Conservative Revolution
Conservative Revolution is a movement in Germany and Austria between World War I and the rise of the Nazis. Its members wanted to change society, but they disagreed on how. They rejected traditional Christian values, equality, democracy, and modern culture. Instead, they admired ideas from the past, like Friedrich Nietzsche's views, German Romanticism, and Prussian nationalism. They also drew from their experiences in World War I.
Their connection to Nazism was complex. Some saw them as a step towards fascism, but they were not the same. They didn't all believe in Nazi ideas about race. While they helped pave the way for the Nazis, they didn't have much influence on them. When the Nazis took over, most Conservative Revolutionaries were either killed or rejected the Nazi regime.
Later, their ideas influenced movements like the European New Right, which includes groups like the French Nouvelle Droite and German Neue Rechte. These ideas are still influential today, shaping movements like the European Identitarian movement.
History edit
Historical Background edit
Relationship with Nazis edit
Beliefs edit
New Nationalism and Morality edit
Conservative Revolutionaries believed their nationalism differed significantly from previous forms of German nationalism and conservatism. They criticized traditional Wilhelmine conservatives for being reactionary and failing to grasp modern concepts like technology, urbanization, and the working class.
Moeller van den Bruck described Conservative Revolution as preserving values inseparable from the Volk (ethnic group), which endure through time due to adaptations in their institutional and ideal forms. Unlike pure reactionaries or revolutionaries, Conservative Revolutionaries aimed to shape eternal values to ensure their survival amid historical changes. Edgar Jung rejected the notion that true conservatives aimed to halt progress. They sought a chivalric way of life guided by innate morality rather than a conscious moral code. Conservative revolutionaries aimed to restore natural laws and values within the modern world.
Influenced by Nietzsche, many rejected Christian ethics of solidarity and equality, viewing them as oppressive to the strong. They advocated for nations to prioritize self-interest over moral standards in geopolitics. Völkischen, influenced by racialist and occultist beliefs, opposed Christianity and sought a return to Germanic pagan faith or the adaptation of Christianity to remove foreign influences.
Volksgemeinschaft and Dictatorship edit
Thomas Mann believed that German resistance during World War I was stronger militarily than spiritually because the German essence couldn't easily express itself verbally, making it difficult to counter Western rhetoric effectively. He argued that German culture was deeply rooted in the soul and thus authoritarian rule was natural for Germans, as politics and democracy were seen as foreign to their spirit. Mann's ideas influenced Conservative Revolutionaries, although he later defended the Weimar Republic and criticized figures associated with the movement.
Carl Schmitt, in his essay "The Dictatorship," praised the power given to the president in the Weimar Republic to declare a state of emergency, which he saw as essential for effective governance. He argued that in a democratic state, any deviation from democratic principles could be considered dictatorship. Schmitt further proposed that sovereignty necessitated the ability to declare a state of emergency, allowing for swift decisions outside of parliamentary procedures. He later used this argument to justify Hitler's actions during the Night of the Long Knives, stating, "The leader defends the law."
Front-Line Socialism edit
Conservative Revolutionaries rejected the idea of being driven by class struggle resentment and instead looked to the camaraderie of World War I for inspiration, envisioning a national community beyond traditional political divides. They aimed to redefine revolution, associating it with the unity of the war's beginning rather than the turmoil of November 1918.
They agreed with socialists on curtailing capitalism's excesses, advocating for controlled capitalism and closer collaboration between workers and employers. Their critique of capitalism stemmed from its wartime profits, inflation, and their own middle-class background, feeling squeezed between ruling capitalists and the masses.
While they dismissed communism as idealistic, they borrowed Marxist terminology, such as the inevitability of conservatism replacing liberalism, reflecting a historical materialist view. Influenced by vitalism and irrationalism, they believed in life's dominance over reason, contrasting with Marxist optimism. Some, like Ernst Niekisch, advocated National Bolshevism, blending ultra-nationalist socialism with anti-Western sentiments, even willing to align with German communists and the Soviet Union to combat the capitalist West.
Variants edit
Jüngerism
edit
Jüngerism is the philosophy associated with the philosopher, soldier and writer Ernst Jünger, famous soldier of the First World War who developed a successful writing career where he mixed his nationalist, conservative, anti-democratic and militarist ideas.
The Anarch edit
Schmittianism
edit
Schmittianism refers to the political and legal theories associated with the German jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt. Carl Schmitt was a prominent figure in political thought during the early to mid-20th century. His ideas are characterized by a focus on concepts such as sovereignty, the state, and the nature of political authority.
State of exception edit
Carl Schmitt's concept of the "State of Exception" is a key element of his political theory, notably articulated in works like "Political Theology" (1922) and "The Concept of the Political" (1932). At its core, the state of exception represents the sovereign's authority to suspend the normal legal order during times of crisis or emergency.
Schmitt contends that the sovereign, typically the political leader or governing body, possesses the power to declare a state of exception. This declaration involves the temporary suspension of established legal norms and the assumption of extraordinary powers to address a perceived threat to the political order. According to Schmitt, this decision to suspend the rule of law and operate outside the usual legal constraints is a defining characteristic of sovereign authority.
In the state of exception, the sovereign is not bound by the existing legal and constitutional frameworks. Instead, they can take exceptional measures that might be deemed unacceptable or even illegal in normal circumstances. Schmitt argues that the ability to make such decisions and assert exceptional authority is inherent in the concept of sovereignty.
Friend-Enemy distinction edit
Schmitt's Friend-Enemy distinction is a concept introduced in his work "The Concept of the Political" (1932). According to Schmitt, the essence of politics is encapsulated in the ability of a group or political entity to discern and categorize others as either friends or enemies.
Schmitt contends that the emergence of the "political" occurs when a collective is willing to confront and, if necessary, engage in conflict with another group that is perceived as a genuine threat or adversary. This distinction is not grounded in personal sentiments or individual relationships; rather, it is a collective and existential categorization that transcends individual feelings.
In Schmitt's conceptualization, the state, as the ultimate political authority, assumes the responsibility of making this Friend-Enemy distinction. The state is tasked with identifying potential threats to its constituents and is expected to take measures to protect its citizens from perceived enemies. This delineation, according to Schmitt, is crucial for the preservation of political order and the integrity of the state.
Sovereignty as a "borderline concept" edit
Schmitt delves into the nature of political authority, asserting that at its core, sovereignty is not merely a legal or constitutional principle but a dynamic force entailing the power to determine the exception. In other words, the sovereign authority possesses the prerogative to decide when the normal legal order can be suspended or overridden, especially in situations deemed as states of emergency.
The notion of sovereignty as a "borderline concept" carries profound implications for understanding the relationship between law, politics, and authority. Schmitt contends that the essence of sovereignty lies in the ability to draw a boundary between the ordinary functioning of the legal system and the extraordinary circumstances that demand the suspension of regular legal norms. This boundary, the "borderline," becomes the locus of the sovereign's decision-making power, a decisive act that shapes the trajectory of political order.
Schmitt's emphasis on the exception as a central aspect of sovereignty underscores the idea that political authority is not merely a set of static rules but a living, evolving force that responds to existential threats. The sovereign, in Schmitt's view, stands as the ultimate arbiter capable of transcending legal and constitutional constraints when the need arises. This perspective raises questions about the nature of power, the rule of law, and the ethical considerations surrounding the exercise of authority in critical situations.
Legality-Legitimacy Distinction edit
Legality, as articulated by Schmitt, encompasses the adherence to formal procedures and legal norms by a governing entity. It represents the structured, procedural aspect of governance, where actions are executed in accordance with established legal frameworks. This facet of legality is concerned with the institutional and procedural correctness of governmental actions, emphasizing the importance of adherence to established rules and regulations.
In contrast, legitimacy extends beyond the realm of formal legality, encapsulating the subjective acceptance and recognition of authority by the governed. Legitimacy revolves around the notion that a government or ruler possesses the rightful claim to authority, and this entitlement is often rooted in historical traditions, popular support, or some other source of perceived authority. While legality focuses on the formalities of governance, legitimacy delves into the broader societal perception and acceptance of the ruling authority.
Schmittian Political Theology edit
Schmitt's concept of Political Theology is the interplay between political and theological elements within the framework of sovereignty and authority. Fundamentally, Political Theology explores the notion that political power is inherently connected to theological considerations. Schmitt posits that sovereign authority, whether embodied by an individual leader or a collective state, bears a resemblance to a secularized form of divine authority. This interweaving of the political and the theological becomes particularly pronounced in times of crisis, where the decision-making power of the sovereign assumes not only a political nature but also acquires quasi-religious significance.
A pivotal element of Schmitt's analysis revolves around the concept of the "state of exception." During crises or emergencies, the sovereign is granted extraordinary powers to make decisions and suspend regular legal and constitutional processes. Schmitt argues that this state of exception is a manifestation of the sovereign's authority, akin to the divine power to transcend and suspend the ordinary order of things. Consequently, Political Theology offers a conceptual framework for comprehending how the political sphere can adopt a quasi-religious character during critical junctures.
Furthermore, Schmitt extends his analysis to the question of legitimacy and the foundations of political order. He asserts that the legitimacy of political authority ultimately rests on a theological foundation, even in ostensibly secular societies. This challenges the idea of a strict separation between church and state and prompts a reassessment of the secularization thesis. According to Schmitt, the secular state is not truly devoid of theological underpinnings but operates within a framework deeply influenced by theological concepts.
Spenglerism
edit
Spenglerism is a revolutionary conservative philosophy of Oswald Spengler. It rejected both liberalism and marxism as Spengler had considered them to be both based on the english spirit which was opposed to the german spirit. Spengler advocated that both 
german conservatives and german (non-communist) socialist must cooperate against the weimar republic. Spengler also advocated for a new system which can be summarized as a socialist-corporatist nationalist-militarist state under an authoritarian Prussian monarchy.
Cultures and Civilizations edit
Spengler's historical philosophy is based on two ideas: first, that human history is shaped by large social entities called "Cultures," each with its own unique characteristics; and second, that the evolution of these Cultures resembles the life cycle of living beings.
He identified nine Cultures, including Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese, and Western (or "Faustian"). According to Spengler, each Culture has its own distinct identity and develops in stages like a person's life, from childhood to old age. When a Culture reaches its later stages, it becomes a "Civilization," marked by technology and mass society. Spengler believed that human history is not linear but consists of the interactions between these Cultures, each with its own unique worldview and destiny. He saw modern society as a "Civilization" in decline, characterized by technology and imperialism.
Although Spengler's ideas were criticized for being obscure and mystical, they influenced later thinkers like Eduard Meyer and Ludwig Wittgenstein. His work laid the foundation for social cycle theory, which explores the recurring patterns in human history.
Pseudomorphosis edit
Spengler talks about pseudomorphosis, a concept borrowed from mineralogy, to describe when a young culture can't fully develop because it's stuck in the mold of an older one. This leads to resentment and hatred towards the older culture.
He believed this happened with the Arabian culture after it lost to Rome at the Battle of Actium, and later with Russia under Peter the Great, who forced Western European norms onto Russia. Spengler thought this hindered Russia's cultural growth, leading to resentment towards Europe. He predicted a new culture emerging in Russia, hinted at by authors like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.
Becoming and Being edit
For Spengler, change is fundamental, not stability. He believed that life and growth are where divine influence is found, not in permanence. Spengler's philosophy can be summed up by lines from Goethe, emphasizing the importance of embracing change and growth to understand the divine.
Blood and Race edit
Spengler believed that blood, or life-force, was the only force strong enough to challenge and overthrow money, which he saw as the dominant power of his time. When he spoke of blood, he didn't mean ethnicity, but rather the unity of people in their outlook and purpose. He saw the struggle against money as not just about capitalism versus socialism, but about creating a powerful societal order based on duty and thoughtfulness. Spengler emphasized that life itself, the force of existence, is what ultimately triumphs over money and any artificial constructs of the mind.
Democracy, Media and Money edit
Spengler argued that democracy serves the interests of money, with the media acting as its tool to operate within democratic systems. He saw democracy and plutocracy as interchangeable, viewing principles like equality and freedom as disguises for class struggle. To him, freedom meant rejecting tradition, and he believed that the press and elections ultimately served money's interests, regardless of ideological rhetoric. In Spengler's view, money had already triumphed through democracy, but its dominance would pave the way for the emergence of a powerful leader he called the Caesar. This leader would render money less influential, leading to the decline of money-dominated politics.
He noted that constitutional rights and voting required money, and when elections were controlled by political leaders, money determined their significance. Spengler saw this concentration of wealth as a natural consequence of mature democracies, not as corruption. Regarding the media, Spengler criticized its bombardment of information and its role in shaping public opinion to serve money's interests. He believed universal education fueled the demand for media control, ultimately leading to the rise of authoritarian leaders. He argued that only a force like blood, not Marxist critiques, could counter the power of money.
Prussian Socialism edit
Spengler argued that Germany, particularly Prussia, possessed socialist traits like creativity, discipline, concern for the common good, productivity, and self-sacrifice. He saw socialism as a system where achievement and talent, not wealth, determine one's rank in society, freeing individuals from economic tyranny.
He urged Germans to embrace Prussian socialism to break free from foreign governance, advocating for a socialism based on German values rather than Marxist ideology. Spengler contrasted English capitalism with Prussian socialism, highlighting the latter's emphasis on hierarchy and obedience rather than wealth accumulation. He praised historical figures like Frederick William I and Otto von Bismarck for embodying Prussian socialism through their emphasis on military discipline and social policies that complemented conservatism.
True Socialism edit
Spengler criticized Marxism for misunderstanding German socialism and adopting British ideas. He believed that Marxism aimed to have the working class seize wealth from capitalists to live a life of ease, calling it "the capitalism of the working class."
Instead, Spengler argued for a "true socialism" rooted in German values, where ownership wouldn't be forcibly taken but managed differently. He advocated for a system where ownership remains, but control shifts to public administration while preserving individual initiative and responsibility. This, he believed, would lead to a gradual transformation of workers and employers into economic functionaries within a corporatist framework, without traditional political parties or fixed-term elections.
Gallery edit
-
Jüngerism
