The Philosophic Roots
of Modern Ideology
Liberalism, Communism,
Fascism
by David E. Ingersoll
and Richard K. Matthews
Prentice Hall, 1991, paper
LIBERALISM
p42
Rousseau's chronicle of human evolution, titled Discourse on the
Origin of Inequality, begins with a description of the life of
our protohuman ancestors. Asocial, amoral creatures blessed with
sufficient food and natural shelters, they lacked any reason for
interaction among themselves. Having very simple needs which the
natural environment easily met, these creatures were lazy, contented,
and peaceful. Rousseau believed that they operated on two principles
of motivation: self-preservation and compassion. Naturally, these
primitives did everything necessary to survive. Given the low,
animal level of wants and the relative bounty of nature, this
did not require struggle for scarce resources. But in addition
to self-preservation, these creatures displayed compassion because
they did not like to witness the suffering of any of their number.
Although the first principle-self-preservation-would always take
precedence over the second, conflict between the two would rarely
occur.
Over a period of years, these primitive
needs began to change, and it became necessary for these creatures
to expend additional energy to meet the new, superfluous wants.
As Rousseau put it, "The first man who made himself clothing
or a dwelling, in doing so gave himself things that were hardly
necessary." Taking on a force of its own, a dynamic situation
developed between human needs and wants. As these creatures began
to want new objects and to work to secure what they desired, they
become incapable of being satisfied or fulfilled, always desiring
additional, more sophisticated things. Out of this process developed
the need for other people; thus, humans became social creatures
Originally asocial, they evolved and needed other humans in order
to survive. Rousseau, in contrast to Hobbes and Locke, believed
humanity to be a developing species changing over time. More important,
humans are the only species who had the potential to participate
knowingly in their own evolution!
At first, temporary hunting and gathering
associations were sufficient to meet the needs of humanity. Eventually,
psychological needs developed, more permanent relationships were
required, and families were formed. Believing this stage to be
the happiest in history, Rousseau lamented its passing and noted
the transition into civil society caused by the creation of protocapitalist
property rights.
The first person who, having fenced
off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say this is mirze
and found people simple enough to believe this, was the true founder
of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and
horrors would the human race have been spared by someone who,
uprooting the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his
fellowmen: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost
if you forget that the fruits belong to all and the earth to no
one!
To be sure, prior to the invention
of property rights that allowed individuals to exclude others,
there occurred random, sporadic outbursts of violence, but this
was the exception. With the creation of property, the generally
peaceful existence of precivilized humanity came to a close and
a constant, systematic, all-pervasive competition and exploitation
of people by one another began.
But from the moment one man needed
the help of another, as soon as they observed that it was useful
for a single person to have provisions for two, equality disappeared,
property was introduced, labor became necessary; and vast forests
were changed into smiling fields which had to be watered with
the sweat of men, and in which slavery and misery were soon seen
to germinate and grow with the crops.
Rousseau's account of human history
reached the point where Hobbes and Locke began their arguments.
As economic inequality and class divisions developed between those
who own and those who do not own property, a general condition
of war prevailed. Pressed by necessity the rich devised a clever
scheme to deceive the rest of the people into establishing a state
to protect the property of the rich. In Rousseau's view, "Destitute
of valid reasons to justify himself . . . the rich, pressed by
necessity, finally conceived the most deliberate project that
ever entered the human mind." The project was the creation
of a social contract designed to protect the rich from the poor
in the name of justice for all. Presented with the contract creating
government, Rousseau argued that, "All ran to meet their
claims, thinking they secured their freedom." The modern
state, then, is the product of a fraudulent contract; and as such,
it must be overthrown in order to establish a legitimate community.
The Social Contract
Rousseau begins his most famous work,
The Social Contract (1762) by reminding us of both our past and
the predicament of the present with this enigmatic observation:
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One believes
himself the master of others, and yet he is a greater slave than
they." Here, Rousseau is exposing the self-deceptive nature
of modern life. People think they are free, yet they are not.
The modern person is a creature of alienation, an alienation that
is self-inflicted and self-endured. Individuals agreed to establish
a state believing it would bring them freedom; instead, they established
class inequality and the rule of the rich for themselves, but
with the appearance of rule of all by all. Among the first of
all modern political theorists to understand domination when individuals
enslave themselves-all under the guise of autonomy or freedom.
If the present situation was unacceptable, what prerequisites
were necessary to create a legitimate community? Since neither
fraud nor force can be resorted to, Rousseau had to create a condition
in which all willingly and knowingly consent to live together.
His prescription is threefold, involving property, factions, and
individuals.
Recognizing the disruptive effect of
class division among people, Rousseau argued that a moderate equality
of property is necessary to a harmonious society. "It is
therefore one of the most important functions of government to
prevent extreme inequality of fortunes; not by taking away wealth
from its possessor, but by depriving all men of the means to accumulate
it; not by building hospitals for the poor, but by securing the
citizens from becoming poor."' The role of government was
to help combat the creation of antagonistic class relationships
by passing legislation, for example, income and luxury taxes,
property laws, designed to redistribute wealth. "No citizen
shall ever be wealthy enough to buy | another, and none poor enough
to be forced to sell himself," Rousseau 5 argued. In this
specific prescription involving "citizens" who either
"buy" other citizens, or must "sell" themselves,
Rousseau showed clearly that his concern was with the lack of
freedom created by capitalist economic relations where one class
of citizens bought the services and freedom of another class of
citizens.
Anticipating Karl Marx, Rousseau was
alarmed at the condition of wage-slavery by which modern citizens
were oppressed. To guard further against class conflict, Rousseau
argued that everyone in society needed to own a limited amount
of property. Calling this right to property "the most sacred"
of all rights, Rousseau's position was that small ownership gave
every individual an alternative to working for someone else. Limited
property was instrumental in securing freedom; freedom remained
the ultimate goal, but without the economic security provided
by property, freedom could not be achieved.
p47
Rousseau argued for a simple one-class society where the citizens
would own sufficient property to sustain themselves and where
it would not be possible for a capitalist system to develop. Rousseau,
then, is a liberal democrat in a dual sense: He conceives of democracy
as a kind of society where everyone must have an equal chance
to develop; and democracy is an electoral mechanism whereby individuals-not
their representatives-discuss and vote on public policy.
p58
[Constitutional Convention of 1787] has become many things to
many people: To the patriot, it is the birthplace of the American
form of liberal democracy, to the student of political coalitions,
it is a fascinating study in political bargaining; to those interested
in political ideas, it provides a forum for the discussion and
resolution of enduring problems in democratic theory. We cannot
delve into all of the personalities attending the Convention nor
discuss the ideas they presented-one must tread lightly in the
preserve of American historians. But if we are forced to find
a figure who approximated an authoritative interpreter of the
principles em bodied in the Constitution there is little doubt
that James Madison must be the choice. The Madisonian conception
of the nature of the American system as articulated at the Constitutional
Convention and later formalized in The Federalist papers provides
the closest thing to an authoritative interpretation that we possess.
Following numerous other writers on American political thought,
our presentation will largely be confined to Madison's interpretation,
particularly as it is developed in Federalist No. 10. Before moving
to that detailed presentation, however, let us note some of the
effects on popular thinking wrought by the Articles of Confederation.
The American revolution was fought
in the name of resistance to arbitrary authority and in defense
of the traditional rights of Englishmen. Naturally the symbol
of that capricious authority became the English monarchy. Whether
that was a correct assessment of the situation or not is unimportant
in this context, but it did produce a widespread distrust of a
powerful head of state. This fear of monarchy was, of course,
reflected in the postwar Articles of Confederation, which provided
for little effective national leadership, much less a powerful
head of state. In the language of democratic theory, the prime
fear was tyranny by one individual or by a minority, and the resulting
political arrangements reflected that apprehension. Experience
with the Articles of Confederation, however, convinced many of
those who gathered at Philadelphia that the prime threat to the
American experiment lay not in a tyrannical individual or minority
but in the capricious moods of majorities. This distrust of uneducated,
mob-like majorities fit in nicely with the aristocratic attitudes
of many of the Founding Fathers, and it provided some balance
to the question of controlling unwarranted authority. The central
problem of American liberalism then became, at least in Madison's
eyes, the establishment of a popularly based government that would
avoid the excess of tyranny whether imposed by a minority or a
majority. It was this problem that Madison addressed in Federalist
No. 10, justifiably the most famous analytical writing to emerge
from the constitutional period.
The Federalist papers were written
by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison as individual
newspaper pieces designed to convince the people of the state
of New York to support the recently completed Constitution. While
their major purpose was persuasion, the papers also provided a
defense of the philosophical presuppositions and institutional
framework provided for in that document. In particular, Madison's
tenth paper addressed itself directly to the classic political
problem of tyranny, and it claimed to have found a " Republican
remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government."
Madison's View of Humanity
Madison began his discussion by presupposing
the desirability of some form of popular government. T here is
little in the way of systematic analysis of other possible governmental
types. It is simply asserted that a government that denied a significant.
albeit indirect, degree of popular sovereignty would be incompatible
with the character of the American people. Indeed, there seemed
to be almost universal agreement that some sort of popular government
was what was needed, but the problem lay in devising one that
would avoid the difficulties of past democratic regimes. Madison's
analysis of all past experiments with democratic governments indicated
that they were constantly subject to instability. The most common
cause of this instability was a majority of the citizens who,
for whatever reason, attempted to impose their will upon the rest
of the society and in the process deprived them of their rights.
Simply stated, prior democratic forms had a marked tendency to
degenerate into mob rule. Sensing its inability to govern, the
mob would then elevate a single person to assume dictatorial powers
in the name of the people, and once that happened that particular
democratic experiment was finished.
The cycle of tyranny of the majority
leading to dictatorial rule and the consequent loss of freedom
was all too familiar to students of the history of democracies.
Some even contended that it was impossible to create a stable
and enduring democratic government. This tendency of a group of
citizens, whether a majority or a minority of the whole, to seize
power and deprive other citizens of their rights was the cardinal
difficulty with democracies; a solution to the problem would have
to be found before the system could work. One must take note of
a distinctly Hobbesian attitude in Madison's analysis of human
nature. Human passions are such that, in the absence of constraints,
people will naturally seek to dominate one another. As Madison
boldly stated, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition
. . . But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections
on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
People are not angels. They must be
held in check, or they will tyrannize each other. Here Madison
notes an interesting characteristic of humanity. As an individual,
isolated from other individuals, people are reasonable, timid,
and cautious creatures. However, an individual inevitably comes
into contact with other individuals, and behavior changes. "The
reason of man, like man himself is timid and cautious, when left
alone; and acquires firmness and confidence, in proportion to
the number with which it is associated." When this occurs,
as it must, passion- not reason-rules. In one of the most uncharitable
observations ever penned on human nature, Madison ... eloquently
captures the essence of the situation. It bears repeating: "Had
every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly
would still have been a mob." Even Socrates, historical symbol
of the wisest and most just individual, will turn into a member
of a tyrannical mob when he becomes associated with like-minded
individuals.
p76
Jefferson's self-evident truths
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it.
Those heady, opening words of the Declaration
of Independence contain both a brief summary of the evolution
of liberalism and present a unique addition to liberal ideology.
Concepts of equality and rights go back to the time of Thomas
Hobbes, and the ideas of consent of the governed and the right
to overthrow government can be traced to John Locke. What is new
to more modern political thought is Thomas Jefferson's introduction
of the concept of "happiness" as a standard by which
to evaluate governments. In the preceding quotation Jefferson
argued that if a government does not protect people's life and
liberty, people have a right to overthrow it. More importantly,
he argued that if government does not allow people to pursue happiness-an
abstract and ethereal notion itself-people again have the right
to revolution. With the introduction of happiness, then, Jefferson
introduced a higher standard for government to strive for, and
he began to describe a view of American liberalism that was not
attached to private property.
In the Second Treatise on government,
John Locke argued for rights to "life, liberty, and estate."
But Jefferson demanded more. Although he too thought some amount
of property was necessary to freedom and happiness, he did not
think individuals had natural rights to property. Moreover, Jefferson
did not believe that property acquisition was what individuals
should pursue throughout their life. Instead, happiness is the
end for which we were created. Jefferson's clear preference of
happiness over property is evident on at least one other important
occasion. While serving as the American Minister to France, Jefferson
was asked to review an early draft of the Declaration of the Rights
of Man. Jefferson bracketed the words "right to property"
and substituted the phrase "search for happiness." Throughout
Jefferson's life he argued that it was happiness-not property-to
which individuals have an equal, natural right.
p88
Many students of American history view the Constitution of 1787
and the Madisonian political philosophy it embodied as a conservative
reaction to the more majoritarian ideals expressed in the Declaration
of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. Where the Declaration recognized
equality, freedom, and the supremacy of popular will as the ultimate
goals of government, Madison's system compromised on equality,
attempted to restrict freedom through competition, and placed
severe checks on the power of popular majorities-all in the pursuit
of stability. One need not agree with such an assessment of the
enterprise of the Founding Fathers to recognize that the overall
pattern of development of the American political system since
1787 has been toward increasing majoritarianism. The expansion
of the franchise led the way. Slowly but surely, all segments
of the populace-nonproperty owners, blacks, and ! women-were granted
the vote, so that universal suffrage became the hallmark of twentieth-century
American democracy.
p94
The idea that government ought to play a more positive role in
the lives of its citizens developed only gradually in the United
States. If one wanted to attach a date to its emergence, one could
point to the latter part of the nineteenth century, when the political
system became actively involved in the protection and control
of the economy, or to the expansion of functions that occurred
during World War I, or to the aforementioned Great Depression.
The date one might choose is somewhat immaterial. From the point
of view of Madisonian liberalism the significant fact is that
the one hundred years between 1850 and 1950 marked a profound
change in the processes of American government.
Although the core values of the liberal
tradition remained relatively intact, certain of their number
were given greater emphasis while others moved to a lower position
in the value hierarchy.(We have already noted that)the trend toward
majoritarianism had a great effect on the individualistic liberal
conception of limited government. Instead of viewing the political
system as an umpire, balancing the competing claims of private
interest groups, the majoritarian liberalism of the twentieth
century envisioned government as an active force in producing
a better life for its citizens. The impartial third party of Lockean
theory is replaced by attempts to institute a modern welfare state.
Perhaps the most important value change that occurred in the evolution
from individualistic majoritarian liberalism was in the status
of the individual.
p95
Beginning around the turn of the twentieth century, people began
asking how one could be free without the means to exercise that
freedom. To use an obvious example, a person residing in the United
States possesses a theoretical freedom or right to leave that
country for any other place in the world. That theoretical freedom
does not, however, put the money in his or her pocket that will
permit the exercise of this right. Isn't a person similarly situated,
but who possesses the means to exercise the abstract right of
free movement, actually more free than one who does not? Stated
in a slightly more complex way, people were beginning to see that
economic inequalities conferred greater power on some of their
number and that the abstract values of liberty and equality meant
little without the ability to fulfill them.
Similarly, the theoretical equality
between black and white, male and female, is little more than
meaningless rhetoric if minorities and females are systematically
denied the opportunity to achieve at least some degree of economic
equality. To return to our initial point, however, governmental
legislation that is designed to achieve at least some degree of
economic equality, or laws that attempt to ensure that blacks
and women will be treated equally both in fact and in theory will
undoubtedly constrain the freedom of other members of the community.
This is precisely what is meant by the tension between freedom
and equality. When my ability to discriminate on the basis of
race religion, or sex is abridged through the action of government,
my personal liberty is limited. While all right-thinking individuals
would applaud such legislation on the grounds that such discrimination
deprives others of their rights, from the individualistic liberal
point of view, it does reduce freedom. The response from majoritarian
liberalism would simply be that the classical value of freedom
is meaningless without relative equality. The hallmark, then,
of the American majoritarian liberalism of the twentieth century
is the attempt to use the political system to ensure greater degrees
of equality or, at least, equality of opportunity.
With the advent of majoritarian liberal
democracy, a split in the ideology occurred over the meaning of
both the liberal and the democratic components. The early liberals
argued on behalf of those market freedoms necessary to allow individuals
to pursue their own self-interest, even if this meant, as it usually
did, that one person's gain was another person's loss. When the
class inequalities produced by capitalism became obvious, other
liberal theorists argued that the freedom that was necessary to
human fulfillment was not market freedom but the equal effective
right of individuals to develop their own capacities.
Similarly, liberal theorists disagreed
over the nature of democracy. One group believed that democracy
was essentially a political mechanism for electing government.
It was important in that it allowed individuals to protect themselves
from each other as well as the government. Since this viewpoint
espoused the market freedoms associated with capitalism, it desired
a minimum amount of governmental influence so that in the private
economic arena individuals could pursue their own advantage.
The second perspective views democracy
not only as an electoral mechanism but also as a way of life,
a type of society. Placing greater weight on the principle of
equality, this side believes that participating in politics is
not simply an activity to be engaged in out of self-protection
but rather an endeavor that is beneficial in itself, part of living
a fully human life. Since every person must have an equal effective
right to develop his or her own individual powers and capacities,
some of the so-called market freedoms will be restricted in the
interests of social well-being.
p97
... any large-scale organization, including government, is, of
necessity, organized in a hierarchical fashion. That is, there
are certain people, who, by the nature of the tasks they perform,
possess far more power than others. Any organization can thus
be divided into two groups of people-the elite who make all of
the basic decisions and the mass that follows them. The reasons
for such a division are many and varied. Obviously every member
of a group, be it a government or a fraternal organization, cannot
be expected to know all of the details involved in running the
organization. In the case of political systems, people who are
nominally citizens of the state are primarily concerned with earning
a living for themselves and pursuing their individual interests.
To expect the average person to be a full-time participant in
the political process at the same time is simply absurd. The complexity
of modern society thus demands that we adopt a specialization
of labor whereby some people become experts in running organizations
and fulfill that task on a full-time basis.
... classical liberal democratic theory
confronted a similar problem and solved it by introducing the
concept of representation, so that democratic governments might
exist in large states. To the elitist, however, such a solution
really raises more problems than it solves, particularly in complex
modern societies.
A representative is, by the very nature
of the position, cut off from those represented, elitists contend.
The representative possesses far more information than the average
constituent, pursues tasks as a professional politician, and in
all probability has a broader perspective than any of those represented;
in short, the concerns and position are quite different. One would
not, after all, expect the chairman of the board of General Motors
to submit a questionnaire to all of the stockholders of the company
asking them how many cars they should build that year and then
proceed to act on their recommendation. The average stockholder
simply could not make an informed judgment on such a matter without
spending a considerable amount of time studying the market for
automobiles, that is, unless the person was willing to become
an expert.
To return to political concerns, there
is an even more pervasive phenomenon that colors the types of
decisions that can be made. The representative's (and here we
use the word to refer to any elected decision maker) position
makes it possible to influence greatly even the types of questions
that are submitted to the population. By posing two alternatives
as the only possible courses of action in any situation, the representative
can effectively preclude discussion of a third alternative that
might be more desirable from the people's point of view. In effect,
formidable limits can be set on the types of governmental action
that can even be considered. Robert Michels, author of the "iron
law of oligarchy," ... argued that organization gives birth
to the domination of the elected over the electors, of the mandataries
over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. With
organization inevitably comes oligarchy, Michels declared.
This, then, is the cornerstone of the
elitist position. The complexity and need for expertise in modern
societies ensures that popular representatives are divorced from
their constituents and are capable of making-and to a certain
extent must make-decisions independent of popular wishes. The
choice, then, seems to be between organization (which appears
indispensable) and democracy (which may be desirable). But, the
elitist argues, you cannot have both.
We must note that as yet there is no
moral judgment attached to such a position. From this descriptive
perspective, the elitist simply asserts that, like it or not,
this is the way it is, a fact of modern society. Confronted with
such an argument, the defender of liberal democratic theory might
admit that it is necessary to have this situation when the process
of running a government is such a complicated business. Such a
defender would, however, probably go on to assert that it really
doesn't matter, for the representative's constituents can remove
that person if they desire when the next election occurs. If a
person acting in the name of the people fails in their eyes to
perform his or her tasks correctly they can simply vote the person
out of office. This is, in effect the old Madisonian argument
for the appropriate means of controlling minority tyranny.
p98
... periodic elections provide no real popular control, for the
choices to replace a bad representative are greatly limited. The
existing elite controls the access to the political system, thereby
ensuring that only candidates who possess elite values are offered
as choices to the electorate. This is accomplished through the
political party structure through the necessity of having great
amounts of money to wage a successful campaign, and through a
series of legal rules and customs.
Further, even if a "common person"
surmounted all of these obstacles and was elected to office, that
person would have little power, for within the governmental institutions
themselves there are additional control devices as exemplified
by seniority and committee systems in Congress. These are dominated
by the elite as well. Under such circumstances the only choice
available to a voter at election time is between competing elite
groups who possess basically the same values, which preclude the
possibility of any real change in governmental policy. If this
is reality, what does the phrase "government by the people"
mean?
p99
Accepting as fact the notion that complex organizations are of
necessity hierarchical in structure and that a clear distinction
must be made between elite and mass, [C. Wright] Mills went on
to argue that economic factors in the United States had produced
a two-class society wherein even the government was powerless
to effect any basic changes in policy. Let us ignore for the moment
the prior argument that elected representatives are by virtue
of their positions divorced from the people and assume that they
actually do reflect popular desires. What real power does the
average representative or senator possess? Very little if any,
Mills contended, particularly regarding the basic matters such
as war and peace or significant changes in the economic structure.
The elected representative is at best in a middle-range power
position, for the great decision-making capability lies in the
hands of an economically based power elite, which is largely outside
the control of the political system. Membership in this group
is defined by birth and wealth, although it is possible for a
member of the non-elite to become part of it by adopting the values
of that group. Elite members go to the same schools, belong to
the same social clubs, intermarry, and in general share similar
values. While there may be minor disagreements among members of
the elite over the everyday matters of public policy, they share
a firm commitment to preserving the existing value and class structure.
p100
The sum of the power-elitist argument is that the government is
largely controlled by a small group of people who owe their power
to their economic and social position in the society. If this
be the case, there can be no true change in the system, for the
members of the elite group will simply not permit any decline
in their status. Government and, consequently, the representatives
of the people are reduced to making relatively unimportant decisions
which in the end can only serve to perpetuate the existence of
the status quo.
p100
From the power-elitist perspective, the American political system
has always involved tyranny by a minority, which derives its power
from its economic position. Attempts to implement greater economic
equality through the institution of majoritarian liberalism have
provided, elitists assert, nothing more than sops to the people
and perpetuated a class-based capitalist economic system. Viewing
the American political system as a device for perpetuating minority
interests, the elitist thus calls for revolution in the system
in the name of producing a true democracy. The only way the minority
control of the system can be checked is through giving greater
decision-making power to the people.
p103
... it is the well-educated and generally affluent minority that
has the highest respect for traditional I liberal democratic values.
The average person seems far more prone to adopt authoritarian
solutions to problems, is quick to attempt to silence dissent,
and in general finds it difficult to live with individual deviation
from accepted behavior.
There is a tendency in majoritarian
democracies to attempt to standardize all forms of conduct and
to punish any deviation from those norms. As the sphere of governmental
activity expands, we have found that it establishes rules of behavior
in areas formerly part of the private sphere of activity. In a
majoritarian liberal democracy, what this means is that the wishes
of a majority of the people gradually become the accepted standards
of conduct for the entire society. What bothers the elitist is
that these mass tastes seem inevitably to reflect the wishes of
what they believe to be the lowest common denominator of individuals
in the society. What develops is a mass culture composed of television
programs designed to appeal to the greatest possible number of
people, news programs that simplify complex events to make them
understandable, architectural styles designed for broad appeal,
and faddish clothing styles that reflect the changing desires
of the masses. One can go on and on.
Although the phenomenon of mass culture
is not in and of itself a bad thing for democracies, the elitist
sees it as inevitably discouraging individual deviation from the
established norms. Thus the individual who does not conform is
far less successful than one who does, but the society loses the
type of creative energy that seems to be generated most often
by nonconformists. Put in terms of political values, mass democracy
seems bent on destroying the individuality that is the core idea
in liberal democratic theory. In a way we are back to the points
made earlier about the tensions between liberty and equality.
In pursuit of equalitarian goals, majoritarian liberal democracies
tend to standardize everything, creating a society with a homogenized
culture which stamps out individual liberty.
p104
It is the irony of American democracy that the elites, and not
the masses, are most committed to liberal democratic values, and,
if the masses ever did actually rule, they would wipe out all
vestiges of these democratic norms in favor of more authoritarian
values. Voter apathy consequently, is seen as a positive benefit
since it is primarily the masses who fail to participate. There
is some question whether this view can legitimately be called
liberal democratic in that it explicitly relies on elite control
of the masses. If one insists on a more majoritarian definition
of liberal democracy, it obviously cannot be. If, however, one
defines liberal democracy in more individualistic terms while
retaining an overall commitment to popular sovereignty, normative
elitism is probably as liberal as the Madisonian variety. The
elitist, while recognizing the desirability of ultimate control
by the people, is very happy that complex modern organizations
ensure that educated liberal elites control much of the day-to-day
activity of the state.
p107
Originally, the ideology of individualistic liberalism developed
alongside of capitalism. It was believed that in contrast to the
feudal economic tradition, capitalism would free humanity from
the past and put an end to economic scarcity, so both individual
and aggregate material needs would be met in the most efficient
manner. As class divisions became more apparent and increasingly
unmanageable, individualistic liberal theorists extended the franchise.
First, they included nonproperty-owning white males; eventually,
black males and then women were granted the vote. This extension
of the franchise provided the precondition for the rise of majoritarian
liberalism.
... the implementation of a more majoritarian
form of the individualist tradition was more easily achieved in
countries other than the United States, largely because of the
strictures imposed by the Madisonian system. In America, the debate
over how much majoritarianism does in fact exist or, for that
matter, ought to exist, goes on.
The second tradition of alternative
liberalism sprang from different roots, but its ultimate goal
was and is the same as that of individualistic liberalism-the
freeing of the individual so as to ensure the full development
of his or her potential. These liberals, however, differ in their
view of what processes ought to be used to accomplish that purpose
and what values a truly liberal society ought to pursue. Lacking
ties to capitalist economics, espousing a more equalitarian society,
and arguing for a full participatory community, alternative liberalism
provides a legitimate alternative to the dominant individualist
tradition.
Finally, we must emphasize once again
the values of toleration and dialogue inside of the broad spectrum
of perspectives contained in liberalism. Regardless of which liberal
thinker one encounters, each values the necessity of an ongoing
dialogue in the search for a democratic society.
*****
FASCISM
A dictionary definition of fascism:
Any authoritarian, anti-democratic, anti-socialistic system of
government in which economic control by the state, militaristic
nationalism, propaganda, and the crushing of opposition by means
of secret police, emphasize the supremacy of the state over the
individual.
Hallmarks of Fascism
anti-intellectualism
repudiation of rationalism and reason, emotion over reason
leader discovers and represents the will of the people
the state over the individual
nation supremacy, nationalism, national greatness
social Darwinism and constant struggle
action for actions sake, violence to strengthen nation
corporation-state unity
faith in the nation and the leader
hero worship
police state, crushing of opposition
National Socialism - add racism to
fascism
*****
FASCISM
p237
Antiliberalism
... the liberal democratic tradition
saw people existing as individuals prior to the establishment
of political institutions. Further, they possessed certain rights-as
individuals-granted to them by God or nature. Because of certain
inconveniences of this presocial, prepolitical situation (recall
the state of nature), individuals banded together and gave up
certain of their natural rights to a collectivity so that they
could, as individuals, live a more comfortable existence. State
and society are thus established for specific purposes, have limited
powers and functions, and may be abolished if they exceed their
granted powers. The state and society are, in short, artificial
creations of sovereign individuals. Democratic representative
institutions (parliaments, congresses, and so forth) are generally
designed to translate the desires of individuals in the society,
normally on a majority rule basis, into public policy. Representative
institutions are, by their very nature, intended to express the
particular wills of individuals within the society. The preferences
of a majority of individuals on any issue are simply that-a summation
of individual preferences totaling more than 50 percent. Finally,
liberal democratic thought is quite clear about the locus of sovereignty
in the society: Ultimately it lies with each individual, and the
actions of the state must be with the consent of those individuals.
To the fascist this is all simply absurd.
The mainstream liberal tradition defines freedom as an absence
of restraint on individual action, yet it requires humans to give
up some freedom (for example, relinquish natural rights) in order
to attain freedom. How, fascism asks, does one become free by
giving up freedom? Indeed, a fascist would argue, in talking about
giving up natural rights so as to achieve a more convenient situation,
the individualistic liberal exposed the fallacy of the entire
enterprise. As fascists view it, liberal democrats are saying
that freedom cannot exist without a stable body of laws and political
institutions, and the only way true freedom can exist is through
obedience to those laws It is law and a framework of order that
ensures freedom. The myth of the isolated sovereign individual
is thus destroyed and we come to understand that the individual
can exist only in and through the state As Mussolini stated:
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception
of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual
only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State,
which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man
as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which
arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical
functions when the State became the expression of the conscience
and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name
of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as
expressing the real essence of the Individual. And if Liberty
is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies
invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for
liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of
the State and of the individual within the State.
Any rights that individuals may possess
are granted and may be removed by the state; similarly, the private
interests of individuals must be subordinated to the general interests
of the collectivity. Insofar as representative institutions, political
parties, and all of the other trappings of parliamentary democracy
are designed to reflect the interests of individuals (particular
wills), they must be discarded and replaced by institutions that
will determine the general will of the nation. The properly constituted
state thus becomes the articulator of the general will of the
nation.
One of the more commonly used modern
attempts to describe the function of political institutions refers
to them as authoritative allocators of value for the society as
a whole, meaning that states can, within certain limits, control
what is done by other institutions and individuals within the
society. Fascist ideology takes this type of descriptive statement,
expands it, and adds an ethical dimension. The nation is the source
of ultimate values for all members of the community and the political
arm of the nation-the state-gives articulation to those values.
There is, simply, no higher ethical authority. If this is the
case, individual human beings fulfill themselves by assuring that
the goals of the collectivity are achieved. Indeed, the terms
individual and state are incorrect abstractions insofar as they
indicate separate entities-in fascism they are but two sides of
the same coin. The nation is struggling to achieve actuality,
to fulfill its potential; individuals are human when they contribute
to that quest. Given this, it is obvious why fascism was opposed
to liberal democratic thought: The latter's assumption is that
the state is ultimately the creation of and subservient to the
individual. Fascism contended that such thinking had led to conflict,
disunity, even chaos in society and afforded no notion of national
cohesiveness. Liberal democratic thought was in the end predicated
upon assumptions of selfishness and conflict and as such prevented
human beings from living in moral association with one another.
As Mussolini declared in 1929, "When the conception of the
State declines, and disunifying and centrifugal tendencies prevail,
whether of individuals or particular groups, the nations where
such phenomena appear are in their decline."
Antibolshevism
If the basic fascist premise is that
the nation-state is the ultimate authority in all matters, it
must, of necessity, be in direct opposition to Marxism-Leninism,
providing us with another basic fascist value-antibolshevism.
To the Marxist, nationalism is but another capitalist trick designed
to prevent the formation of an international proletarian movement.
From the fascist point of view, communism is one of the prime
sources of disunity in the state for it preaches unending class
conflict and therefore divides the people. Further, communism
is particularly dangerous in that it asserts that nation-states
are but passing phenomena on the path toward a world society.
It was thus almost inevitable that fascism would adopt a radically
anti-Marxist stance, whatever the intellectual origins of its
founding father. Indeed, the anti-Bolshevism of fascism was so
vehement that it has been seen by some as the central trait of
the ideology.
p240
... the prime goal of fascism-autarky: the creation of a more
productive powerful, and autonomous nation.
p240
... Mussolini stated that the goal of fascism was to create a
greater and more powerful nation and that the state must have
total power to pursue that end.
p241
For Mussolini's fascism the powerful nation was the ultimate goal,
and in pursuit of it a policy of corporativism, or corporatism,
was adopted. In Mussolini's words:
The Corporation is established to develop
the wealth, political power and welfare of the Italian people.
Corporativism means a disciplined, and therefore a controlled,
economy, since there can be no discipline which is not controlled.
Corporativism overcomes Socialism as well as it does Liberalism:
it creates a new synthesis.
How does the corporate state work?
What kind of "synthesis" does it provide? Herman Finer,
writing in 1935, concluded that there was "considerable mystification"
about these ideas of " .. The Corporation, and State tonics
for private enterprise," not only abroad but in Italy itself.'
Much of that "mystification" remains. But insofar as
Mussolini declared the notion of the corporate state to be the
"keystone of fascist doctrine" we must try to understand
at least what it was designed to accomplish.
The idea is relatively simple. If liberal
capitalism produces class conflict and controlled competition
in the economy because of its excessive individualism, and if
Marxism supports class warfare between workers and owners, corporativism
is designed to remove all conflict in the economic sector. Labor
and management rather than attempting to win gains for their respective
groups are to achieve a unity of purpose in pursuit of the goal
of greater productivity. To this end the state will set up various
corporations representative of different segments of the economy
(for example, the steel industry, the transportation industry)
which will contain representatives from both workers and management.
These will be organized vertically, that is, representing the
whole industry, rather than the more familiar horizontal organization
wherein a group or class of workers confronts a group or class
of owners. These corporations will be empowered to make decisions
on wages and production quotas on an industrywide basis. All of
this, of course, will be under the watchful eye of the party and
the state. A corporative chamber, designed to replace parliament,
would contain representatives from the various corporations, and
this chamber would aid in making economic decisions for the entire
nation. We cannot go into the institutional details of this conception
of the corporate state-indeed, they were never really very clear;
for our purposes it is primarily important as a device to eradicate
the influence of selfish interests, whether expressed by a single
capitalist or by an entire working class.
Finally, two things one must note with
respect to fascist economic policies. It must be emphasized that
corporativism is not necessarily synonymous with fascism, although
many people tend to think so. There are numerous examples of the
operation of aspects of corporativism in non-fascist societies.
In Great Britain, Sweden, Japan, and even to a lesser extent the
United States, industrywide decisions concerning wages and profits
are made in many sectors of the economy-all under state supervision.
Looked at from another perspective,
the corporate state was Mussolini's answer to the five-year plans
in the Soviet Union, which attempted to set production goals,
centralized economic decisions, and rationalized the allocation
of resources for the entire country. Second, it must be emphasized
that the goal of all this is increased productivity, social unity
and collective strength, not necessarily greater redistribution
to the people. But, given the logic of fascism, as the productivity
of the nation rises through cooperative action, all Italians,
whatever their status, will benefit. Given this argument, the
"socialist" in Mussolini could accommodate his support
of Italian capitalist elements in the name of making things better
for everyone. From the ideological perspective one thing stands
out: Institutional arrangements are carefully constructed by the
state and the party to achieve the goals of national unity and
strength. Those aspects of capitalism and socialism that support
these goals are maintained; those that detract are discarded.
In clear control of all aspects of the economy, the state and
the party construct a "third way," an alternative economic
system that utilizes the best components of the other two economic
systems. Still, it seems Stanley Payne is correct when he states,
"No point remained less clear in the doctrines of most fascist
movements than economic structure and goals."
NATIONAL GOALS, ELITISM, AND LEADERSHIP
... one of the major goals of fascism
is to supplant the selfish individualism of liberal democracy
with national solidarity expressed in the form of the will of
all of the people. We must now inquire as to the source of that
will, what it is and how it is to be found. Asking such questions
immediately involves us in voluntarism, anti-intellectualism and
elite leadership, three additional doctrines in the constellation
of fascist ideas.
If the nation is to be seen as a type
of organism, it must possess certain functions, a purpose, and
have goals which it is to accomplish. While it is true that Italian
fascists constantly spoke of the spirit of the nation and invoked
the concept of a will that was general in nature, there was little
in the way of systematic articulation of the goals of the Italian
nation. Vague references abounded to the glories of ancient Rome
and the potential greatness of the Italian people, as well as
aspirations to Empire, but nothing as specific as the goal culture
which we shall find in Nazi Germany. Perhaps it was inevitable
that the concrete form of these vague references to Italian power
resulted in various attempts to expand the influence of the nation-state
in foreign affairs. Italian adventurism in Ethiopia and, for that
matter, in World War II can be seen as an attempt to provide the
material resources and physical boundaries necessary for national
greatness. We should not, however, be surprised by the lack of
specificity of goals to be reached by a great Italy, for Mussolini's
celebration of action for its own sake is an important element
here.
Fascism was not the nursling of a doctrine
worked out beforehand with detailed elaboration; it was born of
the need for action and it was itself from the beginning practical
rather than theoretical; it was not merely another political party
but, even in the first two years, in opposition to all political
parties as such, and itself a living movement.
He later declared that the fascist
movement of the early 1920s had no specific goals, and surely
did not possess a well-formulated program for political action.
Social Darwinism, a general name given to describe social theories
that view life as a struggle for survival between groups, is also
very much part of fascism. In an almost Hegelian fashion, the
nation and its people come to know what they can be only by constantly
testing themselves through ceaseless action. The exercise of national
will is as l important, perhaps more important, than the fulfillment
of any set of goals, action and violence are celebrated almost
for their own sake. Emphasizing what we might today call a "macho
syndrome," fascism viewed forceful and violent actions as
indicators of a strong and healthy movement. Only by continually
testing itself through struggle with other countries can the nation
find its limits. The advocacy of what Mussolini called "controlled
violence" and the seemingly unnecessarily violent actions
of fascist groups against perceived enemies seem to support this
conclusion. However, in attempting to describe this, there is
no substitute for Mussolini's own words:
The years which preceded the march
on Rome were years of great difficulty, during which the necessity
for action did not permit of research or any complete elaboration
of doctrine There was much discussion, but what was more important
and more sacred-men died They knew how to die Doctrine, beautifully
defined and carefully elucidated, with headlines and paragraphs,
might be lacking; but there was to take its place something more
decisive-faith.
It should be apparent from the above
that fascism has little use for the "rational" quibbling
of intellectuals. If action is what is desired there is little
point in spending a great amount of time debating or spelling
out logical systems of ideas. There is a very distinct and deep
strand of anti-intellectualism in fascism, accompanied by the
belief that human emotions provide the true seat of wisdom and
truth. Human beings, while they are thinking animals, find true
wisdom in their emotional responses to words and actions and show
that wisdom through committing their collective will to further
activity. As such, speeches and written statements are not used
to communicate information so much as to induce certain emotional
responses in the audience, to stir them to action.
To a cynical observer, this means that
the speaker or writer is merely using symbols for their propaganda
effect. There is, however evidence to indicate that both Mussolini
and Hitler believed that the interchange of emotion that occurred
during their speeches and at mass rallies was actually a fundamental
method of communicating with the people. Here again we encounter
the elitist element in fascist doctrine, for if the spoken word
is seen as a device for inducing emotional response and is a fundamental
method of communication between people, the person who is speaking
those words becomes most important indeed. Hence, to appreciate
fully the notions of emotionalism, will, and mass action we must
look at the person who is to be the source of all these- the leader.
The fascist leader is the person who
discovers the general will of the nation, interprets it, and communicates
it to the people in a way that will lead them to fulfill its commands.
As such, the leader is in many ways the key to all fascism ...
the leader is literally the personification of the nation; the
leader's body and will express the will of all of the people.
We must emphasize that fascist doctrine asserts that the leader
does not act out of personal interest; that is, all of the leader's
words and actions are supposedly dictated by the general will.
In a sense the leader is a captive of that will and could not
act arbitrarily or on the basis of personal whim. Benito Mussolini
is unimportant; Il Duce is everything.
We have already noted that the spirit
of the people exists through out time independent of any person,
so the leader is really discovering and being led by a national
will which already exists. Thus, we must ask how a particular
person such as the leader comes to know what that will is. Fascist
doctrine provides us little in the way of an explanation of this
discovery process. The leader's communication with the general
will is shrouded in mystery; the leader simply knows it and is
chosen by history to be the one person who gives verbal form to
the national spirit. That will always existed in potential, but
it required a great person to know it, translate it for the rest
of the nation, and mobilize the people to ensure that the potential
is fulfilled.
How do people know when a particular
person such as Mussolini or Hitler is the authentic manifestation
of the general will? Fascists assert that the true greatness of
the people and the leader is manifested when the people simply
recognize the leader when the leader emerges from the struggle
for political power and they agree to follow all of the leader's
commands. Again we see the emotional, irrational, social Darwinist
base of fascism. How does the leader know that he (or she) is
chosen to articulate the will of the people? The leader simply
knows it! How do the people recognize the leader when he (or she)
appears? They simply do and thereafter follow the leader's commands!
There just is no rational explanation for these phenomena for
they arise from the will and emotions of the people or, as Mussolini
said in the passage just quoted, the process is based on faith.
From another vantage point one can
see the tremendous power that fascism gives to the leader, particularly
when this concept is combined with other doctrines. If, as we
stated earlier, the nation is the final authority in all matters
and the leader is the personification of the nation, that person's
commands are by definition law. Ultimately, the leader is accountable
only to the will of the nation. The masses show both their wisdom
and demonstrate their greatness by acknowledging and following
the leader. Here we can see with greater clarity the elite-mass
distinction observed in the thought of the young Mussolini. The
leader possesses the truth, and it is the leader's historical
duty to communicate that truth to the masses and to ensure that
the nation fulfills its destiny. Fascism sees the masses as possessed
of great potential energy; the problem is to mobilize them toward
the proper goals. Thus, the question of the method of communication
between the leader and the masses is of great importance. Here
the elite finds the use of myth and propaganda extremely useful.
Much as the "noble lie" of Plato, myths are used to
communicate to the people a simplified version of the general
will, and propaganda is used to direct their energies. Note that
according to the doctrine this does not mean that the leader is
manipulating the masses for the leader's own personal power. Rather,
what the leader is doing is leading them on the proper path to
personal and national fulfillment. If successful, the entire nation
will be mobilized in pursuit of national glory, and the will of
the people, however vaguely defined, will be achieved. What could
be more democratic?
Here, then, are some of the central
traits of Mussolini's fascism: corporativism, irrationalism, emotionalism,
will, leadership, action for its own sake-all within the confines
of that supreme value of national greatness.
p248
A dictionary definition of fascism:
Any authoritarian, anti-democratic, anti-socialistic system of
government in which economic control by the state, militaristic
nationalism, propaganda, and the crushing of opposition by means
of secret police, emphasize the supremacy of the state over the
individual.
*****
NATIONAL SOCIALISM (NAZISM)
p262
ADOLF HITLER: RACE, LEADERSHIP, AND THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST STATE
The life and personality of Adolf Hitler
have in all probability been subjected to more detailed analysis
than any other figure in the twentieth century. Confronted with
the enormity of the evil committed by Nazi Germany under his leadership,
untold numbers of scholars and laypersons have attempted to find
an explanation for-and too often to explain away-Nazism in Hitler's
personality. We make no attempt to summarize that scholarship
or to add to it, but brief mention of Hitler's life and the circumstances
in Germany that permitted his rise to power seem necessary to
any understanding of Nazi ideology.
Adolf Hitler was born in l889 in the
small town of Braunau on the border between Austria and Bavaria.
Hitler was later to describe his early life as one of poverty
and suffering, although the evidence indicates that his father,
who was a minor civil servant, provided adequately for the family.
The young Hitler was not a success in formal education; his grades
were poor, he was a disruptive influence, and he seemed to lack
the discipline necessary for concentrated study. Some have argued
that these early experiences led to Hitler's lifelong contempt
for formal education and those who possessed it. In any case,
his dream was to be an artist or an architect. After his father's
death, his mother moved to Linz, in Upper Austria, where the young
Hitler pursued that dream doing sketches and drawings in an effort
to sustain himself. In 1907, after two years in Linz, Hitler journeyed
to Vienna to further his artistic ambitions by attempting to enroll
in the Academy of Fine Arts. He was denied admission on the grounds
that he lacked artistic talent. In spite of this, he remained
in Vienna until 1913. By his own account, these years were crucial
to the development of both his personality and his ideas.
He lived an essentially solitary existence,
barely sustaining himself through sketching and architectural
drawing. He was described by contemporaries as moody, incapable
of finding a job, and possessing a passion for politics and opera
(particularly Wagner). Alan Bullock characterized the young Hitler
as possessing the artist's temperament without talent, training,
or creative energy. In 1913 Hitler left Vienna for Munich, where
he led basically the same type of existence, until the outbreak
of World War I.
There is little doubt that the war
gave direction to Hitler's life and provided an outlet for his
energies. He volunteered for and was accepted into a Bavarian
regiment that saw considerable action throughout the war. Although
he was decorated several times for his actions, he was only able
to achieve the rank of corporal, whether through lack of ability
or lack of ambition. He was gassed, temporarily blinded, and in
the hospital recovering from his wound when the war ended.
We cannot attempt to chronicle the
events that led to Hitler's rise in 1933 to the position of Chancellor
of Germany. Our concern must remain with Hitler's ideas. Before
exploring them, however, we need to sketch briefly the social
and political environment within Germany after the war, particularly
since many commentators believe that these circumstances were
crucial to the eventual success of Nazism.
Germany at that time presented a general
picture of political and economic chaos, interrupted only briefly
by periods of relative stability. The nation had been defeated
on the battlefield, although the myth that the German army had
been "stabbed in the back" by leftist politicians rather
than defeated militarily was to grow in strength in the coming
years. The country was saddled with an economy in shambles and
a large debt for war reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles
Further, the economic depressions that swept all of Europe throughout
the 1920s had particularly severe effects in Germany, producing
rapid inflation and dislocations throughout the economy.
On the political front, there existed
very strong socialist and communist parties, paralleled on the
right by an established conservative movement as well as a new
grouping of "radical rightists" from which the Nazi
party was eventually to emerge dominant. Street violence and political
assassination, particularly in the early 1920s and 1930s, were
common occurrences. As economic conditions worsened in the early
1930s, the Nazi party, heretofore a somewhat obscure regional
group, rose to a position of national prominence, winning, for
example, 107 seats in the Reichstag elections of 1930. By early
1932, the Nazis controlled 230 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag
as nearly 14 million Germans voted for Hitler and his Nazi party.
Taking into account the fact that Germany had many political parties,
this represented an unprecedented success accomplished in a very
short period of time. It should also be noted, however, that the
parties of the left remained quite strong even as the Nazis grew
in power. The German political arena was polarizing on the left
and right. Finally, on January 30, 1933, Hitler was appointed
Chancellor and the Nazi era began.
With this brief background completed,
let us return to our major concern and summarize the ideas of
the young Hitler to see how they incorporated the various intellectual
traditions we have been describing, and to provide points of comparison
with Italian fascism. It is appropriate to speak of the young
Hitler because in large measure the ideology of National Socialism
was firmly set in his mind by the time he was 24. Ernst Nolte
in a deft phrase refers to National Socialism as "practice
as fulfillment," asserting that the ideology was "preformed"
in Hitler's mind and that all that was necessary was its "fulfillment."
As such, the ideas of Hitler's youth can be used as keys to understanding
not only the ideology of National Socialism but also the entire
Nazi movement. Once again, we must point to the centrality of
racist ideas, for in Hitler's mind race explained everything.
Hitler's own description in Mein Kampf
of his conversion to anti-Semitism perhaps will help us to understand
this point:
Once, when I was walking through the
inner city, I suddenly came across a being in a long caftan with
black sidelocks. My first thought was: Is that a Jew? In Linz,
they did not look like that. I watched the man stealthily and
cautiously, but the longer I stared at the strange countenance
and studied it feature by feature, the more the question in a
different form turned in my brain: Is that a German?'
From this early experience on the streets
of Vienna, Hitler moved to the position of finding race at the
core of all human affairs. In particular, it was the existence
and widespread influence of Jews that served both as an explanation
for the sorry condition of Germany and a rationalization for Hitler's
personal lack of early success in life.
It is true that Hitler went on in Mein
Kampf to spell out most of the major themes that we have associated
with Italian fascism. He condemned Bolshevism, class, democratic
institutions, the liberal press, and spoke in glowing terms of
national unity, organicism, duty, and a vaguely socialistic economy.
What differentiated Hitler from Mussolini, however, was that blood-mixing
and Jews were seen as the basic cause of all of the problems of
modern life contained in the fascist litany. Marxism, for example,
was viewed by both men as a dire threat to national unity and
as a revolutionary doctrine that competed with fascism for recruits.
But for Hitler, Marxism was a doctrine invented by a Jew (Marx's
father was a convert to Christianity) and used by international
Jewry to prevent the German working class from realizing its prime
allegiance to Volk and state. "And so the Jewish leaders
succeeded in hammering into the minds of the masses the Marxist
propaganda: 'Your deadly foe is the bourgeoisie; if he were not
there, you would be free!' Similarly, democracy, and all of the
so-called freedoms associated with it, was a doctrine designed
and dominated by Jews. By asserting that political equality was
a basic presupposition in governing, Jews had tricked people into
believing that they were equal to legitimate members of the Volk.
Thus, democracy as a political form ensured the debasement of
the Volk while at the same time permitting Jews to rise to positions
of power.
Finally, free speech and press, two
of the cornerstones of a liberal democratic society, were seen
as vehicles of international Jewry in that they spread equalitarian
falsehoods or, at the least, prevented a united Volk by fostering
differences among the people. Behind all of these evils of modernity
was the Jew, a member of a lesser race, a parasite living off
the body politic, yet a clever and dangerous adversary. Perhaps
one can fully appreciate the depth of Hitler's racism by reading
his own words-presented here at length-from a 1922 speech in Munich:
the Jews are a people of robbers. He
has never founded any civilization, though he has destroyed civilizations
by the hundred. He possesses nothing of his own creation to which
he can point. Everything that he has is stolen. . . . He has no
art of his own: bit by bit he has stolen it all from the other
peoples or has watched them at work and then made his copy. He
does not even know how merely to preserve the precious things
which others have created: as he turns the treasures over in his
hand they are transformed into dirt and dung. He knows that he
cannot maintain any state for long. This is one of the differences
between him and the Aryan. True, the Aryan also has dominated
other peoples. But how? He entered on the land, he cleared the
forests; out of wilderness he created civilizations and he has
not used the others for his own interests, he has, so far as their
capacities permitted, incorporated them into his State and through
him art and science were brought to flower. In the last resort
it was the Aryan and the Aryan alone who could form States and
could set them on their path to future greatness.
Having discovered his truth-that is,
that Jews destroy and Aryans create civilization-it became Hitler's
self-appointed task to communicate it to the German masses so
that the evils of Jewish control could be eradicated and a new
Aryan culture established. Sure of his truth, Hitler's main difficulty
was in conveying it to masses conditioned by false values; nevertheless,
it was in this area, perhaps more than anywhere else, that his
particular genius lay. While we have discussed the notions of
leadership, emotion, and mass psychology in connection with Italian
fascism, Hitler's development of these doctrines are of such proportion
that they merit additional attention.
Mystical Exchange of Spiritual Energy
He, at one with Mussolini, had considerable
contempt for masses of people; at the same time he believed that
they possessed tremendous potential energy. They needed, therefore,
leadership by an elite. This leadership was to be achieved largely
through emotional communications between elite and mass and, in
particular, through the spoken word. Mass rallies and emotion-laden
speeches designed to achieve a religious-like catharsis for both
speaker and audience were Hitler's major devices for ensuring
the success of the Nazi movement. In his words: "if a people
is to become free it needs pride and will power, defiance, hate,
hate, and once again hate."
There is a good deal of evidence that
shows Hitler regarded his speeches as the fundamental means of
communication between the leader and the followers. They were
designed not primarily to communicate ideas or to convey information
but to provide for a mystical exchange of spiritual energy. As
Alan Bullock observed:
Speech was the essential medium of
his power, not only over his audiences but over his own temperament.
Hitler talked incessantly, often using words less to communicate
his thoughts than to release the hidden spring of his own and
others' emotions, whipping himself and his audience into anger
or exaltation by the sound of his voice."
In even bolder terms, Joachim C. Fest
describes a speech by Hitler at Hamburg:
There, amid the cheers of thousands,
he delivered one of his passionate speeches that whipped the audience
into a kind of collective orgy, all waiting tensely for the moment
of release, the orgasm that manifested itself in a wild outcry....
No doubt there was a deeper meaning to Hitler's frequent comparison
of the masses to "woman." And we need only look at the
corresponding pages in Mein Kampf, at the wholly erotic fervor
that the idea and the image of the masses aroused in him, to see
what he sought and found as he stood on the platform high above
the masses filling the arena-his masses. Solitary, unable to make
contact, he more and more craved such collective unions. In a
revealing turn of phrase (if we may believe the source) he once
called the masses his "only bride." His oratorical discharges
were largely instinctual, and his audience, unnerved by prolonged
distress and reduced to a few elemental needs, reacted on the
same instinctual wave length. The sound recordings of the period
clearly convey the peculiarly obscene, copulatory character of
mass meetings: the silence at the beginning, as of a whole multitude
holding its breath; the short, shrill yappings; the minor climaxes
and first sounds of liberation on the part of the crowd; finally
the frenzy, more climaxes, and then the ecstasies released by
the finally unblocked oratorical orgasms.
This is, of course, thoroughly consistent
with the antirationalism and emphasis on mystery and emotion that
we have noted before. Hitler saw himself as the reincarnation
of ancient German rulers, returned by history to lead the people
in fulfilling their destiny. In asserting these ties to historical
Germany, Hitler was able to draw on large portions of the romantic
tradition that had become so much a part of everyday culture.
Ancient symbols were resurrected to assert these historical ties;
the simple strong man of the soil became an ideal German; even
architectural styles copying the designs of the Middle Ages were
in vogue. These symbols of the romantic tradition were, as we
have noted earlier, combined with those of racism to produce a
view of the forthcoming Third Reich that was simultaneously German
and Aryan. All this is but another way of saying that Hitler was
an instinctive master of the new art (science?) of propaganda
and mass psychology.
Use of Propaganda
Early in life he was greatly impressed
with British efforts at propaganda during World War I, and he
realized the potential of mass communication. All of the media
were used to emphasize the Aryan Ideal and to condemn the Jewish
influence in German life. The motion picture art form was perfected
by the Nazis even though the use of films for political purposes
had only been recently recognized. Hitler's personal taste in
art and architecture dictated aesthetic values for the entire
society, while the whole cultural and educational structure was
revamped to wipe out liberal values and Jewish influences.
This cleansing of our culture must
be extended to nearly all fields. Theater art, literature, cinema,
press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations
of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political
and cultural idea.... The right of personal freedom recedes before
the duty to preserve the race.
Typical of such movements, particular
emphasis was placed upon ensuring that the youth of Germany-the
next generation-would grow up uncontaminated by foreign influences.
Fuhrer worship became an integral part of the socialization of
the youth of Germany. For example the following is a prayer that
was to be said before meals by children in Cologne:
Fuhrer, my Fuhrer, bequeathed to me
by the Lord, Protect and preserve me as long as I live! Thou hast
rescued Germany from deepest distress I thank thee for my daily
bread. Abideth thou long with me, forsaketh me not, Fuhrer, my
Fuhrer, my faith and my light! Heil, mein Fuhrer!'
Similarly, Christianity was "Germanized"
and "Aryanized" to lend the weight of religion to the
movement:
As with every people, the eternal God
also created a Law for our people especially suited to its racial
character. It acquired form in the Fuhrer Adolf Hitler and in
the National-Socialist state that he formed.... One People!-One
Reich!-One Church!"
Such examples could be duplicated endlessly.
It is in this attempt to develop what
George Mosse has called a "Nazi culture" that we can
see the genuinely revolutionary nature of Hitler's enterprise.
He was attempting to change the values of an entire population
and point them toward a new society, composed partially of elements
of an idealized historical Germany but dominated by a vision of
a new Reich. Finally, we must underscore the fact that such an
attempt at producing a total culture was only possible because
of the existence of a modern bureaucratic state. The rise of a
rationalized bureaucratic class whose purpose was the effective
implementation of orders given to it provided a mechanism for
putting Nazi culture in place. The bureaucrat's purpose was not
to question the orders given, but to implement them efficiently,
without bias or scorn, regardless of how absurd or inhuman they
appeared to be.
We cannot enter into a detailed discussion
of the economic policies of Nazi Germany. It can be argued that
none is necessary for Nazi economic policies in general exhibited
the same type of eclectic accommodation to varying groups in the
society that we have observed in Mussolini's Italy. At an early
date, Hitler had proclaimed socialism to be a doctrine only possible
within the confines of the nation-state; international socialism,
particularly Marxism, was declared to be a perversion of the fundamental
doctrine-a central element in the "international Jewish conspiracy."
After their assumption of power the
Nazis were able to blend this vague socialism with the existing
corporate interests in Germany to produce economic policies whose
goals were easily stated-power and greatness. Such practical accommodation
was not, however, a distinguishing trait of National Socialism,
nor was it characteristic of Hitler. We noted earlier the fascism
of Benito Mussolini possessed no clear conception of a goal culture
and tended to emphasize action and involvement almost for its
own sake. Such was not the case with Hitler; he had an all too
clear conception of his new society and the actions that would
be necessary to achieve it.
At the beginning of this discussion
of National Socialism it was asserted that Hitler was fundamentally
an Aryan racist and that the fruition of his plans would have
led to the destruction of the German nation-state. By now we believe
we have established the importance that race played in Hitler's
mind, but the full import of those doctrines can be seen only
by examining his plans for the future society. Once again, perhaps
it is better to let Hitler speak for himself:
The main principle which we must observe
is that the State is not an end, but a means. It is the foundation
on which higher human culture is to rest, but it does not originate
it. It is rather the presence of a race endowed with the capabilities
for civilization which is able to do this.
Hitler asserted clearly that the state
serves as a vehicle for the elevation of the Aryan race to a position
of power where the race can create higher human culture and civilization.
That is the state's prime purpose. Surely, one might ask: But
doesn't that mean greater power and glory for all Germans? By
no means. It must be remembered that the existing German nation
had been corrupted by blood-mixing and therefore contained impurities
that had to be eradicated.
In its capacity as a State, the German
Reich must gather all Germans to itself; it must not only select
out of the German nation only the best of the original racial
elements and conserve them, but must slowly and surely raise them
to a position of dominance.
Not merely the state, but the existing
German Volk itself is a device for resurrecting the pure Aryan
strain. In effect, a German whose blood is not pure is at best
a culture sustainer, at worst a destroyer of culture and civilization.
The only true human is an Aryan, and anyone existing within the
state who has mixed blood must either be a slave to the Aryan
or be eliminated. While Jews are both the most obvious and dangerous
of culture destroyers, they are not alone.
Here we see Hitler's racism in full-bloom.
The thousand-year Reich will not be a German nation-state, but
an Aryan state in which any non-Aryans exist only to serve the
interests of the culture creator. Extermination became Hitler's
final solution to the Jewish menace, but it must be remembered
that Auschwitz and Buchenwald were also slavelabor camps whose
bureaucratically calculated goal was working "people"
to death-a world, in Richard Rubenstein's words, "of the
living dead." In addition, the expansionist military policies
of Nazi Germany against other non-Aryan nations were not simply
designed to provide "living space" for the German nation
as Hitler frequently stated. Their ultimate objective was the
subjugation of all non-Aryan peoples to the master race. And all
destroyers of culture would have to be themselves destroyed. This,
then, is not German nationalism but racist internationalism. Given
that, many of Hitler's actions and Nazi policies fall into a pattern.
The "scientific" efforts to determine Aryan blood, and
programs formulated literally to breed people possessing Aryan
characteristics, can be seen as direct means for achieving the
goal culture. Further, during the latter days of World War II,
Hitler could declare that Germany had failed him without destroying
the basic premise of his racism. That is, the fact that Germany
was losing the war had nothing to do with the innate superiority
of Aryans but showed that Germans of mixed blood had not been
strong enough to fulfill their task of achieving Aryan supremacy.
Finally, with retreating armies on all sides, Hitler could declare
that he had been successful, because his extermination camps and
breeding policies would ensure that from the ashes of a defeated
Germany would inevitably arise a new Aryan-dominated society,
one free of Jews. His racial doctrines, with all of their horrifying
consequences, remained with him to the end.
Fascism page
Index of Website
Home Page