The definition of Nazism demands meticulous consideration. Initially, it's prudent to examine the definitions prevalent during the Soviet era. One source is Stalin's speech at the conclusion of the Great Patriotic War, where he characterized the defeated enemy as «German imperialism». However, it's crucial to note that this referred to a recent adversary, not Nazism as a broader historical phenomenon.
Nazism as a historical phenomenon has been defined by what is known as the «Georgi Dimitrov formula», named after its author, a Bulgarian communist. It stated: «Fascism is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital... Fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations»1.
The essence of this definition lies in acknowledging fascism as an extension of the overarching ideology of large capital. No need to say that the liberal theory of «totalitarianism», initially aimed against left-wing interpretations of the phenomenon, fundamentally rejected this universality.
It's noteworthy that the social Darwinian morality underlying both liberalism and Nazism is more overt and definitive in the latter, devoid of the philosophical veneer often associated with liberal democracy.
In other words, Nazism and racism serve as the oprichnina (enforcers) for the liberal regime, acting as a swift deterrent to threats against the liberal system, akin to a weapon concealed within liberal capitalism's arsenal, regularly deployed to uphold the global «order» during moments of crisis.
Outside such crises, this world order relies less on «hard power» and more on «soft power» – appeasing doctrines of fundamental rights and freedoms, extremely selectively applied in reality. For instance, the supposed freedom of entrepreneurship is infringed upon, as needed, through sanctions against competitors and sabotage such as explosions on their gas pipelines. In efforts to break free from dollar dependence and implement the unrestricted issuance of the national currency, leaders may face severe consequences, exemplified by the assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. In the metropolitan areas, the facade of managed democracy often serves as a mere «showcase», swiftly dismantled at the whim of authorities for purposes such as election fraud, arms trafficking, political censorship, restricting trade, and other clandestine agendas.
Thus, it's valid to assert that Nazism and racism represent radical, military-terrorist manifestations of large capital's power, whether transnational, Anglo-American, German, or other Western European iterations.
Moreover, the practice of Nazi-racism and its accompanying liberal rhetoric constitute defining features of Western European cultural forms in recent centuries (the Modern era). In the latter half of the twentieth century and into the early twenty-first century, this cultural paradigm underwent several new manifestations. According to them, the categorization of victims of colonization has transitioned from previously labeled groups as «non-Christian», «backward», and «biologically defective peoples» to being branded as «enemies of world democracy», «closed societies», «totalitarian states», and nations purportedly lagging behind in civil and political development. In the liberal viewpoint, the benchmark for progress remains the model of a market society stemming from Protestant ethics: the market principle, considered sacred and quasi-religious, is inherently perceived as beyond any notion of progress.
The transformation and historical context of key concepts related to the Nazi-racist theme merit discussion.
The interchangeable use of synonyms «Nazism» / «fascism» in speech continues to provoke considerable controversy, not limited to political scientists alone.
Let's exclude the narrow interpretation of fascism solely as the ideology of regimes like that of Benito Mussolini in Italy, as well as those of Francisco Franco, Antonio di Salazar, and others. Narrowly speaking, fascism embodies the cult of the corporate state, asserting its entitlement to unrestricted violence. However, our interest extends beyond this limited definition to encompass the broader history of the concept.
Benito Mussolini's brief essay «The Doctrine of Fascism» («La dottrina del fascismo») was initially published in 1932 as a preface to the article «Fascismo» («Fascism») in the 14th volume of the Italian Encyclopedia of Sciences, Literature, and Arts. The concepts derived from this essay formed the ideological underpinning of Mussolini's dictatorship. However, after the Second World War, the term «fascism» expanded in meaning to encompass not only the ideology of Mussolini and his followers but also various forms of racism and other extremist ideologies.
It must be acknowledged that the widespread adoption of the term «fascism», which has become firmly established in the social sciences as the primary one, is a fait accompli. The only caveat in this regard could be that the synonymous relationship between the concepts of «fascism» and «Nazism» is asymmetric: Nazism is a special case within fascism. Ultimately, «fascism» is synonymous with «racism» (all its types) or, more precisely, «multi-racism», which encompasses, in addition to the classic racism of the nineteenth century, cultural racism, social racism, civilizational racism, etc., including, of course, national racism (which is Nazism). This system of terms, of course, is not perfect, but there is currently no other system comparable to it.
Attempts to narrow the definition of «fascism» to an Italian corporatist ideology, as espoused by Benito Mussolini from 1921 to 1945, and its equivalents, often occur, extending beyond the boundaries of this conceptual framework. Some argue that Mussolini's ideology lacked racism and anti-Semitism before his alliance with Hitler.
Indeed, two points merit attention here. Firstly, Mussolini's alignment with Hitler underscored the secondary nature of the distinctions between the Italian fascist regime and its German counterpart. Secondly, Italian fascism, with its colonial ambitions in Africa (including Libya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia), sought to justify its disregard for African rights in pursuit of its objectives. Narrowly defined fascism (embodied by figures like Mussolini, Salazar, and Franco) espoused the cult of the corporate state, asserting the prerogative of unrestricted violence and terror while promoting notions of racial, cultural, and civilizational superiority.
The myth of superiority, in its various manifestations, serves as a fundamental principle underlying all racist ideologies. Within this framework, every national iteration of fascism emerges, maintaining the overarching pattern despite its specificities. While the ambitions of fascist Italy were not inherently global, nor did they adopt globalist forms, this merely reflects the evolutionary stages of a singular national brand of racism The pace of this evolution can be hastened by successful conquests or alliances with more powerful regimes, as seen in Mussolini's case, or it can be slowed or halted by factors such as military defeats.
Efforts to isolate individual regimes from this broader paradigm and codify them with specialized terminology often seek to gradually rehabilitate racism as a phenomenon.
Another concerning trend frequently observed is the erosion of the concept itself. Amid conceptual debates and efforts to substitute certain terms with others that are not entirely or at all equivalent (such as «fascism» with «totalitarianism»), fascism loses its distinct semantic boundaries and becomes synonymous with absolute evil, embodying all that is worst. Unsurprisingly, the most reliable method to deflect accusations of fascism is often to label someone else as a fascist, typically the individual who made the accusation in the first place. Consequently, alongside this erosion, there's a trivialization of the concept and related issues.
In addition to the blurring and trivialization, there's also a deliberate distortion and semantic realignment of the concept. The author of this book has encountered pundits who argue that «the first tenet of fascism is national pride». Indeed, by applying such a dubious «criterion», one would have to label the affection for «dear old England», «lovely France», and «holy Russia» as fascism... In reality, the focus should not be on national pride (which is a healthy sentiment), but rather on the complex of national (racial, cultural, civilizational) superiority, and the belief in the nation as the master and civilizer of other nations.
Interestingly, the fate of a closely related concept, «racism», is explored by Hannah Arendt. Initially, Arendt acknowledges a fundamental aspect: «Racism denies the equality of people, which previously stemmed from the Judeo-Christian awareness of man as the 'image and likeness of God' [Genesis 1:26]»2. However, she then proceeds with a remarkable typologization. Arendt divides racism into two types: the racism of superiority and the racism of envy. The racism of «superiority» was ideologically justified by expressing concern for the «inferior race», hence the concept of «the white man's burden». On the other hand, «racism of envy» unites the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, particularly Russia and Germany, and is not based on specific experiences of racism of «superiority», but rather on certain theories of superiority.
If we consider specific experiences, particularly in the case of Russia, the absence of a centuries-old practice of colonization becomes apparent. Surprisingly, the lack of factual evidence of racism in Eastern Europe is overlooked, and the desire for decolonization is simply categorized as a «different» type of racism. This mental maneuver is hardly so complex that it requires any special explanation.
Regarding Russia itself, Arendt simply labels the notion of uniting the Slavs as racism, a stance that is quite contentious but, as history demonstrates, was not associated with oppression and colonization. Acknowledging this and seeking to elucidate the apparent lack of profitability of the «second type of racism», she writes: «The 'racism of envy' promised not the material benefit of the planter from his black slaves or the metropolis from its colony, but the moral benefit of complete superiority, mutual understanding, and privity to all human affairs»3.
According to Hannah Arendt, a form of «Slavic» racism was purportedly directed not toward material gain but toward «moral benefits». Following this line of thought, any damage inflicted on the subjects of such colonization would also be moral in nature – damage stemming from «mutual understanding and privity». Upon reading Arendt, one is inclined to draw conclusions that diverge significantly from the author's intent.
Certainly, a few remarks are warranted regarding the author's approach. Notably, Hannah Arendt relies on psychological concepts rather than economic ones as arguments, endeavoring to integrate them into political discourse. She characterizes national objectives and interests through the lens of psychological attitudes. However, the peculiar and entirely arbitrary categorization of nations into «arrogant» and «envious» prompts numerous inquiries and, arguably, embodies a form of racism in its own right.
In general, there exists a rich tradition of ascribing to Nazism distant, unrelated, or nonspecific characteristics. For instance, claims of «the absence of democracy» or, conversely, the unfounded assertion of a «unity of the people with the state» are often attributed to it.
Strictly speaking, if there is no unity of the people with the state (which is always attributed to the state's failure), then there is no democracy. However, the crux of the matter lies not in the presence or absence of democracy, but rather in the existence of a stigmatized group – a victim group within or outside the state – excluded from common benefits, whether it pertains to democracy (real, not liberal, i.e., majority democracy) or other social opportunities and benefits.
While democracy is sometimes correlated with Nazism and racism in an optional manner, «traditionalism», occasionally cited as a trait of Nazism and racism, stands in fact as their direct opposite. Nonetheless, Umberto Eco includes the «cult of tradition» as a sign in his «list of typical characteristics of Eternal Fascism (ur-fascism)» in the famous essay «Ur-Fascism»4.
The purported regression and the supposed desire of Nazism to «cancel progress» and «reject modernism» are myths refuted by the technological advancements of the Third Reich, the rationalization of production aided by concentration camp prisoners, and the notion of «improving human nature» based on eugenics (which foreshadowed modern transhumanism). Conversely, Nazism deified «Progress» alongside «blood», viewing it not only as technological achievements but also as the dehumanization and transformation of human beings. Umberto Eco, in his «Ur-Fascism», juxtaposes seemingly contradictory elements: «Both the Italian fascists and the German Nazis seemed to adore technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually stigmatized technology, seeing it as a denial of traditional spiritual values However, in reality, Nazism only embraced the external aspects of industrialization. At its core, the ideology of Nazism was characterized by the theory of Blut und Boden – ”Blood and Soil” – which prevailed. The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rejection of capitalist modernity. Essentially, this constituted a denial of the spirit of 1789 (and, of course, 1776) – the spirit of Enlightenment»5.
Tradition, on the contrary, serves as a significant counterbalance to the «voice of blood» on the one hand, technocracy on the other, and globalism (i.e., the hegemony of one culture) on the third. This is particularly true if it's systemic traditionalism, where all traditions are considered equivalent, without distinctions between «good» and «bad» ones. Tradition fosters equality among people, devoid of the exclusionary logic that cultural and national racism thrive on. It remains self-contained and is not inclined to subjugate others, refraining from indulging in expansionism.
The concept of «totality» is often attributed as a distinctive feature of Nazism and racism, but this term itself requires clarification. In any context, the «totality» of Nazism is not unique. Totality encompasses various ideologies: religion, socialism, liberalism, and globalism. When discussing totality, it's crucial to consider primarily the ideologies of globalism.
Publicist Maxim Kantor includes «imperialism» among the features of fascism. In his article «Scythians in the Jar», he asserts: «Those who consider themselves 'leftists'... profess the imperial doctrine... it is impossible to fight against fascism and for the empire at the same time»6. According to Kantor, «fascism is the imperial national idea». This statement is quite peculiar: according to the author's reasoning, it implies that the Soviet Union could not resist the Nazi German Empire, as it was an empire itself.
In reality, fascism primarily revolves around a racial theory or other doctrine of exclusivity. The Great Patriotic War was an imperial conflict on both sides, yet it was racial and ethnic only on the German side. Stalin defended his empire, but the Soviet people also defended their families and the Russian land. However, neither the Soviet soldiers nor Stalin had any plans or intentions to carry out the genocide of «inferior Aryans».
The anti-fascism of the French Resistance also did not prevent France from remaining a colonial power until the mid-1950s, retaining control over territories like Indochina.
Today, Ukraine, akin to Germany in the 1940s, exhibits classic imperial complexes alongside Nazism. Let's recall the origins and logic of the conflict. The USSR, devoid of national claims, previously «liberated» all Soviet republics, including Ukraine. However, Ukraine today prevents ethnic Russians from leaving. Russians residing in Novorossiya do not aim to Russify Ukrainians, but rather, Ukrainians seek to Ukrainize Russians. This comparison clearly indicates that imperial policy combined with radical national racism emanates from the Ukrainian side.
Here's an example: The Armed Forces of Ukraine attempt to justify their presence in the East and their actions aimed at killing people: «We witnessed a genuine uprising in the Luhansk region. We observed that the overwhelming majority, 99.9% of the local population favored joining Russia. We asked ourselves, what or who are we here to protect? The only explanation we found is that we must defend the integrity of Ukraine... Throughout these months, we regarded them as our fellow countrymen, despite fundamental differences. We aim to construct superior homes, ones that outshine those of our neighbors, while they, in their own homes, can shoot ”Viy” (translator's note: soviet horror film) without any setting. They perish there, and no one even gives them a proper burial... My father told me, ”Go, son, explain how we live in the West, and how people should live”... It was crucial for me to communicate in Ukrainian there We brought the Western sprout to the East». The correspondent inquires, «Did you bring the Eastern sprout to the West?» «No... People live there cluelessly, live a day-to-day existence»7.
No need for comments here. In reality, Russia's demand for Ukraine echoes the biblical Exodus plea: «Let my people go». However, the individual mentioned in the quoted article stubbornly refuses to acknowledge this parallel. This underscores the resurgence of deep-seated racist ideologies akin to Nazism in 21st-century Eastern Europe.
The liberal interpretations of Nazism and racism tend to trivialize and gradually rehabilitate related concepts by focusing excessively on superficial elements such as stylistic features, external effects, and an aura of imperial grandeur that are often associated with Nazism and racism. However, these interpretations often fail to address the underlying essence of these phenomena.
For instance, when analyzing the Hitler regime, there's often a focus on events like the 1936 Olympics and the renowned film by Leni Riefenstahl («Olympia»). However, these are merely elements of imperial propaganda that can be found in any regime.
The Olympics neither enhanced nor diminished Nazism in Germany. However, significant aspects such as the well-known «Ost» plan and the plan for the colonization of Slavic populations, the pamphlet «Untermensch», the approach to the «Eastern question», the enactment of the Nuremberg laws, and eugenics were pivotal in Nazi propaganda. Yet, these specifics hold little interest for liberal critics of Nazism. Firstly, because they highlight the distinctiveness of the phenomenon, while liberal propaganda aims to blur its boundaries and characteristic features as much as possible using «anti-totalitarian» rhetoric. Secondly, because liberal ideologists are well aware that Nazism is the logical outcome of their own worldview.
The most significant hallmark of Nazism (fascism, racism) is the inequality perpetuated by market democracy. Indeed, the so-called free market serves as a mechanism for sustaining inequality, fostering a state of «the war of all against all», wherein the reinforcement of the leader asserts the dominance of the rule of the gun. Hence, liberalism and Nazism share a fundamental common principle – unfettered competition. The extension of this principle from the economic, market realm to cultural, ethnic, social, and back again to economic spheres fundamentally alters nothing in essence.
Hence, the liberal establishment endeavors to align public institutions like religion, family, and gender relations with a singular market denominator. This inclination manifests through enforced secularization, juvenile measures, and the legalization of same-sex marriage. By subjecting cultural and traditional spheres to the dictates of economic forces, what is intended for dismantling becomes most conveniently primed for economic manipulation.
The aforementioned Hannah Arendt acknowledged that «racism is the primary ideological weapon of imperialism», a statement that holds true when imperialism is perceived as liberal capitalism reaching a stage of excessive economic and political monopolization. In essence, Arendt refrains from directly disputing the notion that racism is an inherent attribute of liberal capitalism8.
Without disregarding the imperial aesthetics, liberal critics also tend to discuss the «cult of power» and the «subordination of the individual to the collective, cemented by an 'idea'». These phenomena, regardless of one's perspective, are typical of any regime type and hold the same relevance to the Nazi-racist ideological cluster as to all others.
The subordination of individuals to a collective or a part thereof is generally inevitable. However, in the case of Nazism, it's not merely about subordination or the «idea of subordination», but rather about division and caste. Nonetheless, if the state and society require some limitation of individual rights, they can still function without segregation and gradation. Nazism and racism entail an artificial gradation of people, even to the extent of denying the existence of certain ethnic, cultural, or social groups, as seen with Russians in the early 21st century due to the denial of the Russian world by Western elites.
2024 ãîä
