The Romantics viewed Nationalism through feelings of
connectedness with the past, a revival of folk tradition and identity vs. the
mechanized view of Enlightenment society.
They were not militarists. Nationalism plus Militarism is
what leads to Fascism. This is something remarkably absent from these
Conservative criticisms and narratives which seek to tie Fascism to Leftist
politics.
Why? I think the answer is obvious. The Far Right is just
that...militarist and nationalistic. This is why despite the quibbles over the
term 'socialist' the Far Right is usually viewed as the quarter from which
Fascism arises.
Now we could speak of Totalitarianism which can arise in any
context, even that of Christendom. But I find the Christian Conservatives who
advance these arguments are reticent to venture down this road.
And the one figure you will never hear them discuss is
Francisco Franco. Catholic-friendly and supported Spanish Fascism does not fit their narrative.
Wagner and Schopenhauer weren't Nazis or anything close to
it, but some of their ideas were appropriated by the Nazis...Schopenhauer far
less so. Were they racists? Yes, that could certainly be argued, but if that
makes them Totalitarian proto-Nazis, then so were the leaders of the British
Empire, not to mention quite a few American presidents as well.
The Nazis in many ways simply militarized already existing
prejudices and values that existed in European society. Their values weren't
that different. They became extra perilous and geo-politically dangerous when
placed within the context of Fascism.
One Christian author focuses on Schopenhauer because of his
pantheism and wishes to make the connection between these ideas, the Nazis, and
modern environmentalism. This is a bad and quite irresponsible case of
association fallacy. And that's really the heart of this whole argument.
It's precisely the same flawed way of thinking that without
qualification associates Luther with Nazi Anti-Semitism. Are there generalized
connections? Perhaps. But to just simply say (without qualification or
explanation) that Luther contributed to the culture which led to the Holocaust
is misleading and irresponsible.
Existentialists like Kierkegaard rejected the collective
thinking of Hegel. He re-cast some of Kant's ideas but ultimately placed the
importance on the individual, his experience and the attempt to find meaning in
a world that seemed meaningless and terrible.
Secular Existentialism which has been profoundly influential
in our culture, (it's everywhere in our movies,) deals with finding meaning in
life, authenticity and views morality through the lens of individual experience
and context.
This thinking and those behind it (Sartre and Camus) were
very much against the Totalitarianism of Nazi Germany. A core idea of Fascism
is the subjugation of the individual to the collective. Your individuality
disappears into the great will of the people... represented by the leader.
Philosophy has been split into two general categories. The
labels are criticized and so nebulous as to almost defy definition, but I think
are a helpful starting point.
Most modern secular Westerners have embraced Analytic
philosophical categories. It's the scientific worldview. Truth is discovered through
empirical observation. In today's forms morality is often relative, but all
ideas and concepts are related to logic and reasoning, things that can be
demonstrated.
In the secular version of this school, ideas concerning the
collective are often tied in with Positivist and Utilitarian thinking. If they
want environmental regulation, it's due to scientific pragmatism, not mystical
connections to the land or passionate nationalism tied in with a
race-mythology.
Continental philosophy is the realm of Kant, Hegel,
Schopenhauer and others. It has produced the Idealist School (vs.
Positivist/Empiricist type thinking) that restricts epistemology to the mind. On
one level it is the exact opposite of our modern scientific secular worldview.
They can be secular too, but they're approaching basic questions in a quite
different fashion. They often would end up being somewhat agnostic as opposed
to outright Materialist Atheists. Philosophy to them was not an outworking or
application of scientific discovery.
Of course people like Feuerbach and Marx could take Hegel's
ideas and synthesize them with Materialism. And that's just it, all of these
issues, the history of these ideas are complicated and dynamic.
Beware anyone who makes these kinds of simplistic comparison
arguments. When I hear them, I know they're immediately flawed.
I heard a radio programme that tried to argue the Emergent
Church was laying the foundation for Fascism. Gene Veith tried to argue
something along similar lines back in the 1990's. Basically he was saying Postmodernism
leads to Fascism. This was before the Emergent Church appeared but it's
essentially the same argument.
Again, this is fundamentally flawed, even ridiculous.
Postmodernism (which is certainly not above criticism) is once again wedded to
Individualist philosophies, in many ways the antithesis of Statism and
Nationalism.
At this point someone will point to Heidegger, but his ties
to Nazism while established, are not able to conclusively demonstrate that he
influenced the Nazi Party. Nor can it be proved that his philosophical
speculation was influenced by their Fascism. Much of his thought was rejected
by the Nazis and the Individualism in his concepts of Being are in fact quite
subversive to the ideology of Nazism.
Those that have posited a Heidegger-Nazi chain of argument
have been heavily criticized, let alone the notion that Postmodernism is
somehow a result of this relationship. One would be hard pressed to find a
postmodern thinker who is appreciative of Nazism.
This same kind of argument could draw connections between
Heidegger, Leo Strauss and the Neo-Conservatives who influenced the second Bush
administration. In fact, there have been those who have made these connections.
While I do see connections between the Right and Fascism, I
find this connectivity argument concerning Heidegger, Strauss and the
Neo-Conservatives to be dubious and equally irresponsible. In every case Right
and Left would have to be defined, because they don't always mean the same
thing and there are ideas which can manifest themselves in both Right-wing and
Left-wing forms. Libertarianism is just one example. Right-wing Libertarianism
is represented by someone like Ron Paul and his ideas. Leftist Libertarianism
would be represented by someone like Noam Chomsky. While there's some overlap,
these schools represent very different ways of thinking and yet both would lay legitimate
claim to the heritage of Classical Liberalism.
Those that argue Left equals big government and Right equals
small government only demonstrate that they do not understand any of the
complicated history regarding these terms and concepts.
It is undeniable that some of Nietzsche's ideas contributed
to the Nazi model, particularly that of the Ubermensch or Overman, an idea that
Fascism appropriated with its concept of 'the leader', a man who would lead in
the creation of a new world with a new morality etc...
Does this mean Nietzsche would have been a follower of
Hitler? Not at all. Nietzsche's thinking in general is hyper-individualist
(almost Anarchistic) and in many ways antithetical to Fascism. He was critical
of Nationalism which was the heart of Hitler's vision. And while Nietzsche continues
to be a fascination for many thinkers, one would be hard pressed to tie in his actual
ideas, their selected appropriation by the Nazis and the modern Environmental
movement.
These arguments in the end are reductionist and
sensationalist. They serve as propaganda by pulling monsters from the
historical closet. Ideas have consequences, certainly don't die, and can
permutate and reform, but this is little more than stirring fear for political
ends.
What is most ironic is that the heart of Nazism, it's fierce
Militaristic Nationalism which demanded total submission to the agenda of the
state, its subjugation of the economy to state interests and its use of fear
and domination to control others are not ideas being posited by anyone in the
Environmental movement. These folks (who are also not above criticism) are
generally anti-nationalist and anti-military. They might be bad people, but
they're not Nazis.
The rebirth of something like the Third Reich is more likely
to appear as a Flag-wrapped Cross, with an army marching abroad to war. It
would establish a police-state and use law enforcement to purge unwanted
elements from society. Militant Nationalism will always be reactionary and its
ideas of morality and virtue will be rooted in tradition... these are not ideas
or concepts associated with the Left.
The idea is to reclaim the true heritage, to re-establish
social values that will remedy society and strengthen the dominant historically
backed narrative. This is not liberal or progressive thinking. These impulses
exist in our society but they're not flowing from the Left.
And finally, it needs to be appreciated that there are significant
differences within the Environmental movement itself. Some schools of thought
are optimistic with regard to science and technology. They believe big
tax-funded projects, oversight, and innovation will solve the problems of
pollution and climate change. While believing in regulation, they are not
necessarily anti-capitalist. They believe government needs to take a leading
role and that the marketplace can work with the state to solve these problems.
To be successful they would argue that society needs to be on the same page,
and in an era of strained budgets the time for massive military expenditures is
coming to an end. While by no means pacifists, these people believe a reduction
in arms proliferation will free up money for new technologies and contribute to
a more geo-politically stable planet.
These people have to be starkly contrasted with the 'Deep'
Environmental movement who usually would be considered extreme by the bulk of
society. Some of their fiercest critics are those within the 'mainstream'
environmental movement.
Deep Ecologists believe industrialization has destroyed the
planet and the only solution is a radical civilizational shift away from the
current paradigm. These people believe capitalism-industrialization-and empire
are all related co-dependent entities and their rejection of them manifests
itself in terms of Localist anti-globalization, anti-consumerism and simple
living. Some from this spectrum (ELF and Ted Kaczynski for example) have turned
to violence. These groups which are vastly different from the mainstream
environmental voices in Washington 'may' contain pantheistic elements, but from
my own (limited) investigation, it seems to me these groups view the world
through an evolutionary Materialist framework.
They may want to bring down society but to suggest they are
somehow Nazi-like Totalitarians is misleading. Localism is incompatible with
Fascism and Nationalism. These people if anything are anarchists.