[lit-ideas] Re: Heil Heidegger?

Donal,

An interesting subject and I agree with most of your comments.  Furthermore
I've made similar comments elsewhere and have been in debates with a Russian
who considers himself typical.  He belongs to the Orthodox Church, reveres
Stalinism and boasts of being 100% ethnic Russian.  I have been following
events in Russia somewhat closely, and especially their toying with a new
Nationalism.  They are not a dictatorship, but Putin is within spitting
distance of being a dictator.  He is restrained by world opinion and the
need to trade and get along with other nations.  But listen to them talk and
they hate Poland as much as they ever did and think the Germans responsible
for Katyn and the near-abroad nations are opting out of the Russian
Federation because of the "aggression" of the EU and the US.  

At the root of our wanting to rate Communism higher than Fascism is
understanding that Marx believed in an ideal.  He modified Hegel a bit and
saw history tending inexorably toward a Utopia, and Lenin was his prophet.
Fascism on the other hand was ethnic nationalism, sort of what Russia is
tending toward today.  There is no universalism in that sort of Fascism.
The best ethnicity wins and every other one becomes second class - if not
slaves.

However, in our willingness to exalt Communism above Fascism, we should add
somewhere the observation that this Communist Experiment failed.  It didn't
work.  As wonderful and heartwarming as was the Marxist ideal, it didn't
work.  Yes, it was more successful than Fascism, but now what is it, and
what is following in its wake?  Putin calls his brand of Nationalism,
"Sovereign Democracy," which seems to be whatever he wants it to be at the
moment.  

But like so many in Europe after WWII, the Russians today hanker after a
large centralized government that will take care of them.  If Putin turns
out to be something like Stalin, then all the better.  The Russians don't
trust Liberal Democracy any more than the Chinese do.  They are willing to
make a few adjustments in order to benefit from the World Economy, but they
feel comfortable with Socialism and not Liberal Democracy.

I don't agree with your spectrum.  I know it is common to say "left" and
"right" when we refer to Fascism and Communism, but I don't see it.
National Socialism and Soviet Socialism need to be closer together and at
the opposite end of it from Liberal Democracy.  They are both forms of
socialism.  On their Socialist end you have big totalitarian government
making decisions for the people.  Granted one form is based on ethnicity and
the other on faith in a Utopia, but they both believe in managing the
people.  Liberal Democracy on the other hand (and at the other end) has no
such over-arching beliefs or plans.  Things are haphazard and chaotic, but
less oppressive.  People have the freedom to do most of what they want - as
long as it doesn't hurt others.  

Lawrence

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Donal McEvoy
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:13 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Heil Heidegger?

As RP shows, the true philosopher is very unafraid of the question mark.

--- On Mon, 2/11/09, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Also, as
> I take McEvoy to be suggesting, if we cast Heidegger into outer 
> darkness because of a temporary attraction to Fascism;

It was more than "temporary", not quite a one-night-stand at a night rally.
[Inner darkness would do imo.]

> what must we do to all the philosophers who were attracted to the 
> equivalent evil, Communism?

But seriously. Censorship of work is not on my agenda: the issue remains
whether H's Nazi proclivities bear on the proper evaluation of his
[metaphysical] work, and negatively impact on its worth. 

>And if someone wants to
> argue that Communism was less of an evil than Fascism, I  would be 
>interested in that argument as  well.

It seems to me arguable that the ideology and aspirations of Communism are
much less objectionable, indeed in some ways admirable, compared with those
of Nazism. At the same time Communism, perhaps because of its greater moral
appeal, has had greater global impact than Fascism; and in terms of deaths
and other measures it has consequently caused greater damage. Yet this is a
backhanded tribute to its moral superiority to Fascism. Though diametric
opposites if we draw the political spectrum as a horizontal straight line
from left to right, Communism and Fascism are close together if we bend that
line into a circle - extreme left and right close together in their
undemocratic, repressive and totalitarian character: and as their evils
derive from this, their evils can be viewed as on a par. It can also be
argued cogently that the evils of the practice of Communism are not mere
perversions of its actual theoretical basis, but are almost inevitable
consequences of that political model in its totalitarian mode. Nevertheless,
it seems to me much too indiscriminate to therefore say Communism lies on
the same moral plane as Fascism: it is perhaps better to accept that it is
on a morally higher plane as a political philosophy but is all the more
pernicious for this because its moral attractions can blind even good minds
to its evils. That a Communist state could move to properly democratise
itself and adopt less repressive policies [as with the Soviets] seems less
incongruous than a similar move by a Fascist state. Stalinism was not what
Marx aimed for [let's say; the author of "The Red Prussian" might disagree]
even if it was what was risked, indeed made likely, by taking a totalitarian
approach to political change: but the gulags and dachas are a ringing
condemnation of the failure of Communism to achieve its ideals of freedom
and equality, whereas concentration camps and Nazi palaces and racially
motivated genocide hardly signify any failure of Nazi ideals as Nazis see
them.  

Though in terms of actual damage Communism may be historically worse than
even Nazism, this is only because as a political form it has been more
successful than the kind of Fascism of WWII Italy and Germany. The measure
of actual damage is important but not decisive of Communism's worth compared
to that of Nazism: here we have to ask what actual damage would Nazism have
caused if it had been as successful worldwide as Communism? Likely worse,
and in service of a more abhorrent ideology.

That H was blind to how abhorrent Nazism was, counts for something surely in
assessing his worth as a thinker [more perhaps than would the fact he was a
child-killer].

D

Other related posts: