the main point of this booklet, namely that the World economy lectures by Rudolf Steiner still form today the new exposition of the idea of the threefold social organism and that the presentation (not the contents) of his earlier book on Threefolding (Towards Social Renewal) in 1919 as he himself has stated, is outdated, and therefore, as experience has shown, doomed to failure?
As I see it, the world asks of us a twofold task that proceeds from the common spiritual font of social organics as the new Royal Art:
1. Realize and implement the lectures on world economy as the new conception and language of global threefolding, and
2. Realize and implement the 'principles' of the Anthroposophical Society as the universal charter for a truly civil society of free spirits.
This was my motivation for translating and presenting the two above mentioned working translations by Herbert Witzenmann (1905-1988), former member of the executive of the General Anthroposophical Society in Dornach and head of the Social Science Section at the Goetheanum." (End of the quotation from the email)
The foregoing may serve to make it quite evident that the most pressing issue occupying the minds (and bodies) of so many of our contemporaries is the globalization issue and that exactly this issue was already addressed through the new way conception and language that Rudolf Steiner developed in 1922 in his Course on World Economy. But the notion that this Course also inaugurated a new, universally valid, form for the representation of the idea of the threefold idea of the social organism has not totally convinced the editors of The Threefold Review. As mentioned, the only criticism of the argument presented in this booklet that I received was from Gary Lamb in a letter in which he maintained – after admittedly only having read the first of the three lectures presented – that “Herbert Witzenmann erred in his conclusion that in the World Economy lectures Steiner was presenting a new conception or metamorphosis of threefolding in which the economy is no longer to be viewed as a component of a threefold organism." He conceded that Rudolf Steiner presented the threefold idea a new form in his World Economy Course – he could hardly deny this, as Rudolf Steiner states this quite clearly himself in the first lecture – but did not indicate what exactly this new form consists of. He then furthermore strongly urged me to reconsider my attempt to introduce this conception of social organics to America.
Now Lamb’s criticism on this point is shared by his co-editor of The Threefold Review, Joel Kobran, with whom I recently spent a congenial afternoon in the company of John Root Sr. and Famke Zonneveld in North Egremont (MA) discussing it at some length. We parted company, however, without coming to any real consensus. Since I consider the issue at stake absolutely fundamental and vital to the development of the royal art and science of social organics, I will attempt to present both sides of the argument here and then draw some conclusions. Hereby I will denote the two editors as “the critics”, Rudolf Steiners course on World Economy as “the Course”, the idea of the threefold nature of the social organism as “social organics”.
The critics make several points:
1. The Course does not represent the new way for the presentation of social organics, or at least not in the West, because immediately after its conclusion, Rudolf Steiner gave three lectures on social organics in Oxford, England on August 27, 28 and 29, 1922, the last two of which are published under the title Threefolding – A Social Alternative (London, 1980), in which he spoke in the “usual” manner of the book Towards Social Renewal and did not mention the Course at all.
Commentary: It is true that Rudolf Steiner does not mention the Course by name, but he certainly does so judged by its contents. In the lecture on August 18 e.g. he compares among other things the rate of industrial development between England and Germany in the course of the 19th century and then states that precisely because his book Towards Social Renewal was not understood and as such acted upon the horrendous inflation that was scourging in Germany at that time came about. Therefore “it is quite natural that in Germany my book Towards Social Renewal is almost forgotten today…, while in 1919 it was soon read far and wide. The moment in time when the contents of the book should have been realized is now past as far as Central Europe is concerned. The moment was past when that strong decline of the German currency began which now completely fetters the German Economy.” Here is the point where Rudolf Steiner could have said something like the following: “An just because of this abominable situation in Central Europe, which made it impossible for my book to be read anymore, I took pains to present the threefold idea in a new way in my Course on World Economy.” As pointed out and developed by Herbert Witzenmann in the second lecture of his booklet, the social organism as a social organic work of art originated in its cultural-symptomatic mode of appearance, on the one hand, by the emerging economic contrast between England and France in the 19th century and on the other hand by its conceptual structure: this forms the introduction and fundament of the Course. Thus looked at contextually, Rudolf Steiner certainly does mention elements of the Course in his lectures in Oxford.
But what about the question of the new form? After all, he states in the same lecture on August 28: “So I believe that in future my book should be read more in the West and in Russia, but that it has no chance of becoming effective in Germany. The West, for instance, can learn much from this book, for in a non-utopian manner it simply states how the three spheres co-exist and should interact. For the West the moment in time does not matter, for much is still to be done for the right interaction of the three currents, the spiritual life, the economic life, the politic-legal life.”
Here my answer would be that Rudolf Steiner probably believed that for some time to come his book from 1919 could be read in the West and Russia. The question however is: for how long? Perhaps it was read for some time, but the fact of the matter is: social organics was not understood and implemented in the West, let alone Russia. And it is my contention that after the economic crisis and crash in 1929, a second world war as a continuation of the first, brought on largely by economic causes, the establishment of central banks as the (partly hidden) real centers of world-wide power and control, rampant inflation and huge debts in third world countries and the so-called victory of capitalism (the West) over communism (the East), in which economic forces predominate over anything else, we must now turn to the Course as the most viable way to present social organics as a real alternative to the current form of globalization to the world.
Update for this edition: We include here the words that Rudolf Steiner spoke during the Christmas Conference 1923 concerning the effects that the march of time has on the presentation form of the social threefold idea. This reference was inserted as an addendum to the previous edition; they are, to our knowledge, the last words with which Rudolf Steiner addressed this theme. They are not given here as proof that our viewpoint is necessarily correct, since there is after all a time span of some 78 years separating us from them. They do serve to show however that the way of representing social organics from 1919 is out of date; they can be read in the lecture “The Idea Of Future Building in Dornach” on 31 December 1923, in the volume entitled The Christmas Conference For The Foundation of the General Anthroposophical Society 1923/24 (Anthroposophic Press, 1990, 214 ff.):
"I have often stressed amongst ourselves that if you want to live in reality and not in ideas, then the realities of time must be given particular recognition. The time in which one lives is a reality. But it is difficult to generate an understanding for this time as being something real. There are still people today who represent the threefolding of the social organism with the very sentences I used to use with regard to the conditions prevailing at the time, in 1919. History is indeed advancing so rapidly just now that if someone describes things in the way they were described in 1919 this seems to be hundreds of years out of date."
I did quote these words in my presentation of The Just Price in the Rudolf Steiner Library on Sunday, August 26, 2001 and expressed the hope that our critics will include them in their (hopefully) forthcoming response to our response, which was done in the spirit of a brotherly competition for the truth (update 2012: no response was made. Joel Kobran in the meantime has passed away.).
2. “Herbert Witzenmann erred in his conclusion that in the World Economy lectures Steiner was presenting a new conception or metamorphosis of threefolding in which the economy is no longer to be viewed as a component of a threefold organism."
Commentary: Implicit in this critique is that Herbert Witzenmann would somehow negate or even destroy the usual image of the social organism as consisting of the spiritual-cultural, politico-legal and economic sphere as given in Towards Social Renewal. For, so it is further argued, just as the spiritual sphere is threefold, so the economic sphere is threefold. This is a serious but unfounded charge and results from a lack of conceptual discrimination, from not adopting or understanding the view that Herbert Witzenmann, in line with Rudolf Steiner, is taking in the Course in order to develop the new threefold language. And in order to adopt this novel view, which requires mobility in thinking, it is certainly necessary to read beyond the first lecture from this booklet, because it is really in the second and third lectures that Herbert Witzenmann further presents and rounds of his argument. The above sentence must furthermore be place in the right context. We quote from the end of the first lecture of this booklet, at the place where Herbert Witzenmann comments on Rudolf Steiner’s announcement calling for a new language and way of thinking:
“That only means: Today one cannot speak anymore about the threefold idea in the way that one did when it was inaugurated. With that the threefold idea is not suspended; on the contrary, it is a matter of becoming aware of the way it can become active among people in a new form and be understood. The decisive sentence here is the following one (p.102): ‘We have found, within the economic process itself, a division that is threefold. Only, it is necessary that we begin to think of this threefold order in the right way.’ That is the decisive sentence: The threefold idea was inaugurated in a period of extreme economic, political and cultural turmoil. It was the period of complete collapse after the First World War. That would have been the moment to make the three members of the social organism mutually independent and in their independence bring them into a proper working relationship with each other. That would therefore have been a point in time to find the proper place and function for the economic life etc. within and out of this threefold social organism. Unfortunately this fruitful moment was lost; it was not recognized and seized. Time moved on and Rudolf Steiner says: We cannot speak anymore as we did then, because the economic, political and monetary straitjackets and automatisms have gotten much, much worse; and because the situation is no longer so open as it was then, we cannot make any headway directly in threefolding the social organism. Instead we must see how these three components, i.e. the economic proper, the rights and the spiritual, are latent within the economic life; we must see how actually all economic and social problems arise because these three components do not function together properly. We must develop the threefold idea out of the economic life, so that we recognize: These three components function together within the economic life, but we cannot come to a proper conscious awareness of their significance and function; here lies the cause for all economic and social problems. The transformation of the threefold idea therefore means that the economic life can no longer bring itself to bear as a component within the three independent components of the social organism, but that the threefold idea must be recognized as consisting of the three economic archetypal forces and be taken up within this economic life, if this economic life is to be saved from destruction.
This is directly and indirectly expressed by Rudolf Steiner in many passages. At one point, he says (p. 134): ‘And you can see it also from the other side. I pointed out how in the simple case of exchange, where money becomes more and more important, or indeed where exchange is recognized at all, the economic life enters directly into the sphere of rights.’ One person gives and the other one takes in the economic life. By becoming aware of this, we realize that these rights components and this rights sphere cannot be omitted in any way, for in giving and taking it is the just balance that matters. To this can be added the following: ‘The moment that reason is to enter the economic life, we must once again let that which prevails in the free spiritual life flow into the economic sphere.’ The organizing in the spiritual life, the justice in giving and taking, and the actual economic activity of enhancing products of nature: in this sense you therefore have in this course a continuation and at the same time a re-inauguration of the threefold idea. To say it once more: The economy is not a component within the threefold social organism, but the threefold organism is a component within the economic life. That is the interesting new situation that is characterized by this Course.”
The sentence that made our critics stumble is put in italics here, but it can obviously only be understood when it is realized that in this booklet Herbert Witzenmann is talking about two forms of the economic life: the economic life (proper) in a narrow and in a larger, extended sense. In the above sense the word economy must be taken in the latter, extended sense as containing the (half free) spiritual life, the rights sphere (exemplified through just price) and the economic life proper (work applied to nature). Thus the economic life in a larger sense assumes the position of the social organism as a whole in which all three subsystems, including the economic life proper – the transformation (transubstantiation) of nature – can be found. Only seen in this way does the above sentence make sense and can the new social organic paradigm be understood.
3. Our critics further maintain the following: When Rudolf Steiner at the end of his first lecture in the Course (p. 16) said: “And now the position is such that if we are to speak once more today to people such as you, we can no longer speak in the same terms as we did then; today another language is necessary, and that is what I now want to give you in these lectures. I want to show you how today one must think once more about these questions, especially if one is still young and can participate in what has to take shape in the near future.” he was addressing students of economy, hence the Course is meant only for economists and therefore deals exclusively with the organization of the economic life.
Commentary: The first thing to note here is that Herbert Witzenmann calls this a Course on Social Organics, a term which – it must be admitted – rolls much better of the tongue than the Threefold Social Order, the Threefold Commonwealth (smacks of the British, no offense meant), Triformation etc. all of which do not convey the real meaning of the German word Dreigliederung, which is not so much a folding than an organic “membering” process. The term furthermore directs the attention to the main concept at hand, namely that of the social organism a term which, as we have seen, goes much more in the direction of the green concept of environment, than the term society. At the end of the first lecture of the Course, Rudolf Steiner says that above all else the social organism has to be understood: “The first thing needful is to describe the economic process.” (p. 22). But even before this can be done, the social organism must be understood: “The old State frontiers and limitations are interfering with the economic process. The latter (i.e. the economic process) must indeed be understood, but we must first gain an understanding of the social organism.”(p. 22).
That this Course is not exclusively the domain of economists, but for all those who are concerned with the proper production, care and management of humanity’s needs on earth is one of the many contributions that Herbert Witzenmann makes in this booklet to understanding the Course. As he develops in the second lecture, far from being only a course for economic experts, it is “a practical book, purely by the fact that by serving as a sort of social scientific meditation, it elevates the mind and develops a worldview.”
This brings to mind another aspect of the change in form initiated by the Course, showing how it differed qualitatively from the book Towards Social Renewal. In a footnote to his “Preliminary Remarks Concerning The Purpose This Book” Rudolf Steiner wrote (on p. 27)
“The author has purposely avoided confining himself to the customary political economic terminology. He knows exactly which are the passages a ‘specialist ’will call amateurish. His form of expression was determined not only by his desire to address himself also to people who are not familiar with political and social scientific literature, but primarily because of his view that a new age will judge most of what is specialized in this literature, including its terminology, to be one-sided and inadequate.”
In his Course on World Economy this was different; there he addressed himself to the scientific world in order to develop out of the terminology and concepts of the traditional, national or political economy a science of world economy, a new form of the threefold idea to meet the needs of the time. This is why, like all the other professional courses he gave, he emphasized – as I have shown in the introduction to the first edition to this booklet – that the annotation of the Free School for Spiritual Science should be inserted in it, stating among other things that these manuscripts are, as it were, text books, study-material of the School for Spiritual Science – something which unfortunately was broken with in the course of the dramatic history of the Anthroposophical Society, a tragic and still unresolved chapter known as the “book question.”
By now it may be obvious that the Course far extends beyond the usual scope of the (academic) economist, for by taking as a starting point for the genesis of the social organism the three production factors nature, labor and capital (spirit) and showing how through the interaction between these three factors, economic values arise that ultimately need to be balanced by economic associations in order to establish just prices, it touches on the three major issues that all have their particular lobbies and political parties vying more or less against each other for political power and clout: the Greens have nature as their prime concern, the Democrats in the US and the social-democrats in Europe are concerned with labor and have historical connections to the unions, while the Republicans here and the Liberals and Conservatives in Europe see capital as their mainstay of power. There is at present no real world-wide alternative movement with the foresight and vista to help bring about economic associations, internationals councils for responsible globalization, that alone are capable of harmonizing these three productive components of the social organism: a movement for social organics as a Grail impulse of the 21st century could.
This third edition with the above foreword was written, and is also to be presented, in the Rudolf Steiner Library in Ghent NY. I am extremely grateful to Fred Paddock, the librarian here and John Root Sr. from the Berkeshire-Taconic Branch of the Anthroposophical Society in America for providing me with the facilities to complete this work and for making it possible to send out a newsletter announcing these talks to the members and friends of the Society in this area. I also want to warmly thank newly found friends such as Dennis Evenson for his (late night) editing work and his help in getting this booklet to Pro Printers in nearby Hudson, and Richard Roe who, while away on holidays these last few weeks in August, let me stay in his snug little cottage just a couple of houses up from Fern Hill where the Library stands. Lastly, I thank all those who attended my first talk and presentation at the library of Werner Greub’s book How The Grail Sites Were Found – Wolfram von Eschenbach And The Reality Of The Grail and all those who bought copies of it. This enabled me to find and partly finance my way over here and made my stay, on the whole, a fruitful and even joyous occasion. Perhaps it can lead to the establishment here of an American branch of the Willehalm Institute for the advancement of anthroposophy as grail research, royal art and social organics.
Robert J. Kelder,
August 23, 2001
Rudolf Steiner Library, Ghent
 I read this report on October 8, 2000 in the German Weekly Das Goetheanum, the organ for the General Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, Switzerland, a report that later appeared in translation under the title “An International Council for Responsible Globalization” in News for Members (Winter 2001) the organ of the Anthroposophical Society in America, Ann Arbor, MI.
 Munsalvaesche is the name given by Wolfram von Eschenbach in his poem Parzival to the Grail Castle. The Goetheanum as the physical and spiritual center of anthroposophy – the science as distinct to the poetry of the Grail – could be seen as a modern Grail Castle, the idea with respect to America being that as a necessary supplement to the idea of a modern Camelot that John F. Kennedy’s administration seemed to embody in the eyes of many of his contemporaries, America needs a Goetheanum, a modern Munsalvaesche in order to search and find its bearings.
 “The whole Earth, considered as an economic organism, is the social organism.” Rudolf Steiner, World Economy (London, 1977), p.23.
 A new edition of this working translation is to be presented during the third of three talks at the Rudolf Steiner Library in Ghent, NY this summer. See the poster in the appendices for further details.
 This conference was organized by the Anthroposophical Group in the Philippines, 110 Scout Rallos Street, Timog, Quezon City, PHILIPPINES, tel. No. (63-2) 928-3986 fax (63-2) 928-7608; Email: email@example.comNicanor Perlas. In the conference text Rationale and Need for the Conference another striking similarity is the observation made on the failure of what here has been called the social organic counter principle. Under the heading Internal Crisis and Loss of Moral Authority it is written: "Of equal concern, the global anthroposophical movement is minimally prepared internally to deal with the challenge of elite globalization. It has not threefolded many of its key institutions around the world. As such, it does not have the moral authority to advocate threefolding since it does not do what it champions. The global anthroposophical movement is also embroiled in internal disputes, losing sight of the great task ahead at the end of the 20th century." The text then goes on to quote the late Hagen Biesantz, former member of the Council in Dornach: "He refers to the importance of the organic working and mutual strengthening of the Center (Dornach and Central Europe) and the Periphery (all other national societies, groups and individuals) of the global anthroposophical movement. Problems arise in the anthroposophical movement, if this healthy working of Center and Periphery is interrupted or is not functional." Biesantz could well have referred here to the writings of his former colleague on the Council, Herbert Witzenmann, such as The Spiritual and Social Significance of The Principles of Rudolf Steiner and To Create or Administrate/ Rudolf Steiner’s Social Organics - A New Principle of Civilization. During the conference in Kimberton Hills I mentioned the possibility of translating these studies as study material for the next conference, as well as for the coming Manila gathering. (Update: this proposal was not accepted and so still awaits realization).
 In the preface to his book Shaping Globalization N. Perlas writes on page xxiii: “I would deeply appreciate comments of any kind, positive or negative.” I do not know if he regards my comments as positive or negative, since I have not (yet) received any response from him.
 I do not have the complete letter in my possession during this stay in America, but hope to give the complete gist of his critique here, complemented by the discussion I had with his co-editor Joel Kobran. I have not been able to ask Gary Lamb for permission to make a quotation from his letter semi-public, semi-public because this booklet is not publicly for sale but meant as private study-material. In any case, I thank Gary Lamb for taking the trouble to make his critique and sincerely hope that the editors of The Threefold Review will now finally proceed to raise this argument on fundamental Threefold strategy in the pages of their magazine, so that more interested parties can take note of, and possibly join in, the discussion.
 Rudolf Steiner, Threefolding, p. 18.
 Rudolf Steiner, Threefolding, p. 19.
 All page numbers from quotations of the World Economy Course in the three lectures refer to the translation by A.O Barfield and T. Gordon-Jones (Third edition, paperback, London,1977).
 For further information and background see Herbert Witzenmann’s social esthetic study on the Principles of the Anthroposophical Society (Willehalm Institute, 5th ed. Ghent, NY, 2001).