Intellectuals of Fascism

[Alixanther]

It strikes me that the title of the thread is rather misleading, as fascism in all its guises was strongly anti-intellectual. A true fascist believes that hitting somebody over the head with a wooden club constitutes a valid argument in a discussion.

Perhaps it should be called "Ideologists of fascism" or "Myth-makers of fascism"?

It strikes to me you didn't quite read the content of the thread before writing down, do you?
If you'd have read, you'd understand why you're wrong. There were quite a bunch of intelectuals in all camps, be they conservative, dogmatist leftists (communists) or opportunistic leftists (national-socialists, italian fascists, other socialists).

There are no "myths" in "fascism" (which is also a misleading term, because Lenin wanted to designate by this term the capitalist countries; you can call them leftists as a whole, or "socialists" and "communists"), unless you consider progressivism a myth. All leftist ideologies were progressive (not necessarily a good thing) and wanted "to get rid of the old rotten structure".

In the great democracy.. the US of A, in the 30s, violent strike breaking was the norm. Machine gunning ( in Detroit for e.g.) went hand in hand with actual clubbing over the head.

The date is the key. What was normal then is not so today. A bit like judging modern India by the way it treated its Muslims during partition.
Back to the far right in Western Europe. The overwhelming majority of 'rightist' are poorly educated, low achievers with a propensity to violence and public disorder. Shaven headed thugs in Doc Martins arethe far right .
'Muslamic Ray Guns' is the image in the UK and from what I see of those abroad the same applies there.

I feel I should correct you on the grounds of considering these "shaven headed thugs" as being far right. It's enough injury they consider themselves as such, there's no need for an exterior source to enforce this far-fetched opinion. It's no wonder you consider "rightists" poorly educated, if you search for them where they are NOT.

As I said before, right (and far right) means a propension towards Monarchy, absolute Monarchy in the case of the far right. Far right is conservative and reactionary. National-socialist regime was progressivist, NOT reactionary (not only that, they killed or expelled the German conservatives and monarchists; on the other hand, they welcomed into the party the communists and socialists who accepted the NS ideology).

Oh. And by the way, have I just seen you becoming an "appeaser"??? Because I swear if you switch the "good ole US of A" with "Germany", your kin would call you that. Double standards much?

BTW would someone tell me how they classify Strasserism? Fascist? National Bolshevist? Leftist? Rightist?

Ciao
Sandeep

Well, spill some beans on the matter and I'll be ready to talk about.

[durb]

Fascist and national socialist parties are not so easy to define as one-block or one-idea parties. Like almost in every political party there were sections of right, center and left elements representing the different interest groups within the parties.

Gregor Strasser (in NSDAP), Michele Bianchi and Giuseppe Bottai (Partito Nazionale Fascista) and Manuel Hedilla (Falange Española) have been all portrayed as "leftists" as they supported social reforms favourable to working class and small peasantry in different ways: progressive taxation policy (heavy taxes for high incomes and lesser for less earning) and improvement of the conditions of workers (Strasser), corporative labour policy guaranteeing minimum wages and tolerable working conditions (Bottai) and also a land reform policy supporting the forming of small and medium sized farms at countryside in order to give land to landless agrarian workers (Hedilla).

They all supported the idea of national reformist policy which would integrate working classes and peasants effectively to the building of nation-state. They can be called as leftists inside their own parties but I would not call them full-blooded socialists (although their social reform ideas resemble those of socialist/labour parties). They considered some leftist reform policy as a necessity to build up a stable and strong nation where
cosmopolitan" socialist (Socialist International) or communist ideas (Komintern) would not attract anyone. Well treated industrial workers and well being owners of small or medium-sized farms in the countryside would become satisfied conservatives supporting the existing nation-state.

It is noteworthy that all of them failed to achieve dominant position inside their party, although they were important figures. Strasser was eliminated by a murder when NSDAP was purged in 1934. Bianchi died prematurely by sickness in 1930 and finally Bottai ended up somewhat at the political sidetrack. Hedilla was removed from the leading position of Falange party by Franco when Falange was purged in 1937. However some of their points were taken in account in the pragmatic policy of Hitler and Mussolini and even by Franco although by lesser degree (Franco was not so much a fascist but an authoritarian conservative).

[sandeepmukherjee196]

In the great democracy.. the US of A, in the 30s, violent strike breaking was the norm. Machine gunning ( in Detroit for e.g.) went hand in hand with actual clubbing over the head.

The date is the key. What was normal then is not so today. A bit like judging modern India by the way it treated its Muslims during partition.
............

If you had not been driven by your single minded passion to run me down then perhaps you would have noticed that I was specifically talking of the "contemporary" ideologies / systems at the time when the "Fascist Axis powers" held sway.

And any post from me discussing what happened in India during the partition may get deleted before the ink dries on the paper. So why bother....

[sandeepmukherjee196]

BTW would someone tell me how they classify Strasserism? Fascist? National Bolshevist? Leftist? Rightist?

Ciao
Sandeep

Well, spill some beans on the matter and I'll be ready to talk about.

Hi...

The beans are as follows : The Strasser brothers ( Otto and Gregor) led the left wing in the Nazi party ( along with Joseph Goebbels for a time !! ).

They too were "mountain people" like Hitler. Born and raised in Bavaria, they joined the army at the outset of WW I and both rose to officer rank ( unlike Hitler). Gregor won the EK I & 2.

Both joined the Epp Freikorps and fought against the Reds in Bavaria in 1919. Interestingly Gregor was Himmler's boss in the Freikorps ! After that matters took an interesting turn. Gregor continued with his "right wing" orientation and joined the Kapp Putsch next year. But Otto did an about turn and joined the Social Democrats, taking an active role in fighting the Putsch !

However, ultimately both of them landed in the Nazi party. They wielded tremendous influence in the Northern and western wings of the party and started preaching a Socialist doctrine involving strikes, Capitalist bashing, rants against the Prussian elite and a Soviet leaning foreign policy.

I am not clear about their stand on Anti-Semitism. Otto later said that he was never a racist. He tried to ally with Jews too when he was expelled from the party. Whether this was opportunistic or reflected a genuine attitude towards race.. I am not sure.

Otto was much more "socialist" than Gregor and a menace to the Nazi agenda of wooing business and Prussian-army lobbies. He was chucked out of the party in 1930 ( not beaten over the head though). Gregor continued and even contributed towards the organisational strengthening of the party. He flirted with his brother's anti Hitler "Black Front" but didnt openly join up.

Interestingly, in the winter of '32 - 33 Gregor was openly wooed by the Conservative - Militarist politician General Kurt Von Schleicher. He was offered ministerial portfolios. Perhaps Ernst Roehm the SA leader, supported these moves. However Hitler cracked down and Gregor Strasser resigned from all active Nazi positions. Intriguingly, he flip flopped over his defection and joining Gen Schleicher's conservative coalition outright. The Nazi party remained intact and came to power.

This melee threw up strange bed fellows....forces of the extreme " right reaction" advocating a military-state..the "Wehrstaat" , Prussian landowning classes, economic Bolshevists ....

Within a year, Gregor Strasser, along with Gen Schleicher and Roehm was killed in the Night of the Long Knives ( by the Gestapo which was of course headed by his one time adjutant ). Otto Strasser, continued his ineffectual resistance as an exile.

After the war, upon his return from exile, Otto disowned the racist part of Nazism and tried to revive the movement with socialist and nationalist agenda.

Ciao
Sandeep

[sandeepmukherjee196]

It is noteworthy that all of them failed to achieve dominant position inside their party, although they were important figures. Strasser was eliminated by a murder when NSDAP was purged in 1934. Bianchi died prematurely by sickness in 1930 and finally Bottai ended up somewhat at the political sidetrack. Hedilla was removed from the leading position of Falange party by Franco when Falange was purged in 1937. However some of their points were taken in account in the pragmatic policy of Hitler and Mussolini and even by Franco although by lesser degree (Franco was not so much a fascist but an authoritarian conservative).

Gregor Strasser and Ernst Roehm could have walked away with half the Nazi party in '32-33 if the former hadn't lost his nerve at the last moment and ditched Gen Schleicher.

Ciao
Sandeep

[Michael Kenny]

If you had not been driven by your single minded passion to run me down then perhaps you would have noticed that I was specifically talking of the "contemporary" ideologies / systems at the time when the "Fascist Axis powers" held sway.

I noticed a swipe at the USA which I countered with a later example of another country doing much worse to its citizens. Glass houses/stones etc.

[AJFFM]

It strikes me that the title of the thread is rather misleading, as fascism in all its guises was strongly anti-intellectual. A true fascist believes that hitting somebody over the head with a wooden club constitutes a valid argument in a discussion.

Perhaps it should be called "Ideologists of fascism" or "Myth-makers of fascism"?

You cannot have an ideology without an underlying philosophical basis that has a strong internal logic (even if it was faulty) that justifies for the average person their belief in their ideology. It is this quality that makes differential religion and ideology from cults which is why most ideologies and religions endure overtime while cults die within 3 generations of their foundation.


By merely choosing to become a fascist you already engaged in an intellectual endeavour.

[Knouterer]

It strikes me that the title of the thread is rather misleading, as fascism in all its guises was strongly anti-intellectual. A true fascist believes that hitting somebody over the head with a wooden club constitutes a valid argument in a discussion.

Perhaps it should be called "Ideologists of fascism" or "Myth-makers of fascism"?

You cannot have an ideology without an underlying philosophical basis that has a strong internal logic .

Pardon me? Says who? If you Google "ideology definition", you get (random selection):

"A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system"

"A system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy"

"A set of opinions or beliefs of a group or an individual"

"The body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group"

And so on. "Internal logic" is not at all required. And indeed many people have right from the beginning pointed out the many inconsistencies, contradictions and irrational/mythical elements in fascist doctrines and beliefs. The fascist counterargument, as noted, was usually a club over the head.

Or if not that, the counterargument was usually along the lines of "Jews are unable to comprehend the noble stirrings of a Germanic soul" or "Anyone who disagrees with us on any point is not a true patriot and probably a traitor". Once again, profoundly anti-intellectual, given that any workable definition of "intellectual" should include that he/she engages in the exchange of ideas and uses reasoned argument.

[durb]

An incident during the Spanish Civil War comes to mind. Miguel Unamuno, a renowned moderate conservative intellectual and writer, supported at first the Nationalist uprising but he became quickly disillusioned with Spanish Nationalists because of the summary mass executions. He expressed his disillusion with the Nationalists in a public speech in Salamanca on Oct. 1936.

The general Milan Astray, the commander of the Spanish Foreign Legion, reacted to Unamuno´s speech with a comment "Muera la Inteligencia traidora! Viva la Muerte!" - Death to traitor intellectuals, long live the Death! The writer José María Pemán tried to save the situation with a comment: "No! Muera la inteligencia traidora, mueran los malos intelectuales!" - No! Death (only) to traitor intellectuals and bad intellectuals!

Although declared a "bad intellectual" Unamuno was not killed and not touched physically (it is likely that Franco´s wife saved his skin), although he died in a home arrest few months later.

[AJFFM]

It strikes me that the title of the thread is rather misleading, as fascism in all its guises was strongly anti-intellectual. A true fascist believes that hitting somebody over the head with a wooden club constitutes a valid argument in a discussion.

Perhaps it should be called "Ideologists of fascism" or "Myth-makers of fascism"?

You cannot have an ideology without an underlying philosophical basis that has a strong internal logic .

Pardon me? Says who? If you Google "ideology definition", you get (random selection):

"A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system"

"A system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy"

"A set of opinions or beliefs of a group or an individual"

"The body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group"

And so on. "Internal logic" is not at all required. And indeed many people have right from the beginning pointed out the many inconsistencies, contradictions and irrational/mythical elements in fascist doctrines and beliefs. The fascist counterargument, as noted, was usually a club over the head.

Or if not that, the counterargument was usually along the lines of "Jews are unable to comprehend the noble stirrings of a Germanic soul" or "Anyone who disagrees with us on any point is not a true patriot and probably a traitor". Once again, profoundly anti-intellectual, given that any workable definition of "intellectual" should include that he/she engages in the exchange of ideas and uses reasoned argument.

And where is the contradiction between "Google Definitions" (Which I only saw here and have not looked for them myself) and what I said?

What I said in essence is that only an intellectual (which is not equal to "classically educated") or a group of intellectuals can set up the aforementioned doctrines and systems of beliefs (and a "system of beliefs" means coherent internal logic or else it is nothing different from ravings of a lunatic) which disciples later turn into an ideology rather than remain in the confines of cultism.

As for your last statement, you conflate the simplistic message of the ideology that is geared up to attract the rank and file who are basically committed ideologues who will follow the dear leaders into hell and the ideology's guardians, the "politburo" if you want to make things more simplistic who are more pragmatic in their approach and usually have the intellectual authority to "moderate" the message and justify it by any means and the masses will simply follow.

This is what Lenin did to justify the New Economic Policy in the 1920s which shocked the proletariat which accepted his re-interpretation of communism and socialism (thus we have Scientific Socialism and Leninism) and most of the masses followed blindly.

This is what the Nazis did to justify dealing with Non-Aryans like Japanese, Finns and Pro-German Slavs.

Only party intellectuals can do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify the contradictions and most of the masses of ideologues will accept those interpretations without question.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

This is what Lenin did to justify the New Economic Policy in the 1920s which shocked the proletariat which accepted his re-interpretation of communism and socialism (thus we have Scientific Socialism and Leninism) and most of the masses followed blindly.

This is what the Nazis did to justify dealing with Non-Aryans like Japanese, Finns and Pro-German Slavs.

Only party intellectuals can do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify the contradictions and most of the masses of ideologues will accept those interpretations without question.

Not to mention the mental gymnastics required to justify coopting Arabs ( Mufti of Jerusalem), Cossacks, Indians in the great Aryan project. One can also refer to the great intellectual Goering's famous claim that " I decide who is a Jew!"

In this context one is reminded of a Wehrmacht General remarking that " it is asking for too much if we are expecting Russians to fight for Germany against America in France !" This was with reference to the performance of the Ost Battailons in Normandy .

Ciao
Sandeep

[AJFFM]

This is what Lenin did to justify the New Economic Policy in the 1920s which shocked the proletariat which accepted his re-interpretation of communism and socialism (thus we have Scientific Socialism and Leninism) and most of the masses followed blindly.

This is what the Nazis did to justify dealing with Non-Aryans like Japanese, Finns and Pro-German Slavs.

Only party intellectuals can do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify the contradictions and most of the masses of ideologues will accept those interpretations without question.

Not to mention the mental gymnastics required to justify coopting Arabs ( Mufti of Jerusalem), Cossacks, Indians in the great Aryan project. One can also refer to the great intellectual Goering's famous claim that " I decide who is a Jew!"

In this context one is reminded of a Wehrmacht General remarking that " it is asking for too much if we are expecting Russians to fight for Germany against America in France !" This was with reference to the performance of the Ost Battailons in Normandy .

Ciao
Sandeep

Amin Al-Hussaini's influence on Arabs in the 30s and 40s was about as strong as Kim Kardashian's on the forest peoples of New Guinea.

That being said Nazi justification of employing Indians, Slavs and cooperating with the Japanese was a far less dramatic departure from dogma than the way the Soviet Communists twisted Marxism to fit their own purposes. Indeed one might argue strongly that the Nazi regime (in the beginning) was largely an amoral militaristic-fascist system rather than being puritanical in its pursuits. It was when defeat became inevitable that the Nazi regime's puritanical wing and apparatus (the SS) basically took over the direction of the country. Remember the Wannsee conference was held in Jan 42 not July 40.

[Alixanther]

BTW would someone tell me how they classify Strasserism? Fascist? National Bolshevist? Leftist? Rightist?

Ciao
Sandeep

Well, spill some beans on the matter and I'll be ready to talk about.

Hi...

The beans are as follows : The Strasser brothers ( Otto and Gregor) led the left wing in the Nazi party ( along with Joseph Goebbels for a time !! ).

They too were "mountain people" like Hitler. Born and raised in Bavaria, they joined the army at the outset of WW I and both rose to officer rank ( unlike Hitler). Gregor won the EK I & 2.

Both joined the Epp Freikorps and fought against the Reds in Bavaria in 1919. Interestingly Gregor was Himmler's boss in the Freikorps ! After that matters took an interesting turn. Gregor continued with his "right wing" orientation and joined the Kapp Putsch next year. But Otto did an about turn and joined the Social Democrats, taking an active role in fighting the Putsch !

However, ultimately both of them landed in the Nazi party. They wielded tremendous influence in the Northern and western wings of the party and started preaching a Socialist doctrine involving strikes, Capitalist bashing, rants against the Prussian elite and a Soviet leaning foreign policy.

I am not clear about their stand on Anti-Semitism. Otto later said that he was never a racist. He tried to ally with Jews too when he was expelled from the party. Whether this was opportunistic or reflected a genuine attitude towards race.. I am not sure.

Otto was much more "socialist" than Gregor and a menace to the Nazi agenda of wooing business and Prussian-army lobbies. He was chucked out of the party in 1930 ( not beaten over the head though). Gregor continued and even contributed towards the organisational strengthening of the party. He flirted with his brother's anti Hitler "Black Front" but didnt openly join up.

Interestingly, in the winter of '32 - 33 Gregor was openly wooed by the Conservative - Militarist politician General Kurt Von Schleicher. He was offered ministerial portfolios. Perhaps Ernst Roehm the SA leader, supported these moves. However Hitler cracked down and Gregor Strasser resigned from all active Nazi positions. Intriguingly, he flip flopped over his defection and joining Gen Schleicher's conservative coalition outright. The Nazi party remained intact and came to power.

This melee threw up strange bed fellows....forces of the extreme " right reaction" advocating a military-state..the "Wehrstaat" , Prussian landowning classes, economic Bolshevists ....

Within a year, Gregor Strasser, along with Gen Schleicher and Roehm was killed in the Night of the Long Knives ( by the Gestapo which was of course headed by his one time adjutant ). Otto Strasser, continued his ineffectual resistance as an exile.

After the war, upon his return from exile, Otto disowned the racist part of Nazism and tried to revive the movement with socialist and nationalist agenda.

Ciao
Sandeep

They were definitely leftist.
Although there's an interesting twist: the Freikorps were not at all leftist. They were (at least at first) conservative and repulsed at least 2 attempts of Germany bolschewisation.
I'd dare say that "strasserism" was the true NSDAP doctrine. Hitler only reaped the benefits. What seems to be a liaison between rightist monarchy restauration and leftist ideals was in fact a mistake. Germany in '34 was a military dictatorship who was half-way masquerading as middle-class paradise (junkers and such) and half-way social justice. Hitler was meant to be a pawn.
'34 was a military coup, not a NSDAP coup. The real danger was never the S.A., there were the conservatives who got killed by the military. Of course, because of Hitler's support of the coup, the S.A. got purged aswell, as a "thank you" gift.
The Wehrmacht got what they wanted. They only became a victim of their military victories lately, when Hitler used his popularity to curtail Officer Korps ambition. He also played them one against eachother, because they were not only thirsty for power, they were stupid too. I wonder how they came up with thinking Hitler could read their minds...
Germany wasn't an ideological state with an army, it was an Army with an ideology at hand.