Long has the cloud of the twentieth century, to borrow the wording of Ruskin, hung low over the past and future. Still now, drown we in the rains of the great thunderstorm, and the shade cast by this beast forever shapes the thoughts of the everyday.
There are, as Derrida might attest, many spectres hanging on this history, but the prominent--given you are not subject to American education--is certainly that of Fascism. No greater force nor idea has gripped the world, hinted by the past, and forever in power, as a stranglehold on the future.
Many thinkers, Eco, Dimitrov and beyond, tried to make sense of this trend. What was the fabric laid by history to facilitate such an insurgence? Was there, for instance, a specific quirk in the German character (as often the Japanese and Italians are overlooked) which might excuse the axions of this history? Had the ideologs of the 18th and 19th century betrayed their nation by seeding ideas of fervent nationalism? This critique is often leveled at Herder, and incorrectly so at Nietzsche, though Hegel, Schelling and even Goethe are not exempt from this societal criticism.
I, however, being a fervent patron of the Romantic and Idealist German tradition, completely disregard these claims. To level the origins of Nazis (which indeed is different in part from Fascism though sharing the same basis and goals) at some of Europe’s greatest thinkers and artists is not only a frivolous act, but a dangerous one.
To understand this genealogy, one must first understand what is being examined. And, being a system predicated on obscurity and in many forms the esoteric, Fascism and Nazis do well to avoid concrete definition. They are not, and should not be understood as, an economic system. All too often Communism is contrasted against Capitalism and Fascism as alternatives; this is a false presentation of produxion, one which through simple ignorance breeds a favouritism towards Fascism. This should, in fact, be a simple diptych. Communism and Capitalism, easily understood as opposites of the economic spectrum and ways to organise the means of produxion, and in this correct understanding, Fascism naturally slots itself on the side of Capitalism. Fanta, Volkswagen, all of the holdings of the Reimann family, one need not look far to see the corporate profiteers of Nazi slavery and Fascist control.
Jokingly, or through naïveté, Fascism is commonly described as a system which ‘allows for private property until the government seizes it.’ This superfluous statement meant to build sympathy for the Kingdom of Italy and Nazi Germany (again I draw attention to the neglect of Japan’s own project in the West), does not examine the reasons for this truth, and many of those who speak it fail to understand the basic meaning of the economic term 'private property,’ still thinking it amounts to toothbrushes or guitars. As demonstrated in Germany, private property, that is a means of produxion held in private not common hands, was allowed for, and rarely, if ever, was it seized from those large private entities (such as mentioned above), instead, it was seized from small individuals (whether land, business, or others [usually Jewish, using the Naszi justification]), and redistributed to the those large corporations. In this form, economically, the Nazi project can be understood as a final stage of Capitalism, where the myth of meritocracy is dissolved and the monopolies are fully given control by the government they formed. Why, must one think, were all these business owners open Nazi sympathisers? Members of the party even? Who was it that put Hitler into power?
So, what then, is the accurate definition to this phenomenon (and again I repeat for brevity Nazism and Fascism will be conflated for simplicity and as they share a basic similarity)? Often attributed to Lenin is the phrase ‘Fascism is Capitalism in decay.’ Whether truly spoken by him or not, this is perhaps the closest epigram to understanding the truth--though depth is lost by shortening such a complex system.
Let us instead ask: what are the elements of Fascism/Nazism? Firstly, and most prominently highlighted, is the fervent nationalism. There are many, even the political literate and educated, who today continue not to delineate between simple nationalism and Fascism; in fact, it is often an intentional technique meant to semantically devalue the word Fascism or to use it as a fallacious ad hominem attack meant to villainise a dissenting position. Not only is this trend dangerous for the semiotic value of Fascism, but it fails to understand the other elements, so what else constitutes this thought? Secondly, is a formed mythology. This often takes the shape of a racial superiority or a need to return to a national heritage--echod repeatedly in the cries of ‘this nation was once great, Rome was once great, we could be great again,’ and often falling on the tails of this statement is the attributed cause, the scapegoat (a third element). This mythology will try to resurrect former elements of a nation or people as a means to fuel the first element, such as uniting a nation with a national hero--this point will be important later on. The third element of Fascist thought is the scapegoat. As Fascism arises from the decaying positions of a Capitalist means of produxion, the last thing a Fascist wants to blame for terrible conditions is Capitalism; this is where the scapegoat appears. This can take many forms, it can materialise as a lesser race put in contrast to the racial superiority already established, it can arise in the form of rampant xenophobia emphasising the nationalistic aspect, but it always materialises in anti-Communism sentiments (seeing material echoes in suppression of unions and political parties). The final aspect of Fascism is the congealment of State and corporation. Being the necessary end step of Capitalism, it is often these Capitalist powers (corporate power), which facilitate its rise (as seen in Germany, Italy and Japan). Note, this does not mean an establishment of public property but rather an increase in private property. Instead of the people controlling a State for themselves, the corporations control a State for THEMselves.
All of this is theoretically dense and notoriously clever in avoiding detexion--the greatest weapon of Fascism, its ability to distort its definition. But my main concern in this essay is with the mythology it establishes. As mentioned, this can appear as a national hero, mythologised past or a present dictator claiming some ephemeral inheritance. In any of these situations, a scholar will note the foundation of this aspect of Fascist thought is rooted in the ‘Great Man Theory’, a view of history which asserts ‘Great Men are not made, but Born’.
This theory was the product of Thomas Carlyle, in many ways England’s Goethe, and most noble enemy of progressive ideals. Carlyle wrote “The History of the world is but the Biography of great men”. And this theory did not die with Carlyle, it was carried on by many other influential thinkers such as Max Weber and Oswald Spengler--the most clear progenitor of Fascist thought.
The most glaring problem of the Great Man Theory is its extreme simplification of history into nothing more than the axions of a handful of individuals. In doing so, it reduces the worth of the average human, ignores the political, material and economic conditions which allowed for these supposed great men, and most importantly it asserts a hierarchy of humanity, where some deserve to be on top by sheer nature of birth. It is also, as one may note, incredibly compatible with the idea of folk heroes and historic mythologies.
Take an example from just before Carlyle’s time, that of the French Revolution. To say this was the axions of only one great man (who might one even pick, Robespierre, Rousseau?) instead of the culmination of the systemic pressure of France under the monarchy as well as the dissolution of political systems felt in the lower classes with the exposure of ideas and literature would be absurd; Machiavelli even predicts a kind of revolt in France in 1532.
However, I believe placing the entirety of the blame on Carlyle is unjust because the Great Man Theory is only an evolutionary step in a very old ideal which dates back to, what I believe to be, the true seeds of Fascism; that being the emergence of Christianity.
At face value, this claim seems absurd. No doubt, the mobs are gathering and calling for my head, but first listen to the evolution which I demonstrate. History, as we have seen it evolve in the West, has a particular preoccupation with hero worship and the ascription of societal events to a single individual or individuals.
Herodotus, writing in a pre-Christian time, and writing during a time where hero worship still existed (look to the Greek Hero Cults), focuses much more on the broad strokes of history. He was more concerned with cultures, customs, regions and all else, rather than only believing history to be a set of biographies.
Then look at William of Malmesbury, writing over a thousand years after, yes, but also in the world of Christianity, and specifically adopting that lens. What is his most lasting work? Gesta Regum Anglorum, which covers the history of England but only through the deeds of her kings.
And who can blame this evolution? The central tenet of Christianity, and the factor separating it from previous Judaism, is the veneration of an individual to the level of God. Of course, in Christian doctrine, Jesus is fully God and fully human, not taking either in halves or lacking in either regard, but in practice this ascribes godliness to a human, without the extraneous circumstances or not.
This precedent established the idea of an individual defining, not only a movement, not only the outcome of a history, but being integral to the fabric of the world. It is no surprise then that the outcome of Christian history ascribes the emergence of the religion as the works of Jesus and not the work done by the disciples, by Paul, and by the countless nameless believers who helped spread the religion. True, the disciples and Paul are acknowledged both inside and outside of the Bible, but they are never given the same importance as Jesus (which in some regard makes sense in the Christian context).
My argument, in the most extreme regard, is this: Fascism is the natural secularisation of Christian theology; it’s the Christian system in a Godless world, almost exactly as Nietzsche mourned and predicted.
What then, are the central tenets of Christianity examined on a fundamental level? First, and foremost, there is Jesus. All is possible through Him and all of Christianity (if you discount both the history and modern iterations of Catholicism) can be understood as faith in Jesus as both God and the Son of God, in faith that he was sent to Earth to die for our sins, and faith that with faith in Him we may join God in heaven after the day of Judgement. Second, humans are naturally evil and can only be lead to salvation through the rôle of the saviour (Jesus) (beside the final aspect, this was inherited from Judaism). Thirdly, the saviour (Jesus) was sinless, and though we can never achieve this level of perfexion, we should follow the path and strive for as close as we may be. Fourthly, there will be a day of judgement when all the sinners are punished and all those who followed the will of God will be rewarded.
There is, naturally, more to Christianity than just these four points, but one can be a near comprehensive Christian by only understanding these dogmas. The exercise now is to take away the presence of God and see what remains. Let us work backwards.
With no God, humans must be the ones to commence the day of judgement, and doing so, they must choose who is just and who is unjust. A natural progression is to divide the world into camps to better ascribe these characteristics. With no heavenly degree, the definition of just becomes whatever best fits the interest of the governing body, in this case the nation, and therefore, that which is just is good for the nation and that which is unjust is all outside of the nation. This kind of thinking spawns not only nationalism but the scape-goat, xenophobic, and racial hierarchical thinking prominent in Fascist ideology.
Who is to be the saviour with no God? Whose example can be followed? Hence enters the great man, Weber’s charismatic leader, the face of a nation. Most obviously for this spot is Adolf Hitler. Though he never necessarily presented himself as sinless, the propaganda of Nazi Germany was quick to recommend citizens follow his example and strive to reach a similar level. This is true in Japan as well, where Hirohito was still regarded with a divine understanding.
Humans are naturally evil, but now there is no God to lead us to salvation. This means, it is in the hands of humanity to erase this evil, stand as a saviour, and lead the world to salvation. This clearly forms into not only the basis for racial conspiracies (as the real source of human evils and woes) but also as a basis for nationalism and Great Man Thinking.
Finally, with no Jesus and no God, a new saviour needs to arrive. Enter the Great Man, the face of Fascism, the leader everyone can rally behind who will cleanse this world of its evils and return the nation to former glory. Very often these leaders are mere puppets of the system in actuality. Though it’s impossible to speculate with certainty, in all likelihood, if Hitler didn’t exist, another face would have emerged from the conditions of the failing Weimar, propped up by corporations, and created the Nazi Party--though anything after that is too hard to predict.
What then, does this leave us with? What can be gleaned from this? We know the Fascist, we know the Great Men, we can point our fingers at Christianity, but the religion itself is hardly the problem. The only reason Christian thought informed Fascist thought is because of its secularisation in a dying world. Our murder of God facilitated this change--alongside countless other political upheavals which developed ripe ground for it to emerge.
To blame Christianity would be ignorant. Not only that, it would be bigoted. Look also at all the great achievements reached by contribution of Christian thought. Too many to count!
Nietzsche may be correct in his condemnation, drawing out the lineage and impact of the mindset of Christianity for poisoning Western philosophy, and as I have shown Western history too, but it is hardly alone in this.
No problem is this simple. There is no inherent flaw, when it comes to the development of Fascist thought, with Christianity or with secularism. Instead, it is in combination which these problems emerged. A religious worldview was designed for a world with God, and when it is applied to something outside of its basic range, countless deviations happen in its character. It’s no different than making a jacket for swimming in the ocean and wearing it as you walk through the desert. All is designed with intention. The important knowledge is to understand the dangers of warping intention, and the consequences which might ensue.
Comments