The Lost Debate: German Socialist Intellectuals and Totalitarianism 0252067967, 9780252067969

"The definition of totalitarianism has long been shaped by the narrow confines of cold war-era ideas. In this impor

276 5 9MB

English Pages 384 [382] Year 1999

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD PDF FILE

Table of contents :
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
Preface
Introduction
i. Strange Defeat: Leftist Intellectuals and Weimar's Collapse, 1928-33
2. Socialists in Dark Times: Perspectives from Exile, 1933-3
3. Varieties of Antitotalitarianism: Wartime Theories and Politics, 1939-45
4. Totalitarianism's Temptations: Into the Cold War
Notes
Bibliography
Index
Recommend Papers

The Lost Debate: German Socialist Intellectuals and Totalitarianism
 0252067967, 9780252067969

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

The

lost debate

THE

G e r m a n Socialist Intellectuals a n d Totalitarianism

William David Jones

U NI VERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS URBANA AND CHICAGO

© 1 9 9 9 b y the B o a r d of Trustees of the University of Illinois M a n u f a c t u r e d in the Un i t e d States of A m e r i c a 1 2 3 4 5 C P 5 4 3 2 1

© This b o o k is printed o n acid-free paper.

Library of Co n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publication Da t a Jones, W i l l i a m David, 1953T h e lost debate: G e r m a n socialist intellectuals a n d totalitarianism / W i l l i a m D a v i d Jones, p.

cm.

Includes bibliographical references a n d index. I S B N 0-252-02480-x (cloth: alk. paper) I S B N 0-252-06796-7 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Socialism— G e r m a n y — History— 2 0 t h century. 2. Socialists— G e r m a n y — History— 2 0 t h century. 3.

Intellectuals— G e r m a n y — History— 2 0 t h century.

4. Totalitarianism— G e r m a n y — History— 2 0 t h century. 5. G e r m a n y — Politics a n d g o v e r n m e n t — 2 0 t h century. I. Title.

HX273.J66 335'.00943*0904—dc2i C IP

1999 98-58029

For A n n e a n d D a v i d

Germany's special place in the history of this century is obvious: itis the only European country that has had to experience, suffer, and acknowledge responsi­ bility for the devastating effects of both totalitarian movements of the twentieth century: Nazism and Bolshevism. I leave itto the learned professors ofpolitical science to point out or emphasize the indisputable specific differences between these two movements.... M y point is that the same political experiences that have made the history of Germany a tragic history can also allow Germany to take itsplace in the forefront ofa democratic and universalist expansion of the idea ofEurope. —Jorge Semprun, Literature or Life

CONTENTS

Preface xi

Introduction i

i. Strange Defeat: Leftist Intellectuals a n d Weimar's Collapse, 1928-33 21 2.

Socialists in D a r k Times:Perspectives from Exile, 1933-39 64

3.

Varieties of Antitotalitarianism: Wartime Theories a n d Politics, 1939-45 108 4.

Totalitarianism's Temptations:Into the Cold W a r 173 Notes 221 Bibliography 303

Index 347

PREFACE

Totalitarianism stands as o n e of the defining political ideas of this century, but precisely w h a t the w o r d totalitarianism indicates has long b e e n at is­ sue. T h e search for explanations of m o d e r n tyranny's origins a n d s y m p ­ tomatic features has proceeded for nearly eight decades, yielding various contested answers, a n d the search itself has n o w b e c o m e a n object of study. Yet accounts of totalitarianism as a type of regime or as a theory of dictatorship have all too often overlooked or unfairly slighted important left-wing critiques of m o d e r n tyranny— particularly those generated b y i n dependent or u n o r t h o d o x Marxists in the years before the cold war. This b o o k provides o n e of the elements that has b e e n largely missing f r o m historical studies of the various notions of totalitarianism: a n account of their gradual a n d controversial e m e r g e n c e o n the G e r m a n left f r o m the last years of the W e i m a r Republic to the first t w o decades of the cold war. A n y historical retracing of lesser-known concepts of totalitarianism m u s t fight against a c o m m o n l y held i m a g e of their origins. Because of the ideological d o m i n a n c e of o n e type of the co n c e p t during the cold w a r period, the debates about totalitarian dictatorship have often appeared to observers a n d participants alike as either a lamentable or praiseworthy product of the cold w a r itself. This picture is at o n c e too simple a n d too politically convenient. A s the a r g u m e n t s a n d evidence in the following chapters demonstrate, the comparative analysis of dictatorship in the twentieth century has a longer a n d m o r e challenging history t h a n the m o s t o u t s p o k e n critics a n d advocates of w h a t has c o m e to b e called “ to­

xi

Preface

xii

talitarian theory”have b e e n willing to grant. Critiques of m o d e r n tyranny h a v e e m e r g e d f r o m a variety of political a n d philosophical perspectives, including conservative, religious, liberal, libertarian, a n d leftist. This b o o k focuses o n the interwar a n d w a r t i m e critiques of dictatorship p r o d u c e d b y a g r o u p of leftist G e r m a n intellectuals. Their writings offer o n e of the m o s t compelling series of responses b y a n articulate a n d politically threat­ e n e d g r o u p to that violent a n d decisive era. T h e embattled political a n d theoretical positions of these intellectu­ als b o t h enabled a n d compe l l e d t h e m to study the origins a n d character of m o d e r n dictatorship. D u r i n g the early interwar years, they h a d s u p ­ ported a variety of socialist policies in G e r m a n y , a n d m o s t of t h e m were m e m b e r s of Marxist political parties. T h e defeat of b o t h m o d e r a t e a n d revolutionary socialism b y the Nazis a n d their allies left these writers a n d activists personally a n d politically outcast. T h e fact that all of the G e r m a n m e n a n d w o m e n w h o s e lives a n d writings this b o o k e x a m i n e s suffered exile, imprisonment, or death at the h a n d s of a G e r m a n state that system­ atically jailed or m u r d e r e d h u n d r e d s of t h o u s a n d s of its native-born or naturalized citizens for the n e w l y promu l g a t e d crime of being Jews (which several of these writers were, at least according to Nazi G e r m a n y ’ sN u r e m ­ berg Laws) or socialists ( which all of these writers were, at least s o m e of the time) or b o t h offers compelling evidence regarding the character of their history. E v e n those a m o n g t h e m w h o h a d o n c e h o p e d that the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party w o u l d lead a radical transformation of the nation a n d of E u r o p e gradually b e c a m e m o r e critical of C o m m u n i s m a n d the Soviet U nion. T h ese writers s o o n b e c a m e frustrated b y the C o m m u n i s t s ’ role in i m p l e m e n t i n g several politically ineffective or even disastrous C o m i n t e r n programs, and, as the consequences of Stalin’ s leadership quickly b e c a m e clearer during the 1930s, they b e g a n to criticize the m u r d e r o u s domestic policies of the Soviet U n i o n as well. A n o t h e r important e lement of their history is that, during the years they spent living a n d writing outside Nazi G e r m a n y , these individuals h elped s h a p e a n d s o m e t i m e s e v e n led the scholarly discussion of m o d e r n dictatorship in their m o r e or less u n c o m ­ fortable h a v e n s in Czechoslovakia, France, the Netherlands, England, Mexico, a n d the United States. As exile scholars, policy analysts, a n d p u b ­ licists, they labored for decades alongside or within the fractious c o m m u ­ nity of the E u r o p e a n a n d the A m e r i c a n Left. Of t e n forced to redirect their intellectual efforts to m e e t the d e m a n d s of a daunting historical situation, they generated a n extraordinary a n d divergent range of theoretical a n d practical writings o n the crises of the 1930s a n d 1940s. After W o r l d W a r II, as a kind of e m b o d i m e n t of “ the return of the re-

Preface

xiii

pressed,”s o m e of these individuals m a d e their w a y to the Federal R e p u b ­ lic of G e r m a n y , w h e r e they exerted a n important a n d persistent influence o n the e m e r g i n g political culture. E v e n those writers w h o r e m a i n e d in E n ­ gland or the United States often f o u n d a n a m p l e G e r m a n readership, for in the divided G e r m a n y of the postwar years, the p r o b l e m of dictatorship— w h e t h e r construed u n d e r the category of totalitarianism, fascism, or s o m e other t e r m — r e m a i n e d a constant a n d l o o m i n g feature of public life. T h e very existence of t w o Germanies, clearly a legacy of b o t h National Social­ is m a n d rising cold w a r tensions, served to heighten the controversy sur­ r o u n d i n g the idea of totalitarianism. As a result, the older, often neglected interwar studies o n politics, economics, a n d society produced b y this group of writers s o m e t i m e s f o u n d a n attentive audience, t h o u g h the reception of their w o r k w a s sharply m i x e d a n d selective. Controversies about their theoretical efforts intensified during the 1960s a n d continue to be replayed decades later in the w o r k of a n even y o u nger generation of scholars a n d p o ­ litical writers. But b y the time the Berlin Wall c a m e d o w n in 1989, only a tiny r e m n a n t of this older g r o u p of left-wing theorists r e m a i n e d o n the scene to offer a n analysis of the current upheavals in G e r m a n y . T h e theoretical forays of these left-wing intellectuals into the terrain of c o n t e m p o r a r y politics a n d society m a y be read partly as the responses of a n articulate a n d embattled b a n d of dissidents to the kind of "everyday life”that h a d b e e n forced o n t h e m as " u n w a n t e d ”G e r m a n s a n d as exiles. Their writings also o w e d s o m e vital el e m e n t to their Marxist heritageeve n in cases w h e n they w ere explicitly a n d often noisily m o v i n g a w a y f r o m their earlier allegiance to Marxist notions of radical social transfor­ mation. T h e y h a d entered politics a n d a c a d e m i c life as left-wing W e i m a r radicals w h o typically b u c k e d party o r t h o d o x y — w h e t h e r Socialist or C o m m u n i s t — or at the very least attacked its shortcomings. In the exile a n d w a r t i m e intellectual battles over theoretical a n d practical tactics of resistance to dictatorship, however, they often e n d e d u p revising or even reviling w h a t they regarded as " o r t h o d o x ”M a r x i s m . Yet for all their criti­ cal wrestling wit h Marxist historical concepts, they never quite escaped t h e m entirely. S o m e of these thinkers continued to d r a w heavily o n M a r x ­ ist concepts a n d critical approa c h e s a n d a t t empted to revitalize t h e m , while others attempted to tear a w a y at the Marxist theoretical apparatus. Rarely did they simply turn a w a y f r o m M a r x i s m . T h e y either attempted to revive it b y s o m e m e a n s or picked over w h a t they took to be its remains e v e n as its specter h a u n t e d t h e m in return. T h e y quarreled a m o n g themselves ab o u t current leftist theory a n d practice as intensely as they h a d argued within a n d w ith the Marxist

Preface

xiv

legacy itself. O n l y o n rare occasions did all of these leftist intellectuals find c o m m o n political or theoretical g r o u n d as Marxists or ex-Marxists, t h o u g h pairs a n d small clusters of t h e m did f o r m lasting intellectual a n d personal alliances. T h e shared f u n d of allegiances, experiences, a n d ideas that i n f o r m e d their writings yielded n o c o m m o n j u d g m e n t regarding the origins of m o d e r n dictatorship or e v e n the best m e a n s of resistance to it. Consequently, n o generalized theoretical formulation about totalitarian­ i s m gleaned f r o m their efforts will b e offered here. This b o o k focuses in­ stead o n the provocative a n d seminal debate about the origins a n d char­ acter of m o d e r n dictatorship that these G e r m a n socialist intellectuals generated— a m a n y - s i d e d series of critical explorations that never c ulmi­ nated in a consensus before or during the cold w a r a n d w h o s e traces per­ sist e v e n after that singular conflict's end. A fe w preliminary clarifications regarding the limits a n d intent of this project are in order. First, there is n o attempt here to provide a systematic history of twentieth-century dictatorships. This is not, in other words, a b o o k a b out Nazi G e r m a n y or Fascist Italy or the Soviet Uni o n . It is a b o o k a b out h o w a g r o u p of thinkers tried to u n d erstand the historical a n d so­ cial forces that h a d generated a n d s h a p e d those regimes a n d others. Sec­ ond, this b o o k is not intended to defend the d o m i n a n t cold war-era the o ­ ries of totalitarianism. T h e s e comparative formulations, for all their indisputable interest a n d importance, hav e often p r o v e n to b e as w e a k in their function as explanatory historical m o d e l s as they h ave b e e n potent for the pu r p o s e of political attack. I do, however, w a n t to revisit a fe w of the totalitarian theories of the 1950s a n d 1960s in a s o m e w h a t different context— that is, as but o n e possible set of positions in a long-standing debate o n the origins, actions, a n d conseq u e n c e s of twentieth-century dictatorships. A s w e shall see, s o m e of the m o s t provocative interwar a n d w a r t i m e writings of G e r m a n left-wing intellectuals f o r e s h a d o w e d not only the cold war-era theories of totalitarianism but also s o m e of the tren­ ch a n t critical responses to t h e m . M y third initial point— w h i c h will be a n obvious o n e to s o m e readers— is that there is not just a single concept of totalitarianism but a variety of such concepts. This b o o k is not a n e n c y ­ clopedic study of these various concepts, however. I a m c o n c e r n e d here with only a few of t h e m that G e r m a n leftists generated in the interwar a n d w a r t i m e years. Th e s e left-wing critiques of dictatorship h ave a r e n e w e d historical in­ terest at the close of the twentieth century. Echoes of the a r g u m e n t s a n d issues that p r o d u c e d t h e m still resound. T h e past dec a d e has witnessed sharply disputed reassessments of the writings a n d lives of significant

Preface

xv

intellectual figures associated in s o m e w a y with notions of totalitarianism, suc h as G e o r g e Orwell, H a n n a h Arendt, and, in a distinct but related set of discussions, Martin Heidegger. T h e accounts historians offered over the past t w o decades to explain Nazi genocide against E u r o p e a n Jew s — o n e of the crucial issues that a n y historian attempting to describe or explain Nazi G e r m a n y m u s t at s o m e point address— h a v e also p r o v o k e d b road schol­ arly a n d public interest. E a c h of these scholarly conflicts— f r o m the bit­ ter intentionalist-functionalist debates o n the i m p o r t a n c e of Hitler in the Nazi state to the Historikerstreit (historian's controversy) of the 1980s a n d the still m o r e recent discussions of the complicity of “ordinary”G e r m a n s in violence against J e w s — has t o u c h e d o n the totalitarianism debate in important ways. At yet another level of scholarly discourse— but o n e still linked to the events a n d ideas that seized the attention of the thinkers this b o o k e x a m ­ ines— intellectual c o m b a t continues a m o n g theorists affiliated w i t h Hegelian or Marxist notions of social “totality”or the E n l i g h t e n m e n t project of a liberal, rationalized society ( w h o s e m o s t important represen­ tative is the G e r m a n philosopher Jürgen H a b e r m a s ) a n d their p o s t m o d e r n critics (led in this particular debate b y s uch figures as the French scholar Jean-François Lyotard), w h o charge that the rationalized social totality is inevitably a system of totalitarian oppression. This persisting debate has long since a s s u m e d a n international character, a n d yet it often returns implicitly a n d explicitly to the terms a n d texts p r o d u c e d b y intellectuals of the interwar G e r m a n Left. In m o r e conventional popular debates o n politics a n d policy, recent partisan struggles h a v e revealed the surprising strength of s o m e of the hastily r e n a m e d a n d reconfigured C o m m u n i s t parties in Eastern a n d W e s t e r n Europe. T h e appeal of socialist politics has not b e e n obliterated b y the e n d of the cold w a r but m a y actually h a v e b e e n reinvigorated in particular national contexts. E v e n m o r e dramatically (and certainly far m o r e violently), the various neofascist m o v e m e n t s in France, Italy, R u s ­ sia, a n d G e r m a n y continue to offer dangerous challenges to the familiar social democratic-liberal-conservative partisan lineup typical of postwar W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n politics. E a c h of these m o m e n t s of recent political a n d intellectual history bears s o m e significant connection to the interwar a n d w a r t i m e debates about totalitarian dictatorship. There are additional, perhaps e v e n m o r e compelling reasons to recon­ sider this old intraleft dispute. W i t h startling speed, cold w a r certainties h a v e crumbled, dulling the ideological sharpness of the p r e d o m i n a n t l y a n t i - C o m m u n i s t versions of the totalitarian concept. But the problems of

Preface

xvi

political violence a n d dictatorial repression have hardly disappeared. T h e m o m e n t of C o m m u n i s m ' s evident b r e a k d o w n a n d retreat in Europe has already h a d n u m e r o u s u n e x p e c t e d a n d unforeseeable consequences in this regard. Fifty years after the e n d of W o r l d W a r II, fascism has resurfaced not only as r e m e m b e r e d violence but also as r e n e w e d violence. T h e vig­ orous resurgence of neofascist, overtly racist political m o v e m e n t s in East­ ern a n d W e s t e r n Europe, s o m e of t h e m exhibiting b o t h a n anti-Semitic a n d a n anti-Islamic character— the latter addition offering indirect evi­ den c e of the deadly effectiveness of the original varieties of fascism— raises the issue of political violence in the m o s t urgent way. T h e w a r in Bosnia a n d its challenge to international military a n d dip­ lomatic systems invented in cold w a r times for cold w a r purposes has b e e n the m o s t disastrous result to date of the rapid shifts in the political a n d e c o n o m i c p o w e r alignments in Europe. T h e legacies of totalitarianism as unitary idea, m u r d e r o u s practice, political epithet, b o g e y m a n , a n d selfi m m o l a t i n g chaos in the course of the appalling violence in the former Yugoslavia are unmistakable. This w a s clearly not w h a t h a d b e e n h o p e d for after the cold war. T h e w a r in Bosnia m a r k e d a t e n d e n c y toward fero­ cious, ideologically motivated violence in at least s o m e parts of E u r o p e — n o t to m e n t i o n a n occasional a n d regionally varying shift in political m o m e n t u m not only a w a y f r o m C o m m u n i s m but also a w a y f r o m liber­ alism, social democracy, or traditionalist conservatism toward a fascistic, e v e n genocidal nationalism that m i g h t reasonably b e labeled “ totalitar­ ian.”W h e t h e r the occasions of this kind of nationalism a n d their atten­ dant international n o n r e sponse r e n e w themselves m o r e frequently or rise u p in s o m e other region within or outside E u r o p e (though not necessar­ ily b e y o n d E u r o p e a n interests a n d influence, s u c h as Rwa n d a ) , these bursts of political violence that display m u r d e r o u s popular rage a n d chill­ ingly cynical o p p o r t u n i s m will rightly gain the critical scrutiny of schol­ ars a n d others. Familiarity w i t h the investigations of E u r o p e a n totalitar­ ianism's earlier history m i g h t help sustain a n d instruct the opposition to suc h political m o v e m e n t s . Elsewhere, the residues of w h a t the G e r m a n historian a n d political scientist Karl Dietrich Bracher has labeled “the totalitarian experience” retain at least s o m e of their cold war-era ideological pungency. In the United States, the O k l a h o m a City b o m b i n g atrocity of 1995 provoked the reflex in the national m e d i a of c o m p a r i n g a n d s o m e t i m e s equating the m u r d e r s a n d other crimes perpetrated b y groups that e m e r g e d f r o m the radical Left during the late 1960s a n d early 1970s with the violent acts of the radical rightist “militia”groups of the 1990s. T h e idea of totalitarian-

Preface

xvii

i s m certainly did not create these events a n d m o v e m e n t s , but to a remark­ able extent it has conditioned our responses to t h e m , demonstrating the persistence of its p o w e r eve n in w h a t m a y yet prove to be the period of its decline. T h e cold war's sobering aftermath o u g h t to be the appropriate t i m e for e x a m i n i n g the terms a n d texts of a debate a m o n g a small but influential g r o u p of G e r m a n socialist intellectuals o n the p r o b l e m of m o d e r n dictatorship that largely preceded the cold war. This b o o k is a n attempt to recover, reinterpret, a n d perhaps revitalize s o m e of the frag­ m e n t s of that lost debate.

I h a v e h a d the g o o d fortune to receive the generous assistance a n d s u p ­ port of m a n y friends, relatives, colleagues, students, a n d institutions in the course of w o r k i n g o n this project. T h e C l a r e m o n t Graduate School ( n o w the C l a r e m o n t G raduate University), the H a y n e s Foundation, the Fulbright C o m m i s s i o n , a n d the Council for E u r o p e a n Studies at C o l u m ­ bia University provided fund i n g crucial to m y archival research. T h e His­ tory P r o g r a m of the C l a r e m o n t Graduate University also offered financial support for research assistants to help m e c o m p l e t e s o m e of the final preparations of the bibliography. D u r i n g m y w o r k in the archives, I re­ ceived the gracious a n d skillful assistance of M i e k e Ijzermans a n d the rest of the staff of the International Institute of Social History in A m s t e r d a m ; G u n z e l i n S c h m i d K n o e r r of the H o r k h e i m e r Archive at the Stadt- u n d Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt a m Main; Cons t a n c e Cruickshank of the Faber a n d Faber Archive in L o n d o n ; the staff of the G e o r g e Orwell Archive at University College in L o n d o n ; a n d the librarians of the H o o v e r Insti­ tution at Stanford. I a m grateful for the patient a n d unfailing help offered b y the staff at the H o n n o l d Library of the C l a r e m o n t Colleges, especially M a r t h a Smith, Sheri Irvin, M e g Garrett, a n d A d a m Rosenkranz. It is also m y pleasure to a c k n o w l e d g e the cooperation of Peter Borkenau, the late K a y Boyle, a n d her attorney, J e r o m e Garchik, w h o granted m e permission to e x a m i n e a n d quote f r o m private or previously classified d o c u m e n t s related to Franz Borkenau. As Ib e g a n m y explorations of the topic of left-wing antitotalitarianism a little over a decade ago, Richard L ö w e n t h a l a n d J o h n E. Tashjean were extraordinarily helpful a n d encouraging. O u r c o m m o n interests as well as our disagreements o n a n u m b e r of issues generated a fruitful correspon­ d e n c e over the course of several years. This study o w e s a great deal to their generosity, a n d I k n o w that I a m but o n e of m a n y scholars w h o have felt a personal sense of loss at their deaths. Lewis Coser, Elliott Eisenberg, Valeria

Preface

xviii

E. Russo, Russell Jacoby, Gerhard Bry, G ötz Langkau, Stephen Eric Bronner, Rainer Erd, Ossip Flechtheim, Peter Lowe, Julia R a h mer, a n d the late H e n r y S c h m i d t provided m e with extremely useful source materials or leads dur­ ing the early stages of m y research. A n u m b e r of scholars a n d friends, in­ cluding M i c h a e l Stanley-Jones, Charles Salas, R o b i n Walz, T o m A d a m s , W i l l i a m S m a l d o n e , M a r t i n Jay, W o l f g a n g W i p p e r m a n n , Ian Kershaw, Alfons Söllner, Abbott Gleason, Elazar Barkan, Al L i n d e m a n n , D avid Large, Linda Sexson, T h o m a s Wessell, Michelle Maskiell, Billy G. Smith, Robert Rydell, M a r y M u r p h y , Pierce Mullen, Susan Neel, R a y Mentzer, a n d J a m e s Allard, offered indispensable criticisms, suggestions, questions, a n d e n ­ c o u r a g e m e n t in response to parts of the manuscript, w h i c h they e n c o u n ­ tered in the f o r m of articles, conference papers, or drafts of chapters. Sev­ eral a n o n y m o u s readers of the original manuscript suggested changes or additions that h a v e f o u n d their w a y into the final version of this book. S o m e t i m e s readers' evaluations of the ideas a n d thinkers I discuss were quite different f r o m mine, a n d in thanking these individuals, I d o not w a n t to give the impression that I a m n o w enlisting t h e m in m y behalf. I do, however, greatly appreciate their thoughtful attention to m y project. Three of m y students at the C l a r e m o n t Graduate University also offered timely a n d beneficial assistance. Peter Jana a n d Alexander K a r n reviewed the manuscript a n d assisted m e in preparing the bibliography. M a t t R eed discussed w ith m e s o m e of the theoretical issues that appear in the final chapter. Janet Farrell Brodie a n d Elazar Barkan, chairs of the C l a r e m o n t Gra d u a t e University's history a n d cultural studies departments, respec­ tively, generously m a d e funds available to support students w h o were as­ sisting m e in the final preparations of the manuscript. For their friendly interest in m y work, I cannot say e n o u g h in the w a y of thanks to m y friends a n d colleagues in the History, Political Science, a n d G e o g r a p h y Depart­ m e n t at Mt. S a n A n t o n i o College, the History D e p a r t m e n t of the Clare­ m o n t Graduate University, the History D e p a r t m e n t of the California State Polytechnic University at P o m o n a , a n d the History a n d Philosophy D e ­ p a r t m e n t at M o n t a n a State University. Sharing the challenges a n d rewards of teaching a n d scholarship w i t h t h e m has b e e n o n e of the sustaining pleasures of the past decade. W o r k i n g with the University of Illinois Press has b e e n delightful. I w ish to express m y p r o f o u n d thanks to Dick Martin, w h o has b e e n encouraging, patient, a n d prodding in just the right propor­ tions since our first e x c h a n g e of letters. Jane M o h r a z gave the manuscript the great benefit of her t h o r o u g h a n d knowledgeable attention. For their patience a n d perceptive criticism over the years, I o w e a spe­ cial debt to four teachers w i t h w h o m I studied at the C l a r e m o n t Gradu-

Preface

xix

ate School. O v e r the course of the past fifteen years, Robert D a w i d o f f has b e e n a n extraordinary teacher, mentor, a n d friend. His articles a n d b o o k s h a v e r e m i n d e d m e not to forget the perspective of individuals or groups that h a v e b e e n persecuted, marginalized, or unjustly neglected. H a r r y Liebersohn has provided crucial advice o n h o w to formulate a n d refine this project since its first incarnation as a seminar paper. His b road k n o w l ­ edge of E u r o p e a n a n d G e r m a n history, his meticulous c o m m e n t s o n vari­ ous drafts of the manuscript, a n d his generous support h a v e b e e n enor­ m o u s l y helpful at every stage of m y labor o n this book. W o r k i n g w i t h M i c h a e l R o t h has b e e n b o t h a revelation a n d a pleasure. In conversations g oing b a c k over a decade n o w , h e has given m e m o r e to think about— a n d a better m o d e l of h o w to d o one's o w n thinking— t h a n a n y student or colleague has a right to expect. Despite the d e m a n d s of his teaching a n d administrative roles, Scott W a r r e n offered to share with m e his rich k n o w l ­ edge of political philosophy, challenging m y conclusions about particu­ lar thinkers a n d offering alternative reconsiderations of their legacies. O v e r the course of a hectic, unpredictable, a n d yet productive decade, these four teachers h a v e provided m e w i t h timely enc o u r a g e m e n t , a n d they h a v e enriched m y life w i t h their friendship. All of the individuals I h a v e m e n t i o n e d here sho u l d take their portion of credit for w h a t e v e r merits this b o o k possesses. Ibear the sole responsibility for its failures a n d omissions. For their abiding love a n d support, I w i s h to t h a n k m y mother, Darlene Jones; m y mother-in-law, M a r y Rose Merten; a n d our families a n d friends. M y father, Daryll Jones, died while I w a s c o m pleting the final version of the manuscript. I will always b e grateful for his love a n d his example. A b o v e all, I t h a n k m y wife, A n n e Merten, a n d o ur son, D a v i d Me r t e n Jones, for their spirited a n d loving c o m p a n i o n s h i p . T h e y h a v e contrib­ uted to the c o m p l e t i o n of this b o o k in m o r e w a y s t h a n I c a n c o u n t or name.

Permission to use the following is gratefully acknowledged: Excerpts f r o m M a x Horkheimer, "Autoritärer Staat,”taken f r o m G e s a m ­ melte Schriften, vol. 5. Copyright © 1987 S. Fischer Verlag G m b H , Frankfurt a m Mai n . Passages f r o m M a x Horkheimer, " T h e Authoritarian State,”in T h e Essen­ tial Frankfurt School Reader; edited b y A n d r e w Arato a n d Eike G e b h a r d t ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m Publishing C o m p a n y , 1993).

Preface

xx

Passages f r o m M a x Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays, translated b y M a t t h e w J. O'Co n n e l l et al. ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m Publishing C o m ­ pany, 1986). Passages f r o m M a x Horkheimer, ' T h e I m p o t e n c e of the W o r k i n g Class," in D a w n a n d Decline: Notes 1926-1931 a n d 1950-1969, translated b y M i ­ chael S h a w ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m Publishing C o m p a n y , 1978). Passages f r o m M a x H o r k h e i m e r a n d T h e o d o r A d o r n o , Dialectic of Enlight­ enment, translated b y j o h n C u m m i n g ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m Publishing C o m p a n y , 1986). Portions of W i l l i a m D a v i d Jones, " T o w a r d a T h e o r y of Totalitarianism: Franz Borkenau's Pareto,”Journal ofthe History ofIdeas 53, no. 3 (1992): 45566, with the permission of J o h n s H o p k i n s University Press. Portions of Wil l i a m D a v i d Jones, " T h e Path f r o m W e i m a r C o m m u n i s m to the C o l d War: Franz B o r k e n a u a n d the Totalitarian E n e m y , " in Totalitar­ ismus: Eine Ideengeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts, edited b y Alfons Söllner, Ralf W a l k e nhaus, a n d Karin Wieland, pp. 35-52 (Berlin: A k a d e m i e Verlag, 1997). Passages f r o m Karl Korsch:Revolutionary Theory, edited b y Douglas Kellner (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1977). Excerpt f r o m Jorge S e m p r u n , Literature or Life, translated b y Linda Coverdale. Copyright © 1994 b y Editions Gallimard; translation copyright © 1997 b y P e n g u i n B o o k s U S A , used b y permission of Penguin, a division of P e n g u i n P u t n a m Inc.

The Lost Debate

INTRODUCTION

Ifthere is any point in examining the conditions in which the representation of totalitarianism originally emerged and then developed during the course of several decades, itis because those conditions throw some light on the resis­ tance of left-wing opinion. The new concept was regarded as a concept of the Right, forged to serve reactionary purposes. The struggle against totalitarian­ ism seemed like a diversion whose aim was to obscure the reality of Western imperialism and to disarm the critique of the capitalist system. But we still have to ask w h y the non-communist Left, Marxist or quasi-Marxist, had left the initiative for formulating the totalitarian problem to conservatives or liber­ als, w h y analyses like those ofH a n n a h Arendt found so littlesupport. — C l a u d e Lefort, 1 9 8 0

T h e m o s t typical a n d influential concepts of totalitarianism h ave for d e ­ cades focused o n the c o m p a r i s o n of Nazi G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet Union. M a n y scholars h a v e c o n t e n d e d that these w e r e b o t h “total”regimes, m a k i n g absolute ideological, social, a n d e c o n o m i c d e m a n d s o n their citi­ zens a n d exercising e n o r m o u s coercive p o w e r against those w h o w o u l d not or could not confo r m . G i v e n the extraordinary violence these t w o regimes perpetrated against civilians a n d their partly overlapping a n d intertwined historical careers as military powers, the reasons for investi­ gating t h e m as related or parallel p h e n o m e n a m i g h t s e e m obvious e n o u g h . But the story of the origins a n d d e v e l o p m e n t of concepts of to­ talitarianism holds m o r e interest a n d displays greater complexity t h a n these co m p a r i s o n s c a n reveal. This b o o k e x a m i n e s h o w G e r m a n socialist intellectuals generated a series of writings o n the p r o b l e m of m o d e r n dic­ tatorship before the advent of the cold war, leaving the legacy of a criti-

Introduction

2

cal, left-wing alternative to the d o m i n a n t discourse o n the p r o b l e m of totalitarianism. This diverse a n d extensive b o d y of writings has not b e e n neglected entirely, but it has generally received only partial a n d inconsis­ tent attention. Alw a y s a controversial notion, totalitarianism, considered as a politi­ cal p h e n o m e n o n a n d a conceptual model, b e c a m e the object of study for a b u r g e o n i n g a c a d e m i c subdiscipline during the initial period of the cold war. D u r i n g these years, the e m o t i o n s a n d events surrounding the defeat of the Nazi regime a n d the decisively established great p o w e r status of the Soviet U n i o n m i x e d freely in a whirling a n d volatile political atmosphere. Scholars quickly took u p the task of explaining these recent a n d continu­ ing upheavals. Conferences, articles, a n d b o o k s o n totalitarianism prolif­ erated in the U n i t e d States a n d W e s t e r n E u r o p e f r o m the early 1950s t h r o u g h the 1960s, t h e n tailed off for a few years. A n e w r o u n d of totali­ tarianism studies surged into vie w as détente w a n e d during the late 1970s. W i t h yet another renaissance after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 a n d the collapse of the Soviet U n i o n in 1991, the comparative notion of totali­ tarianism has n o w survived several p remature burials. Alongside the cold w a r d e p l o y m e n t of this comparative analysis of the e x t reme Right (the Nazis) a n d the ext r e m e Left (the C o m m u n i s t s — the Soviet U n i o n in particular) e m e r g e d a series of criticisms of these versions of the idea of totalitarianism. Challenges to the notion's accuracy a n d usefulness w e r e l a u n c h e d b y a n u m b e r of scholars w h o w e r e usually, t h o u g h not always, o n the political left themselves. T h e gr o u n d s for their rejection of the concept wer e rooted in political or interpretive consider­ ations, or at times s o m e m e a s u r e of each. Local conditions influenced the specific nature a n d focus of these criticisms. In the Federal Republic of G e r m a n y , leftists often objected to the w a y the d o m i n a n t version of to­ talitarian theory sanctioned the idea that the defeated totalitarians— the Nazis—wer e safely g o n e f r o m the scene a n d that the surviving totalitar­ ians representing a d anger in the East— the Soviets a n d their C o m m u n i s t allies in the G e r m a n D e m o c r a t i c Republic— should n o w be the p rimary focus of critical discussions of dictatorship. In E u r o p e a n d the Uni t e d States, debates raged a m o n g scholars over the issue of w h i c h regimes did or did not merit the label “totalitarian.”In addition, alternatives to the totalitarianism concept, theories of dictatorship using such categories as fascism, Stalinism, Caesarism, or authoritarianism, a m o n g others, also generated their defenders a n d their controversies. But n o idea or t e r m so powerfully attracted advocates a n d o p p o n e n t s as totalitarianism did. T h e fiery g l o w of the cold war-era debate o n totalitarianism often cast

Introduction

3

its o w n origins into the shadows, a n d its crackling v o l u m e o v e r w h e l m e d the diversity of voices that h a d long addressed the p r o b l e m of the perva­ sive a n d oppressive p o w e r of the m o d e r n state. Indeed, m a n y theoretical appro a c h e s to totalitarian dictatorship h a v e appeared during the past seventy years, but their specifically left-wing formulations h a v e so far gained less attention t h a n their conservative a n d liberal versions. Leftw i n g attention to the p r o b l e m of totalitarian dictatorship is precisely w h a t the French political theorist C l a u d e Lefort claimed w a s missing during the interwar, wartime, a n d postwar periods. H e did allow that a few "isolated individuals or small revolutionary g r o u p s ”o n the left criticized not only fascist dictatorships but also C o m m u n i s t ones, yet h e still c o n t e n d e d that “m o s t of t h e m could not bring themselves to c o m p a r e Stalinism a n d fas­ cism a n d avoided speaking of a totalitarian state in the U S S R . ”1 O f course, w h e n h e referred to the theoretical projects of the n o n - C o m m u n i s t Left, Lefort w a s writing about his o w n activity as well as that of others. D u r i n g the early years of the cold war, Lefort h a d b e e n a m e m b e r of o n e of those “small revolutionary groups,”the u n o r t h o d o x Marxist b a n d k n o w n as Socialisme o u Barbarie, w h i c h also included Cornelius Castoriadis a n d Jean-François Lyotard. H e b e c a m e — following the earlier e x a m p l e s of Albert C a m u s , Da v i d Rousset, a n d R a y m o n d A r o n but differing f r o m each of t h e m in his political d e v e l o p m e n t a n d his conclusions— o n e of the rela­ tively fe w p r o m i n e n t intellectuals w ith personal or political connections to the French Left w h o ventured to label the Soviet U n i o n as “totalitarian” during the rçsos.2 Lefort pursued his o w n line of u n o r t h o d o x leftist reasoning, w h i c h led h i m in the direction of a post-Marxian democratic radicalism, but o n c e again local conditions c h a n n e l e d the discussion. Leforf s criticism of the lack of left-wing critiques of Soviet dictatorship strikes its m a r k far m o r e squarely in the case of the French political Left t h a n in that of the G e r m a n Left, w h i c h is the focus of this study.3 In G e r m a n y , the issue of totalitari­ anism was a “ peculiar”o n e t h r o u g h o u t the cold war. T h e superpower al­ lies h a d m a p p e d out the occupation “ z ones”for G e r m a n y even before the e n d of W o r l d W a r II. Allies quickly b e c a m e enemies, a n d in the aftermath of the Berlin blockade a n d airlift, t h e y sanctioned the creation of t w o G e r m a n i e s in 1949. T h e concepts of totalitarianism in the W e s t a n d fas­ cism in the East gave a d d e d ideological force to each n e w G e r m a n regime's efforts to m a n u f a c t u r e a political consensus. T h ese crucial national a n d historical distinctions as well as Lefort's remarks m a k e clear that a n y c o n ­ sideration of the history of concepts of totalitarianism hauls us forcefully o n t o political as well as scholarly turf. In the light of this, the early cold

Introduction

4

w a r era— the period of the totalitarianism debate's m o s t intense politiciza­ tion a n d ideological influence— is a g o o d place to begin. B y the late twentieth century, a b o d y of writings existed that could be referred to as the “classical”versions of the cold war-era concept of totali­ tarianism. T h e s e w o u l d certainly include H a n n a h Arendt's Origins of To­ talitarianism as well as the perhaps better-known fictional representations of totalitarian dictatorship p r o d u c e d b y Arthur Koestler, G e o r g e Orwell, a n d a host of Eastern E u r o p e a n novelists, poets, playwrights, a n d essay­ ists, f r o m Czeslaw Milosz a n d Alexander Solzhenitsyn to Vaclav Havel. S o m e of these writings c o m p a r e d N a z i s m a n d C o m m u n i s m , but since they appeared during the cold w a r (save for Koestler's Darkness at N o o n , first published in E n g l a n d in 1 9 4 0 a n d t h e n in the U n ited States the fol­ lowing year), it is not surprising that m o s t of t h e m a i m e d their criticism at the Soviet U n i o n or s o m e other East E u r o p e a n regime. A few, s uch as Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four; created indelible representations of future or at a n y rate fictional totalitarian societies. These b o o k s o n m o d e r n dic­ tatorship a n d the controversies that arose at the time of their publication also revealed that the notion of totalitarianism h a d quite different uses a n d audiences in each half of a divided Europe. In W e s t e r n Europe, it typi­ cally served the political interests of the Right, t h o u g h m a n y liberals m a d e a m p l e use of it in b o t h domestic a n d international politics, while in East­ ern Europe, it b e c a m e a serviceable w e a p o n in the arsenal of protest against Soviet h e g e m o n y in the region.4 T h e cold war-era version of the totalitarianism concept that h a d the greatest influence o n scholars specializing in the study of m o d e r n dicta­ torship, however, w a s no t Arendt's, n o r w a s it p r o d u c e d b y a writer of novels, p o e m s , or plays. Carl J. Friedrich, a G e r m a n - b o r n political scien­ tist w h o taught at H a r v a r d University, formulated a n d advocated w h a t b e c a m e the d o m i n a n t version of totalitarian theory during the cold war.5 After his initial construction of a m o d e l of totalitarian regimes, h e w o r k e d o n the concept in authorial partnership w ith Z b i g n i e w Brzezinski, a n ­ other E u r o p e a n é m igré w h o w a s also a H a r vard political scientist.6 T h e often-cited totalitarian “s y n d r o m e ”that this pair of scholars generated a n d refined s o o n b e c a m e a standard version of the theory, a n d in 1956, o n the eve of the H u n g a r i a n Revolution, it set forth the following char­ acteristics:i.* i. an official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine cover­ ing all vital aspects of man's existence to which everyone living in that society is supposed to adhere, at least passively... ;

Introduction

5

2. a single mass party led typically by one man, the “ dictator,”and con­ sisting of a relatively small percentage of the total population (up to 10 per cent) of m e n and w o m e n ... ; 3. A system of terroristic police control, supporting but also supervising the party for its leaders, and characteristically directed not only against demonstrable “ enemies”of the regime, but against arbitrarily selected classes of the population; the terror of the secret police systematically ex­ ploiting m o d e r n science, and mor e especially scientific psychology; 4. a technologically conditioned near-complete m o n o p o l y of control, in the hands of the party and its subservient cadres, of all m e a n s of effec­ tive mass communication, such as the press, radio, motion pictures; 5. a similarly technologically conditioned near-complete m o n o p o l y of control (in the same hands) of all means of effective armed combat; 6. a central control and direction of the entire e c o n o m y through the bureaucratic co-ordination of its formerly independent corporate entities, typically including most other associations and group activities.7 D u r i n g the following years, m a n y of the debates over the term's use fo­ cused o n the relative strengths a n d weaknesses of s o m e variation of Friedrich a n d Brzezinski's m o d e l or later modifications of it. W h a t e v e r its virtues a n d failures, the m o d e l clearly lent itself to comparative use. Also, in its generalizing, descriptive, a n d synchronic character— the political theorist Seyla B e n h a b i b aptly describes this m o d e of research a n d presen­ tation as “operationalized”— the m o d e l offered a succinctly formulated a n d altogether typical expression of early postwar political science. T h e book, however, did n o t please everyone. O n e of the early reviewers of Friedrich a n d Brzezinski's book, the historian Carl E. Schorske, criticized the book's institutional as o p p o s e d to historical approach. H e persuasively insisted that the political d y n a m i c s a n d ideological appeal of such m o v e ­ m e n t s as fascism a n d C o m m u n i s m inevitably escaped the kind of analy­ sis that the t w o H a r v a r d scholars h a d provided. H e also questioned a m o d e l that ruled out “Franco's Spain, Pilsudski's Poland, a n d other states that d o not fully lend themselves to the a priori, t a x o n o m i c m e t h o d of Friedrich a n d Brzezinski.”8 Despite criticism, the Friedrich-Brzezinski m o d e l quickly a s s u m e d sta­ tus as the paradigmatic scholarly incarnation of the totalitarian concept in the cold w a r period.9 This m o d e l of the totalitarian regime not only gave s o m e scholars a n “ideal type”— a r o u g h standard b y w h i c h to m e a s u r e a regime's relative levels of administrative control a n d oppressive ha r s h ­ ness— but also proved its usefulness in the ideological battles of the early years of the cold war. S u c h a schematic c o m p a r i s o n of Soviet, Nazi, or

Introduction

6

other regimes m i g h t h a v e h a d reasonable scholarly uses, but this version of the theory has always also h a d e n o r m o u s value as a n intellectual w e a p o n against C o m m u n i s m a n d as a tool for legitimating a variety of a n t i - C o m m u n i s t policies. M u c h cruder assertions of a n i m m i n e n t global leftist threat, however, provided a basis not only for a n anti-Soviet foreign policy but also, especially in the United States, for domestic a n t i - C o m m u n i s m — or, w h a t w a s m o r e politically c o n venient for s o me, a shifting, nebulous, anti-”leftism”that m i g h t s t a m p a range of federal g o v e r n m e n t policies f r o m school integration to national health insurance as “creep­ ing socialism.”F r o m this perspective, a n y identifiably left-wing or liberaldemocratic policy pitched all its h u m a n cargo ont o the slippery slope that swept d o w n w a r d into C o m m u n i s t totalitarianism.10 Friedrich a n d Brzezinski w e r e hardly responsible for all of the various uses a n d abuses of antitotalitarianism. Their w o r k o n the p r o b l e m of totalitarianism remains in m a n y respects a revealing a n d c o m p l e x s y m p t o m a t i c expression of the tense a n d fearful political culture of that early postwar period. Because of the a n t i - C o m m u n i s t policies suc h theories helped legitimate, however, cold war-era concepts of totalitarianism, s uch as the o n e Friedrich a n d Brzezinski formulated, d r e w their bristling advocates a n d detractors f r o m the start. As its central place in subsequent discussions of the comparative n otion of totalitarianism shows, the Friedrich-Brzezinski “s y n d r o m e ” b e c a m e the m o s t c r o w d e d point of arrival a n d departure for the ideologi­ cally d o m i n a n t a n t i - C o m m u n i s t version of totalitarian theory. As such, it ca n at least serve as a provisional b e n c h m a r k in the analysis of the idea's multistranded history w i t h o u t b e c o m i n g the Procrustean m e a s u r e or necessary endp o i n t of its d e v e l o p m e n t . 11 T h e story of the various totalitarianism concepts begins over t w e n t y years before the cold war, long before Friedrich's social scientific construc­ tion of o n e type of the concept. U s e of the t e r m totalitarian dates b a c k to the rise of fascism in the 1920s. T h e Italian Fascists seized w h a t h a d b e e n a t e r m of o p p r o b r i u m a n d turned it into a p r o p a g a n d a boast. T h e y first d r e w outraged criticism f r o m Italian liberals for their “totalitarian”tactics in dismantling existing constitutional election procedures. But s o o n the Fascist leader Benito Mussolini m a d e positive claims regarding the “ vio­ lent totalitarian will”of his party.12 According to scholarly accounts of the term's use, c o m p a risons of fascism a n d C o m m u n i s m u n d e r the category of totalitarianism appeared b y the late 1920s in journalistic writings.13This conceptual f r a m e w o r k d r e w criticism nearly the m o m e n t it w a s ventured. A s early as 1929, the sociologist Karl M a n n h e i m discussed the t empting Bolshevik-fascist pairing in Ideologie u n d Utopie (Ideology a n d Utopia):

Introduction

7

It has often been insisted that even Leninism contains a tinge of fascism. But it would be misleading to overlook the differences in emphasizing the similarities. The c o m m o n element in the two views is confined merely to the activity of aggressive minorities. Only because Leninism was originally the theory of a minority uncompromisingly determined to seize power by revolutionary m e a n s did the theory of the significance of leading groups and of their decisive energy c o m e to the fore. But this theory never took flight into a complete irrationalism. The Bolshevist group was only an ac­ tive minority within a class m o v e m e n t of an increasingly self-conscious proletariat so that the irrational activistic aspects of its doctrines were con­ stantly supported by the assumption of the rational intelligibility of the historical process.14 M a n n h e i m , with o u t using the t e r m totalitarianism, offered a c o m p a r i s o n of the t w o regimes, but h e distinguished fascism f r o m Bolshevism o n the basis that the latter e m p h a s i z e d the principles of reason a n d class-con­ sciousness. H e also t e n d e d to criticize c o m p a risons that stressed the role of force in b o t h m o v e m e n t s , w h i c h h e vie w e d as a superficial similarity. But his a r g u m e n t s appeared in 1929, w h e n Stalin w a s just beginning the m o s t active a n d m u r d e r o u s p hase of his policies of internal suppression a n d the Nazis h a d yet to w i n p o w e r in G e r m a n y . Nevertheless, his early critique of the “ totalitarian c o m p a r i s o n ”suggests that as s o o n as the c o m ­ parative a p p r o a c h to fascism a n d C o m m u n i s m appeared, it p r o v o k e d important challenges. This continues to b e the story of concepts of totali­ tarianism. T h o u g h m u c h has h a p p e n e d since 1929 to m a k e the fascistBolshevist c o m p a r i s o n a compelling o n e for m a n y scholars, M a n n h e i m ' s critique, w h i c h sought to distinguish a m o n g political m o v e m e n t s that w e r e similarly repressive but procla i m e d a n d p u r s u e d divergent goals, continues to find successors in s o m e of the strenuous counterarguments to the cold war-era versions of totalitarianism theory.15 T h e pre w a r a n d w a r t i m e critiques of totalitarian dictatorship p r o ­ d u c e d b y leftist G e r m a n intellectuals that are the p r i m a r y focus of this b o o k fit chronologically b e t w e e n M a n n h e i m ' s Ideologie u n d Utopie (1929) a n d H a n n a h Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). C o n d u c t e d in the midst of a rapidly c h a n g i n g political landscape, these left-wing interwar a n d w a r t i m e critiques of dictatorship e m e r g e d in the writings of i n d e p e n ­ dent socialists, council C o m m u n i s t s , radical Marxists, a n d disenchanted Social Democrats. T h e y w e r e attempting the difficult task of providing a theoretically g r o u n d e d perspective o n b o t h quickly shifting events a n d long-developing crises. Fascism h a d succeeded in Italy in 1922, a n d Mussolini's “ M a r c h o n R o m e ”provided the National Socialists w i t h a

Introduction

8

m o d e l for their o w n attempted c o u p in 1923.16 T h e sto r m y career of the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party during the 1920s h a d alienated m a n y radical intellectuals, a n d the Social D e m o c r a t s appeared to t h e m as politically too timid a n d tightly b o u n d to the existing capitalist e c o n o m i c order. E v e n before the effects of the world e c o n o m i c crisis hit G e r m a n y , m a n y M a r x ­ ist intellectuals h a d cut off all connections to the t w o large socialist par­ ties. W h e n the Nazis seized p o w e r in 1933, leftist intellectuals often h e a d e d into exile w i t h a sharply critical v i e w of all of the n e w party m o v e m e n t s a n d dictatorships— a n d w i t h a n urgent n e e d to explain a n d resist t h e m . E v e n t h o u g h they continued to see themselves as leftists, at least f r o m late W e i m a r into the w a r years, several of these writers freely c o m p a r e d or e quated fascism a n d C o m m u n i s m — t h o u g h s o m e of t h e m favored c o m p a r i s o n with o u t necessarily w a n t i n g to i mply equation. T h e writings of these leftist intellectuals w o u l d later b e challenged, dismissed, or s i m ­ ply missed b y m a n y postwar leftists. E v e n Lefort, o n e of the m o s t k n o w l ­ edgeable a n d incisive of the postwar, post-Marxian theorists o n the left, m i n i m i z e d the scope a n d diversity of earlier leftist analyses of totalitarian dictatorship. His remarks asserting the relative absence of left-wing criti­ cism of the Soviet U n i o n as a "totalitarian”state find partial corrobora­ tion in the analysis of the British historian Ian Kershaw, w h o argues for the existence of a very limited version of the pre-cold war, left-wing cri­ tique of totalitarianism in his exhaustive a n d critical study of the schol­ arship o n Nazi G e r m a n y , T h e Nazi Dictatorship: Problems a n d Perspectives of Interpretation: "In the 1930s a n d 1940s the concept [of totalitarianism] w a s applied b y notable left-wing analysts of fascism suc h as Borkenau, Löwenthal, Hilferding, a n d Franz N e u m a n n as a tool for characterizing w h a t they s a w as the n e w a n d specific in fascism (or N azism) alone, w i t h ­ out the comparative e l e m e n t of extension to Soviet C o m m u n i s m . ”17 K e r s h a w m e n t i o n s several key G e r m a n socialist thinkers w h o fashioned critiques of fascism a n d Soviet C o m m u n i s m a n d w h o s e w o r k receives e x ­ tensive analysis in the following pages. But the contention that Franz Borkenau, Richard Löwenthal, a n d Rudolf Hilferding s h u n n e d or n e ­ glected a comparative use of the totalitarianism concept in the 1930s a n d 1940s needs s o m e revision, for each of these three writers m a d e at least limited use of the not i o n in precisely this w a y b y 1940.18 E v e n Franz N e u m a n n e d g e d towa r d c o m p a r i n g Nazi G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U n i o n in s o m e of his late 1940s writings, t h o u g h h e never s e e m s simply to have equated the t w o regimes. Kershaw's assessment in T h e Nazi Dictatorship, a w o r k rightly a c k n o w l e d g e d as the m o s t authoritative accounts of histo-

Introduction

9

rians' various approaches to the study of Nazi G e r m a n y , indicates at least s o m e scholarly consensus o n the character a n d timing of the origins a n d d e v e l o p m e n t of antitotalitarian theory. But elements of this consensus n e e d reexamination. Evidence f r o m the prewar a n d w a r t i m e debate a m o n g i n d e p e n d e n t writers o n the G e r m a n left demonstrates the e m e r ­ g e nce of at least provisional comparative discussions a n d occasionally even fairly detailed a n d systematic analyses of similarities b e t w e e n rightw i n g a n d left-wing f o rms of dictatorship. S o m e scholars o n the p ostwar Marxist left in G e r m a n y h a v e also tend e d to reject or dismiss the i m p o r t a n c e of the left-wing tradition of antitotalitarianism, choo s i n g instead to e m p h a s i z e the use of fascism as the key comparative concept for the analysis of National Socialism.19 For m a n y intellectuals associated w ith the N e w Left, a totalitarian theory that l u m p e d all C o m m u n i s t m o v e m e n t s together w ith N a z i s m w a s sheer cold w a r ideology— or, as the British historian E. P. T h o m p s o n labeled it in “In­ side W h i c h W h a l e ? ”his polemical essay of i960, “ Natopolitan culture.” 20 Fascism b e c a m e the p r i m a r y rubric for the study of dictatorship a m o n g youn g e r intellectuals o n the left, a n d it d r e w particular support within the G e r m a n N e w Left for its political a n d theoretical virtues as a category bracketing Nazi G e r m a n y as well as Fascist Italy as m o v e m e n t s conce r n e d with the protection a n d intensification of capitalism. In postwar G e r m a n scholarly discourse a b o u t National Socialism, the very w o r d s Totalitar­ ismus a n d Faschismus often b e c a m e terminological badges that identified, to s o m e extent at least, the politics of speakers a n d writers.21 In 1972, the Marxist political scientist Reinhard K ü h n l raised the issue of conservativeliberal ideological h e g e m o n y in the course of c o n d e m n i n g the influence of totalitarianism theory. In a n introduction to a collection of essays b y various left-wing scholars, entitled Totalitarismus: Z u r Problematik eines politischen Begriffs (Totalitarianism: T o w a r d the Problematic of a Political Concept), h e offered the following hostile assessment: Investigating the journalistic and political effect of totalitarianism theory since 1945, one discovers at a glance—at least within the Federal Republic of G e r m a n y —an astonishing development: the rise to dominance of the version of totalitarian theory that represents National Socialism and C o m ­ m u n i s m as identical. Around 1950, it was announced by the political par­ ties, the government, and the majority of the press, and finally declared an obligatory ideology for school instruction. For nearly a decade and a half, its scholarly and politically dominant position was virtually uncontested, the weighty objections to its interpretations largely unnoticed.22

t

Introduction

io

K ü h n l offered a persuasive a r g u m e n t here, at least insofar as h e described the powerful a n d politically useful h e g e m o n y of totalitarian theory in W e s t G e r m a n y during the cold war. A n o t h e r G e r m a n scholar writing in the 1970s, W o l f g a n g W i p p e r m a n n , described this comparative, cold w a r version of the concept of totalitarianism quite similarly— a n d c o n v i n c ­ ingly— as “the quasi-official ideology of the State.”23 In addition to Kühnl's general assault o n w h a t h e took to be the p o ­ litical use a n d abuse of the theory of totalitarianism during the h e y d a y of the cold war, h e also discussed as e x a m p l e s of left-wing versions of the theory the writings of Herbert M a r c u s e a n d Franz N e u m a n n , t w o t h e o ­ rists w h o for a time were affiliated w i t h a g r o u p that c a m e to be k n o w n as the Frankfurt School. T h e Frankfurt S c hool refers to the core g r o u p of social theorists associated wit h the Institute of Social Research that b e g a n its w o r k in Frankfurt a m M a i n in 1923, fled to a series of provisional Eur o ­ p e a n “h o m e s ”after the Nazis gained power, relocated overseas to N e w York a n d Los Angeles (Santa M o n i c a ) during the late interwar a n d wart i m e years, a n d t h e n returned to the Federal Republic of G e r m a n y after the war. T h e scholars associated w i t h the Institute of Social Research h a d fairly diverse disciplinary backgrounds, but their c o m m o n roots o n the G e r m a n political left for a time strongly influenced the institute's developing analyses of m o d e r n industrial capitalist society. In the postwar years, the group's small r e m n a n t of thinkers, led b y M a x H o r k h e i m e r a n d T h e o d o r A d o r n o (the pair of thinkers w h o s e writings represent the central ne x u s of the Frankfurt School's thought, along with the closely allied w o r k of Friedrich Pollock, L eo Lowenthal, and, for a time, Herbert Marcuse), trav­ eled m o r e often within the territory of a n t i - C o m m u n i s m , h o w e v e r ca u ­ tious a n d critical its political support for W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n d the United States m a y have been. B y this time, however, M a r c u s e a n d N e u m a n n were n o longer affiliated with the institute. E v e n so, the w o r k of this g r o u p of theorists has often b e e n received b y scholars as a product of a sort of shift­ ing leftist collective of social analysts. T h e theoretical writings o n dicta­ torship p r o d u c e d b y a few of the central m e m b e r s or “fellow travelers”of the Institute of Social Research are central to this study.24 T h e N e w Left student m o v e m e n t of the 1960s r e s p o n d e d to this older generation of theorists in a variety of ways, s o m e y o u n g leftists finding in their w o r k a guide to the critical study of the postwar world, others see­ ing it as a retreat f r o m or even a betrayal of left-wing radical politics. Kühnl, a n o u t s p o k e n Marxist critic of Totalitarismustheorie, ranked a m o n g those y o u n g leftists m o r e hostile to the w o r k of the Institute of Social Research, a n d h e cited only a few published writings b y M a r c u s e a n d N e u m a n n .

Introduction

ii

Furthermore, h e w a s clearly skeptical about the value of these writings as political critique. Nevertheless, Kiihnl offered a relatively rare e x a m p l e of critical analysis b y a Marxist scholar o n the topic of left-wing critiques of totalitarianism.25 H e remained, however, a n a d a m a n t o p p o n e n t of the theory a n d objected strongly to its r e d e p l o y m e n t during the Historiker­ streit of the 1980s, the "historian's debate" that took u p the issues of the "normalization" of G e r m a n history a n d the causes of a n d responsibility for Nazi G e r m a n y ' s genocide against E u r o p e a n Jews.26 Eike Hennig, a Marxist sociologist a n d political scientist also writing in the 1970s, shared m u c h of Kühnl's criticism of the Frankfurt School o n the idea of totalitarianism. In his remarks about this g r o u p of theorists, H e n n i g m e n t i o n e d Franz N e u m a n n as well as Herbert Marcuse, M a x Horkheimer, a n d Friedrich Pollock as representative of a "left" (the q u o ­ tation m a r k s are Hennig's) version of the theory of totalitarianism, but h e generally— a n d quite accurately— f o u n d the theory's m o s t ardent s u p ­ porters further to the right, a m o n g conservatives, liberals, a n d pro-cold w a r Social Democrats. Yet even so impressively t h o r o u g h a researcher as H e n n i g did not trace in detail the origins or the impact of the "left" ver­ sion of totalitarian theory in his densely pac k e d Marxist critiques of re­ search o n G e r m a n fascism a n d the Historikerstreit27 Scholars o n the left— a n d scholars in general— h a v e rarely e x a m i n e d such intellectuals as Franz N e u m a n n , Arthur Rosenberg, Herbert Marcuse, R u t h Fischer, Karl Korsch, M a x Horkheimer, Franz Borkenau, Otto Rühle, Richard Löwenthal, Ernst Fraenkel, a n d Rudolf Hilferding as a g r o u p of writers w i t h at least partly shared concerns about political regimes, ide­ ologies, a n d practices that they w o u l d call "totalitarian." A l o n g with this neglect of their w o r k as part of a free-wheeling intraleft debate, there has b e e n at times a m i s u nderstanding of the comparative a n d critical thrust of s o m e of their writings o n totalitarian dictatorship. C o l d w a r disputes over politics, policies, a n d theory helped b u r y s o m e of the elements of their earlier critical effort. But the left-wing critique of totalitarian dicta­ torship w a s far m o r e extensive t h a n Lefort, Hennig, or K ü h n l recognized, a n d it appeared several years earlier t h a n K e r s h a w indicated in the 1993 edition of T h e Nazi Dictatorship.28 T h e r e are, however, g o o d reasons w h y Lefort a n d K e r s h a w s o u n d a s o m e w h a t similar note in their c o m m e n t s o n the relative absence of leftw i n g uses of the totalitarian concept. First, there w a s the political p r o b ­ l e m of the Left during the cold war. M a n y cold war-era leftists h a d almost automatically distanced themselves f r o m a n y version of totalitarian theory because of its usefulness as a n o m n i b u s anti-"Red" attack b y con-

Introduction

12

servatives against an y faction o n the left: Social Democrats, C o m m u n i s t s , or i n d e p e n d e n t Marxists. W o r k i n g out theories of fascism a n d attacking the idea of totalitarianism wer e partly m e a n s of directing the criticism of m o d e r n dictatorship a w a y f r o m Soviet socialism a n d m o r e directly against W e s t e r n capitalism. S o m e people o n the left w a n t e d ab o v e all to resist attacks against “existing socialism”in the Soviet U n ion, a n d these groups a n d individuals are Lefort's p r i m a r y targets. S e c o n d — a n d Lefort's a n d Kershaw's c o m m e n t s raise this issue as well, t h o u g h indirectly— there w a s the p r o b l e m of the lack of a systematic history of the Left's efforts to pro­ vide a critique of totalitarianism, as o p p o s e d to studies of the Left's (both old a n d n e w ) analyses of fascism. There were exceptions to this rule, such as Berlin historian W o l f g a n g W i p p e r m a n n ' s discussions of the develop­ m e n t of theories of fascism, in w h i c h h e also m e n t i o n e d s o m e early ver­ sions of the totalitarianism idea o n the left a n d provided a brief account of their theoretical underpinnings. But these issues wer e not a central fo­ cus of W i p p e r m a n n ' s m o n o g r a p h s o n theories of fascism, even t h o u g h his b o o k s r e m a i n a m o n g the best starting points for the e x amination of left-wing ventures into the concept of totalitarianism.29 For the m o s t part, the left-wing debate o n totalitarianism has b e e n “lost”in a double sense: during the cold w a r it w a s generally surpassed a n d defeated as a c o n c e p ­ tual f r a m e w o r k for the analysis of dictatorship b y liberal a n d conservative versions of antitotalitarian critique, such as Friedrich's a n d Brzezinski's, a n d at the s a m e time its history suffered neglect. W i t h the recent a n d note­ w o r t h y exceptions of Abbott Gleason's historical study of totalitarian the­ ory a n d the collection of essays o n totalitarianism edited b y Alfons Söllner, Ralf W a l k e n h a u s , a n d Karin Wieland, m o s t accounts of the theory's origins contain only isolated or u n d e rdeveloped traces of the story of so­ cialists' role in constructing concepts of totalitarianism.30 T h e career of the G e r m a n historian Ernst Nolte offers a provocative a n d cautionary e x a m p l e of this relative lack of attention to the early socialist critiques of totalitarianism that e m e r g e d o n the G e r m a n left. In the early 1960s, Nolte gained attention b y virtue of his u n o r t h o d o x but widely praised (even b y s o m e leftists, at least initially) “ p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l ”study of fascism, D e r Faschismus in seiner Epoche (translated into English u n d e r the title Three Faces of Fascism). T h e b o o k briefly sketched s o m e of the ori­ gins of theories of b o t h fascism a n d totalitarianism a n d even explained in a brief a p p e n d i x s o m e of the methodological a n d philosophical issues at stake in the debate b e t w e e n advocates of the t w o c o m p e t i n g theoreti­ cal categories. T hese historical sections o n the critiques of dictatorship, however, desc e n d e d into Nolte's account as appropriate but only briefly

Introduction

13

glimpsed scenery b e h i n d the revised discussion of fascism h e w i s h e d to stage. H e provided a n idiosyncratic, philosophical analysis of fascist m o v e ­ ments, but it w a s not part of his project to present a systematic historical a c c ount of the writings in w h i c h the critical analysis of fascism took sh a p e — a discussion that m i g h t hav e led h i m to consider early descrip­ tions of totalitarianism as well.31 A fe w years later, however, h e edited a widely used collection of s o m e of these writings, but e v e n the editorial introductions in this b o o k contained a brief b a c k g r o u n d essay rather t h a n a systematic discussion. Nolte's apparent lack of interest in a sustained analysis of the origins of totalitarian theory can be attributed at least partly to the fact that o n e of the foremost purposes of his writings in the 1960s w a s to highlight his theory of fascism as opposed to— or at least as a service­ able alternative to— the theory of totalitarianism. B y the 1980s, Nolte h a d reversed himself, at least in terms of his theoretical m o d e l of choice, a n d w o u l d revise a n d revive his singular version of the theory of totalitarian­ i sm (or, as h e himself put it in a radio-television dialogue with the G e r m a n historian H a n s M o m m s e n — o n e of the chief o p p o n e n t s of totalitarian theory— “historicize”or " d e e p e n ”the theory) in a series of b o o k s a n d articles that sparked a n d stoked the so-called historians' debate.32 A n o t h e r e x a m p l e of h o w the story of totalitarianism as a p r o b l e m of theory a n d practice for left-wing theorists has often b e e n missed emerges in the w o r k of a far less controversial scholar, the French historian Pierre Ayçoberry. His lucid a n d shrewdly structured study T h e Nazi Question of­ fered a n e x t e n d e d historiographical essay that s u m m a r i z e d a n d judged various writings o n N a z i s m — including several p r o d u c e d b y the left-wing theorists w h o s e w o r k gains our attention here. But Ayçoberry's focus o n discussions of National Socialism a n d fascism ignored s o m e of these writ­ ers' m o s t innovative contributions to a comparative theory of totalitari­ anism.33 A n o t h e r case of partial attention to left-wing writers o n totalitarian dictatorship is the w o r k of the G e r m a n scholar Walter Schlangen, author of t w o encyclopedic studies: Die Totalitarismus-Theorie: Entwicklung u n d Probleme (T h e Theory of Totalitarianism: Development a n d Problems) a n d Theorie u n d Ideologie des Totalitarismus: Möglichkeiten u n d Grenzen einer liberalen Kritik politischer Herrschaft (Theory a n d Ideology of Totalitarianism: Possibilities a n d Limits of a Liberal Critique of Political Power). Schlangen did include m a n y references to the published writings o n dictatorship b y E u r o p e a n a n d A m e r i c a n leftists, but h e e m p h a s i z e d those writings that could be seen as w a y stations along the road to the d o m i n a n t cold w a r era totalitarian theory.34 Admittedly, this gave Schlangen's m o n o g r a p h a

Introduction

14

necessary frame of reference, but b y focusing o n the cold w a r version of the theory as the p r e s u m e d e n d p o i n t of Totalitarismustheorie, h e missed a n u m b e r of key texts that h a d presented left-wing criticisms of fascist a n d C o m m u n i s t dictatorships, s u c h as Otto Rühle's “Brauner u n d Roter F a s c h i s m u s ”(“B r o w n a n d R e d Fascism”) a n d Franz Borkenau's Pareto. Moreover, b y relying almost exclusively o n accessible published sources, his analysis could no t attend to a variety of pertinent but little-known correspondence, exile publications, a n d manuscripts. Finally, a n essential point of Schlangen's work, w h i c h w a s clearly intended as a response to the revival of the fascism concept sparked b y Nolte's D e r Faschismus in seiner Epoche as well as the writings of s o m e Marxists a n d other scholars associ­ ated wit h the N e w Left (including Reinhard Kühnl), w a s to discredit the theory of fascism (Faschismustheorie) a n d to reassert the validity a n d rel­ evance of the theory of totalitarianism (Totalitarismustheorie). Schlangen w a s aided in his efforts b y a formidable scholar w h o h a d b y this time a s s u m e d Carl Friedrich's place as the chief defender of the c o n ­ cept of totalitarianism: Karl Dietrich Bracher. This prolific B o n n historian a n d political scientist, w h o s e influence derives primarily f r o m his m a g i s ­ terial a n d massively d o c u m e n t e d accounts of the disintegration of the W e i m a r Republic a n d the structure a n d policies of the Nazi regime, wrote the foreword to Schlangen's Theorie u n d Ideologie des Totalitarismus, p u b ­ lished in 1972.35 Bracher described Totalitarismustheorie as a necessary bul­ w a r k against b o t h the right-wing authoritarianism of the “Carl Schmitt S c h o o l ”a n d the “Marxist p o l e m i c ”against the idea of the democratic state.36 This w a s Bracher's sharply phrased w a y of bringing o n e of the d o m i n a n t conceptions of the totalitarian p r o b l e m — specifically, the claim that right-wing e x t r e m i s m a n d left-wing e x t r e m i s m were equally threat­ e n ing to parliamentary d e m o c r a c y — out of its historical origins in late W e i m a r a n d into discussions of the violent a n d radical R e d A r m y Fraction a n d the neo-Nazi groups that troubled the B o n n g o v e r n m e n t during the late 1960s a n d the 1970s. Bracher's stress o n the debate b e t w e e n advocates of Faschismustheorie a n d Totalitarismustheorie w a s quite timely. B y the early 1980s, scholars in the United States a n d E u r o p e h a d generated a great n u m b e r a n d variety of articles a n d b o o k s o n this very issue. T h e crux of the matter w a s w h e t h e r it w a s m o r e accurate to bracket Nazi G e r m a n y as o n e of several right-wing fascist m o v e m e n t s in Europe or to class it with the Soviet U n i o n as o n e of the t w o great totalitarian regimes of this century, in w h i c h the conventional categories of “right”a n d “left”are rendered m o o t a n d the issues of state terror a n d single-party control supersede other factors.37 In

Introduction

15

a n essay h e wrote in 1987, Bracher continued to defend the idea of totali­ tarianism vigorously: “ All justifications for getting rid of the concept of totalitarianism are inadequate, so long as w e d o not c o m e u p with a bet­ ter w o r d for this p h e n o m e n o n : to call it authoritarian or fascist does not quite capture it a n d is e v e n m o r e va g u e a n d general. T h e rejection of the concept c o m e s primarily f r o m those to w h o m it m a y very well apply— just as, conversely, w e hear talk of 'democracy' especially w h e r e n o such thing exists."38 T h e a g e n d a of these t w o statements is telling. T h e first asserts a passionate but at least ostensibly scholarly opinion. T h e second is a rather scatter-shot political blast. This m i x of motives a n d targets captures nicely the typical character of discussions of the idea of totalitarianism. Bracher's defense of the idea has r e m a i n e d consistent a n d passionate t h r o u g h o u t its long, b u m p y travels f r o m the 1950s to the present. Certainly this has not b e e n a n easy chore. O v e r the past three decades, the concept of totali­ tarianism w a s attacked during the period of swiftly rising opposition to the V i e t n a m W a r in the late 1960s, mostly neglected in the brief mid-1970s interlude of detente, a n d t h e n revived in France, G e r m a n y , a n d the United States dur i n g the conservative resurgence of the late 1970s a n d early 1980s.39 S o m e w h a t paradoxically, the e n d of the cold w a r has not c o m ­ pletely d a m p e n e d the idea's popularity, as m i g h t have b e e n expected, but has appeared to give it a r e n e w e d purchase. A recent translation into E n ­ glish of several of Bracher's essays f r o m the years of totalitarianism theory's “c o m e b a c k " testifies to the idea's continuing role in scholarship a n d political debate.40 Still m o r e recently, Abb o t t Gleason, in his perceptive a n d wide-rang­ ing account, Totalitarianism: Th e Inner History of the Cold W a r (1995), has undert a k e n the difficult task of tracking the history of the concept across seven decades a n d a r o u n d the globe. H e discusses the w o r k of several of the G e r m a n leftists w h o wrote about totalitarianism, but the sheer scope of his lively a n d copiously d o c u m e n t e d b o o k necessarily prevents a close tracking of the career of the totalitarian concept a m o n g such a small c o m ­ m u n i t y of thinkers as the o n e e x a m i n e d here. Moreover, Gleason restates a typical assessment of the Left's characteristic rejection of the notion of totalitarianism in terms similar to the criticisms lodged b y Lefort: “ Most people o n the Left hav e b e e n highly resistant, until recently at least, to a n y suggestion that the classification of the Soviet U n i o n as totalitarian is m o r e t h a n a conservative canard. T h e deeper reason for this is that to d o so calls into question w h e t h e r or not Marx's philosophy, the p r e d o m i n a n t i d i o m of the Left in the twentieth century, w a s really liberating. That idea is u n d e r h e a v y siege n o w in the W e s t e r n world."41 Gleason's remarks m a y

Introduction

16

b e accurate e n o u g h about m a n y leftists, especially those for w h o m rejec­ tion of the concept of totalitarianism has b e e n a n essential part of a leftw i n g political identity. H e is certainly right about the embattled state of M a r x i s m . Yet in the face of the resistance of m a n y interwar a n d w a r t i m e leftists a n d their postwar heirs, a relatively small but significant g r o u p of left-wing writers criticized the Soviet U n i o n as “totalitarian”over five decades a g o — s o m e t i m e s cautiously, in other cases quite o p e n l y — a n d their a r g u m e n t s h ave received little systematic scholarly attention. T h e G e r m a n Left during the period u n d e r discussion here shared with other large political groups the characteristics of internal s c h i s m a n d conflict, a n d thus it continues to d e m a n d differentiated historical recon­ struction. I h ave therefore m a r k e d off the scope of this study of G e r m a n socialist intellectuals according to several considerations. O n l y a tiny frag­ m e n t of the larger G e r m a n Left receives pr i m a r y attention in this study— a g r o u p of roughly a d o z e n intellectuals. I h a v e included discussions of individuals w h o s e writings a n d careers s h o w c o m m o n political experi­ ences or affiliations a n d s o m e degree of attention to the w o r k of other writers in the group. As for m y claims for their socialism, I simply intend to indicate their (at least temporary) c o m m i t m e n t to M a r x i a n notions of class conflict, the exploitive a n d self-contradictory nature of capitalism, a n d radical social revolution. I d o not limit the t e r m socialist to only those w i t h s o m e kind of party affiliation, n o r d o I belabor the issue of w h e t h e r individuals w h o were C o m m u n i s t s or Social D e m o c r a t s can reasonably be l u m p e d together u n d e r a c o m m o n “socialist”label. There is also the ques­ tion of just h o w “G e r m a n ”these intellectuals were, a n issue w h o s e pur­ suit could b e c o m e needlessly complicated a n d analytically obtuse. I have c h o s e n a n o p e n a n d flexible notion of “G e r m a n ”in applying the desig­ nation “G e r m a n socialist intellectual”t h r o u g h o u t this book, using it to indicate a n y o n e w h o w a s G e r m a n b y birth, w h o took G e r m a n citizenship as a n adult, or w h o s e personal i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h organizations of the G e r m a n Left w a s p r o l o n g e d a n d significant. S o m e cases are simple e n o u g h : well over half of the writers I discuss w e r e G e r m a n - b o r n nation­ als. Several others w ere Austrian-born leftists w h o b e c a m e G e r m a n citi­ zens during the W e i m a r Republic. Less n u m e r o u s , but exercising a strong influence in G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a t i c circles, w e r e several Russian M e n s h e v i k exiles w h o h a d m o v e d to G e r m a n y during W e i m a r a n d t h e n shared yet another bitter exile after the Nazi takeover. O v e r half of the writers discussed in the following pages w e r e ethnic Jews, w h i c h m a d e t h e m the special targets of National Socialist “racial”policies, regardless of the extent of their personal, religious, or cultural identity wit h Juda-

Introduction

17

ism.42 Nearly all of these writers lost their G e r m a n citizenship for a time because of Nazi policies against those classed as Jews or active leftists. T h e m e m b e r s of this g r o u p of theorists were for the m o s t part leftist exemplars of Nietzsche's idea of the “g o o d E u r o p e a n ”— cosmopolitans, atheists, a n d internationalists of a n i n d e p e n d e n t cast of m i n d w h o therefore could never h ave b e e n Hitler's kind of “g o o d G e r m a n s . ”But they were G e r m a n s in another sense— that is, in their cultural identity. E v e n in exile, even “in translation,”this typically revealed itself. This g r o u p distinguishes itself in yet another way: these writers c a n continue to provoke interest today because their writings— a sizable portion of t h e m , at a n y rate— r e m a i n a compelling archive of the interwar a n d w a r t i m e era that is at the s a m e time remarkably timely. Several of these G e r m a n socialist intellectuals generated historical a n d philosophical accounts of their time that still c o m m a n d scholarly attention, a n d they constructed theoretical perspec­ tives a n d m e t h o d s of critique that r e m a i n vital tools in the study of his­ tory, politics, society, ideology, a n d culture. T h e left-wing notions of totalitarianism e x a m i n e d in this study were elements of a debate that has b e e n lost or at best sporadically alluded to in historical accounts of the political writing of the interwar a n d w a r t i m e period. O n e reason for the neglect or mi s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of left-wing antitotalitarianism is that interwar leftists' use of the t e r m totalitarian w a s tentative, experimental, a n d ambivalent.43 Precisely because the Left's critiques g r e w u p alongside the liberal a n d conservative analyses of fas­ c ism a n d totalitarianism, their partly shared t e r m i n o l o g y s o m e t i m e s blurred crucial theoretical a n d political distinctions. T o complicate m a t ­ ters further, the critique of totalitarianism pav e d the w a y to a n acceptance of political liberalism or even conservatism for a n u m b e r of thinkers w h o b e g a n their intellectual careers o n the revolutionary or the social d e m o ­ cratic G e r m a n left. In short, the interwar a n d w a r t i m e appraisal of totali­ tarian dictatorships forced m a n y leftists t oward a critical rethinking a n d e ven rejection of M a r x i s m , a n exercise that appeared to m a n y y o u n g e r leftists as catastrophic retreat, passive a c c o m m o d a t i o n , or at best vacilla­ tion in the context of cold w a r polarization. T h ese personal a n d political consequences of the “lost debate”receive substantial attention in the fol­ lowing pages. T h e choice of a narrower range of historical evidence offers s o m e a d ­ vantages. In contrast to the d aunting array of theoretical writings e x a m ­ ined in Abbott Gleason's a n d Walter Sohlangen's surveys of the concept of totalitarianism, this b o o k will provide a fresh account of the concept's historical d e v e l o p m e n t b y m e a n s of a selective, historical reconsideration

Introduction

18

of the writings of a few G e r m a n leftists f r o m the late 1920s to the cold w a r era. If this project is successful, the concept of totalitarianism m a y shed the h e a v y methodological a n d ideological a r m o r that often encapsulated it in the 1950s a n d 1960s, if only provisionally, a n d m a y appear o n c e m o r e as a limber, loose-jointed, unfinished, varying, a n d occasionally quite radical a n d innovative notion. Moreover, a historical a p p r o a c h to leftw i n g versions of the theory of totalitarianism m a y be able to avoid o n e of the m o s t serious s h o r t c o m i n g s of the Friedrich-Brzezinski m o d e l of totalitarianism itself: its t e n d e n c y to p a y insufficient attention to the his­ torical d e v e l o p m e n t of political m o v e m e n t s a n d ideas a n d other contin­ gent social, psychological, a n d e c o n o m i c factors in dictatorships. This a ccount of left-wing antitotalitarianism focuses o n the develop­ ing analysis of fascism a n d the roughly simultaneous appearance of the Nazi-Soviet c o mparison. It e x a m i n e s four key phases of the history of antitotalitarian thinking a n d writing o n the G e r m a n left. C h a pter 1 dis­ cusses the early critiques of fascism a n d Bolshevism generated prior to the Nazi takeover of G e r m a n y . T h e considerations o n the e m e r g e n c e a n d the appeal of fascism in particular w o u l d provide a n important basis for later comparative studies of dictatorships. Chapter 2 e x a m i n e s the early exile period, w h e n G e r m a n socialist intellectuals w e r e attempting to u n d e r ­ stand a n d explain their defeat at the h a n d s of the Nazis as well as to offer tactics a n d strategies of resistance. At the s a m e time, they observed in m a n y of the domestic a n d foreign policies of the Soviet U n i o n a clear d a n ­ ger to democratic principles a n d socialist ideals. C hapter 3 discusses the crucial w a r t i m e years, during w h i c h several of the m o s t influential a n d controversial left-wing writings o n totalitarianism appeared. T h e c o n ­ cluding chapter briefly takes u p the cold w a r careers of these G e r m a n left­ ists— t h o u g h b y 1949, former leftists w o u l d s o m e t i m e s be a m o r e a p p r o ­ priate description— including a n exploratory investigation of the legacies of their interwar a n d w a r t i m e debates about totalitarian dictatorship. Labeling these thinkers' efforts a 'Tost”debate requires o n e final bit of clarification. T h e adjectives neglected or misunderstood m i g h t be used as well. But s o m e writings p r o d u c e d in the course of this debate certainly hav e not b e e n ignored, while m a n y others included in this study have received only scant attention. O n e of the reasons for the obscurity of s o m e of the pre-cold w a r writings o n totalitarian dictatorship p r o d u c e d b y the G e r m a n Left is the historical situation of flight a n d exile in w h i c h their authors worked. Several of these b o o k s a n d essays appeared in n o n - G e r ­ m a n language publications, émigré journals, or even typewritten m a n u ­ scripts that circulated a m o n g only a few friends a n d colleagues. S o m e of

Introduction

19

the telling m o m e n t s of these discussions turn u p only in private corre­ s p o n d e n c e or organizational position papers that have received little at­ tention. This study m a k e s fairly extensive use of such sources a n d there­ fore provides n e w evidence of left-wing intellectuals' a p p r o a c h to the p r o b l e m of totalitarian dictatorship. A n o t h e r reason for the marginalized status of s o m e of these writings is m o r e directly political: these writers often used the style a n d vocabulary of M a r x i a n socialism just w h e n that outlook w a s u n d e r g o i n g yet another period of crisis, schism, a n d disloca­ tion. T h e early postwar period also b rought M a r x i s m or indeed a n y type of socialist outlook u n d e r suspicion or e ven persecution in the United States a n d other nations of the anti-Soviet N A T O alliance, w h e r e nearly all of these writers lived a n d worked. T hat m o s t of these writers h a d long since a b a n d o n e d h o p e for a h u m a n e state or society in the Soviet U n i o n un d e r Stalin did not lead t h e m always to e m b r a c e the cold w a r policies a n d ideologies of the West, t h o u g h as w e shall see, several of t h e m did so. In a n y case, their socialist past a n d s o m e t i m e s socialist present could b r a n d t h e m as false messengers, w h o s e w o r d s of criticism against C o m m u n i s t political regimes n o w e n c o u n t e r e d a skeptical, if not outright hostile, audience. A n event that took place early in the cold w a r reveals s o m e t h i n g of the o d d a n d e v e n precarious political situation of the leftist antitotalitarian writer. In 1947, a first-term congressional representative f r o m California, Richard N i x o n , c a m e face-to-face w i t h a former leader of the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party, R u t h Fischer. B y that time, the cold w a r w a s taking shape, a n d Fischer, w h o h a d b e e n a Weimar-era leftist a n d t h e n a refugee fr o m the Nazis, pursued a career as a fervently a n t i - C o m m u n i s t writer. She appeared before the H o u s e C o m m i t t e e o n U n - A m e r i c a n Activities as a witness against o n e of her brothers, Gerhart Eisler, w h o w a s a m e m b e r of the C o m m u n i s t Party.44 N i x o n a c k n o w l e d g e d the force of her opposition to C o m m u n i s t “m e t h o d s , ”but h e also inquired about her current atti­ tudes t oward the philosophical a n d political outlook of M a r x i s m . Fischer p roceeded to attack b o t h her brother Gerhart a n d Stalinism vigorously a n d in detail, but she never a n s w e r e d the congressman's question about her M a r x i s m . S h e k n e w all too well the dangers such a discussion m i g h t pose, a n d N i x o n h a d not yet perfected his unrelenting style of political attack. O r perhaps h e simply did not w a n t to risk calling into question the credibility of so useful a n d friendly a witness as Fischer. In a n y event, her cupful of m e d i a f a m e w o u l d evaporate quickly, while the y o u n g congress­ m a n w a s a b out to tap a n apparently eternal source.45 This brief episode, w ith its vivid display of the provocative a n d s y m -

Introduction

20

bolic historical links b e t w e e n the political battles a n d personalities of o n e era a n d those of another, offers a n initial glimpse into the complicated legacy of the G e r m a n leftist opposition to totalitarian dictatorship. L o o k ­ ing into the contested a n d many-stranded d e v e l o p m e n t of left-wing c o n ­ siderations of the p r o b l e m of totalitarianism places the broader debate o n m o d e r n dictatorship in a different historical light— a light that m a y n o w accentuate certain writers a n d specific elements of their theories that have for too long r e m a i n e d obscure. S u c h a n investigation m a y d o little m o r e t h a n help restore s o m e of these thinkers a n d texts to our historical field of vision. This is certainly o n e of its i m m e d i a t e goals. But this study m i g h t also help r e n e w the debate o n the origins a n d character of m o d e r n dicta­ torships in w a y s that force a reconsideration of the discussions of the to­ talitarian state that e m e r g e d o n the G e r m a n left before the cold war.

Strange Defeat:Leftist I ntellectuals and

W

eimar’ s Collapse,1928-33

T h e disastrous rôle o f the C o m m u n i s t Party is well k n o w n . T h e y h o p e d to cre­ ate a revolutionary situation b y destroying parliamentary d e m o c r a c y a n d then creating a Bolshevist dictatorship. In fact, they were the allies o f the National Socialists in their struggle against the “ Social Fascists ”in other w o r d s Social D e m o c r a t s a n d Trade Unions. — Fr a n z N e u m a n n , 1933

T h e birth, troubled career, a n d ultimate collapse of G e r m a n y ' s first repub­ lic have rightly attracted the attention of n u m e r o u s scholars.1 Because the W e i m a r Republic's d e m i s e ushered in the violently destructive Nazi dic­ tatorship, its history holds a special p o i g n a n c e a n d horror. T h e d y n a m i c cultural a n d intellectual life of W e i m a r exhibited b o t h adventurous e x ­ perimentation a n d a n intense self-consciousness. T h e political character of the W e i m a r Republic s h o w e d similar features but also offered exagger­ ated displays of caution a n d recklessness, meticulous parliamentary coa­ lition-building a n d a deadly, autocratic intolerance. N o t surprisingly, given its origins in military defeat a n d political c o m p r o m i s e , the W e i m a r Republic's political order d r e w intense criticism as s o o n as its constitution took effect in 1919. T h e regime's p rolonged crisis a n d ultimate capitula­ tion to the Nazis in 1933 set off a long series of controversies o n the causes of its failure.

21

T h e Lost D e b a t e

22

O n e of the fairly typical elements of this story, as the labor lawyer Franz N e u m a n n analyzed it in 1933 a n d as historians have often constructed it since, has b e e n the a r g u m e n t that the W e i m a r Republic s u c c u m b e d to a c o m b i n a t i o n of pressures f r o m the extreme Left (the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party) a n d the extreme Right (the Nazi Party).2 This interpretation has its merits, particularly f r o m the standpoint of liberal constitutional history, w h i c h has told in a variety of w a y s the story of the deadly transition dur­ ing late W e i m a r , f r o m legislative deadlock to executive rule to state-party dictatorship. S u c h a perspective also often tends to equate the significance of the pressures against the constitutional “center”f r o m e a c h e n d of W e i m a r ' s deadly earnest a n d active political lineup, a n d thus it helps to legitimate the kind of c o m p a r i s o n of fascism a n d C o m m u n i s m that b e ­ c a m e so essential to the d o m i n a n t cold w a r idea of totalitarianism. Since the Social D e m o c r a t s h a d b e e n the m o s t reliable a n d effective political supporters of the W e i m a r Constitution, the strong involvement of s o m e of the theorists associated w i t h this party in the formulation of a n out­ look that c o n d e m n e d the antiparliamentary extremes of the Right a n d Left is hardly surprising. For these historical a n d political reasons, the traumatic period of the W e i m a r Republic remains a n essential starting point for the analysis of G e r m a n leftists' attention to the theoretical a n d practical p r o b l e m of dictatorship.

Th e G e r m a n Left a n d the N e w Dictatorships T h e n o m i n a l l y Marxist but tactically reformist a n d parliamentary G e r ­ m a n Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands— S PD) spent the entire period of the W e i m a r Republic (1919 to 1933) p i n n e d d o w n b e t w e e n the sporadic but well-aimed criticisms of the m o r e anti­ bourgeois a n d politically oppositional G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party ( K o m ­ munistische Partei Deutschlands— K P D ) a n d the constant hostility of the conservative a n d far right parties— expressed m o s t aggressively during W e i m a r ' s closing years in the violent w o r d s a n d deeds of the National Socialist G e r m a n Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische D e u tsche Arbei­ terpartei— N S D A P ) , better k n o w n as the Nazi Party. T h e u n e a s y a n d c o n ­ flicted position of the Social Democrats, betwixt a n d b e t w e e n other p o ­ litical m o v e m e n t s that v i ewed the m o d e r a t e socialists as a primary e n e m y , h a d b e e n established even before the constitutional regime of the W e i m a r Republic itself; indeed, it b e c a m e the party's fate f r o m the close of W o r l d W a r I to the Nazi seizure of power.3 T h e choices a n d failures of the S P D were crucial c o m p o n e n t s of the

LeftistIntellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

23

era's politics, but there is b l a m e e n o u g h to parcel out a m o n g several of the various political parties of the W e i m a r Republic. It is arguable, for e x ­ ample, that the parties of the G e r m a n Right— regardless of their level of electoral support a n d e v e n t h o u g h they m i g h t h a v e b e e n alternatively supported or b r o ught u p short b y their tacit partners in the G e r m a n mili­ tary elite— w ere always m o r e powerful t h a n the C o m m u n i s t s ever were during the entire W e i m a r period. Moreover, the parties of the Right h a d the electorally useful habit of equating the Social D e m o c r a t s a n d the C o m m u n i s t s as twin Marxist dangers to the national order.4 E v e n so, the C o m m u n i s t s h a d certainly b e e n n o friends whatsoever of the "bourgeois republic" or its beleaguered Social Democr a t i c guardians. B y 1931, for ex­ ample, s o m e representatives of the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party voted along w i t h the Nazi faction in the Prussian regional parliament to d u m p the lawfully elected Social D e m o c r a t i c g o v e r n m e n t of Prussia f r o m power. T h e y failed to gain their i m m e d i a t e goal, but the desired result c a m e about u n d e r different circumstances the following year, with disastrous conse­ quences.5 For their part, the Social D e m o c r a t s h a d blocked their o p p o ­ nents o n the radical left— a n d given t h e m political a m m u n i t i o n for future use— over a decade earlier, during the interlude b e t w e e n the e n d of the empi r e a n d the establishment of the W e i m a r Republic. T h e prow a r S P D faction, led b y Friedrich Ebert a n d Philipp S c h e i d e m a n n , gained p o w e r b y cooperating w i t h the reactionary a n d authoritarian G e r m a n Military H i g h C o m m a n d in the w e e k s following the e n d of W o r l d W a r I, not only helping disarm a n d dismantle a n y revolutionary threat but also presid­ ing over the c r a c k d o w n that led to the m u r d e r s of several p r o m i n e n t left­ ists. As the W e i m a r Republic experienced the shock of the world e c o n o m i c crisis in the early 1930s, the leaders of that s a m e m o d e r a t e socialist party acquiesced to presidential rule b y executive decree, d o i n g m o r e t h a n a n y other G e r m a n party w o u l d d o to preserve parliamentarism but, as it hor­ ribly turned out, also b u y i n g time for its en e m i e s to demolish the W e i m a r Republic. T h e s e actions— a n d inactions— typified the crucial relation­ ships b e t w e e n the t w o great left-wing G e r m a n parties as well as their shift­ ing stance toward o p p o n e n t s o n the political right. It w o u l d be but o n e of the era's surplus of ironies that t w o p r o m i n e n t former Social D e m o c r a t s w h o h a d b r o k e n angrily with the party for its cooperation with the G e r m a n g o v e r n m e n t during W o r l d W a r I h a d also laid the theoretical g r o u n d w o r k for criticism of the radical n e w political factions of the 1920s that w o u l d pose the biggest right- a n d left-wing threat to the Weimar - e r a SPD. T h e significant critical attacks against fas­ cism a n d Bolshevism b y m e m b e r s of the G e r m a n Left b e g a n with the tac-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

24

tical expressions of t w o of its seasoned a n d m o s t radical leaders: Clara Zetkin a n d Rosa L u x e m b u r g — t h o u g h to be sure this attack did not ini­ tially link the t w o parties as c o m p a r a b l e “ totalitarian" m o v e m e n t s . These t w o w o m e n h a d risen to p r o m i n e n t roles in the S P D during the prewar years. L u x e m b u r g , w h o h a d gained a position of intellectual leadership in the G e r m a n socialist m o v e m e n t despite her sex, her Jewish ethnicity, a n d her Polish national origins, possessed a c o m m a n d i n g voice o n the Euro­ p e a n left. S h e often intimidated other leading socialists b y virtue of the fearsome intelligence a n d deftly a i m e d sharpness of her written a n d spo­ k e n arguments.6 Zetkin h a d long played a crucial role in attempting to bridge the concerns of socialism a n d feminism, t h o u g h she w a s less in­ tellectually original a n d assertive t h a n her y o u n g e r friend L u x e m b u r g . 7 Their courageous a n d principled antiwar stance in 1914 set t h e m apart f r o m a n u m b e r of m o r e a c c o m m o d a t i n g a n d opportunistic leaders of the SPD. T h e y h a d b o t h participated actively a n d at great personal cost in the opposition to the w a r — L u x e m b u r g spent m a n y m o n t h s in prison for her defiance of the g o v e r n m e n t — a n d in the w a r t i m e b a n d of radical social­ ists called the Spartacus G r o u p (later the Spartacus League). Its m e m b e r s o p p o s e d the war, c o n d e m n e d the majority SPD, a n d r e m a i n e d for a time a n a u t o n o m o u s radical g r o u p within the larger, n e w l y f o r m e d I n d e p e n ­ dent G e r m a n Social Democratic Party ( U n a b h ä n g i g e Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands— U S PD). L u x e m b u r g took a leading role at the c o n ­ gress of various radical factions that created yet another left-wing party, the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party, in late D e c e m b e r 1918, a few w e e k s after the e n d of the war.8 T h e w a r t i m e a n d early postwar writings a n d speeches of L u x e m b u r g a n d Zetkin contributed powerfully to the 1920s socialist debates o n the p r o b l e m of dictatorship a n d the necessity of a left-wing response a n d were as important as those p r o d u c e d b y a n y E u r o p e a n Marxists of the period. A n e x a m p l e of this contribution w a s Clara Zetkin’ s speech at the meet i n g of the C o m m u n i s t Party International Executive C o m m i t t e e of 1923 in M o s c o w , w h e r e she raised the issue of fascism in Italy as a n i m m e d i a t e threat to the Left globally.9 Zetkin, t h e n recovering f r o m a n illness, w a s carried into the m e e t i n g a n d spoke f r o m a seat placed in the midst of her comrades. T h e c o g ency of her w o r d s m o r e t h a n m a t c h e d the d r a m a of her entry. H e r discussion m a d e a crucial contribution to a n intensified a n d theoretically unblinkered Marxist analysis of fascism, claiming that fas­ cism w a s not “simply bourgeois terror" but a c o m p l e x a n d d y n a m i c m o v e ­ m e n t that “exercises a stirring a n d o v e r p o w e r i n g influence o n b r o a d mass e s of the population.”10 H e r attempt to e m p h a s i z e the reality of a

LeftistIntellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

25

highly differentiated wo r k i n g class within w h i c h fascism m i g h t m a k e real political gains m a r k e d at least a preliminary step a w a y f r o m the simplis­ tic equation of class a n d consciousness that plagued all too m a n y M a r x ­ ists. This speech w a s arguably her m o s t i m p o r t a n t contribution to the critical interwar debates about socialist theory a n d tactics.11 Zetkin's reflections o n the p r o b l e m of fascism, for all their stress o n the n e e d for n e w perceptions of the radical Right's appeal, took place within a n accepted left-wing discourse. S h e h a d not repudiated a n y key element of the Comintern's particular variety of the Marxist outlook, no r h a d she in this speech lau n c h e d the slightest attack o n the n e w bearer of radical socialist hopes: the Soviet Union. Despite g r o w i n g tensions in the C o m ­ m u n i s t m o v e m e n t , the political leaders o n the scene in M o s c o w in 1923 still included Vladimir Lenin, L e o n Trotsky, L e v K a m e n e v , Alexandra Kollontai, a n d Nikolai Bukharin, as well as J oseph Stalin. T h e Soviet revo­ lutionary regime h a d s o m e h o w survived. T h e terrible violence of the civil w a r h a d subsided. It w o u l d b e succeeded b y other b l o o d y events, to be sure, but w i t h a suddenness a n d o n a scale as yet unforeseeable. For m a n y E u r o p e a n Marxists, the m o m e n t contained b o t h great h o p e s and, in the w a k e of Mussolini's successful “ M a r c h o n R o m e " the preceding October, great dangers.12 At this m o m e n t , w h e n a n e w range of political possibili­ ties h a d taken shape, Zetkin r e m a i n e d a n admirable but aging figure f r o m the past for the C o m i n t e r n as well as for the leading m e m b e r s of the G e r ­ m a n C o m m u n i s t Party— w h o w ere about to b e replaced b y a still y o u nger group. T h e i m m e d i a t e fate of her remarks o n fascism is a case in point. Accor d i n g to e x - C o m m u n i s t R u t h Fischer's account of the M o s c o w m e e t i n g w h e r e Zetkin gave her innovative speech o n fascism, Karl Radek, the mercurial a n d brilliant apparatchik w h o b e c a m e the m o s t important representative of the C o m i n t e r n in G e r m a n y for a few years, took his turn at the speaker's rostrum immediately after Zetkin. R a d e k a c k n o w l e d g e d Zetkin's discussion of fascism but confessed that h e “could not even fol­ l o w it clearly."13 H e t h e n m o v e d o n to w h a t h e t h o u g h t w a s a m u c h m o r e urgent matter: the nationalist protest c a m p a i g n in G e r m a n y against the execution of a violent G e r m a n right-wing extremist, Le o Schlageter, b y the French a r m y that w a s t h e n oc c u p y i n g the R u h r Valley as p u n i s h m e n t for G e r m a n n o n p a y m e n t of w a r reparations. Reading Fischer's fairly d e ­ tailed description of these speeches a n d their policy o u t c o m e , o n e m u s t bear in m i n d that she eventually joined the K P D faction o p p o s e d to Radek, a n d her account of these events—written twenty-five years later—at times tends to m a k e h i m look excessively foolish. This Schlageter policy of ex­ t r e m e appeals to nationalism c a n b e traced to Radek's skills at altering his

T h e Lost D e b a t e

26

course— if not his claimed destination— with the shifting winds. H o w e v e r risky a n d ultimately ineffective the n e w course m a y have been, it ca n also be interpreted as a practical fulfillment of Zetkin's urgings for a flexible a p p r o a c h in appealing to the interests a n d needs of working-class G e r ­ ma n s . T h e so-called Schlageter line also reveals, however, that eve n the interwar C o m i n t e r n could c onclude that, u n d e r certain circumstances, the distance b e t w e e n the politics of the e xtreme Right a n d the extreme Left could be s p a n n e d with n o great trouble, a conclusion that, shorn of careful attention to contingent historical factors, w o u l d stand as o n e of the pillars of s o m e of the later cold w a r versions of totalitarian theory. In a n y case, the Schlageter episode, w h i c h took its place in the histori­ cal landscape of the period as o n e m o r e b l o o d y m o m e n t of the early post­ w a r years, also captures the unsettled a n d portentous qualities of events in G e r m a n y in 1923. T h e unrelenting inflation of the G e r m a n mark, w h i c h accelerated even m o r e furiously in the w a k e of the French-Belgian occupation of the R u h r in January, threatened to shatter the e c o n o m y a n d k n o c k the liberal a n d antirevolutionary W e i m a r Republic off its feet. T h e death of Schlageter, w h o h a d c o m m i t t e d acts of violence against the French occupation, prov o k e d a popular outrage against France as well as the W e i m a r government's passivity. F r o m the perspective of opposition­ ist groups, nationalist appeals offered the o p e n i n g for a timely additional shove that m i g h t topple the G e r m a n Republic. T h e National Socialists m a d e skillful p r o p a g a n d a use of the occupation a n d its attendant deadly episodes, suc h as the Schlageter incident, for their o w n purposes of delegitimating the fragile n e w G e r m a n state. Starting with Radek's speech, w h i c h w a s the o p e n i n g m a n e u v e r in a series of skirmishes intended to u n d e r m i n e the W e i m a r Republic a n d also to peel a w a y working-class su p ­ port f r o m the extreme nationalist Right, so did the C o m m u n i s t s . T h e c a m ­ paign gained broad support a m o n g K P D leaders (including Fischer, w h o w e n t so far as to encourage street violence against “ Jewish capitalists" in o n e of her speeches), local groups, a n d newspapers. T h e s u m m e r of 1923 witnessed the C o m m u n i s t s undertaking b o t h a n Anti-Fascist D a y protest a n d the so-called Schlageter line, h o n o r i n g the right-wing extremist. A n abortive uprising b y C o m m u n i s t s in several G e r m a n cities during O c t o ­ ber 1923 c r o w n e d their ideological zigzags a n d tactical o p p o r t u n i s m with disastrous political defeat. Zetkin's promising start o n a n innovative theo­ retical a n d practical response to fascism nearly got lost in the mess.14 T h e results of the 1923 debacle p r o v e d significant to the fate of the K P D . R u t h Fischer a n d her allies in the party a n d the C o m i n t e r n picked u p the pieces in the aftermath of defeat. T h e y quickly received the bless-

Leftist Intellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

27

ings of the C o m i n t e r n a n d Stalin to revise policy in the direction of even sharper criticism of the Social Democrats. T h u s b e g a n o n e of the several careers of the so-called social fascism p r o p a g a n d a line o n the C o m m u n i s t left— that is, bracketing Social D e m o c r a t s wit h fascists as partners against the w o r k i n g class. Fischer also s h u c k e d off the legacy of a h u m a n i s t a n d Marxist internationalism that h a d b e e n shared b y such figures as Zetkin, L u x e m b u r g , and, in his m o r e devious a n d idiosyncratic way, Radek. For a time, Fischer w o u l d m o v e the K P D along the path laid out b y the C o m i n ­ tern during Gr e g o r y Zinoviev's brief period of leadership— until she w a s ousted f r o m the leadership a n d t h e n expelled f r o m the party in 1925. B y that time, R a d e k h a d already g o n e t u m b l i n g d o w n , along w ith the lead­ ers of the K P D “right" of 1923, led b y Heinrich Brandler a n d his old friend August Thalheimer, initiating the steady decline that led to Radek's vic­ timization b y Stalin in the purges of the 1930s.15 It w o u l d be years, h o w ­ ever, before these notorious defeats a n d disappearances emerged. For the m o m e n t , e v e n in their failures of 1923, the C o m m u n i s t s of all factions wer e to b e o u t d o n e b y the Nazis. T h e Nazis staged their attempted c o u p in N o v e m b e r — the violent a n d ludicrous “Beer Hall Putsch" in M u n i c h — a n d the trial of Adolf Hitler that followed gave the National Socialists tre­ m e n d o u s l y helpful national publicity.16 T h e C o m m u n i s t s w o u l d eventually recover f r o m their losses of m e m ­ bership a n d voter appeal, but never during W e i m a r w o u l d they be able to m a t c h the National Socialists in either the rhetoric or the practice of fa­ natical nationalism. Nevertheless, the Schlageter c a m p a i g n a n d the leftright c o u p attempts of the fall of 1923 b e c a m e additional e x a m p l e s of parallel C o m m u n i s t - N a z i policies f r o m the W e i m a r period that, years later, w o u l d later help reinforce the totalitarian m o d e l s that asserted a r o u g h radical left-radical right equivalence. For her part, Clara Zetkin continued to b e useful to the C o m m u n i s t Party as a n icon w h o h a d parted wit h the legacy of the b a d old days of social democracy. Despite her i m ­ pressive theoretical leadership o n the p h e n o m e n o n of fascism, she wielded little practical influence in the C o m m u n i s t Party b y the time the constitutional order of the W e i m a r Republic b e g a n to disintegrate. In the s u m m e r of 1932, she achieved her last public m o m e n t . B y virtue of her status as the oldest m e m b e r of the Reichstag, she chaired the o p e n i n g of its final session prior to the accession of Hitler to the chancellorship in 1933. S h e died in exile in the Soviet U n i o n later that year.17 If the left-wing analysis of fascism in W e i m a r G e r m a n y m o v e d at first b y fits a n d starts in the s h a d o w of other, m o r e urgent issues, the left-wing critique of the Bolshevist type of dictatorship appeared as a n even m o r e

T h e Lost D e b a t e

28

controversial undertaking. This project h a d b e g u n several years before Zetkin's speech o n fascism, with Rosa L u x e m burg's powerful essay o n the Russian Revolution. Luxemburg's article o n Lenin a n d the Bolsheviks h a d b e e n written during the fall of 1918. S h e w o u l d b e m u r d e r e d in Berlin b y a paramilitary sq u a d o n 15 January 1919 at the time of the failed Spartacist uprising, w h i c h she h a d supported. W h e t h e r she w o u l d eventually have c h o s e n to publish her critique of Le n i n a n d the Bolsheviks therefore c a n ­ not be k n o w n . In a n y case, the d o c u m e n t w a s not published right a w a y — but neither w a s it buried for long. T h e essay w a s published p o s t h u m o u s l y b y o n e of L u x e m b u r g ' s surviving partners a n d political heirs, the e m ­ battled G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t critic of the C o m i n t e r n , Paul Levi. In the early years of the W e i m a r Republic, h e h a d g r o w n increasingly hostile to the steadily g r o w i n g C o m i n t e r n d o m i n a t i o n of the K P D , a n d h e loosed L u x e m b u r g ' s w o r d s o n the v a n g u a r d of international revolution in 1922, s o o n after his departure f r o m the party.18 L u xemburg's assessment of the Russian Revolution u n d e r Lenin's lead­ ership w a s harsh, t h o u g h as o n e of her recent editors a n d biographers, S t e p h e n Eric Bronner, has argued, it w a s clearly not a n outright dismissal of the Bolsheviks. S h e a d m i r e d their audacity, their willingness to risk all as a n e x a m p l e to working-class m o v e m e n t s in other nations.19 Neve r t h e ­ less, the force of her criticism of the Revolution's suppression of dissent remains impressive eight decades later: " W i t h o u t general elections, w i t h ­ out unrestricted f r e e d o m of press a n d assembly, wi t h o u t a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, b e c o m e s a m e r e s e m ­ blance of life, in w h i c h o nly the bureaucracy r emains as the active ele­ m e n t . Public life gradually falls asleep, a few d o z e n party leaders of inex­ haustible energy a n d boundless experience direct a n d rule.''20 W i t h her list of f r e e d o m s of the kind associated b y s o m e o n the left w i t h "bour­ geois" parliamentary republican g o v e r nment, L u x e m b u r g anticipated in detail the a r g u m e n t s of s o m e later left-wing critics within a n d outside the Soviet U n i o n w h o did not w a n t to t h r o w out all of the squawking, feisty, a n d yet very m u c h n e w b o r n liberal civil rights w i t h the bourgeois, capi­ talist bathwater.21 W h a t is impor t a n t here— in addition to the specific kinds of criticism L u x e m b u r g expressed— is that the t w o strands of cri­ tique Zetkin a n d L u x e m b u r g fashioned, the antifascist a n d the guardedly anti-Bolshevist, w h i c h appeared in the first years of the W e i m a r R e p u b ­ lic, w e r e not often spliced together b y a n y writers o n the left until several years later. U n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w a n d w h y this theoretical enterprise c a m e ab o u t requires looking at historical a n d political factors. There wer e t w o overriding historical impulses that helped generate a

Leftist Intellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

29

socialist attack o n b o t h the Soviet m o d e l of socialism a n d the G e r m a n fas­ cist party of National Socialism. First, there w a s the division of the G e r m a n Left into t w o m a j o r parties—the C o m m u n i s t a n d Social Democratic— as well as n u m e r o u s splinter groups. Second, there w ere the events a n d shift­ ing alliances that p r o d u c e d the defeat of the parliamentary G e r m a n Left a n d the ultimate destruction of republican g o v e r n m e n t itself at the h a n d s of the Nazis. In these years of the late W e i m a r period, the analysis of fas­ cism a n d the p r o b l e m of left-wing schism h a d acquired m u c h m o r e t h a n theoretical interest. T h e goal for m o d e r a t e leftists w a s political victory a n d the a c h i e v e m e n t of working-class social a n d e c o n o m i c transformations, while revolutionaries of the Left sought to intensify a n d exploit the crises of the early 1930s. As the situation of all elements of the Left in the Republic g r e w m o r e tenuous a n d the Nazi m o v e m e n t swiftly a n d shockingly e m e r g ­ ed as the largest single political party in G e r m a n y , sheer survival often su­ perseded other goals. T h e political writings of these years offer a m p l e evi­ d e n c e that the G e r m a n Left generated a variety of theoretical approaches that m a r k e d crucial stages in the d e v e l o p m e n t of the left-wing critiques of fascist m o v e m e n t s a n d dictatorships as well as occasional ventures in the direction of a comparative theory of totalitarianism.

T h e G e r m a n Left Divided In the years leading u p to W o r l d W a r I, fissures h a d b e g u n to appear in the giant edifice of the G e r m a n Social Democratic Party, the organization that h a d represented the G e r m a n workers' m o v e m e n t since the 1870s. T h e w a r blasted it into fragments. These internal divisions over party organization a n d support for the w a r ultimately resulted in the formation of a signifi­ cant t h o u g h short-lived dissident splinter party: the U S P D , or I n d e p e n ­ dent G e r m a n Social D e m ocratic Party. S o o n after the e n d of the war, a n ­ other large radical party of the Left appeared: the K P D , or G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party.22 T h r o u g h o u t the W e i m a r Republic, the S P D a n d the K P D played w h a t w a s perceived t h e n a n d n o w as a zero-sum g a m e in elec­ toral politics— that is, a battle for votes a m o n g the working-class elector­ ate in w h i c h the gains of o n e party m a r k e d the losses of the other. Despite its sizable electoral support, the K P D r e m a i n e d a n outsider organization, while the reformist S P D b e c a m e either a n essential c o m p o n e n t of govern­ m e n t u n d e r the W e i m a r Constitution or its reliably loyal opposition. F r o m 1919 until 1932, the S P D w a s the largest party in G e r m a n y a n d served as the b u l w a r k of the W e i m a r Republic.23 Social Dem o c r a t i c cabinet minis­ ters participated in several national ruling coalitions with G ustav Strese-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

30

m a n n ' s liberals a n d the Catholic Center Party. At the s a m e time, the K P D a s s u m e d the role of a radical protest party, attacking the capitalist char­ acter of W e i m a r society. It a d o p t e d neither a consistently legalist no r a steadfastly revolutionary program, s o m e t i m e s participating in city or re­ gional g o v e r n m e n t s but also engaging in dramatic but abortive attempts at revolution.24 T h e bitter a n d persistent conflict b e t w e e n these t w o parties of the di­ vided W e i m a r Left w a s the seedbed for the e m e r g e n c e of n e w critiques of the policies of Lenin a n d the Bolsheviks, the K P D , a n d the C o m i n t e r n b y m o d e r a t e socialists or b y radicals w h o g r e w to despise central party author­ ity. These critiques helped establish the basis for the secondary a n d gradual d e v e l o p m e n t of theories of totalitarianism— or at least the use of a notion of the total state— a m o n g b o t h o r t h o d o x Social Democratic a n d i n d epen­ dent writers o n the G e r m a n left. Ironically, s o m e of the m o s t effective at­ tacks of b o t h the Social Democ r a t s a n d the C o m m u n i s t s against each other invoked the ideas a n d the career of the s a m e person: Rosa L u x emburg. In her intelligent a n d unsparingly critical analysis of the parties a n d policies of M a r x i a n socialism, L u x e m b u r g h a d n o peer. For the theoreti­ cal a n d practical shortcomings of b o t h Social D e m o c r a t i c reformism a n d Bolshevism, she cherished a n unflagging but carefully focused hostility. L u x e m b u r g ' s brutal m u r d e r b y m e m b e r s of the right-wing paramilitary Freikorps, acting as forces for “order”with tacit g o v e r n m e n t approval, h a d placed the S P D (which controlled the government's executive faction at the time) out-of-bounds for m a n y leftists. T h e course of the K P D , w h i c h s o o n b e c a m e a C o m i n t e r n affiliated party, in exactly the direction L u x ­ e m b u r g h a d feared, m a d e it almost equally unattractive. T o put it simply, the SPD's toleration of the attack against the Spartacist soldiers' a n d w o r k ­ ers' rebellion in Berlin a n d its leaders' passive response to the m u r d e r s of L u x e m b u r g , Karl Liebknecht, a n d others m a d e the party a n a t h e m a a m o n g the m o s t radical leftists. Moreover, the radicals w h o joined the C o m m u ­ nists h a d n o leaders with the intellectual gifts or the polemical ferocity to replace L u x e m b u r g . J u d g m e n t s a bout L u x e m b u r g ' s potential value to the W e i m a r Left hav e proliferated over the decades. Years after h e h a d b e c o m e a bitter anti­ c o m m u n i s t , the sociologist a n d historian Franz B o r k e n a u could still write the following appraisal of L u x e m b u r g ' s value to the G e r m a n workers' movement: W i t h t h e destruction of L u x e m b u r g a n d h e r pers o n a l circle G e r m a n c o m ­ m u n i s m lost th e o n e cap a b l e set of leaders it h a d ____ L o o k i n g b a c k w a r d

Leftist In tellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

31

u p o n h e r role a n d attitude, o n e finds it difficult to believe that a n y t h i n g b u t a b r e a k c o u l d h a v e b e e n t h e e n d of h e r relations w i t h t h e C o m i n t e r n . B u t in t h e m e a n t i m e s h e w o u l d h a v e b e e n t h e o n e p e r s o n able to b a l ance a n d w i t h s t a n d th e influence of t h e Russians. S h e a l o n e m i g h t h a v e h a d the authority a n d strength to carry t h o s e sh e h a d p e r s u a d e d to co-operate w i t h t h e Bolsheviks w i t h her w h e n s h e b r o k e w i t h t h e m . All the others w h o later t o o k that step w e r e officers w i t h o u t troops. S h e m i g h t h a v e left at the h e a d of a n a r m y ; w h i c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n of incalculable c o n s e q u e n c e for the u n i t y of t h e G e r m a n w o r k e r s w h e n t h e y a t t e m p t e d to w i t h s t a n d Hitler.25

S o m e of the older G e r m a n Marxists, including b o t h C o m m u n i s t s a n d former C o m m u n i s t s , offered a different view, scorning Luxemburg's “ uto­ p i a n ”vision of working-class spontaneity. Nevertheless, the historian Arthur Rosenberg, w h o h a d b e e n a leading C o m m u n i s t for several years during W e i m a r , a c k n o w l e d g e d the force of her personality, the great loss that workers h a d suffered b y her murder, a n d the p o t e n c y of her criticism of Lenin's Bolshevik Party.26 D u r i n g the W e i m a r period a n d after, L u x e m b u r g ' s political a n d intel­ lectual legacy w a s claimed b y s o m e of her old comrades, s uch as Clara Zetkin a n d Paul Levi—w h o ultimately diverged in their understanding of just w h a t actions that legacy should inspire— a n d her e x a m p l e f o u n d a special place in the t h o u g h t a n d writings of a y o u n g e r generation of G e r m a n Marxists.27 Moreover, s o m e of the intellectuals w h o left or were driven f r o m the K P D during the 1920s b e c a m e , as L u x e m b u r g h a d been, vocal a n d t r o u b lesome heretics, but t hey w e r e n o t necessarily her dis­ ciples. A m o n g these nettlesome f ormer leading party m e m b e r s w e r e A rthur Rosenberg, Karl Korsch, a n d R u t h Fischer. Fischer, b o r n in G e r ­ m a n y but reared in Austria, h a d b e e n a co f o u n d e r of the Austrian C o m ­ m u n i s t Party a n d s o o n joined forces w i t h the W e i m a r K P D , where, as w e hav e already seen, she played a n important role. S h e belonged to the g e n ­ eration that reached a d u l t h o o d at the t ime of W o r l d W a r I a n d the R u s ­ sian Revolution, a n d for a time she t e n d e d to a d m i r e Leninist-style orga­ nization a n d tactics as m o r e realistic a n d effective t h a n L u x e m b u r g ' s dem o c r a t i c a n d h u m a n i s t i c revolutionary notions. D u r i n g her career w i t h the C o m m u n i s t Party, Fischer m o c k e d a n d disparaged the theories a n d tactics of the older generation of Social Democrats, wit h L u x e m b u r g as her special target. H e r brief stint as a leader of the K P D m a r k e d a n in­ tensively “Bolshevizing”phase, in opposition to the political style a n d theoretical position of L u x e m b u r g a n d Levi. Years later, as a n anti-Comm u n i s t historian of the K P D , Fischer w o u l d offer a rather m o r e s y m p a ­ thetic portrait of L u x e m b u r g as a tragic figure of the Left, but she w o u l d

T h e Lost D e b a t e

32

still characterize Luxe m b u r g ' s influence in the upheavals of late 1918 a n d early 1919 as baneful.28 In contrast, the Marxist philosopher Karl Korsch, w h o s e written c o m ­ m e n t s o n L u x e m b u r g were a m i x of b o t h critical a n d positive evaluations, w o u l d r e m a r k in a letter to his friend Paul Mattick that "one's position towards Rosa always appears to m e to still be the best proof-stone for revo­ lutionaries.''29 For s o m e other left-wing critics of state-party dictator­ ship— M a x H o r k h e i m e r a n d Otto Kirchheimer, in particular— she re­ m a i n e d a n i m p ortant theorist, a m o d e l revolutionary, a n d compelling a n d powerful writer. Horkheimer, for instance, writing f r o m exile in the United States just as the military violence of W o r l d W a r II reached its peak, b o r r o w e d Luxe m b u r g ' s f a m o u s formulation that the m o d e r n world w a s faced with the choice b e t w e e n "barbarism or freedom."30 T h e legacy a n d fate of Rosa L u x e m b u r g wer e also important factors in the constriction of possibilities for party allegiance a m o n g left-wing intel­ lectuals in W e i m a r G e r m a n y . B y the late 1920s, the rival orthodoxies of revolutionary centralism in the service of the C o m i n t e r n a n d parliamen­ tary social d e m o c r a c y in the service of the W e i m a r Republic proved unsat­ isfactory to a n u m b e r of i n d e p e n d e n t - m i n d e d radical leftists. T h e alterna­ tives for the dissenting G e r m a n leftists in terms of party affiliation were to r e m a i n within the left-wing of the SPD, join the short-lived U S P D , m o v e over to the K P D O ( G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party Opposition), or, b y the e n d of the W e i m a r Republic, link u p with o n e of the other small organizations f o r m e d m o s t often b y outcasts of the K P D . In short, left-wing intellectu­ als f o u n d it increasingly difficult to follow the e x a m p l e of Rosa L u x emburg. S h e h a d b e e n able for a time to r e m a i n relatively i n d e p e n d e n t within a large party of the w o r k i n g class. For the generation of G e r m a n socialist in­ tellectuals w h o followed her into the C o m m u n i s t Party, the alternatives were s o o n reduced to party o r t h o d o x y or political marginalization. E v e n at the time of r e n e w e d left-wing electoral success in the late 1920s, there w a s a steady drain of scholars a n d intellectuals a w a y f r o m the K P D . 31 Despite the divisions within the G e r m a n Left a n d the t e n d e n c y of party bureaucrats to alienate potential allies a m o n g the intelligentsia, there were s o m e hopeful signs for G e r m a n working-class politics. After the national e c o n o m y revived in the mid-i92os, the working-class parties appeared to regain a n i mportant role in the Reichstag. In M a y 1928, the t w o m a j o r left-wing parties of G e r m a n y elected the highest c o m b i n e d n u m b e r of Reichstag representatives they h a d yet gained u n d e r the W e i ­ m a r Republic. T h e Social D e m o c r a t s retained their status as the largest delegation in the Reichstag, increasing their total f r o m 131 (at the last elec-

Leftist Intellectuals a n d W e i m a r ' s Collapse

33

tion in 1924) to 153. O n l y in the election of Jan u a r y 1919 h a d they ever gained m o r e representatives. T h e n u m b e r of C o m m u n i s t s in the Reichstag j u m p e d f r o m 45 to 5 4 representatives. This resurgence of the left-wing parties after the accession of General Paul v o n H i n d e n b u r g to the presi­ d e n c y in 1925 stood out clearly in the electoral results. There never w a s a n alliance of the K P D a n d the S P D at the national level, however. Moreover, the electoral gains of 1928 w o u l d pr o d u c e little practical impact o n n a ­ tional policy, a n d the SPD's revival w o u l d prove illusory.32 T h e intricate twists a n d turns of developing policy within the S P D a n d K P D of the 1920s led t h e m t h r o u g h b o t h internal crises a n d continuing battles wit h each other.33 B y the late 1920s, the K P D h a d m o v e d decisively a w a y f r o m its “left”ph a s e of 1924-25, w h e n the policies of party leader R u t h Fischer a n d her supporters in the C o m i n t e r n , chiefly Zinoviev, h a d taken the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s in a putatively revolutionary direction a n d a w a y f r o m the “united front”tactics urged b y the party's right.34 This period also m a r k e d the decisive ascent of Stalin to leadership in the Soviet Union, w h i c h h a d portentous consequences for the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party— or at least for its national leaders. O n top of their tactical differ­ ences, Fischer w a s apparently too i n d e p e n d e n t - m i n d e d for Stalin's liking, a n d w h e n h e w a s able to take stronger control of C o m i n t e r n policy, h e coolly rid the party of Fischer a n d her partner, Arkadij M a s l o w , a n d h e finally destroyed their erstwhile C o m i n t e r n protector, Zinoviev. U n d e r the n e w leadership of the intellectually p l o dding but tractable Ernst T h ä l ­ m a n n a n d the other apparatchiks w h o m e t the approval of the M o s c o w based C o m i n t e r n bureaucracy, the K P D 's Central C o m m i t t e e initiated a series of policy a n d personnel c h a nges in 1926, expelling leading left o p ­ positionists a n d insisting o n loyalty oaths f r o m middle- a n d lower-rank­ ing party m e m b e r s . T h o u g h never absolute, the bureaucratic centraliza­ tion of the K P D a n d its policy subordination to the C o m i n t e r n w e r e reaching a climax b y 1928. D u r i n g the r e m a i n i n g years of the W e i m a r Republic, the C o m i n t e r n continued to play a central role in articulating the K P D 's national policies a n d official doctrine a n d selecting its execu­ tive personnel.35 But innovative a n d persuasive research published over the past t w o decades indicates that the KPD's politics— h o w e v e r internally authoritarian— w ere often “h o m e g r o w n ”a n d e v e n regionalized to a sig­ nificant extent. Opposition a n d a u t o n o m y regarding policy matters often existed at the local level, even if strong Soviet influence o n the KPD's lead­ ership ranks lasted for decades. Yet in spite of the m o r e n u a n c e d picture of the W e i m a r K P D that has b e e n emerging, the n e w research has not substantiality altered the older v i e w that the deeply hostile rivalry be-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

34

t w e e n the S P D a n d the K P D r e m a i n e d a crucial feature of national elec­ toral politics.36 If the K P D often s e e m e d to be a tightly unified a n d militantly revolu­ tionary party, the S P D appeared as a polyglot alliance of various left-wing groups that agreed above all o n the imp o r t a n c e a n d feasibility of parlia­ m e n t a r y r eformism in behalf of working-class objectives. Yet the specific content of those m o d e r a t e socialist objectives, in 1928 at least, b e c a m e a point of conflict. O l d divisions over “reform versus revolution”h a d never entirely disappeared, a n d the success of the S P D in the elections of 1928 brou g h t the issue of a positive socialist p r o g r a m into sharp relief.37 Since the revolution of 1918-19, the S P D h a d oscillated b e t w e e n its postW i l h e l m i n e role as a crucial guarantor of constitutional legitimacy a n d its original prewar role as the political representative of working-class as­ pirations a n d dissent. W h e n its few opportunities for institutional lead­ ership arose, the moderately socialist S P D failed to assert itself as a party in p o w e r w i t h clearly articulated goals of social transformation, let alone decisively pursue such goals. Rudolf Hilferding, the S P D theoretician a n d finance minister, articulated the party’ s priorities in M a y 1928 as “the m a i n t e n a n c e of d e m o c r a c y ”in order to provide “the indispensable pre­ condition for the realization of socialism.”38 Hilferding, a n ec o n o m i s t a n d the author of Finanzkapital (1910), the m o s t important attempt to bring Marxist e c o n o m i c s to bear o n the c o n ­ ditions of capitalism in the early twentieth century, w a s a native Austrian a n d h a d trained as a physician. C h o o s i n g to enter into active political life, h e b e g a n publishing articles o n economics, m o v e d to Berlin at the invi­ tation of the S P D theoretician Karl Kautsky, a n d b e c a m e a n adviser to the S P D leadership a n d a teacher at its party school (along with Rosa L u x e m ­ burg, with w h o m h e w a s never particularly close personally or politically) before W o r l d W a r I. Drafted into service b y Austria in 1915, Hilferding served as a physician b e h i n d the lines. H e w a s able to return to G e r m a n y during N o v e m b e r 1918, s o o n after the kaiser’ s flight a n d the proclamation of the G e r m a n Republic. After a brief affiliation wit h the dissident U S P D , Hilferding r e s u m e d his role as the m o s t important journalist a n d theorist for the W e i m a r S P D . 39 In the mid-i92os, Hilferding h a d g o o d reason to focus o n the n e e d to ensure institutional reforms, but h e also provided a rationale for the Social Democrats’ cautious e c o n o m i c policies, w h i c h h a d b e g u n to frustrate even the decidedly nonrevolutionary trade unions affiliated with the party. T h e unions n o w f o u n d themselves fighting to maintain previous gains instead of m o v i n g to reach n e w ones. As a result of the u n i o n s ’increasing mili-

1

Leftist Intellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

35

tancy, the delicate coalitions b e t w e e n liberals a n d m o d e r a t e socialists o n e c o n o m i c policy envisioned b y Hilferding a n d Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann, a politically flexible nationalist, m e t resistance. B o t h radical trade unionists a n d conservative business interests balked at the prospect of c o m p r o m i s e . Stresemann's death in 1929 b r o ught these m a n e u v e r s to a halt. Policy stalemate a n d increasing a c r i m o n y a m o n g the G e r m a n par­ ties preceded the global e c o n o m i c collapse of 1929, w h i c h only w o r s e n e d existing hostilities within a n d against the W e i m a r g o v e r n m e n t . 40 In short, the electoral successes of the Social D e m o c r a t s in 1928 a n d the c o n t i n u e d h o l d of the C o m m u n i s t s o n a large minority of workingclass voters served to e m p h a s i z e the apparent political strength of the G e r m a n Left a n d to intensify its internal weaknesses a n d divisions.41 B y the late W e i m a r period, the hostility b e t w e e n the G e r m a n Social D e m o ­ crats a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s reached a h i g h point, w h i c h persisted into the exile years, complicating a n d ultimately nullifying efforts to f o r m a c o m m o n front against the Nazis, e v e n after Hitler's accession to dictatorial power. O n e event in particular vividly displayed the hostility b e t w e e n the Social D e m o c r a t s a n d the C o m m u n i s t s a n d drove t h e m even further f r o m a n y possibility of coalition: the M a y D a y demonstrations of 1929 in Ber­ lin. For a fe w days, c o m p l e x institutional a n d ideological conflicts within the Left achieved austere a n d brutal form, taking o n a terrible s y m b o l i s m for m a n y of those caught u p in the struggle. At the heart of the b l o o d y events of M a y 1929 lay the inability of a party in p o w e r — the S P D —to c o n ­ trol the actions of public functionaries n o m i n a l l y u n d e r the direction of its elected officials. In this case, the S P D g o v e r n m e n t in Prussia— typically far m o r e assertive a n d c a n n y t h a n the national S P D leadership— loosed a n unreliable police force o n pugnacious but u n a r m e d K P D d e m o n s t r a ­ tors, w h o h a d defied a b a n o n M a y D a y parades declared b y Berlin police chief Karl Zörgiebel, a n S P D m e m b e r . Zörgiebel's b a n o n parades w a s clearly directed against the street activism of the K P D , but it w a s at least partly a n attempt to avoid e v e n uglier incidents in the g r o w i n g public violence b e t w e e n right- a n d left-wing groups in Berlin. T h e KPD's defiance of the b a n b r o u g h t o n a police riot instead. I n n ocent bystanders in the area of the demonstrations were shot d o w n . A p a r t m e n t s in the workingclass districts of W e d d i n g a n d N e u k ö l l n w e r e searched a n d ransacked. Local residents r e s p o n d e d with bitter verbal a n d physical assaults o n the police. O v e r a period of three days, the police escalated their violence, w h i c h resulted in s o m e forty deaths a n d d o z e n s m o r e injuries a n d a bit­ ter legacy of K P D hostility toward the S P D leadership.42

The Lost Debate

36

A m o n g those w h o r e s p o n d e d angrily to this fiasco w a s the radical Marxist theoretician a n d journalist Karl Korsch, w h o , t h o u g h n o longer a m e m b e r of the K P D , also h a d n o love whatsoever for the SPD. Korsch is well k n o w n to scholars of the E u r o p e a n Left as the author of Marxismus u n d Philosophie (M a r x i s m a n d Philosophy)t w h i c h along wit h G e o r g Lukacs's Geschichte u n d Klassenbewußtsein (History a n d Class Consciousness) a n d A n t o n i o Gramsci's Quaderni del Carcere (Prison Notebooks), has h a d a lasting influence as o n e of the innovative p ost-World W a r I investigations of the i m p o r t a n c e of Hegel to M a r x i s m . K o r s c h a n d Lukâcs h a d b e e n linked as objects of c o n d e m n a t i o n b y the C o m i n t e r n a n d were joined as well in the m i n d s of m a n y Marxists, w h o f o u n d in their writings of the early 1920s a bracing philosophical resistance to the ossified M a r x i s m of b o t h social d e m o c r a c y a n d C o m m u n i s m . 43 B o r n near H a m b u r g in 1886, Korsch h a d studied law, economics, a n d p h ilosophy at several G e r m a n universities. C o m p l e t i n g his doctorate in law at Jena in 1910, Korsch pursued legal studies in E n g l a n d f r o m 1912 to 1914. D u r i n g this time, h e also h a d extensive contacts with the Fabians, ultimately joining the group. H e returned to G e r m a n y at the outbreak of W o r l d W a r I a n d served in the infantry. Fred Halliday, a Korsch scholar a n d translator, m e n t i o n s that Korsch's opposition to the w a r led to the loss of his status as a reserve officer a n d a t e m p o r a r y d e m o t i o n to corporal. This act w o u l d appear to b e consistent w i t h s o m e of Korsch's later political decisions a n d directions in its willfulness, its romantic a n d symbolic soli­ darity, a n d its ultimately questionable effectiveness. H e w a s twice a w a r d e d the Iron Cross for bravery. Identifying his politics wit h those of the w a r ­ t i m e oppositionists a n d postwar revolutionists, however, h e joined the U S P D in 1919. In a n y case, during the volatile w e e k s a n d m o n t h s that fol­ l o w e d the declarations of a G e r m a n Republic o n 9 N o v e m b e r 1918, h e expressed his real enthus i a s m not for a n y of the organized socialist par­ ties but for the workers' a n d soldiers' councils (Räte). In their behalf, h e participated in the debates o n “socialization”of the e c o n o m y in Berlin during the early m o n t h s of the W e i m a r Republic. S o o n after the breakup of the councils during the consolidation of the n e w G e r m a n g o v e r n m e n t u n d e r the military a n d the right-wing of the SPD, K o rsch r e n e w e d his oppositionist politics f r o m within the K P D . 44 Korsch's early W e i m a r career w a s t u m u l t u o u s a n d productive, a m i x of political a n d intellectual activities. H e w a s a G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party m e m b e r f r o m 1920 to 1926, a n d h e served as a Reichstag delegate for the party. H e also w a s involved peripherally in the activities of the W e i m a r ­ ern Institute of Social Research, in w h o s e journals—Archiv für die Geschichte

Leftist Intellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

37

des Sozialismus u n d der Arbeiterbewegung (.Archive for the History of Socialism a n d the Workers'Movement) a n d its successor, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (Journal of Social Research)— h e often published review articles. H e m e t with the political a n d literary theorist G e o r g Lukâcs at a seminar o n M a r x ­ i s m held in Thuringia in 1923. Photographs of Korsch o n that occasion s h o w h i m d a p p e r a n d smilingly confident. In these years, his range of activities w a s remarkable. H e eve n taught part-time in a school for w o r k ­ ing-class students (the Karl M a r x Schule, formerly the Kaiser W i l h e l m s G y m n a s i u m ) in Berlin r u n b y his wife, H e d d a Korsch, w h o w a s in her o w n right a n active socialist educational reformer a n d teacher. Characteristi­ cally, h e o p e n l y voiced his objections to K P D policy a n d the party's e n d ­ less r o u n d of leadership changes. As a result, h e w a s forced out of the K P D in 1926. H e t h e n b e g a n a series of involvements with small, marginal leftw i n g groups. H e eventually b e c a m e a friend a n d “political teacher" to Bertolt Brecht, W e i m a r G e r m a n y ' s m o s t important playwright a n d poet.45 B y 1929, h e h a d taken u p his p e r m a n e n t position as a left-wing critic of the Left, a n d the appalling M a y D a y killings b y Berlin police offered h i m a n occasion to c o n d e m n b o t h m a j o r left-wing parties. In a n article p u b ­ lished in Die Aktion in M a y 1929, Kor s c h bitterly observed that “if the worker does not shoot, the police shoot for him. Evidence: the dozens of m u r d e r e d workers a n d uninvo l v e d passers-by, m e n , w o m e n , a n d chil­ dren!" H e further declared that “ the interest of the G e r m a n bourgeoisie is increasingly the s a m e as that of the G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y . " 46 H e also a i m e d his passionate scorn at the C o m m u n i s t s for calling for the demonstration in defiance of the police b a n a n d t h e n failing to provide leadership o n c e the street fighting began. Moreover, h e argued, the real crime of the C o m m u n i s t s w a s that they overlooked the true revolution­ ary potential of the w o r k i n g class s h o w n during the b l o o d y M a y days. T h e K P D used the event merely for p r o p a g a n d a gain wi t h o u t actually w a n t ­ ing a revolutionary conflict. Korsch co n c l u d e d that the only positive re­ sult of the street fighting w a s the demonstration of t o u g h defiance o n the part of the w o r k i n g class, a n d the repetition of the old a n d difficult les­ so n that it m u s t b e c o m e its o w n master.47 Korsch's attitude of “a plague o n b o t h your houses" regarding the t w o m a j o r parties o n the left h a d al­ ready b e c o m e a c o m m o n o n e a m o n g W e i m a r ' s left-wing intellectuals, a n d it characterized his writings for the rest of his life. For m a n y voters o n the G e r m a n left, the events in Berlin in 1929 h a d the effect of granting increased legitimacy to the n o w r e n e w e d a n d ulti­ mately disastrous C o m m u n i s t Party policy that labeled the Social D e m o ­ crats “social fascists."48 This hostile verbal turn (Sozialfaschismus w a s a

The Lost Debate

38

crude w o r d play o n the t e r m Sozialdemokratie) gave a s h o r t h a n d p r o p a ­ g a n d a formulation to the C o m m u n i s t s ' claim that the S P D posed a greater threat to the w o r k i n g class t h a n did the Nazis or other right-wing a n d nationalist groups. T h e police attacks of M a y w e r e a perfect m o m e n t to exploit this argument, a n d the C o m m u n i s t s h o p e d to gain votes a m o n g a ngry workers w h o h a d previously voted for S P D candidates. For the S P D leadership in Prussia, however, the M a y 1929 riots w ere a n ugly a n d dis­ tressing remi n d e r of the party's inability to transform electoral strength into a transforming social a n d e c o n o m i c policy— a n d of the d e p t h a n d persistence of divisions o n the left. T h e G e r m a n Left, still feeling the effects of the w a r t i m e a n d revolu­ tionary period, n o w experienced a n e w r o u n d of intensified conflicts, w h i c h took o n a d d e d urgency in the light of crises all over Europe. T h e fate of the Soviet Russian regime u n d e r the n e w leadership of J o s e p h Stalin b e c a m e a n especially compelling spectacle. W i t h i n limits, the Soviets also influenced the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s t h r o u g h their financial sponsorship of a n d doctrinal hold o n the C o m m u n i s t International. Despite the gro­ tesque distortion of political realities a n d terminology it represented, the Comintern's critique of “social fascism" hit the S P D at its point of great­ est theoretical ambivalence a n d political inconsistency: the p r o b l e m of reconciling its revolutionary rhetoric w i t h its acceptance of the W e i m a r legal system a n d the administrative imperatives d e m a n d e d b y participa­ tion in g o v e r n m e n t coalitions with nonsocialist a n d antisocialist (and, of course, antirevolutionary) parties. T h e resurgence of the doctrine of “social fascism" m e t with fierce criti­ cism f r o m former C o m m u n i s t s of significant international stature, includ­ ing L e o n Trotsky a n d August Thalheimer.49 E v e n t h o u g h the doctrine also faced s o m e resistance within the rank a n d file of the K P D , the party lead­ ership a n d its publications d r o n e d the “social fascist" line virtually u p to the m o m e n t of the Nazi seizure of power.50 Clearly, the S P D h a d sacrificed m u c h of its credibility a m o n g significant portions of the working-class constituency it claimed as its base. At the next Reichstag election in Se p ­ t e m b e r 1930, the S P D suffered a nationwide loss of roughly 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 votes, while the K P D gained s o m e i,300,ooo.51 In the N e u k ö l l n district of Ber­ lin— traditionally a n important S P D stronghold, but the scene of s o m e of the b l o o d y fighting of the previous year— the K P D outpolled all other parties, receiving 70,344 votes to the SPD's 65J83.52 Blutmai (Bloody M a y ) w a s surely not the sole cause of this electoral turnabout— debates about u n e m p l o y m e n t insurance, w h i c h were sharpened because of the rapid rise in working-class u n e m p l o y m e n t , wer e key in the election of S e p t e m b e r

Leftist Intellectuals a n d W e i m a r ' s Collapse

39

1930— but the M a y disaster w a s perhaps the m o s t traumatic a n d public reminder of intraleft political conflict since the m u r d e r s of Rosa L u x e m ­ burg a n d Karl Liebknecht. T h e Left's divisions h a d d e e p e n e d b y 1932, w h e n Korsch m a d e o n e of the m o s t e m p h a t i c of his m a n y comparisons b e t w e e n fascism a n d Bolshe­ v i s m as deceivers of the w o r k i n g class. His criticisms of the similarities b e t w e e n the behavior of the regimes in Italy a n d the Soviet U n i o n a n d the fascist m o v e m e n t in G e r m a n y appeared in the context of general remarks about the degeneracy of the postrevolutionary period in Europe. In the following passage f r o m ' T h e Marxist Ideology in Russia," Korsch b e g a n with a sharp attack o n Lenin:53 It w a s t h e o r t h o d o x M a r x i s t L e n i n w h o in o p p o s i t i o n to all his earlier d e c ­ larations first set u p t h e n e w M a r x i s t m y t h of the inherently socialist c h a r ­ acter of t h e Soviet state a n d of t h e t h e r e b y basically g u a r a n t e e d possibil­ ity of a c o m p l e t e realization of socialist society in a n isolated Soviet Russia. T h i s d e g e n e r a t i o n of t h e M a r x i a n doctrine to a m e r e ideological justification of w h a t in its actual t e n d e n c y is a capitalist state a n d thus, inevitably, a state b a s e d o n t h e s u p pression of t h e progressive revolution­ ary m o v e m e n t of t h e proletarian class, closes t h e first p h a s e of t h e history of t h e M a r x i s t i d e o l o g y in Russia.... In spite of a p p e a r a n c e s a n d of m a n y real differences c a u s e d b y t h e specific c o n d i t i o n s prevailing at different t i m e s in different countries, t h e historical d e v e l o p m e n t of Russian M a r x ­ ism (inclusive of its last Leninist a n d Stalinist stages) is essentially t h e s a m e as that of so-called Western (or Social Democratic) M a r x i s m of w h i c h it re­ ally w a s a n d still is a n integrating, t h o u g h at present o u t w a r d l y detached, c o m p o n e n t -----T h e bourgeois degeneration o f M a r x i s m in Russia today is in n o w a y essentially different f r o m t h e o u t c o m e of the series of ideological t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s w h i c h , d u r i n g t h e w a r a n d p o s t - w a r periods a n d , e v e n m o r e visibly, after th e ultimate annihilation of all f o r m e r M a r x i s t strong­ h o l d s b y t h e u n o p p o s e d a d v e n t of fascism a n d n a z i s m , befell t h e various currents of so-called W e s t e r n M a r x i s m J u s t as t h e "national socialism”of H e r r Hitler a n d t h e "corporative state”of M u s s o l i n i vie w i t h t h e " M a r x ­ i s m ”of Stalin in a n a t t e m p t to invade, b y t h e use of a pseudo-socialist ide­ ology, t h e v e r y brains a n d souls of their w o r k e r s as well as their physical a n d social existence, so d o e s t h e d e m o c r a t i c r e g i m e of a people's front g o v e r n m e n t presided b y the " M arxist”L e o n B l u m or for that matter, b y Mr . C h a u t e m p s himself, differ f r o m t h e present-day Soviet state n o t in s u b ­ stance, b u t o n l y b y a less efficient exploitation of t h e Marxist ideology. Less t h a n at a n y p r e v i o u s t i m e d o e s M a r x i s m t o d a y serve as a theoretical w e a p o n in a n i n d e p e n d e n t struggle of the proletariat, for t h e proletariat, a n d b y t h e proletariat.54

T h e Lost D e b a t e

40

This passage s h o w s Korsch's utter disillusionment wit h "the Soviet experi­ m e n t ”a n d his equally d e e p p e s s i m i s m about the state of working-class politics in Europe. His equation of the m e t h o d s of fascism a n d Stalinist M a r x i s m w a s quite bluntly put for a leftist of that time, but other critics w e r e following a similar path. M a x H o r k h e i m e r w a s a thinker m u c h further r e m o v e d f r o m the p o ­ litical activities of the left-wing parties t h a n K o r s c h was. T h e s o n of a w e a l t h y b u s inessman, H o r k h e i m e r w a s nearly a d e c a d e y o u n g e r t h a n Korsch and, t h o u g h h e h a d b e e n drafted into the w a r t i m e army, h e s a w n o active military service because of his ill health. H e sympa t h i z e d with the failed G e r m a n revolution of 1918-19 a n d turned to scholarship of a n oppositionist character. A philosopher b y training, H o r k h e i m e r increas­ ingly conceived of his discipline in social a n d historical terms. In 1930, h e w a s n a m e d as the n e w director of the Institute of Social Research. Early the following year, h e proposed a broad p r o g r a m of social analysis that w o u l d m a k e use of a variety of disciplinary perspectives, t h o u g h with a continu­ ation of the institute's strong Marxist orientation. T h e splintering a n d ultimate destruction of the W e i m a r g o v e r n m e n t b y the Nazis voided the institute's future in G e r m a n y . 55 In the closing years of the W e i m a r Republic, H o r k h e i m e r offered a n increasingly pessimistic picture of the political fate of the G e r m a n w o r k ­ ing class c omparable in s o m e of its conclusions to Korsch's 1932 essay "The Marxist Ideology in Russia.'' H o r k h e i m e r recorded his misgivings in a short b o o k entitled D ä m m e r u n g : Notizen in Deutschland (Twilight: Notes on Ger­ many). T h e book, constructed f r o m H o r k h e i m e r 'soccasional short writings f r o m 1926 to 1931, w a s published in 1934 u n d e r the p s e u d o n y m Heinrich Regius. Its radical outspokenness has forced a s e c o n d look at the earlier w o r k of Horkheimer, w h o s e postwar distance f r o m the m o r e politically e n g a g e d a n d M a r x i a n theory of old friends, such as Herbert Marcuse, has b e e n well d o c u m e n t e d . 56 D ä m m e r u n g is a provocative m i x of political o b ­ servations a n d occasionally lengthier philosophical reflections, along with a s ampling of critical appraisals of the behavior of groups a n d individuals a r o u n d him. At m a n y points of its fascinating yet fragmentary discourse, the b o o k gives evidence of the attenuation of Horkheimer's faith— w h i c h w a s always limited— in the value of institutional political action. T h e m o s t important of his considerations of the division of the G e r m a n Left w a s a handful of pages entitled "Die O h n m a c h t der d eutschen Ar­ beiterklasse'' ("The Powerlessness of the G e r m a n W o r k i n g Class''). Accord­ ing to Horkheimer, the G e r m a n wo r k i n g class w a s divided in terms of b oth revolutionary consciousness a n d its actual social a n d e c o n o m i c condi-

Leftist Intellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

41

tions. Reformist socialism's relative success m a d e e m p l o y e d workers leery of the risks that revolution w o u l d bring. T h e u n e m p l o y e d workers, h o w ­ ever, wer e frustrated b y the SPD's caution and, in H o r k h e i m e r ;s perception of things, shifted b a c k a n d forth b e t w e e n the C o m m u n i s t Party a n d the National Socialists. T h e factional politics o n the left, H o r k h e i m e r c o n ­ cluded, “c o n d e m n s the workers to actual powerlessness."57 E a c h of the workers' parties received Horkheimer's unforgiving verdict. First, H o r k h e i m e r scraped a w a y the KPD's facade of radicalism to uncover the antitheoretical sloganeering that served as the expression of its policy: “In the intellectual realm, the impatience of the u n e m p l o y e d finds itself repeated in the slogans of the C o m m u n i s t Party. Principles d o not take f o r m in a timely fashion f r o m a store of theoretically m a n u f a c t u r e d m a ­ terials, but are instead seized undialectically."58 T h e n h e turned to the Social Democrats: In contrast to C o m m u n i s m , t h e reformist w i n g of t h e w o r k e r s ’m o v e ­ m e n t h a s forgotten that effective i m p r o v e m e n t in h u m a n relations is i m ­ possible u n d e r capitalism. It h a s lost its h o l d o n all e l e m e n t s of theory. Its leadership is t h e precise i m a g e of t h e m o s t secure party m e m b e r s : m a n y try to k e e p their jobs b y all m e a n s available, e v e n th e a b a n d o n m e n t of basic loyalties; t h e fear of losing their positions increasingly b e c o m e s th e o n l y rationale for their actions. T h e ever present n e e d to repress w h a t r e m a i n s of their better consci o u s n e s s requires the c o n t i n u a l preparation of these reformist G e r m a n politicians to angrily a b a n d o n M a r x i s m as a n o u t d a t e d error. A n y precise theoretical p o i n t of v i e w is m o r e hateful to t h e m t h a n t h e bourgeoisie itself.59

W o r k e r s w i t h o u t parties representing their collective interests, parties w i t hout theoretical consideration of or faith in self-conscious workingclass radicalism, a n d intellectuals like H o r k h e i m e r himself, increasingly at o d d s w ith b o t h working-class a n d socialist party allegiances, all entered a period of crisis a n d defeat for w h i c h the t e r m disillusionment is entirely inadequate. T h e personal fates of Korsch a n d H o r k h e i m e r w o u l d be closely c o n ­ nected w i t h the events of the early 1930s that scarred the history of G e r ­ m a n y a n d the rest of Europe, t h o u g h in strikingly divergent ways. Korsch w a s b e c o m i n g a politically a n d intellectually isolated figure even before W e i mar's demise. T h e h e a d y atmos p h e r e of the early 1920s, w h e n Korsch, G e o r g Lukâcs, a n d a corps of y o u n g leftist intellectuals— several of w h o m w o u l d later play important roles in the Institute of Social Research u n d e r Horkheimer's leadership— could m e e t in a stimulating a n d productive

T h e Lost D e b a t e

42

w e e k of discussion at T h ü r i n g e n w a s long gone. For Korsch personally, the e n d of W e i m a r m e a n t the beginning of a series of m o v e s that w o u l d eve n ­ tually lead h i m a n d his wife into exile in the U nited States. These years w ere m a r k e d b y false starts o n theoretical books, the energy-sapping frus­ tration of sporadic a n d short-term teaching positions, a n d —the final cru­ elty of fate— a long illness a n d m e n t a l disability.60 For M a x Horkheimer, a career of scholarly a n d publishing productivity a n d the remarkably suc­ cessful leadership of a significant research institute in exile a n d in post­ w a r G e r m a n y lay in store. But in 1932, s uch futures wer e still u n i m a g i n ­ able, a n d the overriding crisis of the m o m e n t w a s the fate of G e r m a n y u n d e r the conditions of d e e p a n d increasingly violent internal division that a c c o m p a n i e d the world e c o n o m i c collapse.

T h e G e r m a n Left Defeated T h e failure of the divided G e r m a n Left to defend itself effectively against the a d v a n c e of a right-wing coalition that eventually a w a r d e d leadership to the National Socialists remains o n e of the m o s t disturbing features of the late W e i m a r period. G e r m a n leftists h a d not ignored the p r o b l e m of domestic fascism, w h i c h w a s m o s t clearly evident in the rise of National Socialism. B y early 1933, G e r m a n socialists across a w i d e spectrum of opin­ ion h a d formulated a variety of theoretical a n d practical responses to fas­ cism, but the i n a dequacy of those responses a n d the Left's ultimate d e ­ feat have occasionally threatened to eclipse the Left's legacy of resistance, which, for all its ineffectiveness, contrasts sharply w ith the behavior of the traditionally conservative political factions a n d parties. F r o m the early 1920s, the p h e n o m e n o n of National Socialism provided G e r m a n leftists w i t h a m p l e evidence of fascism's domestic appeal— a n d even occasional alliances b e t w e e n the S P D a n d K P D w e r e still possible in the crisis year of 1923.61 T h r o u g h the rest of the 1920s, however, the appeal of fascism in G e r m a n y appeared to have reached its limit. Nevertheless, the experience of the Italian Left h a d provided a n important cautionary e x a m p l e for the G e r m a n s . O t h e r fascist or similarly dictatorial rightist regimes in Europe also offered themselves as substantive w a r n i n g s to thoughtful o p p o ­ nents.62 T h e quality a n d n u m b e r of G e r m a n socialists' systematic efforts to articulate a critical understanding of fascism a n d its u n i q u e G e r m a n variant— National Socialism— as o p p o s e d to considerations of possible alliances with this n e w political force, set t h e m apart f r o m other politi­ cal parties a n d groups, particularly during the years 1930 to 1933.63 O n e response typical of a n organization or a m o v e m e n t in crisis ap-

Leftist Intellectuals a n d W e i m a r ' s Collapse

43

peared in d u e course a m o n g socialists in late W e i m a r : the return to c a n o n ­ ized master texts as a guide to action or understanding in the present. In o n e variation, the Left's response to National Socialism took the f o r m of a m o r e or less simplistic “class agent" theory derived nomi n a l l y — a n d quite crudely— f r o m M a r x or Lenin. T h e standard version of this analysis char­ acterized the Nazis as the errand-boys of m o n o p o l y capital. As early as 1924, Stalin enlarged this analysis to include attacks o n social d e m o c r a c y a n d fascism as “ twins"— a correlate of the “social fascism" propaganda.64 A n ­ other approach, o n e far m o r e fruitful, c a m e f r o m o n e of the dissenting K P D O theorists, the former K P D Central C o m m i t t e e m e m b e r August Thalheimer. H e sought a w a y to gain a theoretical lever o n the present b y refashioning the tools M a r x a n d Engels b e q u e a t h e d to socialism. T h a l h e i m e r h a d entered left-wing politics as a journalist for the S P D press. H e joined the Spartacist faction during W o r l d W a r I a n d w a s elected to the Central C o m m i t t e e of the K P D in 1919. A l o n g with Heinrich Brandler, h e b e c a m e a leader of the so-called right-wing faction of the K P D until the failure of the 1923 insurrection in G e r m a n y , w h i c h h a d b e e n u n d e r ­ taken at the insistence of the C o m i n t e r n leadership. Thereafter h e traveled, taught, a n d served o n the p r o g r a m c o m m i t t e e of the Comi n t e r n , but his opposition to the Comintern's official position o n fascism that h a d b e e n developed at the Sixth W o r l d Congress in 1928 led h i m actively to o ppose K P D policy. W i t h Brandler, h e edited the K P D O newspaper, Gegen den Strom (Against the Current), w h i c h routinely published articles b y L e o n Trotsky a n d others w h o h a d b e e n cast out of the C o m m u n i s t Party.65 Thalheimer's m o s t significant contribution to left-wing political theory w a s a critical analysis of fascism in 1928, p r o d u c e d while h e w a s still a m e m b e r of the K P D . 66 After his expulsion f r o m the party, however, the articles r e m a i n e d u n p u b l i s h e d until J a n u a r y 1930, w h e n they a p ­ peared in Gegen den Strom u n d e r the title “U e b e r d e n Faschismus" (“O n Fascism"). His provocative discussion took as its touchstone Karl Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In response to the defeat of the French Revolution of 1848, M a r x h a d constructed his f a m o u s a n d fero­ cious indictment-cum-analysis of the dictator Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte a n d the social forces that h a d yielded u p the seco n d French Republic to this execrable n e p h e w a n d his supporters. Thalheimer's purposes were similar to Marx's— that is, criticism a n d analysis—but instead of referring to the threat of National Socialism in G e r m a n y , his remarks focused o n Italian Fascism. This is not surprising. In 1928, G e r m a n y ' s distinctive f o r m of fascism h a d yet to m a k e m u c h of a political dent in the institutional structure of the W e i m a r Republic.

T h e Lost D e b a t e

44

For Thalheimer, B o n a p a r t i s m a n d fascism were not the s a m e thing, but they w e r e related.67 W i t h i n limits, T h a l h e i m e r asserted, Marx's study of France in the mid-nineteenth century could still provide the kind of understanding crucial to the defeat of fascism. W i t h its c o m b i n a t i o n of n u a n c e d political perceptiveness a n d careful yet flexible attentiveness to Marx's writings, “U e b e r d e n Faschismus" contributed greatly to the Left's array of theoretical approaches to state-party dictatorship.68 O n e of the first conditions of Bonap a r t i s m that T h a l h e i m e r linked to his o w n times w a s a “severe defeat of the proletariat at a time of d e e p so­ cial crisis."69 A struggle wi t h o u t victory created a heightened awareness of the threat of civil conflict a n d social revolution. F r o m that point on, the class groups in p o w e r w o u l d b e m o r e alert. In Thalheimer's account, the revolutionary ferment in E u r o p e after the armistice took the place of the J u n e days of 1848, w h i c h M a r x h a d described so vividly. Ultimately, in the face of a politically activated w o r k i n g class, increased executive p o w e r appeared to the bourgeoisie as the savior of its interests.70 Despite the dif­ ferences in details, T h a l h e i m e r argued, Bonaparte's c o u p f o u n d its histori­ cal e c h o in Mussolini's takeover of the Italian state.71 Marx's powerfully expressed analysis of the failed French Revolution of 1848 w o u l d serve not only T h a l h e i m e r but also n u m e r o u s left-wing critics of the degeneration of democratic republics into dictatorships.72 In a similar ma n n e r , Thalhei­ mer's o w n essay served as the f u n d a m e n t a l m o d e l / o p p o n e n t for several of the G e r m a n socialist critiques of fascism. A m o n g the points of Thalheimer's analysis that w o u l d s o o n s h o w u p in the w o r k of other left-wing theorists of fascism w a s his description of such m o v e m e n t s as the association of déclassé elements f r o m all classes.73 B y allowing greater attention to the c o m p l e x political expression of u n ­ derlying social conflicts, T h a l h e i m e r m a d e possible a methodological shift a w a y f r o m the simplistic e c o n o m i c det e r m i n i s m of the C o m i n t e r n scribes. T h a t is, T h a l h e i m e r effectively challenged the political morality plays sanctioned b y the C o m m u n i s t Party's official Diamat-based (.D i a m a t w a s s h o r t h a n d for dialectical materialism) “agent" theories of fascism in w h i c h certain classes, or their “agents," played scripted roles in every m a j o r social conflict. H e did not ignore class conflict a n y m o r e t h a n M a r x had, but h e understood, as M a r x certainly did, that party politics, the re­ lation b e t w e e n state p o w e r a n d various e c o n o m i c interests, and, m o s t important for Thalheimer, the developing conditions for right-wing dic­ tatorship offered a m o r e complicated a n d shifting set of conflicts a n d al­ liances t h a n could be expressed in the “clarity" of a two-class model. As a result of his fairly successful heresy, T h a l h e i m e r b e c a m e o n e of the m o s t

Leftist Intellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

45

cited references a m o n g those G e r m a n leftists w h o w i s h e d to distance themselves or their analysis of fascism f r o m the C o m i n t e r n a n d its "agentof-the-bourgeoisie”or "social fascism”lines. Moreover, B o n a p a r t i s m theory w o u l d s o o n find its w a y into a variety of analyses of b o t h fascism a n d C o m m u n i s m . 74 T h a l h e i m e r h a d m e n t i o n e d in passing a c o m p a r i s o n that w o u l d e v e n ­ tually b e c o m e a staple of m a n y discussions of interwar politics: " T h e 'De­ c e m b e r gang' of Louis N a p o l e o n w a s the counterpart of the small, revo­ lutionary secret organization of the French w o r k i n g class ofthat time. T h e Fascist party is the counterrevolutionary counterpart of the C o m m u n i s t Party of Soviet Russia.”75 T h e s e remarks stand as evidence of a broadly comparative perspective o n dictatorship, but T h a lheimer clearly intended to praise the a c h i e v e m e n t of the Russian Revolution. T h e c o m p a r i s o n of single-party d o m i n a n c e in Italian a n d Soviet state operations later b e c a m e a m e t h o d b y w h i c h to label b o t h states, along w ith Nazi G e r m a n y , as to­ talitarian dictatorships. T h a l h e i m e r ’ s Leninist outlook of course h a d n o t h i n g to d o wit h s uch a n o p e n c o n d e m n a t i o n of the Soviet Union, but several y o u n g e r writers o n the subject of totalitarianism, w h o h a d also b e e n originally Leninist in their political orientation, w o u l d not hesitate to offer s u c h d a m n i n g comparisons. In 1928, w h e n Tha l h e i m e r b e g a n writing his path-breaking revision of the B o n a p a r t i s m thesis, the Left w a s still preoccupied w i t h its internal divisions, a n d the threat of fascism s e e m e d slight. T h e N S D A P vote h a d actually declined b y nearly 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 in the M a y elections ofthat year. T h e party lost t w o deputies as a result, placing only twelve deputies in the n e w Reichstag— fewer t h a n the Bavarian People’ s Party.76 T h e collapse of the w o r l d e c o n o m y that b e g a n in 1929, however, created conditions that w o u l d grant the m o v e m e n t n e w life, a lthough it w a s no t im m e d i a t e l y evident that the Nazis w o u l d c o m e to d o m i n a t e the b r o a d right-wing opposition to the W e i m a r Republic. A m o r e traditional conservative or­ ganization, the G e r m a n National People’ s Party (Deutschnationale Volks­ partei— D N V P ) , led b y industrialist Alfred Hugenberg, m i g h t have s e e m e d at the t i m e far m o r e likely to provide the strongest a n d m o s t appealing right-wing leadership. But f r o m 1930 to 1933, H u g e n b e r g a n d his party r e m a i n e d stuck in a regional a n d electoral d e a d end, while the brash a n d violently d y n a m i c National Socialists registered swift gains. T h e N S D A P ’ s electoral platform w a s a n inchoate m i x of anti-Semitism, anti-Left hysteria, militarism, c o n ­ tradictory e c o n o m i c promises tailored to various local or regional audi­ ences w i t h incompatible interests, a n d irrational völkisch appeals, all ex-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

46

pressed in violent rhetoric a n d w r a p p e d in the m o s t visually striking p u b ­ lic displays that Jose p h G oe b b e l s a n d local Nazi propagandists could muster. E v e n m o r e blatantly t h a n a n y of its political rivals, the Nazi m o v e ­ m e n t never h a d a consistently rational central doctrine. For several years, particularly in the context of e c o n o m i c disaster a n d parliamentary d e a d ­ lock of the early 1930s, this proved n o disadvantage.77 In the Reichstag elections of 14 Sept e m b e r 1930 the Nazis received over 6.41 million votes— s e c o n d only to the SPD's 8.58 million.78 W i t h this stunning electoral success, the National Socialist G e r m a n Workers' Party h a d not gained m e r e legitimacy but h a d attained real political ascendancy within the ranks of the opposition to the evanescent W e i m a r coalition of liberals, the Center Party, a n d the SPD. Fascism w a s n o longer a m e r e threat; it h a d b e c o m e the chief political rival to the t w o great socialist parties. At the level of left-wing theory, Thalheimer's preelection analy­ sis clearly required extension a n d revision. Also placed o n the left-wing theorists' urgent a g e n d a w a s the exploration of the possibility of a united front against the National Socialists. This w a s not to be. T h e lack of cooperation b e t w e e n G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s a n d Social D e m o c r a t s has long b e e n o n e explanation of the Nazis' successful take­ over of G e r m a n y . 79 But as late as the fall of 1932, o n e former C o m m u n i s t w h o h a d g o n e over to the S P D in 1929, H e n r y Pachter (then k n o w n b y his G e r m a n n a m e , H einz Pächter), declared that the breach b e t w e e n the t w o parties m a r k e d irreconcilable conceptions of working-class d e m o c r a c y a n d that a united front w o u l d arise only out of desperate opposition to a m u t u a l e n e m y . Pachter's article “K o m m u n i s m u s u n d Klasse" (“C o m m u ­ n i s m a n d Class”) appeared in Rudolf Hilferding's journal, Die Gesellschaft, in Oct o b e r 1932. In its depiction of t w o o p p o s i n g concepts of dictator­ ship— bourgeois a n d proletarian— it a ttempted to explain the lack of a c o m m o n left-wing front against National Socialism a n d at times antici­ pated the theory of totalitarian convergence b e t w e e n N a z i s m a n d C o m ­ m u n i s m . H e also contributed to o n e of the m o s t important genres of p o ­ litical writing of this century: the a n t i - C o m m u n i s t p olemic written b y a n ex-Communist. Pachter, b o r n in Berlin in 1907, entered socialist politics f r o m a n u p ­ per-middle-class, G e r m a n - J e w i s h background. As a y o u n g m a n , h e h a d participated in o n e of the hiking a n d singing y o u t h groups described u n d e r the general he a d i n g of Wandervögel (birds of passage). S o m e t i m e s seen b y historical a n d sociological c o m m e n t a t o r s primarily as forerunners of the Hitler Youth, m a n y of these groups diverged sharply f r o m that pat­ tern, attracting y o u n g leftists w h o later b e c a m e M a r x i a n socialists. In his

Leßst Intellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

47

late teens, Pachter switched his affiliation to the y o u t h league of the K P D at the urging of his friend Karl August Wittfogel. Wittfogel w a s fast b e c o m ­ ing a leading G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t intellectual, a n d as a scholar of Asian history a n d society, h e generated a v o l u m i n o u s b o d y of work, c a p p e d b y his p o st-World W a r II study, Oriental Despotism. Since the early 1920s, h e h a d b e e n a n important m e m b e r of the g r o u p affiliated w i t h the Institute of Social Research, t h o u g h his particular b r a n d of M a r x i s m a n d his K P D m e m b e r s h i p kept h i m always at a theoretical a n d political distance f r o m its leading m e m b e r s . Like Pachter, R u t h Fischer, a n d Franz Borkenau, Wittfogel eventually b e c a m e a cold w a r critic of Soviet totalitarianism. In addition to his political friendships a n d connections, Pachter also m e t H a n n a h Arendt while they were university students at Freiburg, a n d the t w o w o u l d r e m a i n friends during the years of exile. Pachters studies in Freiburg a n d Berlin focused o n history a n d philosophy, a n d a m o n g his professors w ere the Marxist historian Arthur R osenberg a n d the philoso­ phers E d m u n d Husserl a n d Karl Korsch.80 A s K o r s c h ’ s writings often did, Pachters article o n the state of the G e r m a n Left in 1932 indicated a will­ ingness to stake out a n iconoclastic position. A s a y o u n g writer o n poli­ tics, then, Pachter w a s a radical e v e n within the c a m p of dissenting left Social Democrats. In “C o m m u n i s m a n d Class,”Pachter cut t h r o u g h all the hopeful cant about the possibilities for unity o n the left. H e declared flatly that a u n i o n of the G e r m a n Left w a s a n illusory goal: A proletarian u n i t e d front against fascism is possible w h e n e v e r there is a specific goal that d e m a n d s struggle: in m o s t cases just a h u m a n life or a h o u s e to b e d e f e n d e d — a n y action of si m p l e solidarity w h o s e initial politi­ cal i m p a c t is o n l y m i n i m a l . A proletarian u n i t e d front b e c o m e s impossible as s o o n as it is c o n c e i v e d in political terms, as s o o n as it requires a concrete n o t i o n of joint actions, as s o o n as t h e workers' parties are to c o n c l u d e e v e n a m e r e truce

(.Burgfriede) regarding agitation a n d theory. Th i s is n o t very

surprising.81

It m i g h t in fact hav e appeared surprising to s o m e o n the left w h o viewed a united socialist front as the m o s t effective w e a p o n against fascism. But Pachter q u o t e d a n authoritative source to bolster his a r g u m e n t about the undesirability of s u c h a bloc: Ernst T h ä l m a n n , the h e a d of the K P D . T h ä l m a n n h a d argued, also in 1932, that h e o p p o s e d cooperation with the S P D “in defending the present system of bourgeois rule.”82 Pachter d r e w several political conclusions f r o m the peculiar situation of the K P D in 1932 a n d f r o m T h ä l m a n n ’ s remarks. T h e K P D , Pachter of-

The Lost Debate

48

fered, w a s vulnerable to repression b y the conservative coalition that held effective p o w e r in G e r m a n y , but it could not see its w a y to for m i n g a n e c ­ essary alliance wit h the SPD. W h y ? Practical a n d ideological confusion. B y continuing to call for the dictatorship of the proletariat— m e a n i n g the dictatorship of the party— a n d ridiculing the parliamentary fo r m s of W e i m a r , the C o m m u n i s t s tore u p the g r o u n d o n w h i c h they stood. T h e Nazis also spoke of dictatorship, but m o r e persuasively. B y idealizing the role of the party as the representative of the masses a n d b y virtually dis­ pensing w i t h a n y n e e d for the w o r k i n g class except for its n u m b e r s , the C o m m u n i s t s e n c o u r a g e d the desperate frustration a n d swiftly c h a n g i n g political loyalties that characterized the behavior of m a n y u n e m p l o y e d a n d discontented workers. For the K P D , Pachter asserted, a n y m a s s su p ­ port for radical c h a n g e w o u l d suffice so long as the party r e m a i n e d in the v a n g u a r d of the revolution: “If... the masses— as seen b y the party— fill a v a c u u m that a n y other m a s s could fill just as well, t h e n the party lead­ ership— as seen b y the masses— is a v a c u u m that a n y other party could fill as long as it m e e t s their quasi-religious desires. A party that bases its pro­ p a g a n d a o n this principle, therefore, runs a clear risk of actually w o r k i n g for another party. T h a t is w h y lately w e h a v e so often seen those m o v e s b a c k a n d forth b e t w e e n C o m m u n i s t s a n d Nazis___ ”83 Pachter w a s articu­ lating the observation c o m m o n o n the n o n - C o m m u n i s t W e i m a r left that m a n y voters in the late W e i m a r period sought “salvation”in their support for divergent extremist parties, a kind of desperate a n d inconsistent p o ­ litical behavior: if the Nazis could not deliver, t h e n perhaps the C o m m u ­ nists could, a n d vice versa.84 Because of the dangers that a politicized irrationalism presented, there could be n o w a y of joining u p with a party that h a d b e c o m e a “ church,”as Pachter t e r m e d the K P D . 85 T h e appeal of irrational devotion to the “ theol­ o g y ”of the m o v e m e n t , h e implied, w o u l d be as likely to w o r k in favor of fascism as to aid in proletarian revolution. W i t h o u t claiming that the K P D w o r k e d in frequent collusion with N a z i s m — as s o m e K P D leaders contin­ u e d to say of the S P D — Pachter pointed out the dangerous folly of K P D policy. Moreover, h e argued, the K P D h a d actively assisted the N S D A P in its attempt to overthrow the S P D in Prussia, a n d its o p e n joy in response to S P D defeat belied the claim to a sincere desire for a left-wing united front.86 In the s e c o n d half of his essay, Pachter traced the history of efforts to create a united G e r m a n Left since the W o r l d War. N o n e of these attempts h a d resulted in lasting cooperation. O n l y desperate circumstances a n d clear, limited goals could produce a K P D - S P D alliance, h e concluded. E v e n in the crisis of 1932, “a united front c a n n o t b e 'manufactured' but will, in

Leftist Intellectuals a n d W e i m a r ' s Collapse

49

practical terms, be f o r m e d w h e n e v e r the class e n e m y tries to strike b o t h his e n e m i e s w i t h o n e blow."87 Just as Pachter s e e m e d to intimate, that b l o w w a s not long in c o m i n g , a n d it struck at b o t h of its left-wing targets with manifest p o w e r a n d effectiveness. W i t h dispassionate skepticism, Pachter h a d analyzed the persisting division of the G e r m a n Left. In the s a m e demythologizing spirit, another former G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t — a n d Pachters teacher— Arthur Rosenberg, p r o d u c e d a study of Bolshevism that attempted to explain the split in the international Left: Geschichte des Bolschewismus (.A History of Bolshevism). Pachter h a d cited Rosenberg's b o o k approvingly in his o w n essay.88 Like Pachter's hard - h e a d e d c o m m e n t a r y o n the division of the G e r m a n w o r k ­ ers' m o v e m e n t , this book, the m o s t important W eimar-era historical ac­ cou n t of the effect of the Russian Revolution a n d Bolshevism o n the in­ ternational workers' m o v e m e n t , also appeared in the crisis year of 1932. Arthur R o s e n b e r g w a s a university instructor of politics a n d history a n d a veteran of n u m e r o u s conflicts o n the radical G e r m a n left. In his capacity as a scholar, Rosenberg h a d written striking reinterpretations of ancient history a n d taught university courses in Berlin— t h o u g h h e never attained regular faculty status. H e h a d also b e e n a m e m b e r of the Reichstag delegation of the K P D , but as a result of the increasing C o m i n t e r n c o n ­ trol over policy at the national level, Rosenberg h a d left the C o m m u n i s t Party in M a y 1927 a n d retired f r o m his seat in the Reichstag the following year.89 F r o m 1928 to 1938, h e wrote a n d published a series of b o o k s that have held their place a m o n g the best wor k s o n E u r o p e a n politics a n d his­ tory p r o d u c e d during the interwar period.90 Rosenberg's account of the rise of the Bolshevist faction to p o w e r in Russia— a n d the i m portance of this fact to the entire E u r o p e a n workers' m o v e m e n t — remains o n e of the m o s t important d o c u m e n t s of the confrontation b e t w e e n the once-domin a n t tradition of G e r m a n revolutionary socialism a n d its d y n a m i c a n d successful rival, Bolshevism. Geschichte des Bolschewismus unfolds a nar­ rative of political Marxism's transition a w a y f r o m the beliefs of the f o u n d ­ ing generation of theorists a n d activists to Leninist Bolshevism. After h a v i n g spent m u c h of the 1920s as a Leninist a n d active K P D leader, Rosenberg h a d b e c o m e sharply critical of the Soviet U n ion. H e n o w ar­ g u e d that it w a s o p p o s e d to the concept of true socialism: ' T h e full free­ d o m of the m i n d that belongs to a true socialist society is certainly not available in Soviet Russia, because the ruling party dictatorship cannot live w i t h o u t a rigid, d o g m a t i c doctrine— obligatory for all— the so-called Leninism.''91 This passage captures precisely b o t h the tone a n d the su b ­ stance of Rosenberg's disdain for the Soviet regime in the early 1930s, but

T h e Lost D e b a t e

50

his criticisms wer e not limited to Soviet failures to provide for individual a n d intellectual freedom. According to Rosenberg, the Soviet system h a d also failed to achieve its m o s t important self-declared goals: socialist eco­ n o m i c transformation a n d international working-class revolution. R o s e n b e r g a n n o u n c e d his critical op i n i o n of the kind of e c o n o m i c system that h a d developed in the Soviet Unio n , a n d like m a n y other left­ ist critics of the Soviet C o m m u n i s t s , h e called this system Staatskapital­ ismus— state capitalism. This particular choice of terminology is i m p o r ­ tant, for it could s o m e t i m e s be used to d e n y implicitly the Bolsheviks' claim to h a v e c o m p l e t e d a n e c o n o m i c revolution a n d to have established socialism. T h e t e r m is a controversial o n e that has appeared in the analy­ ses of a diverse range of writers, but it also h a d impeccable origins o n the revolutionary left: Lenin himself h a d developed the concept of state capi­ talism to help explain the N e w E c o n o m i c Policy (NEP) of limited capital­ i s m that the Soviet U n i o n a dopted in the early 1920s to recover m o r e rap­ idly f r o m the effects of w a r t i m e e c o n o m i c devastation. Le nin claimed, however, that a “proletarian state”w o u l d ensure that the benefits of this type of capitalist d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d not b e limited to the bourgeoisie.92 E v e n so, use of the t e r m state capitalism b y other socialists w o u l d s o o n indicate a n intent m o r e hostile t h a n explanatory. R o s enberg argued that the state capitalism policy led the Soviet C o m ­ munists to assert absolute dictatorial control to prevent local e c o n o m i c enterprise f r o m slipping a w a y f r o m g o v e r n m e n t a l authority. In effect, h e claimed that N E P w a s the e c o n o m i c equivalent (and predecessor) of Stalin's doctrine of “ revolution in o n e country'': “State capitalist Russia n o longer d e p e n d e d o n the irresistible a d v a n c e of the world revolution. It could exist peacefully within the capitalist world.''93 Clearly, Rosenberg n o w took his place as o n e of the m o s t critical participants in the continu­ ing debates ab o u t h o w to characterize the Soviet e c o n o m y : w a s it truly socialist, or w a s it really a variant of capitalism that used the state instead of private o w n e r s h i p as the m e a n s of capital accumulation? If the latter wer e the case, h o w could the Soviet U n i o n serve as a m o d e l for a n e w so­ cialist society in the already industrialized nations? This specifically eco­ n o m i c question, with its decisive political implications, w o u l d reappear in later discussions of b o t h the Soviet a n d the Nazi regimes. R o s enberg c o n d e m n e d eve n m o r e sharply the political, cultural, a n d intellectual state of the n e w regime in Russia c o m p a r e d w ith those of the w o r k i n g class of W e s t e r n Europe, a n d his concluding verdict o n the twin p h e n o m e n a of the Russian Revolution a n d the C o m i n t e r n m a d e the point m o r e specific:

Leftist Intellectuals a n d W e i m a r ' s Collapse

51

T h e Bolshevist doctrine a n d m e t h o d w e r e terrifically progressive for the Russia of t h e Czars. B u t t h e y w e r e reactionary in t h e w e s t e r n industrial­ ized states, w h e r e t h e b o u r g e o i s revolution h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e d , w h e r e t h e p e a s a n t s are n o long e r t h e greatest p o r t i o n of t h e p o p u l a t i o n , a n d w h e r e t h e proletariat h a s already l e a r n e d to build a n d g o v e r n its o w n or­ g a n i z a t i o n s ____ ... T h e s h a d o w s of the great Russian R e v o l u t i o n still cover t h e rest of the international w o r k i n g class. B u t t h e C o m m u n i s t International h a s n o m o r e influence over th e active m o v e m e n t of t h e w o r l d proletariat. W h a t t h e Bolsheviks a c c o m p l i s h e d in t h e course of th e Rus s i a n R e v o l u t i o n re­ m a i n s a n i m m o r t a l historic deed. B u t insofar as t h e international b o u r ­ geoisie still fears B o l s h evism, it is mistaken. It h a s r e a s o n to fear t h e inter­ national Marx i s t proletariat a n d w o r l d revolution, b u t “B o l s h e v i s m ”is n o t identical w i t h these things.94

Rosenberg's Geschichte des Bolschewismus a n d his histories of the W e i m a r Republic w e r e important sources for several of the other writers discussed in this study. For example, Franz Borkenau, like Rosenberg a n e x - c o m m u ­ nist, a c k n o w l e d g e d the acuity of Rosenberg's analysis of Bolshevism.95 But Borkenau's praise appeared several years after the publication of Geschichte des Bolschewismus,w h e n the consequences of fascist victory h a d m o m e n ­ tarily o v e r s h a d o w e d the debates o n the left that Pachter a n d Rosenberg h a d described. As it happe n e d , in the closing m o n t h s of 1932, it fell not to R o s enberg or Pachter but to B o r k e n a u to write o n e of the last critical analyses of fascism to be published in G e r m a n y after the Nazi takeover. T h e shocking electoral successes of the National Socialists, w h i c h af­ ter the balloting of July 1932 enabled the Nazis to b e c o m e the m o s t n u ­ m e r o u s party faction in the Reichstag, stimulated further reconsideration of the origins a n d class roots of fascism o n the part of its left-wing critics.96 O n e of the individuals w h o took u p this effort w a s the scholar-journalist Franz Borkenau. B o r n a n d reared in Vienna, B o r k e n a u studied at the U n i ­ versity of Leipzig a n d joined the K P D in 1921— at a time w h e n party m e m ­ bership w a s declining.97 H e served for several years in Berlin as a leader of the party's student organization, a n d h e also p e r f o r m e d research for the C o m i n t e r n u n d e r the direction of the e c o n o m i s t E u g e n Varga. After h e left the C o m m u n i s t Party in 1929 in a dispute over his opposition to the “social fascism" line (along wit h his y o u n g e r friend Richard Löwenthal), h e r e m a i n e d a n i n d e p e n d e n t Marxist for several years before beginning a decisive m o v e a w a y f r o m revolutionary socialism tow a r d a n u n o r t h o d o x political liberalism. H e w o r k e d as a researcher wit h the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research f r o m the late 1920s until 1932, but h e took u p free-lance

T h e Lost D e b a t e

52

political writing as a n additional m e a n s of support a n d as a n outlet for expressing his distinctive views o n E u r o p e a n events.98 Borkenau's revision of left-wing thinking a b o u t fascism confronted the a n o m a l o u s appearance of National Socialism in a n industrially a d ­ v a n c e d country, w h e n m a n y socialist analyses of fascism h a d described such m o v e m e n t s as a function of e c o n o m i c wnderdevelopment taking the f o r m of a party dedicated to accelerated capital accumu l a t i o n o n behalf of a w e a k bourgeoisie. T h e case of G e r m a n y c o n f o u n d e d this hypothesis. Borkenau, writing in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft u n d Sozialpolitik, at­ t e m p t e d a revised “sociology of fascism" in the light of events in G e r m a n y . But b y the time his article w a s published, in February 1933, even Borke­ nau's revisionist conclusions lagged b e h i n d the rapid course of political developments. Nevertheless, his analysis deserves attention because of its attempt to describe fascism as a possible political correlate of industrial modernization, o n e of the first of m a n y such efforts.99 “Zur Soziologie des Faschismus" (“T o w a r d a Sociology of Fascism") b e g a n b y placing G e r m a n fascism in the foreground of the argument. N a z i s m w a s the first fascist m o v e m e n t to gain strength in a fully industri­ alized nation, a n d B o r k e n a u raised the question of w h e t h e r fascism w a s “a manifestation specific to capitalistically u n d e r d e v e l o p e d nations or a w o r l d w i d e developmental t e n d e n c y of the present period."100 Bor k e n a u m e n t i o n e d in passing the writings of August T h a l h e i m e r a n d the Austrian Social D e m o c r a t Otto Bauer o n the subject, but h e quickly proceeded to offer a description of fascism that diverged sharply f r o m theirs at several points.101 M o s t important, h e attempted to m o v e a w a y f r o m the m o d e l of Italy as the “ideal type" of fascism, stressing the g r o w i n g n u m b e r a n d the local characteristics of similar m o v e m e n t s that h a d appeared in Europe during the postwar period, regardless of their success at seizing state power. In this essay, B o r k e n a u used the w o r d totalitarian to describe the char­ acter of Italy's reigning political m o v e m e n t . H e argued that Italian Fascism h a d e m e r g e d as the c o n s e q u e n c e of a u n i q u e set of circumstances: a w e a k bourgeoisie, a strong w o r k i n g class, a n d the c o n s e q u e n t lack of a n a d ­ equate m e a n s of capital accumulation. In 1922, Mussolini h a d taken c o n ­ trol of the Italian state, w h i c h h e t h e n used to force radically m o d e r n i z ­ ing policies o n the nation, including concentration of state p o w e r a n d acceleration of private industrial growth, all u n d e r the control of a n “ex­ clusive dictatorship of a totalitarian Party."102 Italy's relative backwardness a n d working-class resistance to the rationalizing a n d therefore socially disruptive introduction of capitalist production h a d created a n o p e n i n g

Leftist Intellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

53

for Fascism. T h e Fascists h a d u s u r p e d the special historical role of the bourgeois class in carrying out capitalization while successfully claiming to a d v a n c e only national interests. In other words, the Fascists w o u l d use the Italian state to transform the e c o n o m i c a n d social relations of its civil society. B o r k e n a u also joined the attack l a u n c h e d b y u n o r t h o d o x leftists against the crude e c o n o m i s m of s o m e Marxist theories of fascism b y in­ sisting that the fascist totalitarian party w a s not simply the agent of the bourgeoisie a n d that the fascists exerted p o w e r over the e c o n o m y through a state apparatus that did not derive its legitimacy f r o m o n e class alone.103 T h e class origins of fascism were m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n that: the fascists d r e w their m o s t zealous followers f r o m the déclassés of all classes of society, B o r k e n a u argued, following Thalheimer. H e co n c l u d e d (with u n c h a r a c ­ teristic o p t imism) that the G e r m a n bourgeoisie w o u l d not allow itself to be ruled b y the National Socialists. H e w o u l d survive to revise his analy­ sis still further in exile. A n o t h e r writer w h o participated in the debates a m o n g socialists about the rise of fascism w a s the labor lawyer a n d scholar Franz N e u m a n n , b o r n in Kattowitz ( n o w Katowice, Poland) in 1900. H e also fits squarely into the generation of G e r m a n socialists w h o s e careers as political analysts carried over into the postwar years. H e is best k n o w n for his w a r t i m e study of the Nazi state, B e h e m o t h , but his prewar a n d postwar writings h a v e recently b e c o m e the focus of r e n e w e d debate. H e is also k n o w n as a n important m e m b e r of the Institute of Social Research, t h o u g h h e c a n n o t be regarded as a m e m b e r of the Frankfurt School's “inner circle." A veteran of W o r l d W a r I, w h o apparently entered service late in the conflict a n d s a w far m o r e action as a supporter of the abortive revolution of 1918-19 t h a n h e did at the front, h e b e c a m e a n extremely active a n d effective Weimar-era labor lawyer associated with the m o d e r a t e w i n g of the SPD. H e studied with o n e of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t legal theorists a n d practitioners of the day, the controversial Carl Schmitt, w h o joined the Nazi Party in 1933. But N e u ­ m a n n also studied w i t h or w o r k e d alongside socialist a n d trade u n i o n le­ gal experts, including H e r m a n n Heller, Otto K a h n - F r e u n d , a n d Ernst Fraenkel. Because of his identities as a p r o m i n e n t Social D e m o c r a t a n d as a Jew, h e w a s o n e of the first G e r m a n s to be stripped of his citizenship u n d e r Nazi rule. T h e destruction of his career in G e r m a n y forced h i m into exile in England, w h e r e h e studied w i t h the influential scholar a n d leftw i n g activist Harold Laski. His years in the United States are certainly far m o r e important phases of his intellectual career, but it is useful to recall his W e i m a r years, for they alert us to the origins of his m o r e directly po-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

54

litical a n d legal interests, w h i c h set h i m in contrast with the core gr o u p of institute theorists, including T h e o d o r A d o rno, M a x Horkheimer, a n d Herbert Marcuse, w h o were m o r e involved with the analysis of culture a n d philosophy.104 Unlike several of his politically active generational peers, N e u m a n n in exile initially m o v e d a w a y f r o m his position as a m o d e r a t e Social D e m o ­ crat t o w a r d a m o r e radical a n d critical stance o n the legacy of W e i m a r , eventually turning e v e n further f r o m party activism t h a n they would. E x a m p l e s of thinkers w h o s e paths briefly paralleled N e u m a n n ' s w e r e Borkenau, Pachter, a n d Löwenthal. But they were all former m e m b e r s of the K P D , a party that h a d openly o p p o s e d a n d even despised the c o m p r o ­ mise structure of W e i m a r . In exile, they m o v e d steadily toward parliamen­ tary a n d anti-Soviet reformist socialism. T h e y were also e v e n less closely c o n nected wit h the Institute of Social Research t h a n N e u m a n n w o u l d be. O n l y B o r k e n a u p e r f o r m e d research a n d published b o o k s a n d articles u n ­ der its auspices in the early 1930s, during the course of a n increasingly distant relationship w ith the institute's n e w leading group.105 As a labor lawyer, teacher, a n d S P D activist, N e u m a n n stood apart f r o m b o t h former C o m m u n i s t s a n d the institute's leading theoreticians. H e h a d witnessed the destruction of the W e i m a r Republic f r o m the perspective of the orga­ nized labor m o v e m e n t . T h e objects of his political a n d intellectual c o m ­ m i t m e n t s h a d failed a n d suffered destruction. After the utter defeat of the G e r m a n Left in 1933, h e w o u l d never recover m u c h faith in the ability of the w o r k i n g class either to achieve social revolution or to defeat fascism with o u t external aid. His political transformation a n d disillusionment reveal w i t h p o i gnant clarity the intensity of the pressures that defeat a n d exile b r o ught to bear o n m a n y m e m b e r s of the G e r m a n Left. In the spring of 1933, N e u m a n n w a s briefly taken into police custody a n d then “ visited" b y the paramilitary S A (Sturmabteilung— S t o r m T r o o p ­ ers) a few w e e k s later at his law office. H e left G e r m a n y s o o n thereafter.106 F r o m exile in England, N e u m a n n indicated the c h a n g e in his political outlook that the Nazi's success h a d e n g e n d e r e d w h e n h e published his first epitaph for the W e i m a r Republic (the first, that is, of several versions h e w o u l d write over the next t w e n t y years): “ T h e D e c a y of G e r m a n D e ­ mocracy," in the O c t o b e r - D e c e m b e r 1933 issue of the Political Quarterly.107 N e u m a n n ' s harshest criticism in this s u m m a r y w a s his j u d g m e n t o n the W e i m a r Constitution. H e declared that the National Socialist Revolution (his term) succeeded because of the “ Anti-State w h i c h the democratic State tolerated t h o u g h it w a s b o r n to destroy democracy."108 In short, the G e r m a n Parliament could never ch a n n e l the influence of G e r m a n parties

Leftist Intellectuals a n d W e i m a r ' s Collapse

55

but instead b e c a m e their hapless creature. N e u m a n n w e n t so far as to argue that “G e r m a n Parties w e r e — apart f r o m o n e u n i m p o r t a n t excep­ tion [ u n n a m e d ] — based o n a totalitarian philosophy (WeltanschauungsParteien). T h e y laid claim to the w h o l e of the individual. T h e y w ere totali­ tarian parties.”109 B y this use of the t e r m totalitarian, N e u m a n n apparently intended to point out that the parties attempted to control as m a n y aspects of their m e m b e r s ' lives as possible. For example, h e described h o w e a c h party developed its o w n clubs not only for political discussion a n d action but also for music, sports, youth, professions, a n d various types of laborers. Moreover, N e u m a n n argued, s u c h parties did “no t suit parliamentary d e m o c r a c y a n d in the second place the radical totalitarian parties did not recognise the rules of the parliamentary g a m e . ”110 At this juncture, N e u m a n n ' s critique of “ totalitarian parties”did not incorporate a critique of the totalitarian state, but that w a s not long in c o m ing. His blanket use of the term, w i t h o u t the previously c o m m o n quotation marks, perhaps merely indicated the spread of the word's use to describe a range of intol­ erant a n d oppressive political m o v e m e n t s . But his description of “totali­ tarian parties”left little d o u b t that h e included the S P D as well as the K P D u n d e r this label. For the m o m e n t , however, h e focused not o n the p r o b ­ l e m of dictatorship but o n the circumstances in liberal W e i m a r that h a d permitted the capture of the state b y its least tolerant a n d m o s t anticonstitutional party. N e u m a n n also repudiated the suicidal political tolerance a n d fastidi­ ous representativeness of the W e i m a r g o v e r n m e n t . U n d e r the W e i m a r Constitution, strictly proportional representation guaranteed even rela­ tively tiny parties a voice in the Reichstag. T o be sure, this w a s a m o r e d e m o ­ cratic a p p o r t i o n m e n t of political representation t h a n w a s c o m m o n a m o n g the world's republics, but it carried the risk of granting legitimacy to ex­ treme a n d even o penly antirepublican parties. T h e Nazis, for example, h a d placed a d o z e n brown-shirted deputies o n the floor of the Reichstag in 1928 with a m e r e 2.6 percent of the national vote. T e n or m o r e parties routinely elected delegates to the Reichstag, m a k i n g the formation of a ruling g o v ­ e r n m e n t coalition a n extremely difficult a n d delicate project.111 E v e n the w o r k i n g class a n d its trade unions, w h i c h N e u m a n n h a d served as a legal adviser for s o m e years, did not escape his wrath. T h e a p ­ parent guarantee of a legal a n d i n dependent role in society granted to the trade unio n s b y the W e i m a r Constitution did not secure such a position in practice. O n c e the e c o n o m y b e g a n to fail, w a g e s w ere fixed b y the state instead of b y collective bargaining. As a result, strikes diminished in n u m -

The Lost Debate

56

ber a n d strength, shifting f r o m offensive to defensive actions. T h e ultimate d emise of G e r m a n trade u n i o n i s m c a m e about after Hitler's a p p o i n t m e n t to the chancellorship, w h e n the leadership of s o m e labor organizations desperately attempted to cut loose f r o m the S P D a n d adopt a quasi-fascist p r o g r a m in order to salvage s o m e i n d e p e n d e n t status u n d e r the Nazis. N e u m a n n argued that this tactic gained n othing a n d surrendered a great deal in terms of socialist principles a n d that the n a k e d o p p o r t u n i s m it d e m ­ onstrated m a y have further sapped traditionally left-wing workers' ability to retain a sense of ideological difference f r o m the National Socialists.112 N e u m a n n ' s attack o n totalitarian parties in 1933 w a s but o n e element of his general a r g u m e n t ab o u t the collapse of W e i m a r , but the clearest targets of his critique wer e easy to identify: the Nazi Party a n d the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party, w h i c h h a d b o t h a i m e d to destroy parliamentary d e ­ m o c r a c y in N e u m a n n ' s opinion.113A s m e n t i o n e d at the beginning of the chapter, this particular line of a r g u m e n t has b e c o m e o n e of the durable explanations for the d e m i s e of W e i m a r , a n d it has also provided o n e path to the m o d e l of totalitarianism so c o m m o n a m o n g cold w a r political theo­ rists. H e r e a n d there in his writings o n dictatorship, N e u m a n n w o u l d continue to appropriate this analytical pairing of N a z i s m a n d C o m m u ­ nism, but h e m a d e systematic use of it only after W o r l d W a r II. Yet in his d e e p involvement in the labor politics of the first G e r m a n Republic as well as his drift f r o m o n e kind of o r t h o d o x party M a r x i s m — Social Democratic in his case— tow a r d a critically i n d e p e n d e n t leftism increasingly skepti­ cal about Marxist notions of social change, h e stands as a representative figure. N e u m a n n ' s early critique of totalitarianism, however, r e m a i n e d firmly rooted in Marxist class categories, a n d his opposition always took the f o r m of adv o c a c y of democratic socialism, o n e of the distinguishing features of his use of a version of the concept of totalitarianism that per­ sisted until his death in 1954.114 Discussions of s o m e of his seminal writ­ ings o n the workings of the Nazi state appear in later chapters. E v e n before N e u m a n n wrote his hostile epitaph for W e i m a r , another y o u n g Social D e m o c r a t w h o w o u l d later b e c o m e N e u m a n n ' s friend a n d collaborator, Otto Kirchheimer, h a d b e e n dissecting the problematic char­ acter of the W e i m a r constitutional order, but w i t h a n initially far m o r e de v e l o p e d interest in the p r o b l e m of dictatorship. B o r n a n d reared in Heilbronn, K i r c h heimer studied law a n d politics in Münster, Cologne, Berlin, a n d B o n n . In B o n n , h e wrote his dissertation for Carl Schmitt in 1928 o n the topic of the divergent doctrines of the state advocated b y the socialists a n d the Bolsheviks.115 H e published a n article in Zeitschrift für Politik that s a m e year synthesizing a r g u m e n t s d r a w n f r o m his longer aca-

Leftist Intellectuals a n d W e i m a r ' s Collapse

57

d e m i e treatise.116 His m o s t important early manuscript, W e i m a r — u n d W a s D a n n ? Entstehung u n d Gegenwart der Weimarer Verfassung (W e i m a r a n d W h a t T h e n ? T h e Origin a n d Present Status of the W e i m a r Constitution), w a s published in 1930. It w a s a remarkably prescient analysis of G e r m a n y ' s political pr e d i c a m e n t a n d remains o n e of the m o s t perceptive of the leftw i n g studies of the W e i m a r constitutional regime. In 1932, h e analyzed the constitutional theory of Carl Schmitt's Legalität u n d Legitimität (Legal­ ity a n d Legitimacy), arriving at a critical perspective o n the b o o k but a d ­ miring Schmitt's clear statements o n the constitutional issues the W e i m a r r egime could not resolve. C o n t i n u i n g to focus his research o n the politi­ cal a n d institutional crises of the m o m e n t , h e also contributed analyses of the Prussian SPD's debacle of 1932 a n d the national constitutional u p ­ heavals of that s a m e year. It is w o r t h noting that, despite their sharply critical tone t o w a r d official S P D policy, all of these late W e i m a r articles appeared in the SPD's theoretical journal, Die Gesellschaft.117T h e pr i m a r y interest of Kirchheimer's early articles lies in their increasing reliance o n Luxemburgist notions of radical socialist d e m o c r a c y to criticize b o t h the practices of the Soviet U n i o n a n d the increasingly authoritarian W e i m a r government. Kirchheimer's 1928 article, "Zur Staatslehre des Sozialismus u n d Bol­ schewismus'' ("Toward a Doctrine of the State in Socialism a n d Bolshe­ vism''), still s h o w s the strong disdain for liberal constitutional ideology a n d practice that typified the w o r k of his one-time mentor, Carl Schmitt. H e relied heavily o n Schmitt's f a m o u s d i c t u m that sovereignty belongs to the individual or institution capable of deciding w h a t a n " e m e r g e n c y " situation is a n d acting outside of tightly d e m a r c a t e d — but ultimately breachable— liberalist b o u n d s . 118 His characterization of the Soviet system of rule shows, however, that Kirchheimer w a s interested in radical revo­ lutionary responses to the weaknesses of liberal theory a n d practice— not Schmitt's authoritarian conservative responses. Kirchheimer w a s particularly intrigued b y a n d skeptical of the possi­ bilities represented b y the Bolshevik notion of dictatorship of the prole­ tariat, as w e see in the following passages: " T h e Bolshevik dictatorship does not e m b o d y a n organic process of transition; its exceptional quality as a n e m e r g e n c y situation consists in the fact that in order to establish the socialist state of social equality it m u s t first create the prerequisite c ondi­ tions. This leads to a n u m b e r of political measures w h i c h reveal the char­ acteristic trait of every dictatorship: in order to realize its cherished ide­ als it is forced to resort to measures that ipso facto contradict the ideal to be realized."119This contradiction did not force Kirchheimer's rejection of

T h e Lost D e b a t e

58

the Soviet f o r m of dictatorship at this time, however, for at least the “Bol­ shevik concept" of proletarian dictatorship h a d not yet b e e n hitched to traditionally liberal constitutional fo r m s — m e r e “legal m e c h a n i s m s , " in Kirchheimer's vie w at that t i m e — a n d the Soviet U n i o n defied categori­ zation as a traditional state because it replaced state sovereignty with class sovereignty: “ T h e Bolshevik prophets of the political m y t h of world revo­ lution—w h o consider Russia merely as the launching p a d — are the sworn, irreconcilable e n e m i e s of the p o w e r s that are lined u p b e h i n d the facade of T h e state/ that is o n the o n e h and, the capitalist p o w e r groups with their imperialist policies and, o n the other, the holders of the theory of twofold progress, the w a r d e n s of the legal m e c h a n i s m , namely, Social D e m o c r a c y a n d the petty bourgeoisie."120 T h e attitudes a n d assumptions of Kirchheimer in 1928 about the value of Bolshevist theory a n d practice w o u l d u n d e r g o a swift transformation u n d e r the pressures of the next five years. Turn i n g f r o m L e n i n i s m a n d the n e o - H o b b e s i a n i s m of Schmitt, h e s o o n discovered in the writings of M a r x a n d Rosa L u x e m b u r g a series of quite different ideas o n political legitimacy. W e i m a r — a n d W h a t T h e n ? published in 1930, reveals the beginning of the shift in Kirchheimer's thinking. O p e n i n g wit h a quotation f r o m Rosa L u x e m b u r g ' s Sozialreform oder Revolution (Social Reform or Revolution) in w h i c h she e m p h a s i z e d that constitutions c a n onl y m a r k — but not e x ­ t e n d — the limits of the revolutions that precede t h e m , Kirchheimer's p a m p h l e t presented a brilliantly a rgued a n d critical dissection of the W e i m a r Constitution. O n the specific issue of the appearance of dictator­ ship in G e r m a n y , Kirchheimer claimed that G e r m a n y ' s current situation presented a “ bourgeois political democracy," quite limited in its rearrange­ m e n t of prewar political a n d social power, that w a s in transition toward a bourgeois dictatorship along the lines of Italian Fascism. T h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n the t w o kinds of bourgeois regimes w a s unclear, h e continued, but it w a s a mistake to believe, as m a n y m o d e r a t e socialists did, that the constitution could be salvaged for the purpose of socialist transformation: “ This constitution of a bourgeois value system in the process of dissolu­ tion can be n o t hing m o r e t h a n the servant of w h o e v e r is m o m e n t a r i l y the m o r e powerful."121 H e was, as events demonstrated, remarkably accurate in this c o m p o n e n t of his analysis.122 N e u m a n n , however, r e s p o n d e d to Kirchheimer's article in a critical review that answered the question “ Wei­ m a r a n d W h a t T h e n ? " b y urging “first try W e i m a r ! " — indicating clearly that in 1930 N e u m a n n still felt the constitutional opportunity offered b y the fragile W e i m a r Republic should not b e written off so quickly.123 U n ­ happily for b o t h m e n , t h o u g h in confirmation of Kirchheimer's predic-

Leftist Intellectuals a n d W e i m a r ' s Collapse

59

tion, the conservative parties, d o m i n a t e d b y the wealthiest sectors of the agrarian a n d business classes, at first attempted to rule u n d e r the aegis of Hindenburg's e m e r g e n c y decrees f r o m 1930 to 1932— w i t h the SPD's “tol­ eration" of this makeshift ( t h o u g h constitutional) arrangement.124 T h e following year, however, the ruling conservative groups felt compelled to seek a broader popular base a n d risked a n alliance with the o n e m a s s party w h o s e p r o g r a m w a s m o s t like theirs: the National Socialist G e r m a n W o r k ­ ers' Party. W i t h the conclusion of this a g r e e m e n t in the cabinet of J a n u ­ ary 1933, fascist-style dictatorship in G e r m a n y w a s about to b e c o m e a n ac­ c o m p l i s h e d fact. O n l y w e e k s after Hitler's a p p o i n t m e n t to the chancellorship, Kirch­ h e i m e r published a n article that o n c e m o r e returned to the t h e m e of dic­ tatorship, "Marxismus, Diktatur, u n d Organisationsformen des Proletari­ ats'' ("Marxism, Dictatorship, a n d the Organizational F o r m s of the Proletariat'').125 Here, Kirchheimer placed himself m o r e clearly t h a n ever in the tradition of Rosa L u x e m b u r g a n d other left-wing critics of Bolshe­ v i s m a n d at the s a m e time offered a perspective o n the n e e d for a prole­ tarian revolution that s e e m s as remarkably optimistic a bout actual possi­ bilities as W e i m a r — a n d W h a t T h e n ? h a d b e e n accurate a n d pessimistic in its appraisal of t h e m three years earlier. T h e article e m p h a s i z e d the i m p o r t a n c e of the relationship b e t w e e n the revolutionary proletariat a n d b o t h party a n d state institutions of d e ­ mocracy, stressing that the Bolshevist regime of the Soviet U n i o n served as a cautionary m o d e l — not a n ideal type— of working-class democracy: W h e n the civil w a r w i t h its dire n e e d for t h e centralization of all e n e r ­ gies w a s over, th e structure of t h e state practically c o i n c i d e d w i t h that of t h e party. T h e soviets h a d b e c o m e e m p t y shells a n d Lenin's t h e o r y of the state w i t h its dialectical contradiction b e t w e e n authoritarian revolution a n d primitive d e m o c r a c y h a d b e e n definitively t r a n s f o r m e d to c o n f o r m to his u n e q u i v o c a l l y authoritarian t h e o r y of t h e party. A n d t h e authoritar­ ian party h a d f o u n d its linear c o n t i n u a t i o n in t h e actual structure of the state. ... T h e Russian e x a m p l e is classic for that n a r r o w i n g of t h e g o v e r n m e n ­ tal basis w h i c h m o s t gravely jeopardizes t h e c h a n c e s of a proletarian d e ­ m o c r a c y , as R o s a L u x e m b u r g , as well as M a r t o v a n d D a n , s h o w e d again a n d again.126

T h e purpose of K i r c h heimer's critical appraisal of L e n i n i s m w a s clearly to restate the n e e d for the G e r m a n w o r k i n g class to "bring about the final victory of proletarian democracy.''127

The Lost Debate

60

In the course of his article, Kirchheimer favorably cited b o t h Borkenau's analysis of fascism a n d Rosenberg's analysis of Bolshevism— as well as the w o r k of L u x e m b u r g a n d the M e n s h e v i k s Yulii M a r t o v a n d Fyodor D a n . 128 Moreover, h e s e e m e d to conclude that avoiding the first of these t w o d e v e l o p m e n t s — fascism— w o u l d b e a violent process: “W e are p r o b ­ ably facing the situation expressly foreseen as possible in the Linz Pro­ g r a m of the Austrian Socialist party, namely, that the w o r k i n g class c an c o n q u e r executive political p o w e r only b y a civil w a r w h i c h has thus b e e n forced u p o n it.”129 Avoiding the seco n d fate, a Bolshevist regime in G e r ­ m a n y d e p e n d e d o n d e m o c r a c y within the revolutionary m o v e m e n t a n d democratic state institutions. As a strategy for the conditions prevailing in early 1933, Kirchheimer's article, so full of revolutionary h o p e s a n d plans, n o w s e e m s to be a n easy target. Yet as a restatement of democratic socialist ideals for a m a s s political m o v e m e n t in a time of extraordinary crisis, the essay offered a reasonable formula for a radical democratic poli­ tics of resistance. Kirchheimer's essay h a d also t o u c h e d o n the left-wing d i l e m m a of seeking a w a y to c o m b a t a fascist or Bolshevist dictatorship a n d yet avoiding a retreat to conservative or liberal positions. Like Bork e n a u a n d N e u m a n n , Kirchheimer w o u l d live to theorize a n d write a n ­ other day. At the s a m e time, a n o ther g r o u p of writers, generally m o r e experi­ e n c e d in the benefits a n d costs of participating in the exercise of g overn­ m e n t a l p o w e r t h a n suc h y o u n g e r radicals as Kirchheimer, Borkenau, or N e u m a n n , attempted to judge the next stage of political c h a n g e in G e r ­ m a n y . Unlike s o m e of the y o u n g e r radicals, they successfully avoided the conclusion that violence w a s either i m m i n e n t or necessary. F r o m 1924 until just after the Nazi seizure of power, the m a i n journal of Social D e m o ­ cratic intellectuals w a s Die Gesellschaft. Rudolf Hilferding, w h o m w e have already encountered in his roles as S P D theorist a n d W e i m a r finance m i n ­ ister, w a s the journal's editor. T h r o u g h it, h e w a s party publicist a n d lead­ ing thinker. H e also gathered about h i m a g r o u p of writers w h o helped p e r f o r m m a n y of the h a n d s - o n chores of editing a n d writing. A hig h per­ centage of this core g r o u p consisted of exiled M e n s h e v i k s w h o h a d settled in Berlin during the 1920s.130 Criticism of the K P D w a s a c o m m o n t h e m e of articles in Die Gesell­ schaft u p to a n d shortly after the Nazi Machtergreifung (seizure of power). These articles w ere the w o r k of not just the M e n s h e v i k contingent but also other writers across the s p e c t r u m of the Social Democratic Party. T h e issue-by-issue contents of Die Gesellschaft offer a revealing, t h o u g h hardly conclusive, portrait of the concerns of the SPD's m o d e r a t e intellectuals

Leftist Intellectuals and Weimar's Collapse

61

during the crisis m o n t h s f r o m the July 1932 ouster of the S P D regime in Prussia b y Chancellor Franz v o n P a p e n to the a p p o i n t m e n t of Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship early the following year. If the substance of the ar­ ticles in Die Gesellschaft is a n y guide, it is not too m u c h to say that in late 1932 a n d early 1933, the SPD's leading intellectuals r e m a i n e d almost as c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the C o m m u n i s t s as they were about the Nazis. O n e of the last issues of Die Gesellschaft b e g a n with Hilferding's appraisal of the N o v e m b e r 1932 election, “Z w i s c h e n d e n E n t s c h e i d u n g e n ”(“B e t w e e n Decisions”). T h e article e m p h a s i z e d the caution that the S P D m u s t s h o w in its dealings w i t h the K P D . Hilferding's piece w a s followed b y Alexander Schifrin's hostile evaluation of the recent political role of the K P D entitled “ W e g e aus der S paltung”(“Routes out of the S c h i s m ”), a n d later in the s a m e issue Walter Biehahn's friendly review of Arthur Rosenberg's G e ­ schichte des Bolschewismus appeared. There w a s n o m ajor assessment of the continuing threat of National Socialism in this issue.131 T h e m o d e r a t e SPD's preoccupation with the C o m m u n i s t s h a d at least s o m e logical basis, t h o ugh. T h e N o v e m b e r 1932 elections h a d s h o w n a m a r k e d a n d rapid d r o p in the level of support for the N S D A P — a loss of roughly 2 million votes since the July elections. M e a n w h i l e , the K P D h a d m a d e m a j o r gains— nearly 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 votes above its July total. In addition to its electoral gains, the K P D h a d recently g o n e to n e w extremes in its struggle for working-class votes b y joining the N S D A P in support of a wild­ cat transport workers' strike in Berlin, w h i c h also occurred in N o v e m b e r 1932.132 T h e level of voter support for the liberal parties a n d the Center Party s h o w e d little change. T h e w e a k e n e d liberals of the G e r m a n D e m o ­ cratic Party (DDP), for example, h a d not recovered f r o m their debacle of July 1932 a n d thus w o u l d h o l d n o effective p o w e r in the negotiations for a n e w parliamentary coalition. In v i e w of these facts, the SPD's shift in attention toward the K P D appears less foolish a n d spitefully factional t h a n it m i g h t at first glance. T h e Nazis' electoral support h a d apparently crested a n d b e g u n to w a n e , while the K P D — w h i c h d r e w m o r e directly f r o m the SPD's traditional constituency in the w o r k i n g class— s h o w e d a steady in­ crease. 133 T h e e xtreme dangers presented b y b o t h the C o m m u n i s t s a n d the Nazis troubled the S P D leadership as it waited for the H i n d e n b u r g clique to attempt to f o r m yet a n o ther g o v e r n m e n t w i t h S P D “toleration”but w ithout S P D participation. A s Rudolf Hilferding wrote to Karl Kautsky, a n S P D elder, o n 1 D e c e m b e r 1932: “ T h e situation is certainly unpleasant. T h e fascist danger still threatens a n d the increase [in support] for the C o m m u ­ nists disturbs our people e v e n more. Indeed, a further a d v a n c e in this di­ rection w o u l d certainly bring the greatest danger that the attraction of the

The Lost Debate

62

C o m m u n i s t s w o u l d increase powerfully as s o o n as the y surpassed our n u m b e r s . It is not a pretty scene, but adventurist stupidities w o u l d only m a k e things worse.”134 T h e d a y after this letter w a s written, H i n d e n b u r g dismissed P a p e n as chancellor a n d appointed General Kurt v o n Schleicher in his place. E v e n so knowledgeable a n d u n e a s y a n observer of these m a ­ neuvers as Hilferding could hardly h a v e suspected that, within t w o m o n t h s , President H i n d e n b u r g w o u l d be persuaded b y his conservative advisers to d u m p Schleicher, n a m e Hitler chancellor of G e r m a n y , a n d thereby give the Nazis the opportunity to seize power, w h i c h the voters h a d denied t h e m twice in 1932.135 But the political a n d social defeat of the working-class parties at the h a n d s of the Nazis a n d their allies in 1933 w o u l d be as swift as it w a s strange. B y mid-1933, G e r m a n leftists h a d a s s embled a battery of analytical tools for the study of state-party dictatorships. T hese theoretical analyses of the n e w regimes in Italy, the Soviet U nion, a n d G e r m a n y a p p r o a c h e d but, with only a few rare exceptions, did not yet e m b r a c e the terminology or the comparative analytical frame w o r k of ''totalitarianism theory.”M o r e important, left-wing opposition to National Socialism suffered terrible defeats even as the theoretical insights of G e r m a n leftists g r e w suppler a n d m o r e differentiated. T h e gap b e t w e e n theory a n d practice has rarely if ever h a d such a h igh cost. Defeat in early 1933 a n d the flight into exile during the following m o n t h s w e r e d u e to forces that w e r e quickly b e y o n d the reach of those w h o m i g h t h ave b e e n in possession of a "correct analysis.” T h e G e r m a n Left w a s divided, o v e r w h e l m e d , baffled. N o effective a r m e d resistance t o o k place. S u c h "adventurist stupidities”w o u l d h a v e b e e n entirely out of character for the SPD. T h e Nazis, assessing the relative d a n ­ gers o n the left accurately, turned their attention first to the less n u m e r ­ ous but m o r e physically formidable C o m m u n i s t s . T h e S P D m e t its fate shortly thereafter. Soon, the G e r m a n Left that could never share a politi­ cal platform shared instead political d i s m e m b e r m e n t a n d destruction.136 W h e n the days a n d w e e k s of decisive action came, left-wing resistance to the Nazis' Gleichschaltung (coordination) w a s fragmentary a n d patheti­ cally inadequate. Despite all the faults of the G e r m a n Left, it bears repeat­ ing that a m o n g the m o s t important elements in the National Socialists' initial success in seizing control of the state apparatus w a s the coopera­ tion offered— h o w e v e r grudgingly a n d with whatever levels of suspicion— b y President v o n Hind e n b u r g , the police, the army, a n d several key lead­ ers of the conservative parties. A careful review of the events in G e r m a n y a n d elsewhere in E u r o p e that followed the a p p o i n t m e n t of the leader of the National Socialist Party to the chancellorship yields e x a m p l e s of

Leftist Intellectuals a n d W e i m a r ' s Collapse

63

missed historical opportunities as well as the p o w e r of contingent fac­ tors.137 As it h a p p e n e d , H e n r y Pachter;s pessimistic verdict o n the possi­ bilities for a united Left in the fall of 1932 turned out to be correct. E v e n so, the shocking collapse in 1933 a n d the political division a n d defeat of the G e r m a n Left did not preclude its further analytical productivity, for e ven in exile, several intellectuals associated with the G e r m a n Left c o n ­ tinued their analysis of “ fascist,”“Bolshevist,”“Stalinist,”or “ totalitarian” dictatorship as i n d e p e n d e n t writers a n d scholars or as party-affiliated theorists.

B Socialists Perspectives

in

Dark Times:

from

Exile,1933-39

T h e political antithesis o f fascism is not Bolshevism, f r o m w h i c h fascism h a s simply taken over its political m e t h o d s a n d its c o n t e m p t for personal rights a n d intellectual freedom; the antithesis is revolutionary democratic socialism.

—Alexander Schifrin, 1933 T e n different cliques o f G e r m a n émigrés squat in ten different P rague cafés at­ tempting to discover ten different w a y s o f rebuilding the ruined G e r m a n w o r k ­ ers' m o v e m e n t In V i e n n a a n d Zürich, Strasbourg a n d Paris, A m s t e r d a m a n d C o p e n h a g e n , the s a m e picture presents itself T h e G e r m a n proletariat h as m a n y saviors. B u t it will receive n o salvation in socialism f r o m these saviors.

—Otto Rühle, 1934I?]

T h e period f r o m 1933 to 1939 w a s a disastrous time for the E u r o p e a n Left generally a n d for the G e r m a n Left in particular. W i t h i n m o n t h s of the Nazi Machtergreifung, b o t h the K P D a n d the S P D lay in scattered fragments. M a n y of their leaders were in jail, o n the run, or already in exile. Rank-andfile party m e m b e r s r e m a i n i n g in G e r m a n y retreated into w h a t r e m a i n e d of private life or e n g a g e d in courageous but often tragically isolated a n d uncoordinated acts of resistance. B y 1934, fascist m o v e m e n t s or parties aping fascism in m a n y i mportant respects controlled or threatened the g o v e r n m e n t s of several E u r o p e a n nations. Italy a n d n o w G e r m a n y set the m o d e l s for fascist rule. Austria a n d Spain w o u l d s o o n follow this trend.1 C o m p o u n d i n g the political a n d theoretical difficulties confronting left­ ists w a s the fact that, t h r o u g h o u t this period, the domestic policies of the Soviet U n i o n u n d e r the leadership of Joseph Stalin often s h o w e d a b r u ­ tality that rivaled or e ven surpassed that of the fascists. E v e n so, f r o m the

64

Perspectives from Exile, 1933-39

65

perspective of the democratic, antifascist Left, there were genuinely h o p e ­ ful m o m e n t s in the decade as well— the workers' rising in Austria in 1934, the French socialists' electoral victory in 1936, a n d the leftist revolution in Spain t o u c h e d off b y the right-wing military rising in July of that s a m e year. Nevertheless, as the potential for greater resistance to fascism suc­ c u m b e d in each particular case to the contingencies of international p o ­ litical a n d military conditions, policy choices that w e n t awry, leftist groups at o d d s w i t h their leadership, a n d the rapidly shifting config­ urations of p o w e r in those times a n d places, these m o m e n t s sooner or later b r o ught wit h t h e m n e w causes for dismay.2 For G e r m a n leftists in exile, as for tens of th o u s a n d s of others during the 1930s, the loss of h o m e a n d citizenship b r o ught additional sources of stress: denial or restriction of civil rights, personal isolation, cultural marginalization, ruined careers, poverty, a n d a sense of political p o w e r ­ lessness that m a y h a v e gradually appeared to acquire p e r m a n e n c e . N e v ­ ertheless, for s o m e of the left-wing G e r m a n intellectuals w h o survived a n d f o u n d the ability to m a k e end s meet, the years 1933 to 1939 m a r k e d a remarkably productive period, at least f r o m the standpoint of theory. T h e feisty assertiveness of Alexander Schifrin a n d the cynicism of Otto Rühle in the epigraphs a b ove indicate the opposite poles of political attitudes a m o n g the exiled Left b y w h i c h its theoretical enterprises were oriented. Forced to sense the direction of political d e v e l opments in their h o m e l a n d f r o m greater or lesser distances, these G e r m a n exiles entered unfamiliar terrain, in b o t h literal a n d figurative terms. As socialist intellectuals, they labored to increase in their n e w h o m e countries the understanding a n d awareness of the real threat of National Socialism a n d also to strengthen the theoretical capacity of M a r x i s m a n d the socialist m o v e m e n t generally to aid in the practical a n d political resistance to fascist dictatorship. T h e theoretical a n d organizational responses of a n u m b e r of G e r m a n socialist intellectuals to the a s c e n d a n c y of fascism in G e r m a n y and, t h o u g h to a lesser extent, to Stalin's dictatorship in the Soviet U n i o n ac­ quired a d d e d force a n d focus during the early exile period. T hese writers m a d e increasing uses of theories of fascism, as well as theories using vari­ ous notions of totalitarianism. Contrary to the limited scholarly a c k n o w l ­ e d g m e n t of the e m e r g e n c e of totalitarian theory o n the left, the c o m p a r i ­ s o n of the t w o regimes b e g a n to appear in the years just before the Hitler-Stalin pact, particularly in connection w i t h the Spanish civil w a r a n d the “s h o w trials'' in the Soviet Union. D u r i n g these years, the t e r m totalitarian b e g a n to appear frequently in the writings of several dissent­ ing socialists of international reputation, Trotsky being the m o s t f a m o u s

T h e Lost D e b a t e

66

example.3 T h e term's referents during the last few years of the interwar period w o u l d m o r e often include the Soviet U n i o n as well as Italy a n d G e r m a n y . But there w a s n o uniformity to this c h a n g e in the categoriza­ tion a n d analysis of dictatorial regimes. T h e turn to comparative m o d e l s of totalitarianism o n the left w a s gradual, partial, tentative, a n d contested, w h i c h is, of course, o n e of the reasons it has b e e n so difficult to recognize. In addition to the impa c t of significant political differences within its ranks, the very scattering of the G e r m a n Left across E u r o p e — f r o m the Soviet U n i o n to Czechoslovakia, France, a n d England, and, even beyond, to the United States, Cuba, P a n a m a , a n d M e x i c o — helped give rise to d o z ­ ens of divergent interpretations of the political crises of the m o m e n t . 4 Rival theoretical constructions of the p r o b l e m of dictatorship, as well as different organizational a n d political experiences w i t h actual regimes, also played a role. In these writings of the period f r o m the Nazi takeover to the outbreak of another general E u r o p e a n w a r in 1939, the terms fas­ cist a n d totalitarian wer e often used almost interchangeably. In part, the willingness of G e r m a n socialists, particularly Social Democrats, to e m p l o y the “ totalitarian anal o g y ”of d a m n i n g C o m m u n i s m as exhibiting m u c h in c o m m o n w ith fascism h a d b e e n p r o v o k e d b y the C o m m u n i s t s ' attack o n “social fascism”in the W e i m a r period. T h e polemical a n d ideological usefulness of the accusation of “totalitarian”practices h a d led such Social Democratic writers as Curt Geyer a n d Alexander Schifrin to c o n d e m n the Soviet U n i o n along w i t h fascist m o v e m e n t s as dictatorial organizations f r o m the early 1930s.5 N o w , however, the hostile adjectives proliferated freely, a n d o n e of the tasks facing socialist intellectuals writing a b out dic­ tatorship w a s to try to give the terms fascist a n d totalitarian m o r e precise meaning.

N e w Perspectives on Fascism For a n u m b e r of m o n t h s after the Nazi takeover, the critique of the Soviet U n i o n faded s o m e w h a t into the background, while the victories of fas­ cism in G e r m a n y in 1933 a n d t hen in Austria the following year gained the attention of m a n y intellectuals of the G e r m a n Left in exile. In short, the focus of the analysis of dictatorship shifted rapidly u n d e r the fearsome pressure of events. Several innovative a n d “revisionist”discussions of fas­ cism s o o n appeared that focused o n G e r m a n fascism or the G e r m a n “ to­ tal state”— or both. In 1934, Herbert Marcuse, a writer w h o s e w o r k h a d a m o r e critical a n d philosophical radicalism t h a n that of his m o r e directly political left-wing

Perspectives from Exile, 1933-39

67

peers, gave his assessment of G e r m a n fascism f r o m exile.6 Like m o s t of the intellectuals discussed in this study, M a r c u s e c a m e f r o m a prosperous f a m ­ ily. H e w a s b o r n a n d reared in Berlin, which, as o n e of Marcuse's biogra­ phers, Barry Katz, has pointed out, h a d transformed itself into a center of G e r m a n culture as well as politics a n d c o m m e r c e . Marcuse's o w n develop­ m e n t w a s s y m p t o m a t i c of the possibilities available to a y o u n g m a n of the bourgeoisie, a n d his growing cultural interests a n d politically oppositional stance s h o w e d themselves early. H e attended a g y m n a s i u m in the Charlottenburg district of Berlin. There, as well as at h o m e , h e w a s introduced to the historical a n d literary heritage of the G e r m a n past, a n d h e joined o n e of the n u m e r o u s Wandervögel hiking a n d social groups. H e served in the a r m y during W o r l d W a r I, but not at the front. Instead, h e f o u n d himself in Berlin during the w e eks of revolutionary tumult following the m u t i n y of the sailors at Kiel a n d elsewhere. H e participated in the Berlin rising a n d w a s actually elected to o n e of the soldiers' councils, but h e apparently cher­ ished a far greater s y m p a t h y for the revolution in the South, the M u n i c h revolution led b y Kurt Eisner. These revolutionary m o v e m e n t s failed bravely but horribly, a n d Marc u s e turned his back o n party politics forever after the murd e r s of Rosa L u x e m b u r g a n d Karl Liebknecht.7 D u r i n g the 1920s, M a r c u s e took u p the study of literature a n d philoso­ p h y in Freiburg with, a m o n g others, the influential p h e n o m e n o l o g i s t E d m u n d Husserl. In 1922, h e c o m p l e t e d his doctoral dissertation o n the Künstlerroman (the novel of the artist) in the d e p a r t m e n t of literature. After a spell of w o r k i n g a n d writing in Berlin, M a r c u s e turned his energies o n c e m o r e to the study of philosophy. U n d e r the impact of his close read­ ing of M artin Heidegger's Sein u n d Zeit (.Being a n d Time), h e returned to Freiburg as a m e m b e r of Heidegger's a d v a n c e d seminar. His connection with Heidegger, w h o later joined the Nazi Party, h a d a great impact o n Marcuse's early philosophical interest in the categories of historicity, b e ­ ing, social renewal, a n d social totality. Despite s o m e shared philosophi­ cal concerns a n d methodologies, in several vital respects M a r c u s e a d a ­ m a n t l y a n d unequivocally rejected Heidegger's political conclusions, particularly his allegiance to the Nazis.8 M a r c u s e h a d already fled Frei­ b u r g — a n d G e r m a n y — b y 2 6 M a y 1933, w h e n Heidegger issued o n e of his first public statements to the students a n d faculty after a s s u m i n g the post of rector of the university: a passionately w o r d e d c o m m e m o r a t i o n of the tenth anniversary of the execution of “a y o u n g G e r m a n hero," L e o Schlageter, w h o h a d o n c e b e e n a student at Freiburg.9 In the course of his studies w i t h Heidegger, M a r c u s e h a d co m p l e t e d a long manuscript entitled Hegels Ontologie u n d die Grundlegung einer Theorie

T h e Lost D e b a t e

68

der Geschichtlichkeit (.Hegel's Ontology a n d the Foundation of a Theory of Historicity)j published in 1932. Apparently, it w a s to have b e e n his Habilita­ tionsschrift, the postdoctoral w o r k that w o u l d o p e n the possibility of a tenured a c a d e m i c career. But eve n before the Nazi takeover in J anuary of the following year, M a r c u s e lost h o p e for gaining a university chair. H e accepted a n offer f r o m the Institute of Social Research, n o w led b y M a x Horkheimer, to take a position at its b r a n c h in Geneva. Marcuse's m o v e to G e n e v a m a r k e d the beginning of a theoretically fruitful period for b o t h h i m a n d the institute. In the late fall of 1932, however, the project of i m ­ mediate import a n c e w a s flight, a n d M a r c u s e left G e r m a n y with his f a m ­ ily w e e k s before Hitler w a s n a m e d chancellor. M a r c u s e w o u l d r e m a i n in Switzerland for less t h a n t w o years before i m m i g r a t i n g to the U n i t e d States.10 Marcuse's first imp o r t a n t published contribution to the institute's w o r k o n authoritarian politics a n d society w a s the article “D e r K a m p f g egen d e n Liberalismus in der totalitären Staatsauffassung'' (“ T h e Struggle against Liberalism in the Totalitarian V i e w of the State"), w h i c h appeared in 1934 in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (Journal of Social Research). T h e article is important in understanding Marcuse's life a n d w o r k in several ways. First, despite the m o m e n t a r y e n d of his h o p e s for a traditional aca­ d e m i c career, the article offered evidence that M a r c u s e h a d f o u n d a n ideal institutional h o m e . His w o r k clearly fit into the institute's overall project of analyzing m o d e r n society f r o m a variety of disciplinary perspectives, w h i c h included e x a m i n i n g the ideological workings of fascism, a n d Marcuse's arrival significantly strengthened the philosophical c o m p o ­ n e n t of this undertaking. Second, a n d crucial to a n e x a m i nation of n o ­ tions of totalitarianism in the w o r k of the exile G e r m a n Left, Marcuse's analysis of fascism as a kind of totalitarianism derived f r o m intensified a n d distorted aspects of liberalism devoted little attention to class analy­ sis a n d economistic ar g u m e n t a t i o n a n d h e n c e constituted s o m e t h i n g of a break w ith previous left-wing writings o n fascism, especially in its e m ­ phasis a n d style of presentation.11 Third, a n d also important in the c o n ­ text of this study, Marcuse's 1934 article established s o m e of the philo­ sophical basis for his distinctive a n d deeply controversial postwar attacks o n the totalitarianism of all devel o p e d societies, w h e t h e r capitalist or C o m m u n i s t . 12 M a r c u s e o p e n e d his a r g u m e n t w i t h a catalogue of the characteristics of fascist ideology: the “heroizing" of m a n , the philosophical valorization of life itself as a primal given, irrational naturalism, a n d universalism. But h e proceeded to s h o w that the “current theory" of the total state d r e w

Perspectives from Exile, 1933-39

69

these principles f r o m certain aspects of the liberalism it ostensibly loathed. Moreover, M a r c u s e contended, "liberalism is entirely at o n e ['ganz einig isf] wit h the n e w worldview [of totalitarian fascism] in its fight w ith M a r x i a n socialism.”13 At the very least, then, in Marcuse's reading of the problem, fascism a n d liberalism were linked in their hostility to social­ ism. T h e remainder of his article attempted to specify the c o m p l e x a n d dialectical nature of the ideological a n d e c o n o m i c relationship b e t w e e n liberalism a n d fascism that h e h a d described in the first few pages of his analysis. As Pierre Ayçoberry has argued, according to M a r c u s e " o n e h a d to read the texts [that expressed the totalitarian outlook] o n several lev­ els, a n d this is w h y his article unfolded as a kind of spiral.”14 Central to Marcuse's a r g u m e n t w a s the fact that liberalism w a s histori­ cally related to E u r o p e a n industrial capitalism a n d imperialism in the nineteenth century, n o t just to the hopeful slogans a n d constitutional f orms defending individual rights p r o d u c e d during the revolutionary era of the late eighteenth century. Fascism h a d only c o n t e m p t for the liberal social a n d political a g e n d a of rights, but fascists did not w i s h to disturb the capitalist e c o n o m i c basis of m o d e r n society that w a s part of the lib­ eral achievement.15 Moreover, fascism did not perpetuate only the eco­ n o m i c base of m o n o p o l y capitalism that h a d b e e n created u n d e r the c o n ­ ditions of the presu m a b l y m o r i b u n d liberal society. According to Marcuse, the uses that the n e w totalitarian outlook could m a k e of the remains of liberalism extended b e y o n d the merely e conomic, for even the liberal ter­ m i n o l o g y of equality a n d natural rights finds its e c h o — t h o u g h certainly a distorted o n e — in fascist ideology. M a r c u s e bolstered this a r g u m e n t b y citing the fascists a n d protofascists Moeller v a n d e n Bruck, Benito M u s ­ solini, a n d H a n s J. Wolff o n the eternal character of Nature, the equality of social interests a n d powers, a n d the appearance (in the 1930s) of "a n e w e p o c h of natural law.”16 T h e old, familiar wineskins of liberal language could indeed be filled w i t h the n e w totalitarian wine, even if, as M a r c u s e m i g h t h a v e n o t e d at the time, the old skins m u s t inevitably burst. H e speculated that the connections b e t w e e n fascism a n d the liberal e c o ­ n o m i c basis of m o d e r n society m i g h t reproduce not a n authoritarian bourgeois state bu t s o m e t h i n g entirely new. This n e w kind of political regime, the totalitarian state, m a d e use of the e c o n o m i c order created u n d e r liberalism a n d the terminology of liberal philosophy, but it a i m e d b e y o n d their old limits t o w a r d a n e w kind of state organization w h o s e structure a n d operations could not yet be glimpsed. In the c o n cluding section of the article, entitled "Der Existentialis­ m u s , ”M a r c u s e turned f r o m his c a m p a i g n against liberalism a n d a i m e d his

The Lost Debate

70

sharpest attack o n the connection b e t w e e n the n e w order a n d the "politi­ cal configuration”of existentialism, w h i c h h e w a s still careful to separate f r o m its "philosophical form.”17 T h a t is, h e w i s h e d to defend the critical a n d still useful elements of existentialist philosophy against the c o n t a m i ­ nation resulting f r o m their popularization in Nazi p r o p a g a n d a a n d the politicization of existentialism p e r f o r m e d b y s uch individual philoso­ phers as his former teacher M a r t i n Heidegger. T h e fate of existentialism a n d philosophy in general u n d e r the Nazi regime was, however, manifest. M a r c u s e l a m e n t e d that existentialism, initially conceived in opposition to liberalism's faith in the victory of reason a n d its preoccupation w i t h universal principles, h a d n o w attached itself politically to fascism. Exis­ tentialism's service to fascism betrayed all great philosophy. T h e Kantian tradition of the free, self-determined individual h a d b e e n negated. Heidegger, w h o m M a r c u s e q u o t e d in this concluding passage, n o w c o n ­ t e nded that "the Führer himself a n d alone is for today a n d the future the G e r m a n reality a n d its law.”18 A s a c o n s e q u e n c e of its opportunism, exis­ tentialism h a d transformed itself into a n ideological gargoyle for the hulk­ ing edifice of the n e w regime. M a r c u s e c o n c l u d e d that the fate of the workers' m o v e m e n t , inextricably b o u n d u p w i t h the crippled a n d n o w violently u p e n d e d G e r m a n philosophical tradition of idealism f r o m K a n t a n d Hegel t h r o u g h Heideggerian existentialism, r e m a i n e d in doubt. This article, originally conceived as a response to o n e of Hitler's o w n speeches a n d written during the first m o n t h s of exile, established the basis for Marcuse's u n i q u e perspective o n fascism a n d totalitarianism, o n e that, despite its c h a n g i n g focus over the course of the next several decades, continued to empha s i z e the philosophical a n d ideological foundations of the m o d e r n "total-state”as they w e r e put into practice in class relation­ ships.19 Marcuse's analysis differed f r o m m o s t of his peers' analyses in that h e m u t e d the discussion of class per se, in favor of exploring the origins a n d manifestations of ideologies, collective perceptions, a n d the unreflective behavior of groups. This w a s not necessarily un-Marxian, but it cer­ tainly constituted a different kind of radical perspective, o n e typical of the leading thinkers associated w i t h the Institute of Social Research.20 T h e pr i m a r y strength of the kind of ideological analysis M a r c u s e could offer in 1934 w a s its ability at least to indicate the c o m p l e x character of the his­ torical, ec o n o m i c , a n d philosophical relationship b e t w e e n fascism a n d liberal capitalism w i t h o u t relying o n "agent”theories or b l a m i n g a se­ lected g r o u p (the petty bourgeoisie, the industrialists, the Social D e m o ­ crats, the C o m m u n i s t s , etc.). T h e essay's m o s t important omission, w h i c h w o u l d persist in m u c h of

Perspectives from Exile, 1933-39

7*

Marcuse's later work, w a s its failure to investigate a n d articulate m o r e clearly the issue of w h y fascism targeted b o t h liberalism a n d socialism. In short, M a r c u s e often denied political, parliamentary liberalism the care­ ful historical analysis that h e could muster quite effectively in discussing the effects of the capitalist e c o n o m i e s rationalized u n d e r the aegis of eco­ n o m i c liberalism, the ideological d e v e l o p m e n t of fascist totalitarianism, or the transformations of radical theory.21 T h e actual a n d potential c o n ­ nections—w h e t h e r historical, political, or ethical—betw e e n liberalism a n d socialism f o u n d little place in the theoretical apparatus sketched out in “D e r K a m p f ge g e n d e n Liberalismus in der totalitären Staatsauffassung."22 Nevertheless, considered in the light of events occurring shortly b e ­ fore its appearance— Heidegger's acceptance of the rectorship of Freiburg University u n d e r the auspices of the Nazi regime, his m e m b e r s h i p ( h o w ­ ever brief its “ active" phase) in the Nazi Party, Carl Schmitt's helpful ser­ vice as a legal practitioner a n d theorist for the “n e w order"— Marcuse's article o n the ideological support of political existentialism for totalitari­ a n i s m remains o n e of the m o s t provocative a n d forceful expressions of rage the philosopher ever produced.23 His analysis, however, w a s as nar­ r o w in its focus as m o s t other early critiques of fascism w ere general. T h e s a m e year that M a r c u s e published his article, 1934, the G e r m a n historian Arthur Rosenberg offered a revised interpretation of fascism that e m p h a s i z e d a bove all s o m e of the factors the y o u n g e r social theorist h a d not attended to in a n y detail: the political deformations of party a n d class allegiances that h a d m a d e the Nazi victory possible. Shortly after the Nazi takeover in 1933, Rosenberg h a d fled with his family into exile in Zurich a n d t h e n Liverpool, w h e r e h e obtained a fellowship at the university.24 Despite the considerable d e m a n d s of his teaching load a n d his family's difficult financial circumstances, h e continued to write a bout the politi­ cal a n d e c o n o m i c crisis in Europe, often using the p s e u d o n y m “Historicus.”T h e p s e u d o n y m d r a w n f r o m the past belied the fact that Rosenberg h a d b e c o m e f u n d a m e n t a l l y a historian of a n d for the present. H a v i n g recently written his bold a n d still valuable interpretations of the history of the G e r m a n E m p i r e a n d Bolshevism, Rosenberg n o w turned his atten­ tion to the analysis of G e r m a n fascism. H e insisted o n the i m p ortance of this project in the o p e n i n g pages of D e r Faschismus als M a s s e n b e w e g u n g (.Fascism as a M a s s Movement): T h e conflict over t h e t h e o r y of fascism is n o t just a p a s t i m e for p e o p l e w h o sit at their desks a n d speculate a b o u t sociology. It is in reality a bitterly earnest m a t t e r of extr a o r d i n a r y practical a n d political m e a n i n g for t h e

T h e Lost D e b a t e

72

w o r k i n g class. W h o e v e r w a n t s to defeat his o p p o n e n t m u s t k n o w h i m pre­ cisely. T h e fantastic a n d logic-defying e x p lanations of fascism that h a v e s p read far a n d w i d e h a v e p r o d u c e d a m o n g d e m o c r a t s a n d socialists t h e convic t i o n that their present greatest e n e m y is s o m e t h i n g t h o r o u g h l y ir­ rational a n d invincible b y reasonable m e a n s . F r o m this perspective, fas­ c i s m a p p e a r s as a n act of Nature, like a n earthquake, a p r i m a l force that bursts forth f r o m t h e hearts of p e o p l e a n d suffers n o resistance. T h e fas­ cists t h e m s e l v e s often s u p p o r t these sentiments, especially in G e r m a n y , w h e n t h e y affirm that t h e rule of re a s o n a n d m e c h a n i s t i c logic is over, a n d that t h e e m o t i o n s , t h e original instincts of t h e people, h a v e n o w returned to p o w e r . 25

Rosenberg's declaration of the n e e d for a m o r e precise analysis of fascism w a s not just hortatory wind, as so m a n y such protestations h a d b e e n a n d w o u l d be. H e backed u p his criticism b y presenting a remarkably sophis­ ticated a n d path-breaking a c c ount of fascism that d r e w o n a variety of empirical evidence, including systematic ex a m i n a t i o n of Nazi electoral support— precisely the kind of evidence that m a n y leftists a n d other o b ­ servers h a d neglected. First, Rosenberg d e b u n k e d the c o m m o n leftist m y t h that fascism w a s simply the party of the petty bourgeoisie. H e insisted that fascism could succeed only w ith the cooperation of elements of the wealthy capitalist class.26 L o o k i n g at the case of the Fascist Party in Italy, Rosenberg observed that the class status of m e m b e r s w h o attended the party congress of N o ­ v e m b e r 1921 could in n o w a y b e described as pr e d o m i n a n t l y “ petty b o u r ­ geois”:“ Till the e n d of 1921, Mussolini led a typical bourgeois party, with a particularly strong c o m p o n e n t of intellectuals a n d academics a n d with a certain working-class following. T h e Fascist p r o g r a m transformed itself wit h unusual speed a n d thoroughness in the years f r o m 1919 to 1922. T h e tactics of holding p o w e r were all important to Mussolini. T h e points of the p r o g r a m were, b y contrast, completely secondary.” 27 B y emphasizing M u s ­ solini's o p p o r t u n i s m a n d the diversity of his party's constituency, R o s e n ­ berg avoided t w o of the pitfalls that h a v e entrapped m a n y analysts of fas­ c i s m d o w n to the present: a simplistic attribution of class attitudes, loyalties, a n d divisions, o n the o n e h and, and, o n the other, the attempt to grant fascist ideology the status of a coherent a n d developed philo­ sophical system that stood apart f r o m the influence of developing histori­ cal events a n d political conflicts.28 T h e theoretical suppleness a n d empirical thoroughness of Rosenberg's Faschismus als M a s s e n b e w e g u n g s h o w e d themselves e ven m o r e clearly in his discussion of fascism's record in G e r m a n y . O n e of the great strengths

Perspectives f r o m Exile, 1 9 3 3 - 3 9

73

of his analysis w a s that h e insisted o n a n d explained the differences b e ­ t w e e n the class m a k e u p of G e r m a n y a n d that of Italy, as B o r k e n a u h a d d o n e in his brief essay o n the sociology of fascism— t h o u g h there is n o direct evidence that Rosenberg h a d read Borkenau's analysis. A b o v e all, G e r m a n y h a d a m u c h higher concentration of w a g e workers (including nonfactory w a g e workers) t h a n Italy did. Italian Fascism w o u l d b e — a n d here again, Rosenberg agreed wit h B o r k e n a u — a kind of m o d e r n i z i n g dic­ tatorship, in contrast to G e r m a n fascism, w h i c h h a d n o w succeeded in a n already industrialized nation. Tracing the shifting patterns of voter loyalty to the W e i m a r Republic a n d the c o n sequent fates of the various parties, w h i c h also offered vari­ able levels of support for or e n m i t y against the g o v e r nment, Rosenberg developed a rudimentary but effective electoral sociology in the course of D e r Faschismus als Massenbewegung.29 T h a t is, like the M a r x of Th e Eigh­ teenth Brumaire, Rosenberg carefully attended to such factors as intraclass divisions, malleable political alliances, a n d the challenges to institutional politics brought o n b y c h a n g i n g national or regional e c o n o m i c cir c u m ­ stances as well as b y m o r e persisting class divisions. His focus o n empiri­ cal detail within a M a r x i a n theoretical f r a m e w o r k raised the persuasive­ ness a n d explanatory p o w e r of his w o r k well a b o v e the “class agent" theories of C o m m u n i s t orthodoxy, a n d at the s a m e time it m a r k e d h i m off f r o m the philosophically based critique of suc h writers as Marcuse. Moreover, Rosenberg's insistence o n the critical imp o r t a n c e of specific historical dev e l o p m e n t s a n d distinctions prevented h i m f r o m theorizing o n the basis of undifferentiated, unhistorical conceptions of fascism, capi­ talism, liberalism, or class conflict. Breaking free of the categories c o m m o n to m a n y analyses of G e r m a n fascism p r o d u c e d o n the left, Rosenberg pointed b e y o n d e c o n o m i c expla­ nations to t w o of the party's m a n y sources of popular political appeal: anti-Semitism a n d the “socialist”c o m p o n e n t of National Socialism. Rosenberg insisted, as relatively f e w leftists of the 1930s w o u l d do, o n the crucial a n d distinctive importance of anti-Semitism to the core Nazi m e m ­ bership a n d outlook. But h e did n o t write only o n anti-Semitism's useful­ ness in mobilizing segments of the petty bourgeoisie. Here, h e left b e h i n d the t e n d e n c y of m a n y Marxists of the d a y to focus almost solely o n class a n d e c o n o m i c issues a n d p a y less h e e d to other cultural, social, a n d psy­ chological factors. K n o w i n g f r o m personal experience the deeply conser­ vative, antirepublican, a n d anti-Semitic subculture of the G e r m a n acad­ emy, Rosenberg aptly described the postwar support a m o n g faculty a n d students f r o m wealthy families for notions of “racial purity”that r e n e w e d

T h e Lost D e b a t e

74

a n d intensified the anti-Semitism of the Imperial period.30 This n e w antiSemitism not only c e m e n t e d the support for N a z i s m in s o m e universities but also h a d a useful p r o p a g a n d a effect in electoral politics: the Nazi identification of Jews w i t h "big capital”served as a n alternative to the M a r x i a n anticapitalism of the Social D e m o c r a t i c or C o m m u n i s t kind, w h i c h were in a n y case also "Jewish,”according to the Nazi doctrine.31 As for the "socialist”el e m e n t of National Socialism— its declared opposition to capitalism a n d the rule of wealth a n d tradition, a propagandistic appeal articulated largely in cities a n d areas of high u n e m p l o y m e n t — this "radi­ cal”aspect of Nazi ideology attracted to the party a corps of brutal a n d adventurous veterans a n d the bitter u n e m p l o y e d . D u r i n g the W e i m a r years, however, m a n y other G e r m a n voters also sought a m e a n s of s u p ­ planting the existing order, invigorating the nation, a n d increasing their personal wealth or power. T h e s e observations h a v e s o m e t i m e s f o u n d a place in the a r g u m e n t s of scholarly analysts of Nazi G e r m a n y , but R o s e n ­ berg w a s the only o n e of the g r o u p of G e r m a n socialists included in this study w h o e m p h a s i z e d t h e m prior to the N u r e m b e r g L a w s of 1935 a n d the K r i s t a llnacht

p o g r o m of 1938.32

In his concluding remarks o n G e r m a n fascism, Rosenberg sketched the analysis of late W e i m a r that h e w o u l d elaborate the following year in G e s c h i c h t e d e r D e u t s c h e n R e p u b l i k (H i s t o r y o f the G e r m a n Republic).

T h e key

c o m p o n e n t s of this interpretation c a n be stated briefly. In the face of the autocratic m e t h o d s of Chancellor B r ü n i n g a n d his successors, the Social D e m o c r a t s b e c a m e first the prisoners a n d t h e n the victims of their policy of legal opposition a n d "tolerance”for the minority coalition cabinets. M e a n w h i l e , the C o m m u n i s t s m a d e a left coalition impossible, but they could not gain the trust of m o r e t h a n a limited sector of the w o r k i n g class. W h i l e the other great parties foundered, the "catch-all”strategy of the Nazis, remarkably successful so long as they wer e in opposition, m a d e t h e m at last the indispensable ally of the traditional conservatives a n d völkisch

parties. T h e y provided a m a s s base for the counterrevolutionary

politics of P a p e n a n d H i n d e n b u r g , w h o finally assented to a cabinet h e a d e d b y Hitler. But the "double character”of Nazism, as Rosenberg la­ beled the simultaneous role of the party as real b u l w a r k a n d ostensible critic of capitalism, created a d i l e m m a for the party: " T h e Nazis [in c o n ­ trast to the Italian Fascists] are a party of dying capitalism, a n d they m u s t disguise their capitalist character f r o m the masses in order to succeed in proletarian G e r m a n y . T h u s Hitler's dictatorship w a s f r o m the beginning b u r d e n e d wit h a n insoluble contradiction, w h i c h did not exist for M u s ­ solini.”33 R o s e n b e r g w a n t e d to con c l u d e that the n e w G e r m a n r e gime

Perspectives f r o m Exile, 1 9 3 3 - 3 9

75

could not last because of internal rivalries that w o u l d shatter the Nazis’ s e e m i n g unity, a hypothesis the recent Night of the L o n g Knives m a s s a ­ cre bore out in R o s e n b e r g ’ s too optimistic view.34 Tha t h e w a s w r o n g in s o m e of his short-term predictions— obviously capitalism a n d liberalism h a v e b o t h p r o v e n far m o r e durable t h a n m a n y observers of the 1930s i m a g i n e d they could b e — does n o t diminish the clear superiority of Rosen b e r g ’ s analysis to so m a n y others that claimed a M a r x i a n f o u n d a ­ tion. F e w could foresee, in the m o n t h s just before a n d after the Night of the L o n g Knives in J u n e 1934— w h i c h w a s a brief period of crisis for the n e w regime— that the Nazis could so quickly a n d successfully d i s m e m b e r a n d t h e n reconfigure the units belonging to the “ alte K ä m p f e r ”(old fighters) of the paramilitary S A b y forging a n alliance with the G e r m a n a r m y a n d then, after militarizing b o t h the e c o n o m y a n d society, send the nation to war.35 In spite of the evident differences in R osenberg’ s and Marcuse’ s disci­ plinary m e t h o d a n d focus, they shared the insight that while fascism w a s o p p o s e d to the parliamentarism a n d legalism of the liberal order, at the s a m e time it could thrive in a crisis-ridden capitalist society m a r k e d b y increasing m o n o p o l i z a t i o n a n d d ominated, t h o u g h s o m e w h a t uneasily, b y the representatives of the m o s t antiparliamentary elements of the bourgeoisie— w h o w e r e n o liberals, as b o t h Rosenberg a n d M a r c u s e indi­ cated. In this way, as b o t h theorists also argued, the representatives of capital did not “create”fascism as the Stalinists claimed but w o u l d cer­ tainly m a k e c o m p r o m i s e s w i t h it, a n d not w i t h socialism. M o s t i m p o r ­ tant, the t w o agreed that fascism did not shatter but actually perpetuated the class character of bourgeois society. B oth of t h e m also e m p h a s i z e d the utter isolation of the G e r m a n w o r k i n g class in 1934, a n d Rosenberg explic­ itly w a r n e d against precipitous alliances wit h liberals or “ b e n evolent” conservatives.36 But while M arcuse h a d at least hinted that the n e w totalitar­ ian order contained s o m e t h i n g unprecedented in terms of social organiza­ tion, Rosenberg s a w little practical difference b e t w e e n National Socialism a n d the conservative antiparliamentarism of Brüning. For Rosenberg, the decisive collapse of the W e i m a r Republic occurred in r930, not 1933, w h i c h w o u l d probably s e e m a n o d d line of demarcation to m o s t presentd ay scholars of Nazism. Yet f r o m the standpoint of working-class individu­ als a n d groups a n d their n e e d to mobilize political resistance to the d e ­ struction of the fragile a c h i e v e m e n t s they h a d registered during the W e i m a r regime— the concerns of a n activist-scholar— Rosenberg's period­ ization m a d e g o o d sense. In a final b o w toward the resilience a n d continuing reliability of M a r x -

T h e Lost D e b a t e

76

ism, Ro s e n b e r g insisted that “fascism has b r o u g h t n o t h i n g n e w to the picture of m o d e r n class struggle. A b o v e all, it has introduced no t h i n g that w o u l d s o m e h o w lead to a revision of a n y of the f u n d a m e n t a l perceptions of M a r x / ' 37 S o m e sixty years later, Rosenberg's confidence m a y s e e m tragi­ cally outdated, simply outrageous, or, like Rosenberg's Marx, in n e e d of n o revision. S u c h affirmations of the u n d i m i n i s h e d authority of M a r x w o u l d b e c a m e increasingly rare a m o n g the g r o u p of exiles discussed in this study. But even for those socialists m o v i n g a w a y f r o m M a r x i s m b y w a y of a revision or outright rejection of Marx's i m a g e of historical progress, their attention to class conflict a n d to the political character of e c o n o m ­ ics w o u l d r e m a i n for the m o s t part u n d i m i n i s h e d for the next few years. In 1934, a y o u n g e r writer, w h o a decade later w o u l d b e c o m e o n e of the new, post-Marxian revisionists, w a s already at w o r k o n his o w n analysis of fascism that constituted yet another attempt to demonstrate the valid­ ity of the theoretical perspectives inherited f r o m Marx. Richard L ö w e n t h a l w a s the youngest of the antitotalitarian writers included in this study. H e w a s b o r n in Berlin in 1908 to a middle-class f a m ­ ily involved, like Marcuse's, in business. Pursuing his university studies in Berlin, h e joined the K P D in 1926 a n d r e m a i n e d a party m e m b e r till 1929. A l o n g with his friend a n d m e n t o r Franz Borkenau, h e broke with the party over the “social fascism'' policy. Löwenthal, however, did not keep his distance f r o m party politics, as B o r k e n a u w o u l d do. Instead, h e r e m a i n e d affiliated for about t w o years wit h the K P D O , t h e n took a leading role in the exile a n d w a r t i m e resistance g r o u p N e u B e g i n n e n ( N e u Beginning), a n d finally joined the S P D . 38 In v i e w of Löwenthal's a n d N e u B e g i n n e n d i m p ortance to the f o r m u ­ lation of left-wing criticism of the Soviet U n i o n as well as Nazi G e r m a n y , s o m e b a c k g r o u n d o n this g r o u p a n d his role in it needs to be provided here.39 T h e left-wing socialists a n d former C o m m u n i s t s associated wit h N e u B e g i n n e n represented o n e of the few efforts to bring together leftists w i t h different party affiliations— t h o u g h within a f e w years the g r o u p b e c a m e essentially a left-wing t e n d e n c y associated wit h the SPD. T o aid in conversational secrecy, N e u B e g i n n e n b e g a n as g r o u p called the O R G , or LO, or simply O (its full n a m e w a s G r u p p e Leninistische Organisation, roughly translatable as Leninist Organization Group). Initially f o r m e d as a self-consciously elite cell of activists, the O R G started operations in Ber­ lin during the late 1920s. T h e ability of its diverse m e m b e r s h i p to carry out low-level, but effective information-gathering a n d p r o p a g a n d a w o r k a n d to formulate innovative theories of dictatorship resulted in its record as o n e of the m o s t productive G e r m a n socialist u n d e r g r o u n d or exile op-

Perspectives from Exile, 1933-39

77

position groups. Several m e m b e r s a n d friends of this g r o u p were essential to the w a r t i m e a n d postwar critique of totalitarianism. T h e O R G / N e u B e g i n n e n d political tendencies straddled the border b e t w e e n social d e m o c r a c y a n d C o m m u n i s m , a n d its origins a n d m e m b e r ­ ship reflected this ideological heterogeneity.40 Initially led b y Walter L ö w e n h e i m , a former G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t , the O R G e x p a n d e d its m e m ­ bership carefully during the late W e i m a r period, as the central leadership anticipated greater political turmoil. In the year after the Nazi Machter­ greifung,differences within the gr o u p about tactics a n d outlook developed into irreconcilable factions. S o m e favored a n active a n d broad-based re­ sistance policy, while L ö w e n h e i m a n d his faction argued that a core of the O R G ' s elite leadership should g o into exile a n d that those remaining b e ­ h i n d should exercise caution a n d g o into t e m p o r a r y retreat.41 For a time, the group's relative diversity set it apart f r o m other left-wing organiza­ tions— e v e n the apostate Franz B o r k e n a u r e m a i n e d for a few years a “ fel­ l o w traveler”of N e u Beginnen, a n d in early 1934 h e urged his old friends in the Austrian Social D e m ocratic Party to imitate its leadership's retreatand-survive tactics.42 Finally, in 1935, m a n y of the group's y o u n g e r m e m b e r s , including Richard L ö w e n t h a l a n d Karl Frank, broke with L ö w e n h e i m a n d his follow­ ers in the O R G , a n d for a time they continued a m o r e activist p r o g r a m of “in-country”work. Ironically, the title of a b o o k L ö w e n h e i m h a d written t w o years earlier describing the g r o u p a n d its aims, N e u Beginnen, n o w b e c a m e the n a m e associated with the gr o u p led b y Frank. Like Löwenthal, Karl Frank w a s a former m e m b e r of the K P D . Reared in Vienna, h e partici­ pated, along with R u t h Fischer, in the gr o u p of Austrian C o m m u n i s t s w h o f o r m e d a party organization after the war. H e joined the K P D in 1920, w h e n h e m o v e d to Berlin. Before his expulsion f r o m the party in 1928, h e served as a n editor of Die Rote F a h n e a n d Die Internationale, important C o m m u n i s t Party publications.43 T h e bitterness of the split b e t w e e n the L ö w e n h e i m faction a n d the s o m e w h a t larger faction that sided with Frank m a y b e glimpsed in the writings b y a n d about those w h o participated in the O R G or N e u B e g i n n e n groups. In a n y case, while N e u B e g i n n e n d m e m b e r s h i p included several y o u n g former C o m m u n i s t s w h o w o u l d b e c o m e w e l l - k n o w n antitotalitarian writers (including Löwenthal), the O R G faction led b y L ö w e n h e i m , w h i c h included Arkadij Gurland, later a researcher a n d writer w i t h the Institute of Social Research, also m a d e n o t e w o r t h y efforts to explain a n d o p p o s e totalitarianism.44 E v e n after the internal split, N e u B e g i n n e n contained within its ranks a n outstanding g r o u p of scholars a n d activists. Its intellectual leader w a s

T h e Lost D e b a t e

78

Richard Löwenthal, t h o u g h several others m a d e important practical a n d theoretical contributions as well. O n e brilliant y o u n g radical, Liesel P a x m a n n , played a particularly i m p o r t a n t a n d d a n g e r o u s role for the group. Sh e served as a courier until her death in 1935— likely b y suicidewhile in Ges t a p o custody. A s the e x a m p l e of P a x m a n n shows, the role played b y w o m e n in N e u B e g i n n e n w a s crucial. S o m e were leading the o ­ reticians a n d policymakers, a m o n g t h e m Evelyn Anderson, Edith S c h u ­ m a n n , a n d Vera Franke, a n d others w o r k e d as rank-and-file information gatherers a n d couriers. Ossip Flechtheim w a s another y o u n g m e m b e r of the group. His exile career w o u l d include w o r k as a n assistant to Franz N e u m a n n at the Institute of Social Research a n d as a professor of politi­ cal science at universities in the U n i t e d States. T h e group's politically heterogeneous character persisted e v e n in exile. For example, p r o m i n e n t former C o m m u n i s t s , including R u t h Fischer a n d Otto Rühle, were o n the group's “key list'' of overseas supporters a n d contacts.45 B o t h as the O R G a n d as N e u Beginnen, however, the group's factions r e m a i n e d objects of controversy o n the exile left. Walter L ö w e n h e i m used the p s e u d o n y m Miles, a n d the O R G h a d quickly b e c o m e k n o w n as the Miles G r o u p or, to outsiders at least, as N e u Beginnen, the title of L ö w e n heim's controversial b o o k a n n o u n c i n g the group's outlook a n d goals.46 T h e g r o u p a n d the b o o k d r e w i m m e d i a t e hostile criticism f r o m the SPD's older generation of party intellectuals, particularly Karl Kautsky.47 M o s t of the details of Kautsky's criticism, t h o u g h interesting as a d o c u m e n t of the strife within the interwar G e r m a n Left, are not pertinent here. W h a t does stand out is Kautsky's rejection of L ö w e n h e i m ' s apparent desire to erect a n e w state in G e r m a n y that w o u l d be d o m i n a t e d b y the (revolution­ ary) Social Democrats. T h e Miles G r o u p , Kautsky contended, sought to replace o n e dictatorial regime w i t h a nother w i t hout proper emphasis o n democratic freedoms. Her e K autsky w a s in part accusing the g r o u p of a Leninist strategy, w h i c h the O R G h a d o p e n l y e m b r a c e d f r o m the start.48 C o m i n g to L ö w e n h e i m ' s defense in the period just before the O R G / N e u B e g i n n e n split w a s Franz Borkenau, writing u n d e r the p s e u d o n y m of L u d w i g Neureither. B o r k e n a u argued that the role of the revolutionary “ Avantgarde,”as h e t e r m e d it, w a s essential in active u n d e r g r o u n d o p p o ­ sition, such as that advocated b y L ö w e n h e i m . Leninist principles of orga­ nizational discipline a n d centralism simply m a d e sense u n d e r existing circumstances.49 As Richard L ö w e n t h a l recalled it years later, however, Borkenau's strong defense of L ö w e n h e i m w a s already out of date. L ö w e n heim/Miles represented a position that a majority faction of the g r o u p n o w rejected.50 O n c e more, in other words, o n e of Borkenau's articles h a d

Perspectives from Exile, 1933-39

79

already b e e n o u t p a c e d b y events. Nevertheless, the quarrel involving L ö w e n h e i m , Kautsky, a n d B o r k e n a u s h o w e d the sharpness of the internal debate over tactics a n d strategy o n the exile democratic left. T h e ages of the participants in this particular dispute also suggest a generational ele­ m e n t in the controversy that s hould not b e ignored. Kautsky certainly held a place of h o n o r — if no t p o w e r — as the chief representative of a n older generation of S P D leadership. L ö w e n h e i m , the d o m i n e e r i n g a n d n o w displaced “father”of the O R G , w a s not yet forty; B o r kenau w a s barely thirty-three; Karl Frank w a s just forty; a n d Richard Löwenthal, Evelyn Anderson, a n d Erich Schmidt, m o r e typical of the generation of the lead­ ers of the reconstituted N e u B e g i n n e n faction of the O R G , w ere still in their twenties.51 Socialist theory, resistance strategies, a n d organizational structure were important issues for the exile G e r m a n Left, but there were also other matters at stake in the frequent intraleft disputes. M e m b e r s of the old Social D e m ocratic Party leadership living in exile (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands i m Exil— S O P A D E ) controlled m o n i e s vital to the survival of the party a n d to the success of a n y resistance efforts. G aining (or losing) the support of well-connected a n d well-financed groups such as S O P A D E , not to m e n t i o n British, French, or other international social­ ists a n d trade unions, m a r k e d a n important stage in the life of a n y o p p o ­ sition group, a n d the O R G / N e u B e g i n n e n w a s n o exception. After s p e n d ­ ing m a n y frustrating m o n t h s seeking greater S O P A D E assistance, the post-split N e u B e g i n n e n leadership, t h o u g h it continued to w o r k for bet­ ter relations with the exile S P D leadership, also b e g a n m o r e actively to seek other potential allies— including the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party in exile.52 This strategy, strenuously debated within N e u Beginnen, ultimately re­ sulted in a reconsideration of the C o m m u n i s t Left— at least in terms of the actions of its leadership— that b e g a n to a p p r o a c h the later totalitarian theorists' a nalogy b e t w e e n fascism a n d Bolshevism, C o m m u n i s m , or Stalinism. M o r e often t h a n not, the key figure in these interwar debates w a s Richard Löwenthal. F r o m late W e i m a r till his death in 1991, L ö w e n t h a l r e m a i n e d the m o s t politically active of a n y of the writers discussed in this book. In the early 1930s, his c o m m i t m e n t to resistance against the Nazi regime left h i m in a d a n g e r o u s situation. As a f o r m e r C o m m u n i s t a n d a n ethnic Jew, h e u n d e r t o o k his practical a n d theoretical w o r k of opposition in G e r m a n y at t r e m e n d o u s personal risk. H e r e m a i n e d in Berlin for over t w o years af­ ter the Nazi takeover, a n d h e conti n u e d to coordinate actions of the “in­ country”m e m b e r s of the N e u B e g i n n e n resistance group, w h i c h included

T h e Lost D e b a t e

80

b o t h y o u n g workers a n d university-trained leftist scholars. In the fall of 1935, the Gestapo's arrest of a N e u B e g i n n e n c o m r a d e f r o m the Düsseldorf g r o u p led to forced confessions a n d the disclosure of the identities of m a n y of the group's m e m b e r s t h r o u g h o u t G e r m a n y . B y the e n d of N o ­ vember, a series of arrests h a d d e c i m a t e d this left opposition faction. M a n y of those taken into police custody w ere couriers a n d informants in their late teens or early twenties w h o lived in the working-class Berlin dis­ tricts of W e d d i n g a n d Neukölln. T h e “in-country" operation did not c o m ­ pletely disband in the face of this horrible crisis— in fact, the g r o u p recon­ stituted itself in a f e w locations— but it w o u l d never recover its former strength in Berlin. Because of the i m m i n e n t d a n g e r of his o w n arrest, L ö w e n t h a l h a d little choice but to leave G e r m a n y . 53 But in the m o n t h s before these events, while h e w a s still gathering information a n d organiz­ ing small groups of workers into resistance cells, h e wrote critiques of fas­ cism that appeared in the exile journal Zeitschrift für Sozialismus, the suc­ cessor to Hilferding's Die Gesellschaft, w h o s e publishing operation h a d m o v e d to Karlsbad, Czechoslovakia. T h ese antifascist writings, published in 1935, wer e foundation stones of a M a r x i a n critique of state-party dictatorship, but they differed f r o m Marcuse's, Borkenau's, a n d e v e n Rosenberg's w o r k in that L ö w e n t h a l fo­ cused m o r e sharply t h a n the others o n the relationship b e t w e e n e c o ­ n o m i c crisis a n d class politics in G e r m a n y . T h e s e c o m p l e x a n d tightly argued essays w e r e the product of Löwenthal's solitary reflections o n the p r o b l e m of fascism, h e later stated, a n d wer e not the residue of conversa­ tions w i t h his friend B o r k e n a u or e v e n his N e u B e g i n n e n c o m r a d e s in Berlin.54 T h e editor's brief introduction to the first installment of the se­ ries a n n o u n c e d that its author w a s “ a c o m r a d e living in G e r m a n y "—w h i c h m u s t h a v e b e e n a heartening fact for m o s t of the journal's readers. T h e first article appeared in the July/August 1935 edition of Zeitschrift fur Sozialismus a n d w a s entitled “Die W a n d l u n g e n des Kapitalismus" (“ The Transformations of Capitalism”). T h e t w o later sections, b o t h bearing the title “D e r Faschismus," were published in the September/October a n d N o v e m b e r / D e c e m b e r issues of the s a m e journal.55 L ö w e n t h a l b e g a n “Die W a n d l u n g e n des Kapitalismus" with a detailed explanation of the devel­ o p m e n t , function, a n d consequences of m o n o p o l y capitalism f r o m the turn of the century to the current world e c o n o m i c crisis— a p h e n o m e n o n central to the arg u m e n t s of b o t h M a r c u s e a n d Rosenberg, as w e have seen. Focusing o n the e c o n o m i c factors that played a key role in the rise of fascism but leaving the crude formulations of such C o m i n t e r n lights as Stalin a n d Ernst T h ä l m a n n far behind, Löwen t h a l systematically analyzed

Perspectives f r o m Exile, 1 9 3 3 - 3 9

81

the effects of m o n o p o l i z a t i o n in b o t h the e c o n o m i c a n d the political spheres. Monopolization, a d o m i n a n t but never u n i f o r m process in the first part of the century, raised the level of social organization, but in a contradictory fashion that left o u t m o d e d , u n m o n o p o l i z e d sectors of pro­ duction in the lurch. A s L ö w e n t h a l put it, “Organizational rationality b e c o m e s the engine of e c o n o m i c irrationality.”56 T h e u n e v e n develop­ m e n t of the capitalist e c o n o m y threatened social disruption a n d thus required a n instrument for distributing b o t h capital a n d the products of capitalism: state interventionism, or “ the subventionist state,”in L ö w e n thal's parlance. According to Löwenthal, the state's role in the e c o n o m y h a d b e c o m e greater in the postwar period, but it developed even m o r e decisively in the face of the e c o n o m i c collapse of the early 1930s. T h e individual state's ability to keep the contradictions of capitalist d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m spilling out into the specific sectors of the e c o n o m y affected m o s t directly b y in­ ternational developments, such as the b a n k i n g sector, w a s sharply lim­ ited, however.57 Every n e w crisis created a n e w set of relationships for the state to m a n a g e , so that its efforts b e c a m e like those of a juggler with a steadily increasing n u m b e r of fragile objects to keep aloft a n d in m o t i o n — a n d w h o s e p e r f o r m a n c e w o u l d determine the audience's fate. Sooner or later, the inevitable breakage w o u l d frustrate a n d anger and, b y analogy, d a m a g e the political legitimacy of the state. T h e e c o n o m i c collapse exerted its impa c t in the political sphere b y intensifying conflicts in the “interest party”parliamentary system. O n e of Löwenthal's essential points a b o u t the e c o n o m i c collapse w a s that conflicts a n d contradictions within the capitalist c a m p h a d b o t h p r o ­ d u c e d the current crisis a n d t e n d e d to prevent its resolution. This w a s because, h e argued, the world e c o n o m i c crisis h a d generated destructive vertical fissures within the capitalist class, i ndeed within all classes, in addition to h a v i n g w o r s e n e d the existing horizontal class divisions. T h e crisis also politicized the supporters of the various class parties a n d tended to exaggerate the parties' class character. In desperate attempts to protect their o w n sectors of the society, the parties, representing these various classes, portions of classes, or regional subgroups, lost their ability to f o r m coalitions. At the s a m e time, n o single party w a s strong e n o u g h to subju­ gate the others, so the political crisis t e n d e d to m i m i c the e c o n o m i c one: intensification w i t h o u t resolution.58 T h e c o nsequences of parliamentary deadlock w ere especially b a d for the labor m o v e m e n t , in Löwenthal's judgment. T h e parties m o s t support­ ive of parliamentary d e m o c r a c y (in the G e r m a n case, the SPD ) b e c a m e the

T h e Lost D e b a t e

82

scapegoats for the collapse of the state’ s ability to relieve the real e c o n o m i c distress of the electorate: “ T h e less it [the labor m o v e m e n t ] c a n exert a Marxist d o m i n a n c e of the situation, the m o r e the d o m i n a n c e of M a r x i s m will be declared responsible for every misery.” 59 T h e Left’ s political appeals to class could not outpace the National Socialists’potent mixture of a p ­ peals to nationalism a n d “ d e m o c r a c y ”a n d their demoni z a t i o n of “liberal chaos,”Jews, a n d the Left. Driving directly against the class character of the workers’m o v e m e n t in its slogans if not its actual considerations of political alliances, the National Socialists d r e w support f r o m a variety of classes— a “ people’ s c o m m u n i t y [Volksgemeinschaft] of the b a n k r u p t ” — as L ö w e n t h a l put it.60 T h e National Socialists further outflanked the social­ ists, a n d other parties as well, b y offering n o specific e c o n o m i c proposals that m i g h t hav e to be rationally elaborated a n d practically tested. Löwenthal’ s descriptive sections o n “ the fascist revolution”a n d “ the fascist state”explained the m e a n s a n d the c o n s e q u e n c e s of the fascist seizure of p o w e r as a generalizable mode l , but his e xamples d r e w p r i m a ­ rily f r o m the G e r m a n case a n d a d d e d little to the picture Rosenberg h a d provided earlier. But Löwenthal, unlike m a n y others o n the left w h o s a w fascism as merely the concentration of reactionary forces, allowed that the fascist m o v e m e n t was, in a limited sense at least, revolutionary: T h e fascist revolution is t h u s a true revolution insofar as it represents a necessary t u r n i n g p o int in t h e e v olution of b o u r g e o i s society, conditional o n e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t a n d t a king place in a revolutionary form. Its typical results s h o w : 1. a n e w h i g h e r f o r m of state organization; 2. a n e w reactionary f o r m of social organization; 3. a g r o w i n g state c h e c k o n e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t b y reactionary p o w ­ ers that h a v e seized control of t h e state. W h i l e t h e g r o w i n g political a n d social w e i g h t of th e parasitic a n d reac­ tionary strata stabilizes, t h e reactionary role of t h e state locks in. A t the s a m e time, t h e p o w e r of t h e unified a n d better o r g a n i z e d state is strength­ e n ed, w h i l e t h e organizations of t h e progressive classes, a b o v e all, are a n ­ nihilated. A situation arises in w h i c h t h e d y n a m i c of t h e forces of p r o d u c ­ tion is o n l y able to carry t h r o u g h its w o r k — a n d is forced to carry it t h r o u g h — against the pressure of t h e political system.61

T h e last of these three “ results”of the fascist revolution that were specified in L ö w e n t h a l ’ s m o d e l w o u l d b e challenged b y the bourgeoisie, however. In this argument, Löw e n t h a l anticipated the w o r k of such writers as Franz N e u m a n n , w h o w o u l d p u s h the a r g u m e n t about the relationship b e t w e e n

Perspectives f r o m Exile, 1 9 3 3 - 3 9

83

the Nazi state a n d capitalism e v e n further b y c o n t e n d i n g that the n e w regime not only avoided b e c o m i n g a barrier to capitalist e c o n o m i c devel­ o p m e n t but s o m e t i m e s b e c a m e its ally.62 B y introducing the issue of the degree of political control of the revolutionary Nazi state over the e c o n o ­ my , L ö w e n t h a l also entered into the long debates a m o n g leftists over the relative import a n c e or “a u t o n o m y ”of the t w o spheres of politics a n d the e c o n o m y a n d the putative role of fascism as a “m o d e r n i z i n g ”m o v e m e n t . For the m o m e n t , however, h e w o u l d conclude that the “ p r i m a c y of poli­ tics”to w h i c h h e alluded w a s but the deceptive facade of the fascist order. Löwenthal's analysis r e m a i n e d within the f r a m e w o r k of a M a r x i s m that understood political events a n d transactions as variables that were still configured a n d ultimately d e t e r m i n e d b y e c o n o m i c relations. T h e issue of the relationship b e t w e e n e c o n o m i c a n d political factors r e m a i n e d a problematic o n e for m a n y leftists, however, because a n y theoretical dis­ cussions about this relationship h a d the potential of calling into question notions inherited f r o m three generations of M a r x i a n writing about capi­ talist society— including s o m e of Marx's o w n writings.63 In his third article, L ö w e n t h a l at t e m p t e d to construct a scenario w h e r e b y the fascist revolution's success in achieving the “total state”g e n ­ erated the conditions for its o w n destruction. Here, h e qualified the pro­ visional notion of the all-controlling state that h e h a d articulated in his previous article. H e c o n c e d e d that, m o r e t h a n a n y previous f o r m of the state, the fascist state r e m o v e d the bourgeoisie f r o m direct p o w e r over the e c o n o m y . But the position that the fascist party transcended all classes was a sham: “ All the contradictions of the regime find their concentrated expression in a n e c o n o m i c policy in w h i c h n o t h i n g persists except change. T h e form, in w h i c h all activity e m a n a t e s f r o m a centralized, allpowerful apparatus, contradicts the content, w h i c h s h o w s that this a p p a ­ ratus is the plaything of various interests in conflict wit h each other, the object of their shifting strengths.”64 T h e e c o n o m i c p o w e r of the bourgeoi­ sie as a w h o l e never yielded entirely to the fascist state. Partly because of its inability to establish rational policies (and here fascist antirationalism proved deadly), the total state w a s not able to i m p o s e itself o n a capitalist e c o n o m y w h o s e productive process w a s the object of constant pressures for rationalization. T h e fascist party a n d the state w o u l d t h e n proceed in a zigzag fashion, responding first to o n e set of priorities, t h e n another, but finding n o w a y out of the n e e d to constrict d e v e l o p m e n t in s o m e areas of the e c o n o m y at the expense of prod u c i n g a r m a m e n t s . T h e oscillations in e c o n o m i c policy did not produce benefits across class lines but distributed t h e m primarily a m o n g the various sections of the propertied class. Ac-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

84

cording to Löwenthal's hypothesis, longer w o r k i n g hours for less p a y a n d a decline in the standard of living of the masses w o u l d be the ultimate consequences of this process, setting in m o t i o n a n e w e c o n o m i c crisis in w h i c h the fascist state itself w o u l d b e delegitimated. T h e Nazi regime's only w a y out of this d i l e m m a (and here L ö w e n t h a r s prediction turned out to be accurate e n o u g h ) w a s imperialistic aggression.65 Decades later, L ö w e n t h a l did not reject his early essays o n fascism but called t h e m “i m m a t u r e ”a n d preferred the analysis in his 1946 book, Jen­ seits des Kapitalismus (Beyond Capitalism).66 It is not necessary to share Löw e n t h a T s j u d g m e n t a bout his o w n writings, though. Moreover, L ö w e n thaTs economically oriented Marxist analysis of fascism of the mid-i930S cannot be dismissed as merely impressionistic, reductionist, or nonem p i r ical. At the time of their appearance, the articles h e wrote for the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus offered as thoughtful a n d m a n y - s i d e d a critique as a n y thinker o n the left h a d constructed to that time. After leaving G e r m a n y , L ö w e n t h a l lived in Paris a n d t h e n in L o n d o n , w h e r e h e b e c a m e o n e of the m o s t active m e m b e r s of N e u B e g i n n e n d for­ eign bureau, w h i c h attempted to direct overall operations of the group's local affiliates, obtain financial support, revive the radical tradition of the SPD, a n d secure a place for the party in postwar G e r m a n y . Lö w e n t h a l took part in each of these activities to suc h a n extent that h e h a d little time for his o w n theoretical projects until after the war. H e continued to publish in the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus for the rest of its brief existence, but in­ creasingly his time w a s devoted to c o m p o s i n g N e u B e g i n n e n correspon­ dence, programs, a n d theoretical position papers.67 T h e critiques of fascism p r o p o s e d b y these three i n d e p e n d e n t leftists extended into issues related to ideology formation (Marcuse), the politi­ cal mobilization of a m a s s m o v e m e n t that sanctioned the destruction of individual a n d g r o u p rights (Rosenberg), a n d the c o m p l e x play of forces a m o n g the “totalitarian party,”the e c o n o m y , a n d the “total state” (Löwenthal). T h e s e writings provided a theoretical basis for later a n d broader critiques of “totalitarianism,”w h i c h w o u l d occasionally include the Soviet Unio n . But to recall a point m a d e earlier, the careers of indi­ vidual writers followed this general d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m Faschismustheorie to Totalitarismustheorie onl y unevenly, a n d s o m e t i m e s not at all. B y the mid-i93os, Rosenberg w a s already a n outspoken critic of the Soviet Union, but h e never explicitly formulated a systematic c o m p a r i s o n of C o m m u ­ n i s m a n d fascism. T o a certain extent, M a r c u s e w o u l d m a k e use of simi­ lar comparisons, but only insofar as h e included all industrially developed societies— including (and, at times, especially) capitalist one s —u n d e r the

Perspectives from Exile, 1933-39

85

“ totalitarian”label. In the mid-i930S, L ö w e n t h a l still insisted o n the i m ­ portance of f u n d a m e n t a l differences b e t w e e n the C o m m u n i s t a n d the fascist party dictatorships.68 His reliance o n a n empirical analysis, g r o u n d e d in e c o n o m i c a n d historical understanding, s h o w e d only slight a n d t emporary modifications over the course of the next five decades. This methodological inclination gives his interwar speculations o n the crucial role of the political sphere lasting interest, a n d it also indicated L ö w e n thaTs d e e p indebtedness to his Marxist intellectual background. O t h e r thinkers, however, wer e ab o u t to m a k e their comparisons b e t w e e n Nazi G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U n i o n e v e n m o r e directly a n d polemically.

Charting Theories of the Totalitarian State Several early left-wing formulations of the concept of totalitarianism a n d the analysis of the totalitarian state appeared b e t w e e n 1933 a n d 1939. T w o groups of left-wing intellectuals p r o d u c e d s o m e of the m o s t provocative a n d practically oriented efforts at n e w theories of dictatorship based o n living models. T h e first group, the chief writers a n d editors associated with the Social D e m o c r a t i c journal Zeitschrift fur Sozialismus, r e s p o n d e d in various w a y s to the Nazis' claims to hav e created a “total state.”T h e sec­ o n d group, the resistance activists of N e u Beginnen, also h a d practical concerns that generated explorations of a comparative theory criticizing b o t h the fascists a n d the C o m m u n i s t s . A third e x a m p l e of these tentative notions of totalitarianism e m e r g e d in the writings of a very i n d e p e n d e n t leftist, a loner really, Franz Borkenau, w h o fashioned a n idiosyncratic comparative m o d e l of dictatorship b y using c o m p o n e n t s of theory f r o m M a r x a n d the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto. As even leftist “outsiders”like Franz Bor k e n a u a n d Richard Lö w e n t h a l understood, o n e of the m o s t important organs of publication for G e r m a n socialist writers in exile w a s the relocated a n d reassembled Die Gesellschaft, n o w published in Czechoslovakian exile u n d e r the n a m e Zeitschrift für Sozialismus.69 Its pages were o p e n to the usual cast of characters f r o m the leading ranks of the W e i m a r SPD , but a m o n g its writers n o w appeared y o u n g e r leftists, including the e x - C o m m u n i s t s B o r k e n a u a n d Löw e n t h a l as well as such S P D activists as Franz N e u m a n n . Despite the n e w location, the n e w n a m e , a n d a burst of revolutionary intensity a n d rhetoric in the period immediately after the Nazi takeover, m u c h of the old, reformist Die Gesellschaft spirit r e m a i n e d intact. It w o u l d be, as the m o n t h s of exile w o r e on, a noticeably chastened spirit as well. Articles representing a fairly broad range of left-wing political opinion continued to appear— excluding party

T h e Lost D e b a t e

86

C o m m u n i s t s , of course. T h e M e n s h e v i k exiles— Iurii Denicke ( w h o used the p s e u d o n y m G e o r g Decker), Gregor Bienstock, a n d Alexander Schifrin in particular— continued to d o m i n a t e the pages a n d editorial policy of the journal, t h o u g h Rudolf Hilferding r e m a i n e d as editor.70 T h e debates that played out in the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus s h o w that the isolation a n d w eakness of G e r m a n socialists in the mid-i930S h a d not blunted the edge of internal debate. O n the contrary, m a n y of the cracks that lay b e n e a t h the s e m b l a n c e of S P D unity in late W e i m a r o p e n e d into rifts a n d e ven c h a s m s u n d e r the pressures of the Nazi earthquake. D u r i n g its brief existence, Zeitschrift für Sozialismus b e c a m e o n e of the m o s t i m ­ portant paper a n d ink battlegrounds of the various tendencies a m o n g G e r m a n socialist exiles. O n e of the issues debated in the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus w a s the e x ­ iled SPD's relationship w i t h other groups o n the left, including the K P D , the C o m i n t e r n , various tiny splinter parties a n d organizations, a n d the socialist parties of France a n d Great Britain, w h e r e m a n y G e r m a n leftists n o w lived. T h e Nazi dictatorship in G e r m a n y — its character a n d the m e a n s of overthrowing it—w a s of course another frequent topic of articles appearing in Zeitschrift fur Sozialismus. Often the terms totalitarian, totali­ tarianism,a n d the total state appeared in discussions of these issues. W h a t these terms mea n t , however, w a s not always readily apparent. In fact, the first article of the first n u m b e r , written b y Hilferding, o p ­ timistically a n n o u n c e d the revolutionary character of the m o m e n t a n d t h e n immediately turned to the discussion of "the total state, as the Fas­ cists a n d National Socialists call their dictatorship.”71 H e described the i m p o r t a n c e of the takeover of all i n d e p e n d e n t organizations b y the N a ­ tional Socialist state, the proscription against discussing f u n d a m e n t a l social questions, a n d the cons e q u e n t depoliticization a n d atomization of the people: " T h e citizens of the state w ere transformed into the slaves of the state.”72 T h e Nazis achieved this transformation, Hilferding contin­ ued, o n the basis of m a s s support e ven stronger t h a n that of the Bolshe­ vik a n d Italian Fascist dictatorships. T h e totalitarian c o m p a r i s o n w a s m e n t i o n e d only briefly here.73 At this time, the "total state”of Hilferding’ s analysis r e m a i n e d primarily the fascist state— not the Bolshevik o n e — a n d h e ventured n o systematic c o m p a r i s o n of the Nazi a n d Soviet regimes. In the concluding paragraphs of his 1933 article, Hilferding returned to the i m a g e r y of "the total state”: " T h e struggle against the total state c a n be o nly a total revolution.”74 For the d e a n of o r t h o d o x Social D e m o c r a t i c intellectuals, the vocabulary of "totalitarianism”a n d the "total state”re­ m a i n e d for the time being largely a set of catchwords— political epithets

Perspectives from Exile,1933-39

87

rather t h a n political epistemology. B y 1940, however, Hilferding's per­ spective a n d his use of the category of “ totalitarianism”w o u l d b e c o m e m o r e theoretically precise a n d critical, particularly wit h regard to the S o ­ viet Union. E v e n in 1933, Hilferding's m e n t i o n of the “total state”w a s hardly novel. References to the “total state”a n d “total dictatorship”quickly b e ­ c a m e routine in the vocabulary of Zeitschrift für Sozialismus writers. T h e widespread use of such terminology w a s apparently at first a critical re­ sponse to the “ claims to totality”(Totalitätsanspruch) m a d e b y the fascist regimes themselves. S o m e t i m e s the socialist writers offered a self-con­ scious theoretical or empirical analysis of the various “ total”systems, but often the w o r d received n o clarification b e y o n d the i m m e d i a t e context of its appearance as a pejorative adjective. Soon, however, s o m e w h a t m o r e carefully specified uses of the category of “totalitarian”states appeared, as in the following e x a m p l e s f r o m early issues of the Zeitschrift für Sozial­ ismus: “It w a s the t r i u m p h of the dark, destructive powe r s of war, the cor­ ruption of the delusory idea of humanity, w h e n Hitler's dictatorship in­ stituted, in the Total state,' the preparation of the w h o l e people for the purely abstract goal of p o w e r wi t h o u t regard for the welfare of individu­ als or the society.”75 For M a x Klinger— the p s e u d o n y m of Curt Geyer, a former U S P D radical of the Räte m o v e m e n t of 1918-19 a n d later the edi­ tor of Vorwärts, the S P D n e w s p a p e r — the n e w “ total state”w a s a c onse­ q u e n c e of old ideals of state p o w e r a n d the practical political experiences of mobilization a n d control during W o r l d W a r I.76 T h e u n p r e c e d e n t e d forces gathered a n d exercised b y the state at that t ime served as the fulfillment of reactionary d r e a m s a n d as a m o d e l for future imitators. This a r g u m e n t s o o n b e c a m e a standard feature of historically oriented critiques of totalitarianism, such as Franz Borkenau's a n d H a n n a h Arendt's. For the m o m e n t , however, it w a s but a n aperçu in Geyer's m o r e general attack o n the fascists. A n o t h e r author, Franz W e g n e r , insisted that the “total state”a n d the “totalitarian party”r e m a i n e d largely verbal achievements a n d that the attempt to realize t h e m w o u l d fall short: T h e "totality”h a s o n l y o n e c h a n c e of realization: if t h e state succeeds in getting all t h e decisive social g r o u p s b a c k o n their feet, n o t o n l y e c o ­ nomically, b u t in t h e sense of controlling t h e f o r m a t i o n of their will as a n all-class, a l l - e n c o m p a s s i n g state party, that is, precisely to create a fascist party. T h e totalitarian party is t h e necessary correlate of t h e authoritarian state d u r i n g th e p e r i o d of revolutionary t u r m o i l in t h e e c o n o m y a n d th e

T h e Lost D e b a t e

88

attendant, s p o n t a n e o u s u p h e a v a l in t h e relative p o w e r s of the masses. B u t it is a n insufficient correlate.77

W e g n e r tied the rise of the "totalitarian party”to the revolutionary period that a c c o m p a n i e d a n d i m mediately followed the war. H e e m p h a s i z e d the "totality”of the state as a function of the totalitarian party's ability to coordinate all social groups, including their e c o n o m i c activities a n d their emotional energies. Yet h e considered the party ultimately insufficient to this gigantic task. Class struggle w o u l d stubbornly resurface, despite all of the p r o p a g a n d a a n d policy efforts to d r o w n it. In short, the "total state” w a s a n impossible ideal. W e g n e r ' s hypothesis holds particular interest because it bears a fairly close resemblance to the far m o r e systematic a n d empirically g r o u n d e d analysis of N a z i s m that Franz N e u m a n n later devel­ o p e d in B e h e m o t h a n d that m o r e recent historians, the so-called structur­ alists, h ave expanded: the lack of seamless unity in the National Socialist regime, its fu n d a m e n t a l character as a n "un-state”in perpetual chaos that bore within itself the class structures a n d conflicts of capitalist society. In 1942, w h e n B e h emoth w a s published, N e u m a n n w o u l d also share to a lim­ ited extent Wegner's faith in the possibility that internal conflict could significantly disrupt the Nazi state.78 A few m o n t h s later, M a x Seydewitz offered yet another gloss o n the "totality”of the fascist state as h e c o n c e d e d its short-term gains: " T h e vic­ tory of fascism in G e r m a n y is complete. In the short span of a year Hitler has b e e n able to p r o d u c e the totality of the fascist state a n d to o v e r c o m e all resistance.”79 Seydewitz, in contrast to W e g n e r , e m p h a s i z e d the success of Hitler in establishing a total state.80 His article e m p h a s i z e d the difficul­ ties of penetrating a n d breaking apart the unitary force of the n e w state. Seydewitz m e a n t to indicate the n e e d for a n exclusively proletarian revolt to s m a s h the Nazi h e g e m o n y , but the claim of successful a n d absolute Nazi "totality”w o u l d also serve those w h o , f r o m exile (where there w a s at least relative safety), urged intraclass cooperation or international w a r against Hitler a n d those w h o , in G e r m a n y , disliked the n e w order but kept quiet about it.81 Focus o n a pyramidal structure of p o w e r in the Third Reich— the realized "total state,”w i t h Hitler as the uncontested dictator at its s u m m i t —-has b e e n another feature of m u c h of the postwar historical writ­ ing about the Nazi period ( t h o u g h it has c o m e u n d e r substantial attack f r o m the structuralists). In W e g ner's a n d Seydewitz's articles, w e see that the bold outlines, if not the empirical details, of this later interpretive debate over the degree of "totality”achieved b y the Nazi state a n d the importance of Hitler's role within it were already in place as early as 1934.82

Perspectives f r o m Exile, 1 9 3 3 - 3 9

89

Zeitschrift für Sozialismus ceased publication nearly t w o years before Czechoslovakia w a s taken over b y Nazi G e r m a n y . T h e c o m m u n i t y of G e r ­ m a n socialists in Prague d isbanded to seek other places of refuge, a n d the journal w a s not revived. A s the historian A n d r é Liebich has argued per­ suasively, Hilferding's contact w i t h Denicke a n d Schifrin h a d played a key role in the d e v e l o p m e n t of antitotalitarian t h e m e s in s o m e of Hilferding's last essays o n the Soviet U n i o n — essays that w o u l d first appear in a R u s ­ sian-language M e n s h e v i k publication a n d t h e n percolate a m o n g the left­ ist intellectuals of the G e r m a n refugee c o m m u n i t y w i t h great effect.83 E v e n t h o u g h Hilferding a n d others h a d yet to give it precision, the use of the t e r m totalitarian proliferated f r o m the mid-i93os. It w o u l d be a simple matter to multiply e x a m p l e s of references to the “total state”a n d “totali­ tarian parties”f r o m the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus a n d f r o m other S P D a n d left-socialist journals as well.84 W h a t m a n y of these writings share is a fo­ cus o n the fascist regimes— Nazi G e r m a n y in particular— as “ total states.” A s the e x a m p l e s demonstrate, the functions of these uses of total w e r e varied a n d even conflicting, but there w a s n o necessary contradiction for these writers in their use of b o t h fascism a n d totalitarianism as labels for the Nazi state. Complicating searches for “fascism as totalitarianism”ar­ g u m e n t s is the simultaneous appearance of forerunners of the c o m p a r a ­ tive m o d e l of totalitarian theory, w h i c h also f o u n d their place in the es­ says a n d b o o k s of the early exile period. At roughly the s a m e time, the gr o u p of left-wing intellectuals, journal­ ists, a n d scholars belonging to N e u B e g i n n e n took u p a far m o r e direct a n d active resistance role t h a n the Hilferding circle or M a x H o r k h e i m e r ’ s In­ stitute of Social Research. T h o u g h all of these groups w e r e propelled b y events a n d experience in the direction of n e w theories of dictatorship, N e u B e g i n n e n d m e m b e r s w a g e d a particularly difficult a n d c o m p l e x fight b o t h against fascism a n d for their acceptance as a “loyal opposition”o n the n o n - C o m m u n i s t left. Its practical a n d theoretical attempt to position itself as a bridge b e t w e e n the S P D a n d the K P D in the m i d - to late 1930s offers a u n i q u e e x a m p l e of the freewheeling a n d bitter discussions that m a r k e d the appearance of a left-wing antitotalitarian outlook. T h e debates within N e u B e g i n n e n over its relations with the exile K P D a n d the C o m i n t e r n reached their greatest intensity f r o m 1936 to 1939, the period that b e g a n w ith the M o s c o w s h o w trials of old Bolsheviks a n d the Soviet i n v o l vement in the Spanish civil w a r a n d e n d e d w i t h the HitlerStalin Pact a n d the outbreak of war. T h e call for a “Popular Front”uniting socialists, C o m m u n i s t s , a n d socially progressive liberals, initiated in France during the fall of 1935, w a s designed to d r a w a group like N e u Beginnen into

T h e Lost D e b a t e

90

a broad antifascist alliance.85 O n e of the earliest d o c u m e n t e d discussions of this policy within N e u B e g i n n e n took place in M a y 1936. A l t h o u g h a n o p e n i n g to the K P D s e e m e d desirable, a policy of remaining indep e n d e n t of the K P D apparatus also received support.86 W i t h i n ten weeks, the S p a n ­ ish civil w a r a n d the M o s c o w trials h a d begun, heightening the group's a m ­ bivalence about joining forces with the C o m m u n i s t s . T h e various contacts, personal experiences of individual m e m b e r s , a n d policies attempted b y N e u B e g i n n e n f r o m the mid-i93os t h r o u g h the early years of W o r l d W a r II constitute a fascinating history. T h e m o s t i m ­ portant issues in the context of antitotalitarianism o n the left, however, are the theoretical a n d practical p r o b l e m s of N e u B e g i n n e n d perceptions of the K P D a n d the Soviet U n i o n thrashed out b y L ö w e n t h a l a n d others in the g r o u p u p to the b e g i n n i n g of W o r l d W a r II. S o m e events a n d issues p rovoked little or n o internal debate. Support for the republican side in the Spanish civil w a r w a s automatic. T h e g r o u p also swiftly generated a draft letter o p p o s i n g the executions that followed the first r o u n d of s h o w trials in M o s c o w . 87 But there w a s n o e n d to disagreement about h o w pre­ cisely to characterize the Soviet state regime. O n e discussion within N e u B e g i n n e n about the Soviet U n i o n e c h o e d s o m e of the controversies of late W e i m a r theoretical disputes: the a d ­ equ a c y of the B o n a p artism theory to describe twentieth-century dictator­ ships. W h e n T h a l h e i m e r h a d helped reintroduce this approach, the s ub­ ject of investigation w a s fascism; within N e u Beginnen, the subject w a s the Soviet U n ion. In J anuary 1937, o n e of the group's m e m b e r s , “L a n d a u " ( M a x Blatt), wrote a n essay o n the Soviet U n i o n as a n e x a m p l e of B o n a ­ partism.88 “M a r y " (Evelyn A n d e r s o n ) a n d “Ernst" (Richard Löwenthal) r e s ponded w e e k s later, unequivocally rejecting Blatt's application of the “Bonap a r t i s m thesis."89 T h e pair a c k n o w l e d g e d the d a m a g e d o n e b y the s h o w trials but insisted that Spain offered a n e w test for the Soviet U nion: the issue w a s not yet closed. T h e exasperated Blatt r esponded in a letter asking, “ W h a t crime does o n e have to wait for in order to characterize the Soviet U n i o n as Bonapartist?"90 T h e debate w o u l d continue for m o n t h s , but events in Spain turned the group's leadership fairly steadily tow a r d criticism of the Soviet U n i o n . 91 W h i l e N e u B e g i n n e n c ontinued its early practical a n d theoretical re­ sponses to dictatorship, a n important theoretical effort b y Franz B o r k e n a u appeared in 1936. Borkenau's efforts w o u l d lead h i m a w a y f r o m M a r x i s m , but until the e n d of the d e cade h e r e m a i n e d in the c a m p of u n o r t h o d o x socialists w h o w e r e attempting to fashion a theory of dictatorship that m o v e d b e y o n d o r t h o d o x M a r x i a n analysis without surrendering all of its

Perspectives f r o m Exile, 1 9 3 3 - 3 9

91

potential for generating essential perspectives. In the mid-i93os, h e m a d e several significant contributions to the d e v e l o p m e n t of critiques of totali­ tarian dictatorship. His b e s t - k n o w n writings o n politics a n d dictatorship, T h e Spanish Cockpit (1937) a n d T h e C o m m u n i s t International (1938), a p ­ peared towa r d the e n d of the decade, but they were preceded b y several years of intensive analysis of the current political scene a n d the histori­ cal past. Early in the decade, B o r k e n a u h a d b e e n associated wit h the Institute of Social Research (most likely, h e first c a m e to the institute w h e n it w a s still u n d e r the direction of Carl Grünberg, w h o w a s succeeded b y M a x Horkheimer). His first b o o k — a study of sixteenth- a n d seventeenthcentury p hilosophy a n d its ideological relation to the rise of capitalism— w a s published in 1934 with the institute's sponsorship. B y that time, h o w ­ ever, Borkenau's effort d r e w only the coolest support f r o m Horkheimer, Friedrich Pollock, a n d the rest at the institute. H e w a s also associated with key Austro-Marxists in the g r o u p close to Otto Bauer, but h e w a s almost certainly absent f r o m the scene at the time of the failed socialist rising in Vienna, c h o osing survival over heroics.92 F r o m 1933 to 1935, h e devoted his energies to a series of essays o n political topics in w h i c h h e b lended historical a n d sociological concerns. A m o n g the topics h e took u p were fascism (1933), trade u n i o n s (1934), a n d the E u r o p e a n Left (1935). These essays displayed the e m e r g i n g persona of Bor k e n a u the inde p e n d e n t jour­ nalist-scholar: blunt, iconoclastic, intense, didactic. But B o r k e n a u h a d yet to place his analyses of fascism a n d Bolshevism in the f r a m e w o r k of a g e n ­ eral a n d comparative theoretical a r g ument. H e w o u l d s o o n discover a perspective congenial to this project.93 In his apparent attempt to formulate a n alternative to strictly Marxist m o d e l s of social c h a n g e that h e n o w accepted only in part, B o r k e n a u took as his subject a writer far r e m o v e d f r o m a n y socialist perspective: Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923). This Italian sociologist a n d econo m i s t h a d detested d e m o c r a c y a n d l a m e n t e d the participation of the “m a s s e s ”in national political life. Pareto w a s a seemingly o d d choice of subjects for a left-wing activist a n d writer such as Borkenau. M o s t likely, though, Pareto's ideo­ logical affiliation w i t h fascism r e c o m m e n d e d study of his t h o u g h t to Borkenau.94 Despite his claims for Pareto's significance, B o r kenau m a d e n o secret of his scorn for the Italian's h i g h b l o w n geometrical formulations a n d his hypotheses of “residues”a n d “derivations.”95 But h e defended a version of Pareto's theory of the circulation of elites, w h i c h h e used as a m e a n s of analyzing the political develo p m e n t s of Italy, G e r m a n y , a n d the Soviet U nion.

T h e Lost D e b a t e

92

Briefly stated, Pareto's theory of the circulation of elites posits a hier­ archical m o d e l of society characterized b y significant differences in the e c o n o m i c a n d political abilities of its various social strata. Elites, Pareto contended, c a n be f o u n d in all the various classes a n d in vocational a n d social groups. T h e political elite, w h i c h includes the wielders of national power, is typically the m o s t important. But there is also a process Pareto called the "circulation of elites,”w h e r e b y elites are b o t h replenished a n d eventually replaced. Individuals possessed of innate biological superior­ ity in intelligence, will, or leadership will rise into the higher classes of society, while those of inferior gifts, regardless of their status at birth, will tend to sink. O n l y free competition c a n guarantee this result, however. In the absence of free circulation, n e w elites will arise u n d e r less t h a n ideal conditions. Pareto w a s unable to conceive of a balance b e t w e e n the n e e d for regeneration a n d the destructive forces required to accomplish it. H e c o n c l u d e d that the best possibility, a free market capitalist competition, could not survive the d e m a n d s of the masses for e c o n o m i c security. Pareto finally arrived at a pessimistic vision of the cyclic recurrence of the d e g e n ­ eration, destruction, a n d regeneration of elites.96 B o r k e n a u argued that Pareto's admiration for liberalism a n d his c o n ­ t e m p t for d e m o c r a c y h a d resulted in a sociology that w a s at least as p o ­ lemical as it w a s scientific: It is as t h e precursor of a n attitude to social life b e c o m i n g m o r e p o w e r ­ ful every d a y that Pareto is of t h e greatest interest to us, w h a t e v e r t h e o b ­ jective v a lue of this attitude as to its c o n t e n t of scientific truth m a y be. In Pareto's w o r k for t h e first time, t h e p o w e r f u l t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s a c h a n g e of political m a c h i n e r y a n d social organization since e m b o d i e d in B o l s h e ­ vi s m , Fascism, N a t i o n a l Socialism a n d a score of similar m o v e m e n t s h a s f o u n d clear expression: clearer here t h a n in t h e w o r k of G e o r g e s Sorel, w h o a l o n e c o u l d b e r a n k e d w i t h Pareto as a precursor of the political a n d social c h a n g e s w e b e h o l d in o u r days.97

T h o u g h h e h a d not provided a sufficiently convincing analysis of Italy's past social development, Pareto h a d accurately formulated the key c o m ­ p o n e n t s of fascist p r o p a g a n d a techniques a n d ideology: the lions w o u l d s u b d u e the foxes; sheer force a n d repetition of slogans w o u l d replace the appeal to reason; the decadent old liberal world w o u l d give w a y to a vital n e w elite.98 In formulating his o w n a r g u m e n t s regarding elites, w h i c h w a s evi­ dently the purpose b e h i n d his study of Pareto, B o r k e n a u rescued a revised theory of elites, w h i c h h e put to use in his closing chapters, "Bolshevism”

Perspectives from Exile, 1933-39

93

a n d “Fascism.” 99 Borkenau's discussion e m p h a s i z e d the impact of the eco­ n o m i c disruptions that h a d followed W o r l d W a r I. T o explain the rise of the n e w m a s s m o v e m e n t s of fascism a n d Bolshevism, h e established a schematic portrait of the political-economic context of their appearance. H e hypothesized that free competition w o u l d lead a n d indeed h a d led to concentration of production in the h a n d s of the ablest capitalists a n d that a m o r e or less “natural”e c o n o m i c elite h a d arisen.100 But as larger a n d larger enterprises collapsed w h e n competition continued at higher levels of concentration, as they h a d after the crash of 1929, great n u m b e r s of workers a n d investors felt the ha r m f u l effects. A n increasingly destructive competition ensued. At s o m e point, d e p e n d i n g o n particular national circumstances a n d the relative p o w e r of e c o n o m i c classes, political par­ ties, a n d other social groups, the state w a s forced to intervene w ith laws that established s o m e limited control over the distributive rewards of in­ dustrial production. B y virtue of its n e w role in a period of crisis, “the state b e c o m e s important for the very life of every o n e of its citizens, w h o fight a desperate battle for the d o m i n a t i o n over it, in order to preserve their existence a n d m a k e the others perish. Theoretically the struggle m a y lead to the complete victory of o n e g r o u p of citizens over all the other groups, e n d i n g in a complete unification of society.”101 Borkenau's m o d e l of social c h a n g e revealed a M a r x i a n theory of capitalist e c o n o m i c crisis a n d state intervention a n d a revised Paretoan notion of the e m e r g e n c e of n e w p o ­ litical elites. T h e result of the process B o r k e n a u described—the “complete unification of society”—w o u l d not be a true unity but a hierarchical or­ der u n d e r the authority of a state controlled b y a n e w elite, a n d here h e cited the case of the Bolsheviks.102 A linchpin of this analysis (and o n e that stands out even m o r e clearly decades later) w a s Borkenau's e m p h a t i c shift of focus f r o m the e c o n o m i c to the political in his description of the essen­ tial workings of the twentieth-century state. In his subsequent writings, B o r k e n a u w o u l d describe suc h a n e w order as a “totalitarian state.” In the chapters entitled “B olshevism”a n d “Fascism,”Bor k e n a u speci­ fied h o w the n e w elites h a d gained and, as of 1936, retained power. Here B o r k e n a u m a d e his closest c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n the Soviet U n i o n a n d Nazi G e r m a n y , revealing their similarities a n d differences in the light of Pareto's political sociology. H e observed that Bolshevist socialism “puts Pareto's theory to its strongest test.”103 T h e radically egalitarian social theory of Bolshevism declared not only that e c o n o m i c elites were b o u n d to disappear but also that the state apparatus eventually w o u l d have to vanish as well. O n l y t h e n could all for m s of d o m i n a t i o n b e abolished. Pareto's insistence o n the inevitability of natural d o m i n a t i o n w a s utterly

The Lost Debate

94

incompatible wit h B o l s h e v i s m — or at least w i t h Bolshevist ideology. Borkenau, however, d r e w a distinction b e t w e e n ideological appeals for revolution to achieve a classless society a n d the actual practices of Lenin­ ism. T h e latter rested not o n u n b e n d i n g principle but o n the political needs of the m o m e n t as determined b y the party leadership: “ At every important m o m e n t of the Russian revolution M a r x i s m h a d to be a b a n d o n e d ___ It w a s a belief a n d not a scientific guide. In reality, Lenin acted b y ingenious intuitions, based o n close k n o w l e d g e of facts, as all great political leaders of all times have done. A n d the m a i n function of M a r x i s m w a s to hold the elite together___ ”104 B o r k e n a u claimed that the Bolsheviks were not the v a n g u a r d of the classless society but the creators of a n e w a n d oppressive hierarchy. B y emphasizing the elitism of the Bolsheviks' theoretical stand­ point a n d policy decisions, B o r k e n a u could apply his Paretoan revisionism to the study of the Soviet U n i o n . 105 H e h a d c ompleted the construction of a conceptual road that w o u l d lead h i m to the discovery of other “totalitar­ ian affinities" b e t w e e n fascism a n d Bolshevism. B o r k e n a u next e x a m i n e d the formation of the Bolshevik a n d fascist elites. H e pointed out that they h a d arisen as responses to divergent eco­ n o m i c a n d political conditions a n d enunciated, radically o p p o s e d goals. H e also noted the clear differences in the parties' p rimary class appeal, ar­ guing that “ National-socialism at the m o m e n t of its advent w a s m o r e of a victorious regime of the u p p e r classes t h a n Italian Fascism h a d been, not to m e n t i o n Bolshevism."106 H e also f o u n d s o m e significant similarities, though. E ach of the three parties (Italian Fascist, G e r m a n National Social­ ist, a n d Soviet C o m m u n i s t ) appealed to a n elite of s o m e kind— national­ ist, racial, and, in the rather complicated case of the Bolsheviks, b o t h a class (the proletariat) a n d a political v a n g u a r d acting in behalf of that class (the party).107 Moreover, in e ach of these parties, a single individual served as the official articulator of ideology a n d policy a n d as the paternal s y m b o l of authority. Hitler a n d Mussolini h a d a s s u m e d this role in the early days of their respective parties. B o r k e n a u argued that Stalin's ascent reflected a bureaucratization a n d ossification of the Russian Revolution, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a n intense struggle for p o w e r within the party elite, carried out over a period of years in the w a k e of Lenin's brilliant successes. All three m e n , however, h a d succeeded b y b eing “able m a n a g e r s ] of the party m a ­ chine."108 E a c h of these recent elite party m o v e m e n t s h a d achieved a fairly high level of cohesiveness before its successful revolution a n d seizure of the state. T h e formation of elites prior to the overthrow of the old state m e a n t that, in the event of revolutionary success, reconstruction of a n e w state apparatus b y the elite party w o u l d be swift a n d decisive.

Perspectives f r o m Exile, i933~39

95

A m o n g the n e w elite's vital tasks w a s the organization of collective displays of nationalism to stimulate fanatical allegiance to the n e w order. O n this point, B o r k e n a u again f o u n d Pareto's writings pertinent to the events of the 1930s. T h e Paretoan categories of "non-logical action," w h i c h B o r k e n a u h a d dismissed as p o o r sociological theory, f o u n d their h o m e in b o t h fascist a n d Bolshevist ideology: S e n t i m e n t s u n c o n t r o l l e d b y r e a s o n h a v e really pla y e d a n e n o r m o u s rôle in th e a s c e n d a n c y of Fascism, a n d in addition, in th e later d e v e l o p m e n t s of B o l s h e v i s m t h e s a m e s e n t i m e n t s c a m e to t h e forefront, t h o u g h in t h e official Bolshevist t h e o r y this t r e n d is neglected or rejected. B o l s h e v i s m of course h a s to take ov e r m a n y e l e m e n t s of t h e a g e of e n l i g h t e n m e n t , a n d of rationalism as a n ideology, in order to fit t h e Russian p o p u l a t i o n for a m o d e r n industrial order. T h e c o m m o n trend, h o w e v e r , t h e a c c e p t a n c e of authority instead of rational consideration, the e u l o g y of activity in t h e place of t h o u g h t , t h e u n c o n s i d e r e d a c c e ptance of a f e w m e t a p h y s i c a l prin­ ciples t a k e n for g r a n t e d a n d t h e rejection of a n y “p r o b l e m s ”n o t solved b y these official a x i o m s , is c o n s p i c u o u s . In F a s c i s m as well as in Bolsh e v i s m , rationalism is b a n n e d f r o m t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t spheres of h u m a n life a n d relegated to m a t t e r s o f p u r e tech n i q u e . O n e m a y d o u b t w h e t h e r , in th e l o n g run, a rationalistic t e c h n i q u e c a n coexist w i t h t h o r o u g h l y anti-ratio­ nalist habits of life.109

This d a m n i n g analysis m i g h t b e b r o a d e n e d to include a n y n u m b e r of re­ gimes that are not usually d u b b e d "totalitarian," but Borkenau's prescient remarks o n the role of irrational p r o p a g a n d a in fascism a n d Bolshevism indicated his g r o u n d i n g in M a r x i a n theories of ideology a n d his willing­ ness n o w to apply s uch theories to a self-declared Marxist regime. R o u n d i n g out his comparative analysis, Borkenau briefly discussed the internal policies c o m m o n to the state-party dictatorships of the 1930s: institutionalized violence a n d party m o n o p o l i z a t i o n of e c o n o m i c a n d political power.110 H e h a d m e n t i o n e d these as characteristics of fascism in his articles of 1933 a n d 1934, but h e n o w understood t h e m as integral to Soviet C o m m u n i s t policies as well. B y the closing chapter of Pareto, Borke­ n a u h a d outlined a theory of totalitarian convergence: "It has often b e e n observed that in Fascism a n d Bolshevism along with a n evident anta g o ­ n i s m in social policy, there goes a surprising similarity in political insti­ tutions. F r o m the point of v i e w of the theory of d o m i n a t i o n a n d of elites, B o l shevism a n d Fascism c a n o n l y really be treated as slightly different specimens of the s a m e species of dictatorship."111 For the m o m e n t join­ ing Trotsky a n d other dissenting or u n o r t h o d o x leftists in his analytical

T h e Lost D e b a t e

96

bracketing of the t w o m o s t i mpor t a n t dictatorial regimes in Europe, B o r k e n a u w a s about to e m b a r k o n yet another decisive step in his journey a w a y f r o m the c a m p of revolutionary M a r x i s m . T h e s a m e year Pareto w a s published, 1936, B o r k e n a u w o u l d turn f r o m exploring a n d m o d i f y i n g theoretical m o d e l s of revolution a n d dictator­ ship to e x a m i n i n g a c o n t e m p o r a r y test case: Spain. T h e revolution a n d civil w a r in Spain w ere the final events in Borkenau's political m o v e a w a y f r o m M a r x i a n socialism. Probably m o r e t h a n a n y other m o m e n t in the long retreat of the exiled G e r m a n Left u p to the outbreak of w a r in 1939, the Spanish civil w a r intensified the impassioned a n d yet also m i x e d re­ sponses of antifascism a n d a n t i - C o m m u n i s m that w o u l d s o m e t i m e s cul­ m i n a t e in varieties of left-wing antitotalitarian theory.

Spain a n d the Hitler-Stalin Pact T h e i m p a c t of the Spanish civil w a r o n the h o p e s of the G e r m a n Left in exile w o u l d b e hard to overestimate.112 T h e war, w h i c h broke out in July 1936, pitted a n antiparliamentary coalition that included the falange (Spain's b r a n d of fascism), the military, the Catholic church, a n d conser­ vatives against the Loyalist alliance of liberal republicans, a h u g e a n d ac­ tive contingent of revolutionary anarchists, a n d M a r x i a n socialists of ev­ ery stripe.113 This intense a n d b l o o d y conflict, w h i c h lasted f r o m 1936 to 1 9 3 9 ; offered

E u r o p e a n leftists the first real opportunity to take u p a r m s

against fascism since the Austrian workers' rising of 1934, a n d m a n y e x ­ iled G e r m a n leftists w e n t to Spain to assist in the defense of the Republic. T h e g r o u p of writers discussed in this b o o k w a s divided in its responses to the w a r only in terms of h o w a n d to w h a t degree to b e c o m e involved in support of the Republic a n d the Spanish Left, not in terms of w h e r e their sympathies in the conflict lay. S o m e offered organizational support, s o m e helped find h o m e s for refugees, others w e n t to Spain to participate in or to observe the conflict a n d write about it. T h e individual writer of this gr o u p of left intellectuals m o s t directly involved in the w a r w a s H e n r y Pachter, w h o w e n t to Spain a n d supported the e x t r e m e leftist a n d vociferously a n t i - C o m m u n i s t Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (Partido O b r e r o de Unification Marxista— P O U M ) , the party w h o s e militia G e o r g e Orwell w o u l d join in 1937, m o r e or less b y chance. Pachter spent several m o n t h s in Spain a n d wrote a book, Espagne: Creuset politique, u n d e r the p s e u d o n y m Henri Rabasseire (a r o u g h trans­ lation of his n a m e into French). T h e book, published in 1938 in Paris, w a s a typical product of the m o m e n t — impassioned, polemical, a n d desper-

Perspectives f r o m Exile, 1 9 3 3 - 3 9

97

ate in tone. Nevertheless, it is superior to m a n y b o o k s of those years b e ­ cause of its political shrewdness a n d historical insights. A s his 1932 essay o n the K P D demonstrated, Pachter h a d dispensed with the party's prac­ tical a n d theoretical positions several years earlier, a n d h e retained few of the illusions about the chances for left-wing unity that m a n y British a n d A m e r i c a n volunteers b r o ught with t h e m to Spain. Like his P O U M c o m ­ rades, h e w a s outspokenly critical of the Spanish C o m m u n i s t Party a n d its increasingly important role in the restructured republican government. H e referred to the period of terror b e h i n d republican lines that followed in the aftermath of the defeat of the P O U M a n d the anarchists in the intraleft fighting during the spring a n d s u m m e r of 1937 as “the h o u r of the Jacobins." Nonetheless, h e f o u n d the civil w a r a n d especially the popular revolution that it h a d set in m o t i o n w o r t h y of his c o m m i t m e n t , and, at the conclusion of his book, h e held out the h o p e that “the S p a n ­ ish people have not yet h a d their last w ord."114 Karl Korsch also f o u n d the Spanish Revolution compelling, but f r o m the standpoint of the scholar a n d theorist m o r e t h a n the participating activist. H e wrote articles o n the process of socializing the e c o n o m y , w h i c h h a d b e g u n so quickly in the revolutionary region of Catalonia af­ ter the w a r broke out. Like m a n y others o n the left, Korsch v iewed Spain as a scene of important socialist experiments in e c o n o m i c reorganization. T h e extent to w h i c h workers could r u n the e c o n o m y for their o w n benefit a n d u n d e r the control of their o w n elected councils w a s of particular i m ­ portance a n d interest to Korsch. T h e possibilities for a transformation of the e c o n o m y disappeared, however, u n d e r the pressures of the w a r at the front a n d the e m e r g e n c e of a n antirevolutionary alliance of the Spanish C o m m u n i s t Party (Partido C o m u n i s t a d e E s p a n a — P C E ) a n d m o d e r a t e liberals that d o m i n a t e d politics b e h i n d the front. K orsch s o o n b e c a m e aware of this.115T h e t w o articles h e wrote, “E c o n o m i c s a n d Politics in R e v o ­ lutionary Spain" a n d “Collectivization in Spain," were originally intended for the journal of the Institute of Social Research, Zeitschrift für Sozial­ forschung. But as KorsclTs biographer Doug l a s Kellner has described this particular disagreement b e t w e e n Korsch a n d the institute, h e “e n d e d u p publishing t h e m in Living Marxism, a journal edited b y Paul Mattick, af­ ter the Zeitschrifts editors 'politically castrated' t h e m a n d 'distorted their form.'"116 T h e articles were sharply political. In “E c o n o m i c s a n d Politics in R e v o ­ lutionary Spain," in particular, Korsch spent as m u c h time criticizing the C o m m u n i s t s in Spain a n d the Stalinist regime in the Soviet U n i o n as h e did explaining the significance of the efforts of the Spanish workers in

The Lost Debate

98

Catalonia— a n d lamenting the likely defeat of their revolution. B y 1939, before the a n n o u n c e m e n t of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, h e w o u l d ask, “ What is the reason for the particularly close resemblance b e t w e e n the C o m m u ­ nist dictatorship in Russia a n d its n o m i n a l opponents, the fascist dicta­ torships in Italy a n d G e r m a n y ? ”H e conc l u d e d that “it ceases to b e i n c o n ­ ceivable that the Russian state in its present structure should act as a powerful lever in the fascization of Europe.”117 Clearly, the disillusioning effect o n Korsch of this period of the M o s c o w trials a n d the defeat of the Spanish Revolution w a s profound, as evidenced not only b y his attacks o n the Soviet U n i o n but also b y the a m b i v alence of his critical positions o n M a r x i s m in his writings of these a n d subsequent years. At times, as in Karl M a r x (1938), h e could still appear as a n o r t h o d o x Marxist to the letter, but, in his essays, h e s o m e t i m e s dismissed M a r x i s m as irredeemably c o m p r o ­ m i s e d or historically surpassed.118 For their part, the writers a n d researchers of the Institute of Social Research in N e w York h a d just c o m p l e t e d their massive a n d remarkable compilation of essays in 1936, Studien über Autorität u n d Familie (Studies on Authority a n d the Family), a n d they w e r e e n g a g e d in a variety of other re­ search projects related to fascism a n d m a s s culture.119N o t surprisingly, in v i e w of the institute's research interests instead of activist concerns, H o r k h e i m e r a n d his colleagues appear to h a v e b e e n as far r e m o v e d f r o m the Spanish civil w a r intellectually as they were physically. There is almost n o m e n t i o n of the conflict in the institute's correspondence or published writings of the years 1936 to 1939. But Herbert M a r c u s e did describe the war's impact o n his o w n thinking years later in the foreword to the first v o l u m e of Kultur u n d Gesellschaft: “ T h e last struggle for freedom, solidar­ ity, a n d h u m a n i t y in the revolutionary sense took place o n the battlefields of the Spanish Civil War. E v e n today the songs s u n g for a n d in this struggle are the single remaining reflection of a possible revolution for the y o u n g e r generation. Here w a s the e n d of a n historical period, a n d the terrors of the c o m i n g age a n n o u n c e d themselves in the simultaneity of the Civil W a r in Spain a n d the Trials in M o s c o w . ”120 Th e r e is n o reason to think that Marcuse's judgm e n t s regarding the w a r in Spain were altered after the fact. Moreover, despite h o w little the institute involved itself in discussions of or writings o n the war, its leader, M a x Horkheimer, offered w h a t support h e could muster for refugees f r o m Spain a n d other countries u n d e r fascist threat or actual control. T h e d a u nting a n d t i m e - c o n s u m i n g h u m a n i t a r ­ ian w o r k H o r k h e i m e r a n d his colleague Friedrich Pollock p e r f o r m e d in helping m a n y left-wing scholars, party activists, a n d their families to find

Perspectives f r o m E x île, 1933 - 3 9

99

h o m e s a n d w o r k in exile during the 1930s constitutes a little-known c h a p ­ ter in the history of the Institute of Social Research. It was, in a n y case, Franz B o r k e n a u w h o wrote, after his connection with the Institute of Social Research h a d ended, the m o s t important b o o k about the w a r in Spain p r o d u c e d b y a G e r m a n exile.121 Th e Spanish Cock­ p i t Borkenau's account of the Spanish civil war, discussed the war's first year in terms of the social a n d political alignments within Spain a n d openly disputed the position c o m m o n a m o n g E u r o p e a n leftists that the civil w a r w a s just a local version of the larger struggle against fascism. Based o n the observations h e m a d e during t w o visits to Spain (in August 1936 a n d January 1937), B o r k e n a u insisted that Spain w a s u n i q u e a m o n g E u r o p e a n nations a n d that its fate, despite the involvement of outsiders of all political persuasions, w o u l d b e to continue its rather solitary path at the periphery of W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n civilization. O f greater m o m e n t to the analysis of totalitarianism, however, wer e B o r k e n a u 's observations about the decline of the revolutionary aspects of the civil w a r — radical c h a n g e s evident in people's hopes, public speech, d e m a n d s for institutional change, a n d social behavior, changes that wer e so p r o m i n e n t in the s u m m e r of 1936— into a kind of bureaucratic terror­ i s m only m o n t h s later. B o r r o w i n g heavily f r o m the theoretical perspec­ tives h e h a d articulated a year earlier in his study of Vilfredo Pareto, B o r k e n a u described the d e v e l o p m e n t a n d behavior of a n e w revolution­ ary elite in republican Spain: ''Every revolution s e e m s to undergo, in its course, this transformation f r o m m a s s terrorism to police terrorism. T h e transformation w a s cut short in France b y the fall of Robespierre, not b e ­ fore having m a d e considerable progress. It c a m e to full strength in Russia in the years after the e n d of the civil war. In Spain, w h e r e the properly revolutionary processes h a v e b e e n so quickly superseded b y s o m e t h i n g entirely different, it has m a d e great strides in the few m o n t h s since the beginning of the civil war.''122 Borkenau's m o d e l of revolutionary trans­ formation f r o m " m a s s terrorism'' to "police terrorism'' a i m e d to explain h o w the anarchists, w h o h a d provided the truly revolutionary impetus of the early w e e k s of the revolution against the military attack led b y G e n ­ eral Franco a n d his fascist allies against the fragile Republic, steadily lost p o w e r to a coalition of C o m m u n i s t s a n d liberals w h o w a n t e d to stifle the revolution. It also provided a useful point of reference for the comparative study of m o d e r n revolutionary m o v e m e n t s generally. T h e transition f r o m m a s s revolution to police control gradually left the anarchists o n the outside looking in a m o n g the powerful forces o n the re-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

ioo

publican side. T h e anarchists' refusal to take a n active part in the n e w re­ gime, while consistent with their doctrines, proved disastrous politically. T h e Spanish C o m m u n i s t s in particular, a small a n d insignificant party in Spain at the start of the war, used the t e m porary disruption of order a n d the hasty process of organizational restoration in the w a r t i m e Republic to gain vital positions of p o w e r in the police a n d the military—a n d to c o n ­ duct extralegal terror b e h i n d the lines. T h e y accomplished all this wit h a bit of help f r o m the N K V D — the notorious Soviet secret police.123 Borkenau h a d personal experience w i t h these n e w forces of order. As a result of his journalistic nosiness, B o r k e n a u w a s interrogated a n d spent a night in jail. But this w a s before the intensive intraleft purges of M a y a n d J u n e 1937, a n d h e w a s released u n h a r m e d . Unwilling to risk further incidents of this kind, B o r k e n a u returned to E n g l a n d to complete his book. T h e m o s t controversial a n d u n o r t h o d o x opinion B o r k e n a u delivered in the course of his narrative w a s that the revolution in Spain w a s halted, not helped, b y the active intervention of the C o m i n t e r n a n d the Soviet U nion: “ As it was, a n d as it h a d to be, because the failure of the Spanish Left coincided w i t h fascist intervention, republican Spain w a s at the m e r c y of the force w h i c h b r o u g h t help.... For it w a s force with a revolu­ tionary past, not w i t h a revolutionary present, w h i c h h a d c o m e to help the Spaniards. T h e c o m m u n i s t s put a n e n d to revolutionary social activ­ ity, a n d enforced their v i e w that this o u g h t not to be a revolution but s i m ­ ply the defence of a legal g o v e r n m e n t . ”124 As he, G e o r g e Orwell, H e n r y Pachter, a n d a minority of others o n the left contended, the C o m m u n i s t s were o n the right w i n g of the revolutionary m o v e m e n t in Spain, a n d their leadership constantly p u s h e d the policy of “ w a r first, revolution later,”in contrast to the anarchist (CNT-FAI) a n d P O U M factions, w h i c h refused to separate the t w o struggles. Intraleft tensions g r e w into o p e n hostility, es­ pecially b e h i n d the lines in the province of Catalonia, w h e r e the anar­ chists r e m a i n e d powerful. In the spring of 1937, the P O U M a n d its reluc­ tant allies a m o n g the anarchists suffered a bitter defeat at the h a n d s of g o v e r n m e n t police supported b y the C o m m u n i s t s . Borkenau's assessment h a d p r o v e n remarkably prescient.125 O n e of Borkenau's readers, w h o h a d just returned f r o m Spain in the spring of 1937, w a s G e o r g e Orwell. Orwell h a d witnessed the intraleft M a y fighting in the Catalonian capital of Barcelona, and, for the m o m e n t at least, his outlook coincided w i t h Borkenau's. T h e Englishman, w h o h a d b e e n reading every b o o k o n Spain h e could get hold of, un d e r t o o k to p u b ­ lish a favorable review of T h e Spanish Cockpit in the N e w Statesman. It w a s refused o n political grounds, a n d Orwell hit the roof. H e h a d to c o n d e n s e

Perspectives f r o m Exile, 1 9 3 3 - 3 9

101

the review article a n d publish it in T i m e a n d Tide.126 T h e episode led to O r w e l T s increased hostility to w h a t h e n o w called “the C o m m u n i s m racket”a n d initiated a friendship w i t h Borkenau. B o r k e n a u wrote to Orwell less t h a n a w e e k after the review appeared a n d asked to m e e t w ith h i m . 127 This first e x c h a n g e of views o n Spain led to further meetings a n d correspondence. In 1938, after reading OrwelTs n e w l y published H o m a g e to Catalonia, B o r k e n a u offered his bluntly stated version of the “totalitar­ ian c o m p a r i s o n ”in a letter of congratulations: “ T o m e your b o o k is a fur­ ther confirmation of m y conviction that it is possible to b e perfectly h o n ­ est w i t h one's facts quite irrespective of one's political convictions. A n d this, to m e , s e e m s a m u c h m o r e important issue at present, t h a n a n y p r o b ­ l e m of a m o r e directly social a n d political character. Fascism, b o t h of the b r o w n a n d of the red sort, is d r o w n i n g us in lies; the best w a y to o p p o s e it, is simple truth.”128 W h e t h e r Orwell agreed strictly with the formulation “red a n d b r o w n fascism”is hard to say. But Orwell a n d B o r k e n a u shared c o m m o n g r o u n d politically for a time, a n d o n e result of their friendship w a s that Eileen O ' S h a u g h n e s s y Blair, the novelist's intelligent, able, a n d generous spouse, w o u l d give B o r k e n a u useful editorial assistance w ith his English-language manuscripts.129T h e t w o m e n remained o n friendly terms until Orwe l T s death in 1950. B y then, they w o u l d be c o u n t e d a m o n g the ranks of the early cold w a r critics of totalitarianism. In 1937, however, their writings represented a minority point of vie w even o n the marginalized anti-Stalinist intellectual left. Borkenau’ s u n h a p p y experiences wit h the C o m m u n i s t Party, first in G e r m a n y a n d t h e n in Spain, left h i m deeply hostile to the romanticization of the party a n d its role in Spain, w h i c h h a d quickly b e c o m e a staple of Popular Front p r o paganda.130 Nevertheless, Bork e n a u proudly described the role of the C o m m u n i s t - l e d a n d M o s c o w - f u n d e d International Bri­ gades— especially the G e r m a n units—that fought o n the republican side.131 T h e Spanish Cockpit,in its idiosyncratic w a y a passionate statement about the character of the war, expressed little o p t i m i s m about the Republic's chances for survival. T h e b o o k also stands as the epitaph for Borkenau's h o p e s about the revolutionary success of even such a radical a n d populist g r o u p as the Spanish anarchists, with w h o m h e clearly sympathized. In his concluding remarks, Borkenau analyzed the peculiar case of Spain. H e f o u n d the civil w a r essentially a local affair into w h i c h foreign forces a n d ideologies h a d intruded. T h e w a r w a s not, in Borkenau's view, simply a n epi­ sode in the larger battle b e t w e e n fascism a n d antifascism. In a passage that elaborated his earlier discussions of fascism as a modernizing dictatorship, h e even denied that the Franco forces were significantly fascist:

T h e Lost D e b a t e

102

Fascism, classically represented in th e present G e r m a n a n d Italian régimes, m e a n s s o m e t h i n g quite definite. It m e a n s , first of all, a dictator w h o is rec­ o g n i z e d as t h e “leader”; it m e a n s , secondly, a o n e - p a r t y system; it m e a n s , thirdly, th e “totalitarian state,”in th e sense that t h e r é g i m e dictates n o t o n l y in m a tters of politics in t h e p r o p e r sense, b u t in e v ery aspect of p u b ­ lic a n d private life; it m e a n s , in the fourth place, that n o force i n d e p e n d e n t of the central party is tolerated in a n y field whatsoever; it m e a n s , mor e o v e r , that t h e party, b y m e a n s b o t h of c o n v i c t i o n a n d violence, tries to get t h e unified c o n s e n t of t h e n a t i o n a n d succeeds, to a large degree, in this at­ t e m p t . It m e a n s , finally, that t h e totalitarian p o w e r is u s e d in or d e r to a chieve a h i g h e r degr e e of co-ordination a n d efficiency in every b r a n c h of public life; fascism is the m o s t p o w e r f u l political a g e n t of “m o d e r n i z a t i o n ” that w e k n o w of. H a r d l y a n y of these features h a v e their c o u n t e r p a r t in t h e F r a n c o r é g ime.132

This passage is striking, a n d the path B o r k e n a u carved w i t h this attempt to list the defining characteristics of fascism deserves emphasis here. S i m ­ ply substitute the w o r d totalitarianism for fascism, a n d this schematic definition could have c o m e f r o m the p e n of Carl J. Friedrich in the 1950s— including not only its systematic description but also its deeply pessimistic character. There were, however, essential differences in the historical situ­ ation as well in m e t h o d that m u s t b e taken into account w h e n c o m p a r ­ ing the approaches of B o r k e n a u a n d Friedrich as theorists of totalitarian­ ism. M o s t important, in the case of T h e Spanish Cockpit,B o r k e n a u did not include a n y m e n t i o n of the Soviet U n i o n in his remarks o n the fascist state, a n d eve n Franco's regime did not m e a s u r e u p to Borkenau's defini­ tion of "classical" fascism, so the theoretical outlook of this w o r k re­ m a i n e d largely within the sphere of Faschismustheorie. For Borkenau, only the forces f r o m outside Spain— Italy a n d G e r m a n y — represented true fas­ cism. T h e nationalists in Spain were not a fascist m o v e m e n t as such, but merely included fascists as o n e c o m p o n e n t of a m i x of m o d e r n i z i n g a n d antimodernizing authoritarian groups. Borkenau's description of fascist dictatorship a n d the "totalitarian state" as agents of modernization stood out as a succinct a n d boldly stated m o d e l — as formulaic (and therefore potentially comparative) a set of cat­ egories as a n y that h a d yet appeared. In Borkenau's view, the generous a n d romantic solidarity represented b y such m o v e m e n t s as Spanish anarchism w o u l d certainly not survive the revolutionary onslaught of the m o d e r n industrializing dictatorship if it succeeded in seizing control of the S p a n ­ ish state in either its fascist or C o m m u n i s t incarnations.

Perspectives f r o m Exile, 1 9 3 3 - 3 9

103

B o r k e n a u clarified these ideas in a n article h e published in the British journal Sociological Review in 1937. This article, “State a n d Revolution in the Paris C o m m u n e , the Russian Revolution, a n d the Spanish Civil W a r , ” revealed the extent to w h i c h B o r k e n a u h a d b r o k e n not only wit h C o m ­ m u n i s m but also with a n y M a r x i a n theory of democratic, working-class revolution. T h e article w a s written during the hiatus b e t w e e n Borkenau's t w o visits to Spain that preceded the publication of T h e Spanish Cockpit A s the article shows, h e u n d e r s t o o d Spanish a n a r c h i s m as a genuinely revolutionary working-class m o v e m e n t , but o n e caught b e t w e e n its pur­ ist ideology of equality a m o n g workers a n d peasants in a stateless society, o n the o n e hand, a n d the practical n e e d to consolidate a n d institution­ alize revolutionary gains, o n the other.133 In Spain, B o r k e n a u argued, the C o m m u n i s t s gained p o w e r at the e xpense of the anarchists precisely b e ­ cause they understood the n e e d to take u p quarters within the apparatus of the state during its w a r t i m e reorganization. T h e conclusion h e d r e w f r o m his observations in Spain w a s that all revolutions are c o n d e m n e d to reconstitute the state after destroying it— a n d that u n d e r the conditions prevailing after W o r l d W a r I a n d the Russian Revolution, the n e w state w o u l d in all likelihood be a totalitarian state-party dictatorship. In his utter rejection of a M a r x i a n notion of working-class revolution that h e previously h a d held, B o r k e n a u n o w a ppeared as not only heretical but scarcely revolutionary at all. In a handful of years, h e w o u l d b e d e m a n d ­ ing a n antitotalitarian “ counter-revolution.”134 O n l y a few of the leftist G e r m a n exile intellectuals— R u t h Fischer a n d Karl August Wittfogel, for e x a m p l e — w o u l d join B o r k e n a u in his particular kind of ferocious, occa­ sionally reckless, a n d yet at m o m e n t s oddly despairing a n t i - C o m m u n i s m . But even those w h o balked at the i m a g e h e w o u l d s o o n develop of a to­ talitarian state that o v e r c a m e all its historical obstacles, s m a s h e d all p o ­ litical alternatives, a n d escaped or effectively suppressed internal contra­ dictions often shared his hatred a n d distrust of the C o m m u n i s t Party leadership. O n e incident of the Spanish civil w a r that involved the fate of a G e r ­ m a n émigré socialist helps illustrate h o w the w a r d e e p e n e d the hostility of m a n y Social D e m o c r a t s a n d i n d e p e n d e n t radicals like the N e u Begin­ n e n g r o u p toward the C o m i n t e r n in Spain a n d the exile leadership of the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party: the disappearance a n d death of M a r k Rein. Rein w a s the son of the p r o m i n e n t M e n s h e v i k exile Rafael Abramovitsch. Reared in Berlin, Rein h a d b e e n active in G e r m a n Social Democratic y o u t h organizations a n d later b e c a m e a m e m b e r of N e u Beginnen. H e v o l u n ­ teered to offer his skills as a radio electronics specialist to the republican

T h e Lost D e b a t e

104

side in Spain s o o n after the civil w a r broke out. In April 1937, h e w a s in­ vited to a m e e t i n g w i t h s o m e acquaintances. H e s o o n disappeared f r o m his r o o m at the Hotel Continental in Barcelona, a n d m e m b e r s of his unit were unable to find him. His father, believing that Rein h a d b e e n abducted a n d murdered, possibly b y Soviet agents, sought the help of G e r m a n leftw i n g organizations in locating his s o n or at least learning his fate. All the efforts of father a n d friends, including Richard L ö w e n t h a l a n d Willy Brandt, the future m a y o r of W e s t Berlin a n d chancellor of the Federal Republic of G e r m a n y , p r o d u c e d n o results.135 Rein's b o d y w a s never found, a n d n o d o c u m e n t e d explanation for his death emerged. N e u B e g i n n e n d contacts w i t h the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s in exile regarding Rein's disap­ pearance p r o d u c e d o n l y a n evasive a n d disappointing letter f r o m "Walter”(Walter Ulbricht, later h e a d of the C o m m u n i s t Party in the G e r ­ m a n D e m ocratic Republic). H e could offer n o leads o n Rein but took the opportunity to d e n o u n c e the "Trotskyists”in the P O U M a n d to suggest that they were responsible for the kind of intraleft conflicts that h a d so enraged N e u Beginnen.136 Rein's disappearance w a s bu t o n e tragic case a m o n g t h o u s a n d s in Spain, but e v e n so, the attempt to discover his w h e r e abouts h a d involved m a n y leaders of the G e r m a n or at a n y rate SPD-affiliated Left in exile, a n d the sad episode served to reinforce the existing mistrust of the C o m m u ­ nists. T h e p r e e m i n e n t historian of the G e r m a n Left's i n v o l v e m e n t in Spain, Patrik v o n zur M ü h l e n , m e n t i o n s the account of Julius Deutsch, a n Austrian socialist w h o served o n the republican side. D e u t s c h surmised that Rein w a s forced or lured o n t o a boat in the Barcelona harbor a n d t h e n killed s o m e w h e r e off the coast of Spain, but n o definitive corroboration of this has ever c o m e to light.137 Years later, Richard L ö w e n t h a l w o u l d re­ m a r k that eve n the Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 1939, so shocking to m a n y leftists in E u r o p e a n d to leftists worldwide, w a s n o great surprise to h i m in the light of the c o n d u c t of the C o m m u n i s t s b e h i n d the lines during Spanish civil war.138 In m a n y ways, the t w o events c a n hardly be separated politically or chronologically, for only five m o n t h s after Franco's forces defeated the Republic, the Hitler-Stalin Pact w a s a n n o u n c e d . N e u B e g i n n e n r e s p o n d e d swiftly to the German-Soviet a g r e e m e n t in a discussion that too k place at the e n d of A ugust 1939, just prior to the outbreak of w a r in Europe. T h e g r o u p c o n d e m n e d the division of Eastern Europe into "spheres of influence”a n d expressed outrage over the d e m o r ­ alizing a n d dangerous effect the pact w o u l d have o n the socialist m o v e ­ m e n t in G e r m a n y as well as o n C o m m u n i s t s u n d e r i m m i n e n t danger of attack in such countries as France. T h e y understood that the realpolitik

Perspectives f r o m Exile, 1 9 3 3 - 3 9

105

security needs of the Soviet U n i o n wer e hardly a factor to be ignored but that, f r o m the standpoint of the interests of socialism, the pact m u s t be c o n d e m n e d as reactionary. T h e “Soviet-fascist pact”indicated o n c e a n d for all that the interests of the Russian state a n d the interests of the social­ ist m o v e m e n t w e r e no t necessarily c o n g r u e n t a n d could e v e n be in conflict. Poland w a s s o o n invaded, first f r o m the west, t h e n s o m e three w e e k s later, f r o m the east.139 T h e w a r intensified the crisis of the exile Left even m o r e sharply. W i t h its c ustomary responsiveness, however, N e u B e g innen quickly took u p the issue of h o w the w a r a n d German-Soviet cooperation w o u l d present b o t h dangers a n d opportunities for socialist organizations. T h e KPD's a n d the Comintern's support for the Soviet agre e m e n t with G e r m a n y posed a se­ rious p r o b l e m for a n y c o m m o n antifascist front, the group concluded, but it w a s equally true that the continuation of the partnership posed politi­ cal p r o blems for b o t h signatories to the pact.140 Moreover, in L ö w e n t h a P s words, “ fascism remains the primary strength of the world reaction a n d the chief e n e m y . ... It is only the Stalin regime that has ceased to be a factor in the socialist m o v e m e n t . ”141 In other words, despite his willingness n o w to characterize the Soviet U n i o n as “ totalitarian,”L ö w enthal still e m p h a ­ sized the important differences b e t w e e n the t w o regimes, a n d h e refused to use the opportunity offered so temptingly b y the German-Soviet B o u n d ­ ary a n d Friendship Treaty simply to replay the tone a n d revise the content of the old “social fascism”slogan for use against the C o m m u n i s t s b y label­ ing G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U n i o n as “identical twins.”C h e a p propaganda points were of n o importance at that m o m e n t . T h e o v e r w h e l m i n g present n e e d w a s to reinvigorate a n international socialist opposition to fascism— without Stalin a n d the Soviet Uni o n , if n e e d be.142 A n o t h e r revealing e x a m p l e of the group's efforts to join forces with the n o n - C o m m u n i s t Left in the countries of exile w a s Karl Frank's address to the Fabian Society in October 1939, entitled “ T h e W a r A i m s of the G e r m a n Opposition.”Frank expressed N e u B e g i n n e n d criticism of the Hitler-Stalin Pact a n d likewise c o n d e m n e d the R e d - B r o w n alliance that h a d helped oust the S P D f r o m p o w e r in Prussia in 1932. Arguing for a “ p l a n n e d social­ ist society,”Frank c o n c l u d e d b y expressing the desire of the radical Left “ to transform this w a r into the revolution.”O v e r the course of m o n t h s , this vision of socialist radicalism ultimately lost out to strategies of coali­ tion-building— a political style that Frank's L o n d o n audience k n e w quite well. Frank himself eventually i m m i g r a t e d to the United States, w h e r e h e continued to raise funds a n d establish useful contacts for the group.143 T h e r e m a i n d e r of the group's core in L o n d o n , including Richard

T h e Lost D e b a t e

106

Löwenthal, finally chose to integrate N e u B e g i n n e n into the S P D during the war.144 E v e n as its political star rose during the w a r t i m e years, the group's radicalism declined, leaving in retrospect less the legacy of a f u n ­ d a m e n t a l rethinking of S P D reformist policies a n d tactics t h a n that of a m o r e or less ordinary but protracted generational succession to party lead­ ership c o n d u c t e d u n d e r the extraordinary conditions of exile a n d war. Perhaps this is too hasty a judgment, though. T h e appearance of several N e u B e g i n n e n veterans in key postwar a c a d e m i c a n d political positions in Berlin a n d the Federal Republic indicates the lasting imp a c t of the group's m e m b e r s o n G e r m a n public life, long after the g r o u p as such h a d ceased to exist.145 Moreover, m a n y former N e u B e g i n n e n m e m b e r s — t h o u g h not all, to be sure— gave s o m e mea s u r e of support for the cold w a r political a n d military opposition to the Soviet U n i o n . 146 This is evidence for the general point that these G e r m a n socialist intellectuals— including the m e m b e r s of N e u B e g i n n e n — w h o h a d either b e e n m e m b e r s of the W e i m a r K P D or w h o h a d attempted w o r k in coalitions w ith the C o m i n ­ tern during the exile years w o u l d often later b e c o m e the m o s t o u t s p o k e n of the Social Democr a t i c anti-Communists. T h e theoretical a n d practical activities of N e u B e g i n n e n during the early Nazi period s h o w that u n d e r g r o u n d opposition w a s a dangerous, if disappointingly unsuccessful, undertaking. T h e secret meetings, the c o n ­ stant fear of informers, u n e x p e c t e d visits f r o m the police or the Gestapo, the danger of establishing contacts outside one's o w n small circle w ere all part of N e u Beginnen's operations. But the g r o u p represented, if only for a short time, the kind of vital alliance of intellectuals a n d workers that socialists have so often solicited. T h e leadership of the gro u p reflected this heterogeneity, a n d the active rank a n d file were quite often y o u n g radi­ cals w h o c a m e f r o m the Mietskaserne (rent barracks) of the industrial dis­ tricts a n d w h o s e activities in opposition to the Nazis, h o w e v e r m o d e s t in their effects, at least testify to organized G e r m a n socialist working-class resistance to Nazism. T h e far better k n o w n resistance efforts of the Kreisau Circle (and the July 194 4 assassination plot against Hitler) a n d the W h i t e Rose student g r o u p took shape several years after the Machtergreifung a n d represented the heroic but belated a n d also tragically ineffective opposi­ tion of traditionally educated conservatives a n d upper-middle-class so­ cialists— a partnership wit h a diverse array of additional political allies to b e sure— to the ruinous policies of the reckless a n d m u r d e r o u s Nazis.147 T h e ultimate futility of the opposition offered b y N e u B e g i n n e n m u s t also b e a c k n o wledged, but the group's origins in W e i m a r radicalism a n d its

Perspectives from Exile; 1933-39

107

spirited socialist character in the face of Nazi tyranny deserve broader rec­ ognition t h a n they hav e generally received. At the time, however, the fact of failure w a s p a r a m o u n t . N o t only were the various efforts at resistance unable to dislodge or even seriously chal­ lenge the Nazi regime, but the prewar period of exile h a d b rought the di­ visions within the G e r m a n Left into the open, just as Otto Rühle's sar­ d onic observation o n the émi g r é scene indicated. Nonetheless, as the writings discussed in this chapter demonstrate, the analysis of dictator­ ship, if not the actual battle for its defeat, h a d m a d e significant progress. Attention to the ideological, political, a n d e c o n o m i c reasons for the N a ­ zis' success h a d led to m o r e carefully differentiated concepts of fascism. Study of the rise of n e w dictatorial elites in several E u r o p e a n countries h a d generated u n o r t h o d o x a n d provocative theoretical perspectives o n stateparty regimes. M o s t important for the d e v e l o p m e n t of socialist perspec­ tives o n right- a n d left-wing dictatorships, political events in the Soviet U n i o n a n d Spain required clearer assessments of the dangers a n d c o m ­ plexities of broad left-wing alliances. W h a t r e m a i n e d of M a r x i a n social­ i s m in these various enterprises, however, w o u l d b e c o m e a problematic issue, as Rühle h a d guessed it would. These efforts at formulating left-wing critiques of totalitarian dictatorship during w a r t i m e resulted in a multi­ tude of perspectives— several of t h e m resting o n revitalized efforts at Marxist political analysis, s o m e characterized b y a rejection of M a r x i s m , a n d s o m e revealing a n utter a b a n d o n m e n t of the revolutionary Left.

1 f

E l Varieties

of

Antitotalitarianism:

W artime Theories

and

Politics,1939-45

This E u r o p e a n w a r is a n “ideological war. ”It is a fight o f the liberal powers o f Europe against the biggest “totalitarian”power, G e r m a n y . A n d G e r m a n y , in this war, is cooperating; though in a n a m b i g u o u s m a n n e r , with Russia, the other big totalitarian p o w e r o f the world.... T h e division could not be m o r e clear-cut; liberal p o wers here, totalitarian po w e r s there. — Fr a n z B o r k e n a u , 1 9 4 0 “Totalitarian”is a w o r d o f m a n y m e a n i n g s too often inadequately defined. — Ernst Fraenkel, 1941

T h e period f r o m 1939 to 1945, coinciding w i t h the w a r in Europe, s a w the appearance of several of the m o s t important left-wing writings o n totali­ tarian state-party dictatorship. S o m e of these critiques anticipated the d o m i n a n t cold war-era concept of totalitarianism, while others departed f r o m that type of concept considerably or e v e n challenged its legitimacy. Th e s e writers’ widely divergent viewpoints o n totalitarianism hardly e x ­ hausted the range of explanations of the dictatorships in G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U n i o n that were offered during the interwar a n d w a r time years, but they were a m o n g the m o s t systematic a n d innovative analyses of that time.1 This chapter approaches these writings in the context of the w a r ­ time debates o n the exile G e r m a n left about the comparability (and c o m ­ patibility) of dictatorial regimes, the correct f r a m e w o r k a n d terminology to use in analyzing a n d categorizing t h e m , a n d the relative i mportance of the e conomic, political, a n d cultural roots of m o d e r n dictatorship.

108

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

109

G e r m a n leftists' comparative analysis of the m o v e m e n t s a n d regimes of fascism a n d C o m m u n i s m took o n a sharper edge during the period of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. T h e disastrous course of the w a r for the beleaguered anti-Axis coalition, f r o m the invasion of Poland in September 1939 through mid-1941— with the heartening exception of the Battle of Britain— gave a n ­ tifascists in exile genu i n e cause for despair. Several analyses pro d u c e d b y G e r m a n socialists offered hostile comparisons of the regimes in G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U n i o n — e v e n after the beginning of the G e r m a n army's Operation Barbarossa (the surprise invasion of Soviet territory o n 22 J u n e 1941) that w o u l d a d v a n c e w i t h shocking speed to the outskirts of Leningrad a n d M o s c o w b y the first w e e k of D e c e m b e r 1941. T w o events, Japan's attack o n Pearl H a r b o r that s a m e w e e k a n d Hitler's precipitous declaration of w a r o n the United States, w o u l d transform the scope a n d character of the conflict. T h e U.S. entry into the w a r gave at least s o m e h o p e for a n eventual halt to Axis gains, but the ultimate results were not i m m e ­ diately foreseeable— n o r w a s the unprecedented violence that w a s about to be unleashed o n the civilian populations of Europe a n d Asia.2 Despite the desperate straits of the anti-Axis alliance, in w h o s e c o u n ­ tries m o s t of these writers h a d taken refuge, G e r m a n socialists s o m e t i m e s included criticism of the W e s t e r n capitalist p o w e r s in their writings o n dictatorship, a n d s o m e of t h e m continued to define totalitarianism as a n essential characteristic of all the powerful nation-states of the period, w h e t h e r capitalist or not. N o t surprisingly, m o s t of the writings discussed here initially f o u n d a small audience, several of t h e m w e n t unpublished for years, a n d a n u m b e r of others r e m a i n available only in research ar­ chives. T h e difficulty in accessing s o m e of these writings has certainly b e e n o n e of the reasons for the dearth of scholarly w orks o n the p h e n o m ­ e n o n of left-wing antitotalitarianism. Their political incompatibility with consensus views of totalitarianism during the cold w a r w a s likely another strike against t h e m . E v e n the pairing of N a z i s m a n d Stalinism as “ red a n d b r o w n fascism,'' for instance, could not save a manuscript f r o m the n e ­ glectful condescension of posterity.

B r o w n a n d R e d Fascism O f the handful of leading Wei m a r - e r a C o m m u n i s t s included in this study, Otto Rühle is today probably the least k n o w n . H e also h a d the longest his­ tory as a left-wing political activist a n d intellectual in G e r m a n y . In 1914, Rühle joined Karl Liebknecht a n d a d o z e n others in the SPD's Reichstag delegation in opp o s i n g the granting of w a r funds.3 N e ver personally close

T h e Lost D e b a t e

no

to Liebknecht, Rosa L u x e m b u r g , or Clara Zetkin, Rühle nevertheless h o o k e d u p with a variety of groups that o p p o s e d the S P D f r o m the left. H e joined a leftist group, the G e r m a n International C o m m u n i s t s (Interna­ tionale K o m m u n i s t e n Deutschlands— IKD), at the e n d of the war; partici­ pated in the workers' a n d soldiers' councils (Räte) m o v e m e n t ; a n d served o n the executive board of the Spartacists— the predecessor of the K P D . His career with the K P D w a s quite brief, however, t h o u g h h e h a d b e e n a m e m ­ ber of its f ounding conference. After his expulsion f r o m the C o m m u n i s t Party in late 1919, h e linked u p with various Weimar-era leftist opposition groups a n d wrote o n education, psychology, family relations, a n d Karl Ma r x . N e v e r so im p o r t a n t a n oppositionist as August T h a l h e i m e r or Heinrich Brandler, Rühle nonetheless wrote stinging criticisms of the K P D leadership a n d policy for a decade into the exile period—t h o u g h several of his longer manuscripts wer e not published until after his death.4 In 1936, Otto R ühle settled in M e x i c o along with his energetic spouse, Alice Gerstel-Rühle, w h o also h a d a considerable publication record in socialist education a n d child psychology. Rühle h a d b e e n invited b y the M e x i c a n g o v e r n m e n t to serve as a n educational adviser. There, the couple took u p a turbulent yet apparently affectionate friendship w i t h their neighbors, L e o n Trotsky a n d Natalya Sedova. Gerstel-Rühle reported that Trotsky a n d her h u s b a n d h a d frequent battles over long-lost issues of party-versus-democracy or the precise m o m e n t at w h i c h Stalin h a d gained control of the apparatus of the C o m m u n i s t m o v e m e n t . These discussions somet i m e s led to bitter shouting m a t c h e s a n d abrupt departures, followed days or e v e n hours later b y r e n e w e d overtures of friendship. Rü h l e also participated in the public “tribunal”led b y the A m e r i c a n philosopher J o h n D e w e y that e x a m i n e d Trotsky's alleged crimes against the Soviet U n i o n . 5 It w o u l d b e interesting to k n o w if Rühle ever s h o w e d Trotsky his unpublished manuscript, “Brauner u n d Roter Faschismus”(“B r o w n a n d R e d Fascism”); Trotsky m i g h t well hav e b e e n outraged b y the historical details but m i g h t h a v e agreed wit h his political interpretation of the cur­ rent status of the dictatorships in G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet Union. “Brauner u n d Roter F a s c h i s m u s ”is a n e x a m p l e of a genre at w h i c h Trotsky himself excelled: history as polemic. T h e text begins wit h a curt, pointed synopsis that indicates the tone a n d substance of the rest of the analysis: T h e character of t h e present w o r l d situation is in th e first instance d e ­ t e r m i n e d b y E u r o p e a n factors, at w h o s e a p e x s t and [conditions in] G e r ­ m a n y a n d Russia.

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

in

T h e s e factors, e m b o d i e d in G e r m a n y b y N a z i s m a n d in Russia b y B o l s h e ­ vism, are t h e results of a d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h s h a p e d t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e p o s t w a r E u r o p e a n e c o n o m y a n d politics. E c o n o m i c a l l y , this p o s t w a r p e r i o d is a n c h o r e d in ultraimperialist m o ­ n o p o l y capitalism, w h i c h t e n d s to a s y s t e m of state capitalism. Politically, it p a v e d t h e w a y for a totalitarian state order, w h i c h c u l m i n a t e d in a sys­ t e m of dictatorship.6

In his characteristically blunt m a n n e r , R ühle h a d b e g u n his a r g u m e n t wit h the kind of c o m p a r i s o n of the Soviet U n i o n a n d Nazi G e r m a n y that flourished briefly during the period of the Hitler-Stalin Pact a n d t h e n re­ appeared in the late 1940s. Rühle gave further specificity to this analogy in his next passage, w h i c h referred to “the inner c o n g r u e n c e of the ten­ dencies of G e r m a n a n d Russian state capitalism, a n d the structural, orga­ nizational, d y n a m i c , a n d tactical identity, w h i c h is a necessary c o n s e ­ q u e n c e of the political pact a n d the unity of military action.”7T h e rest of his text, w h i c h w a s not published during R ü h l e ’ s lifetime, continues this analogy in a caustic indictment of the dictatorial regimes in G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet Unio n , freely d r a w i n g comparisons b e t w e e n the t w o states. Starting w i t h a n analysis of the period beginning wit h W o r l d W a r I, Rühle explained the w a r itself as the inevitable result of the competition a m o n g national “trusts.”8 W a r t i m e crisis never allowed the e c o n o m i e s of the leading industrial nations to recover their former vigor, a n d the E u ­ r o p e a n collapse appeared to m a r k a chaotic “decline of the West.”T h e revolutionary opportunity that presented itself in G e r m a n y lapsed b e ­ cause of the caution a n d the outright hostility toward revolution s h o w n b y the Social D e m o c r a t s at the top a n d a m o n g the masses, Rühle m a i n ­ tained. Rudolf Hilferding received R ü h l e ’ s special attention as the author of the “masterpiece of bagatellization a n d sabotage of the w o r k of social­ ization”b e g u n in the G e r m a n Revolution of N o v e m b e r 1918.9 Hilferding h a d attempted to rationalize the process of socialization of the e c o n o m y , insisting that capitalism n e e d e d rebuilding before successful socialization could take place. R ü h l e ’ s rage against the “charlatanry”of Hilferding’ s policies a n d their “laughable dilettantism”w a s equaled only b y his anger at “ the m a s s e s ”for putting u p with the situation: “Instead of being freed f r o m capitalism, the masses w ere p l u n g e d into still worse slavery. N e v e r ­ theless, they did not chase their leaders to the devil. Betrayer a n d betrayed were w o r t h y of o n e another___ People learn n o t h i n g f r o m history. N o t e ven the workers.”10 R ü h l e ’ s cranky a n d embittered m e s s a g e w a s not a n unusual o n e for the intellectuals associated with the working-class m o v e -

T h e Lost D e b a t e

112

m e n t to pass along. Franz B o r k e n a u a n d Arthur Rosenberg h a d also c o n ­ cluded that the bulk of the G e r m a n w o r k i n g class of 1918-19 w a s not in­ terested in or able to carry out a revolution— e v e n w i t h the e x a m p l e of Russia before it.11 Rühle's verdict o n the Russian Revolution w a s equally harsh. In his view, the revolution h a d never br o u g h t the majority of people together w ith the principles of socialism. Bureaucratization c a m e about quickly, R ühle argued, b e g inning w ith the civil w a r period. Unlike m a n y writers w h o hav e b l a m e d either L e nin or Stalin for the ossification of the Russian revolutionary m o v e m e n t , R ü hle offered this assessment: “ Trotsky, w h o does not w a n t to a d m i t that h e himself is o n e of the chief founders of the Russian bureaucracy, inaugurated this c h a n g e in the A r m y . .. .”12 Rühle's readiness to dismiss Trotsky's claim to leadership of the Oppositional C o m m u n i s t s is remarkable. According to Rühle, Stalin simply b r o ught to bureaucratic a n d terroristic fruition the harsh policies that Trotsky h a d practiced as leader of the R e d A r m y . E v e n for the founder of the Bolshevik Party, Lenin, there w a s n o place of h o n o r in Rühle's account. R ü h l e declared that L e n i n h a d b e e n t h e o ­ retically a n d practically u n p r e p a r e d to lead a proletarian m o v e m e n t , 13 that L e n i n w a s “n o dialectician, but o n l y a n opportunist,”a n d that the Bolshevik leader w a s a n “unconditional admirer of K a u t s k y ”— w h i c h w a s pe r h a p s the nastiest criticism R ü h l e could imagine. T h e fate of a revolution left to the m a n a g e m e n t of s u c h a b a c k w a r d s thinker w a s fore­ ordained, so far as R ü h l e w a s concerned. Lenin's n a r r o w c onception of the revolution could not accept the i n d e p e n d e n t a n d democratic d y n a ­ m i s m of soviets, a n d h e replaced t h e m w i t h a n autocratic structure e v e n as the n a m e “soviet”w a s retained as a false label for the n e w party-state apparatus.14 T h e fate of the soviets w a s especially disastrous, for their death e n d e d the possibility of a real socialist revolution. Rühle, like others w h o h a d witnessed the birth a n d death of the G e r m a n Revolution of 1918-19, held to the view that the workers' a n d soldiers' councils of those days— roughly the G e r m a n equivalent of the Russian soviets— w e r e the only political f o r m t h r o u g h w h i c h a true revolution could b e expressed. T h a t is, the councils, unlike the party apparatus of either the Bolshevik or Social Democr a t i c type, constituted a localized a n d democratic m o v e m e n t led b y the m o s t spirited a n d class-conscious sections of the proletariat. Rühle angrily toppled the heroic figures of the Left. Lenin failed as a revolution­ ary because h e destroyed the soviets to ensure Bolshevik supremacy. L u x ­ e m b u r g failed as a revolutionary because she w o u l d not venture a c o m -

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

113

plete a n d decisive break f r o m all party structure to serve the n e w revolu­ tionary synthesis that the councils represented.15 R ü h l e also b l a m e d the t w o m a j o r parties of the E u r o p e a n Left, the G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a t s a n d the Russian Bolsheviks, for the victories of fascism in the interwar years. H e labeled the Soviet U n i o n a fascist state, as the title of his text indicated. S u c h episodes as the Social Democrats' willingness to t h r o w in w i t h the G e r m a n H i g h C o m m a n d in 1918 a n d Lenin's flirtations w i t h capitalism in the early 1920s w e r e equally cata­ strophic: " W h a t b e g a n as the c o m p r o m i s e of the Social Democrats, e n d e d w i t h Fascism. W h a t b e g a n as Lenin's theory of c o m p r o m i s e , e n d e d in practice w ith Stalinism."16 Stalin in turn w o u l d m a k e the final c o m p r o ­ m i s e w i t h Hitler: ' T h e only thing lacking for a c o m p l e t e h a r m o n y b e ­ t w e e n Berlin a n d M o s c o w is a military a n d w a r t i m e alliance against social­ ist revolution. T h e d a y will c o m e w h e n eve n this will b e c o m e historical reality."17 In short, for Rühle, the p a t h to totalitarianism lay across the corpses of the workers' councils in Russia a n d G e r m a n y . Just as Rühle h a d predicted, this pat h led further to a pact b e t w e e n the dictatorial regimes in these s a m e t w o nations that h a d as their c o m m o n goal the destruction of eve n the possibility of socialist revolution. T h e old-fashioned radicalism of Rühle's outlook today looks like a n eccentric exception to the d o m i n a n t v i e w of the p r o b l e m of totalitarian­ ism, but perhaps it is o n e w o r t h r e m e m b e r i n g in this fin-de-siècle period of the rapid deformation of E u r o p e a n political a n d military institutions u n d e r the violent pressures of a n array of popular m o v e m e n t s a n d capi­ talist "reforms" set o n s w e eping a w a y or refashioning the old state struc­ tures a n d e c o n o m i c policies in the former Soviet U nion, the former Y u ­ goslavia, a n d other nations recently departed f r o m C o m m u n i s m . E v e n the passion a n d spleen of his rhetoric find voice again these days. Rühle's cautionary tale of h o w the victories of "the people" c a n rapidly turn into horrible defeats remains a powerful restatement of a typical a n d troubling political scenario of the past t w o centuries. At the m o m e n t of Europe's descent o n c e again into war, his dissenting critique of totalitarianism w a s a n old radical Marxist's b l o w a i m e d at the forces that h a d stilled the col­ lective s o n g of c o m r a d e l y revolution. His attack o n state-party dictator­ ship c o n c l u d e d wit h a hopeful restatement of the possibility for the cre­ ation of a socialist society that e m b o d i e d the m o s t democratic a n d h u m a n e of Marx's visions: " O n l y if it [the labor m o v e m e n t ] proceeds to t h r o w into the balance the c omplete d e p l o y m e n t of its great n u m b e r s , its decisive role in the process of production, the e m a n c i p a t i o n f r o m a bourgeoisified leadership a n d the f r e e d o m of its o w n initiative a n d au-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

114

t o n o m y b y m e a n s of workers' councils, will it succeed in attaining a so­ cialism ‘ w h e r e the f r e e d o m of each is the condition for the free develop­ m e n t of all."'18 At about the time Rühle wrote “Brauner u n d Roter Faschismus," Karl Korsch w a s patiently trying to aid the cantankerous a n d often rather h a u g h t y Rühle in his writing a n d publishing efforts. Rühle a n d his inter­ mediaries h a d n o luck w ith A m e r i c a n publishers, though. O n e of th e m , J o h n D a y C o m p a n y , declined R ü h l e ’ s manuscript o n the grounds that it already h a d Peter Drucker's E n d of Eco n o m i c M a n o n its list. E v e n M a x Eastman's intervention with another publisher m e t with failure. Korsch's friend Paul Mattick, the editor a n d Marxist theorist, offered to publish s o m e of Rühle's essays, but the manuscript of “Brauner u n d Roter Faschis­ m u s " languished for years.19 Despite Korsch's s y m p a t h y for s o m e of Rühle's political views, h e offered Mattick the following assessment: “I agree with y o u about Rühle. H e belongs too m u c h to the old world, to w h i c h h e stands opposed. But w h e r e d o w e stand? A French skeptic said, ‘ O n est toujours le réactionnaire de quelqu'un,' w h i c h means, ‘ O n e is always s o m e o n e else's reactionary.' So Trotsky, for Rühle, belongs to the d ead past, Rühle for us, w e for... others of w h o m w e n o w k n o w nothing."20

Political Strategies of Antitotalitarianism A m o n g those others of w h o m Korsch a n d Mattick probably k n e w n o t h ­ ing, or certainly very little, w a s the surviving b a n d of radicals in N e u Beginnen. T h e previous chapter related h o w Richard L ö w e n t h a l a n d his colleagues in the gr o u p were quick to respond to the Hitler-Stalin Pact a n d the invasion of Poland. In the position paper issued o n 1 October 1939, entitled “Zur Ei n schätzung der deutsch-russischen Z u s a m m e n a r b e i t " (“ T o w a r d a n Assessment of G e r m a n - R u s s i a n Cooperation"), L ö w e n t h a l h a d not only suggested the n e e d for revised organizational tactics but also offered terse a n d u n p r o m i s i n g conclusions. H e stated that (1) the Soviet Union's nonaggression pact w i t h G e r m a n y h a d m a d e the invasion of P o l a n d secure a n d easier for G e r m a n y ; (2) Soviet troops h a d occupied m u c h of eastern Poland a n d also the Ukraine not to prevent their capture b y G e r m a n troops but as a n aggressive act of annexation; (3) the Soviet U n i o n h a d a c o m m o n interest w i t h “Hitler G e r m a n y " in the recognition of the n e w boundaries (eliminating a n independent Poland); a n d (4) these facts were h i d d e n b y sections of the W e s t E u r o p e a n C o m m u n i s t parties that were n o w p u s h i n g for neutrality.21 In vie w of these facts, L ö w e n t h a l continued, it w a s essential to be clear

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

115

about the possible fate of the workers' m o v e m e n t . A choice b e t w e e n “capi­ talist imperialism" a n d a s y s t e m of “totalitarian oppression" w a s n o choice.22 This situation of t w o undesirable extremes h a d not yet arisen, but its possibility h a d to b e r e c k o n e d with: “ Their [the workers's] path, the path to a higher organization of the e c o n o m y th r o u g h the free activity of w o r k i n g people, the p a t h of democratic socialism, w o u l d be blocked b y the m o v e m e n t of history."23 A s prose, this w a s about as close to exalted rhetoric as the hard-headed L ö w e n t h a l w o u l d ever co m e . As policy, it rep­ resented the attempt to c o n v e y a n understanding of the disastrous p o t e n ­ tial of the present configurations of power. C o m p a r i n g the closing para­ graphs of Rühle's b o o k w i t h Löwenthal's essay, o n e finds, despite the generational, temperamental, stylistic, a n d strategic differences b e t w e e n the t w o m e n , a similar tenderness a b out the w o r k i n g classes in w h o s e interests they endeav o r e d to speak a n d act. For the democratic G e r m a n Left, late 1939 w a s a horrible m o m e n t : its t w o m o s t powerful ene m i e s in Europe h a d joined forces. E v e n t h o u g h the Soviet U n i o n h a d ceased (for the time being) to offer diplomatic or military opposition to National Socialist G e r m a n y — w o r k ­ ing in effect, if not formally, as a n ally of the Nazis in s o m e instances— N e u B e g i n n e n did not resort to equating the t w o regimes, but it did m a k e fre­ q u e n t use of the t e r m totalitarian to describe the character of their poli­ cies. T h e group's ambiv a l e n c e t o w a r d the Soviet U n i o n w a s manifest in another position paper, “Russland u n d die deutsche Revolution" (“R u s ­ sia a n d the G e r m a n Revolution"), written s o m e t i m e in 1940» possibly 1941, w h i c h indicates the persistence of a differentiated a n d remarkably o p e n - m i n d e d critique of the Soviet U n i o n within the leadership of N e u Beginnen.24 T h e essay poses a n d answers a series of questions about the nature of the Soviet Uni o n , its role in the war, a n d its likely response to a n y socialist revolution in G e r m a n y . T h e Soviet Union, the paper begins, exhibits a “ bureaucratically organized p l a n n e d e c o n o m y " in a relatively b a c k w a r d nation a n d w o u l d offer a g o o d e x a m p l e of socialist d e v e l o p m e n t “if it were b o u n d u p w i t h a suitable political regime." T h e d o c u m e n t also describes the Soviet U n i o n quite straightforwardly (and repeatedly) as “a totalitarian party dictatorship."25 T h e discussion of h o w this dictatorship c a m e to b e bears closer examination: “ T h e party dictatorship, originating u n d e r the pressure of the civil war, w a s b rought to a lasting totalitarian system in order to w i n the masses for the material sacrifices necessary for industrialization a n d collectivization. T h e com b i n a t i o n of the m o n o p o l y position of the party wit h the plebiscitary fiction of d e m o c r a c y led to the destruction of factual discussion a n d criticism b y totalitarian d e m a -

T h e Lost D e b a t e

116

gogy.” 26 This paper identifies the historical source of “totalitarian”Soviet d e v e l o p m e n t s as the policies necessitated b y the extraordinary internal disruptions of the civil w a r of 1918 to 1921— not the inherent nature of L e n i n i s m or B o l shevism— that Stalin carried forward a n d intensified u n ­ der the “p e a cetime”conditions of forced e c o n o m i c modernization. This explanation w o u l d be the basis for Löwenthal's only partly c h a n g i n g p o ­ sition o n the origins of Soviet totalitarianism over the course of the next five decades.27 In 1 9 4 0 a n d early 1941, such a position avoided the t e m p ­ tation to write off the Soviet U n i o n a n d o p e n e d the w a y for a historical understanding of its internal a n d external policies. T h e estimate of the Soviet Union's role in the w a r w a s equally n u a n c e d a n d clear-eyed. T h e p r o p a g a n d a i m a g e of the Soviet U n i o n as a “peaceful nation in a n imperialistic w o r l d ”w a s not taken at all seriously. Instead, N e u B e g i n n e n characterized Stalin's foreign policy as o n e of w e a k e n i n g the great p owers a n d avoiding w a r with its ambitious neighbors, G e r m a n y a n d Japan. T h e g r o u p also declared that the Soviet U n i o n w a s n o longer a revolutionary force, as its behavior with respect to popular uprisings in C h i n a a n d Spain h a d demonstrated. T h e Bonapartist thesis w a s dismissed yet again, however, a n d the Soviet Union's a n n e x a t i o n policy w a s d e ­ scribed as— at least partly— the creation of a “security z o n e ”against the Nazis in the event that the m u t u a l nonaggression a g r e e m e n t turned sour. T h e paper also no t e d that, so far, the Soviet U n i o n h a d seized only terri­ tories that did not bring it into direct conflict with other great powers. T h e entire policy d e m o n s t r a t e d not the strength but the w e a k n e s s a n d fragil­ ity of the Stalin regime.28 T h e paper's a r g u m e n t implied that the totalitar­ ian Soviet state w a s subject to change, even t h o u g h for the present a n d in “the c o m i n g E u r o p e a n revolutions”that N e u B e g i n n e n p r e s u m e d w o u l d follow or bring to a n e n d the current war, “ totalitarian Russia”w o u l d at­ t e m p t to force areas u n d e r its control to m i m i c its structure.29 N e u B e g i n n e n did not h a v e to stand b y this relatively g l o o m y outlook after the Nazis attacked the Soviet U n i o n in 1941. Clear Soviet allegiance to the Allied c a m p n o w r e n e w e d the opportunity for greater cooperation w ith the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s a n d the Soviet U n i o n in practical matters. Indeed, L ö w e n t h a l u nderstood this as a necessity, for in 1942, h e w a s al­ ready speculating about the possible alignments of political a n d military forces in p o s twar Europe. In a brief position paper dated 6 J u n e 1942, L ö w e n t h a l suggested that the best c h a n c e of a free socialist E u r o p e lay in the “liquidation”of the C o m i n t e r n a n d a n a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n the Sovi­ ets a n d Anglo-A m e r i c a n s a bout Europe's future. This w o u l d m e a n that a united G e r m a n workers' party could link u p w i t h b o t h the British L a b o u r

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

117

Party a n d the Soviet C o m m u n i s t s . “O n l y such a party,”L ö w e n t h a l c o n ­ tended, “ w o u l d hav e a serious c h a n c e of carrying out a social revolution w i t h o u t establishing a lasting totalitarian dictatorship.”30 L ö w e n t h a l reckoned that such a d e v e l o p m e n t w a s not m e r e specula­ tion. T h e C o m i n t e r n w a s as g o o d as dead, the possibility of m u t u a l Brit­ ish-Soviet a c c o m m o d a t i o n in E u r o p e real, a n d the popular desire for a united G e r m a n socialist party strong. O n the other side of the coin, h o w ­ ever, U.S.-Soviet tensions w ere troublesome, a n d the relative strength of the three m a j o r allies w a s uncertain. In v i e w of this, the Soviets were u n ­ likely to agree to a n y plans for E u r o p e right away. Moreover, the C o m ­ intern m i g h t still play a role a n d w o u l d r e m a i n a n e n o r m o u s danger. T h e policy of N e u B e g i n n e n w o u l d b e extremely difficult: “ This generates for us the d i l e m m a that our behavior with regard to the C o m m u n i s t s m u s t simultaneously serve as the preparation for unity in the best case a n d for struggle against the totalitarian danger in the worst case. A n d for a n in­ determinate period during the course of events w e shall not k n o w w h i c h case will arise.”31 T h e practical consideration of this d i l e m m a led h i m to the following policy r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s : (1) N e u B e g i n n e n should engage the C o m m u n i s t s in dealing w i t h current practical issues a n d indicate a n interest in protecting the Soviet Union; (2) the g r o u p m u s t not treat the C o m m u n i s t s n o w as they h a d during the Soviet-German pact of 1939-41 but m u s t instead s h o w willingness to cooperate; (3) N e u B e g i n n e n should not refuse “ party-to-party”activities with the K P D because of its o w n in­ ferior size but should r e m a i n cautious in a n y such undertaking; a n d (4) s uch a tactic w o u l d succeed because of the group's “ organizational disci­ pline”a n d clear understanding of the basis a n d dangers of such a tactic.32 L ö w e n t h a P s p r o posed response to the p r o b l e m of state-party dictator­ ship offers a comp e l l i n g e x a m p l e of the bold theoretical a n d practical character of s o m e variants of left-wing antitotalitarianism. Here w a s a n organization, N e u Beginnen, that h a d b e e n f o u n d e d o n Leninist prin­ ciples of internal organization but w a s increasingly c o m m i t t e d to devel­ o p i n g a democratic a n d pluralist socialist m o v e m e n t in postwar G e r m a n y . T h e group's willingness to seek contact w i t h the C o m m u n i s t s in 1942 clearly set it apart f r o m the far m o r e cautious old guard of S O P A D E . T h e postwar SPD, especially in Berlin, s o o n d r e w m u c h of its leadership f r o m y o u n g e r socialists w h o h a d b e e n affiliated wit h N e u B e g i n n e n a n d h a d attempted, t h r o u g h o u t the exile period, to steer a m i d d l e course b e t w e e n Soviet C o m m u n i s m a n d A n g l o - A m e r i c a n capitalism. T h a t this tactic ul­ timately failed m u s t be admitted, but even this failure s h o w s the accuracy of Löwenthal's assessment of 1939— that is, that the workers' m o v e m e n t

T h e Lost D e b a t e

118

could be blocked a n d w o u l d h a v e to await a better historical m o m e n t to achieve its aims. Nevertheless, Löwenthal's essays demonstrate that, even during wartime, his bra n d of left-wing antitotalitarianism did not prevent great flexibility in practical political alliances a n d did not produce a static vi e w of the C o m m u n i s t opposition as a n irredeemable a n d u n c h a n g i n g e n e m y . His friend Borkenau's w a r t i m e version of antitotalitarianism re­ vealed quite a different theoretical a n d policy direction.

Totalitarian Enemies Franz Borkenau's opposition to totalitarianism w a s n o t h i n g if not distinc­ tive a n d unreserved. H e shared m u c h of Rühle's critical v i e w of the t w o powerful dictatorial states, bu t h e d r e w political conclusions quite o p ­ p o sed to Rühle's. H e h a d also a b a n d o n e d the activist's role that guided the flexible ju d g m e n t s o n the Soviet U n i o n a n d the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s put forth b y his friend Richard Löwenthal. M o s t important, B o r k e n a u n o w h a d a provocative prehistory of W o r l d W a r II to offer, a n d h e published it in T h e Totalitarian E n e m y . A l t h o u g h the text w a s disappointing because of its a w k w a r d structure a n d the details of s o m e of its arguments, it rep­ resented a path-breaking venture into a comparative analysis of dictator­ ship based o n the theory of revolutionary totalitarian elites that Bor k e n a u h a d b e e n using since h e wrote P a r e t o in 1936. Bor k e n a u wrote T h e Totalitarian E n e m y over the course of a few m o n t h s in late 1939, after the invasion of P o l a n d b y G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U nion. T h e book's timely appearance gave i m m e d i a c y to his criticism of “the v i e w c o m m o n l y held that Fascism a n d C o m m u n i s m w ere deadly enemies, a n d that their hostility w a s the crux of world politics to-day.''33 This c o m m o n p l a c e a s s u m p t i o n of the past decade h a d left its possessors in a quandary, a n d it d e m a n d e d revision, if not complete replacement. In place of the old outlook, B o r k e n a u provided his o w n f u n d a m e n t a l as­ sumption: “the essential similarity b e t w e e n the G e r m a n a n d the Russian systems.''34 A r m e d with this revision of typical left-wing analysis (if not of his o w n or Otto Rühle's, w i t h w h o m B o r k e n a u h a d apparently h a d n o contact whatever), h e c o n d u c t e d his e x a m i n a t i o n of the “totalitarian enemy." T h e rush to publication h a d its cost, though. T h e Totalitarian E n e m y is a loosely structured book, a hurried series of assertions held together b y the occasional force of particular a r g u m e n t s a n d the ur g e n c y of Borkenau's message. P r o p a g a n d a often o v e r w h e l m s scholarship, m o r e so t h a n in the other writings discussed in this chapter. Borkenau, m o r e clearly

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

119

t h a n a n y other of the writers included in this study, h a d anticipated, in­ d e e d almost w e l c o m e d , "the conflict b e t w e e n the democratic a n d the to­ talitarian types of régime,” 35 for h e believed it gave the conflict a political a n d ideological clarity that m a d e possible greater popular support for d e ­ cisive military action. In a letter to his publisher, Geoffrey Faber, dated 3 O c t o b e r 1939, B o r k e n a u a n n o u n c e d that h e h a d b e g u n to write a n e w book, a n d h e declared that, in addition to its scholarly intent, its purpose w a s to provide support for the w a r effort.36 In the text that resulted f r o m Borkenau's swift a n d ferocious writing effort appears the outlines of a cold war-era antitotalitarianism taking shape years before the cold w a r itself h a d begun. T h e result is b y turns uncannily foresighted a n d disappoint­ ingly r o u g h in its presentation, offering exaggerated e x a m p l e s of Borke­ nau's strengths a n d weaknesses as a writer. Borkenau's text is a particularly problematic o n e in the context of this study, because it is difficult to describe it as socialist in a n y sense. Borke­ nau's writings f r o m 1939 o n c a n b e fairly classified as liberal in their politi­ cal assumptions a n d intent.37 H e w a s perhaps referring indirectly to his o w n m i x e d views w h e n h e stated in T h e Totalitarian E n e m y that "in our present state, there are a Liberal a n d a Socialist fighting within the soul of every o n e of us.”38 Moreover, B o r k e n a u r e m a i n e d a "fellow traveler”of social d e m o c r a c y for s o m e years— t h r o u g h approximately the late 1940s. E v e n t h o u g h the traces of his Marxist vocabulary a n d the W e i m a r politi­ cal veteran's slashing style of a r g u m entation s h o w in his a n t i - C o m m u n i s t writings, h e repeatedly m a d e the point that h e w a s interested only in re­ porting the truth insofar as h e could grasp it. Let us e x a m i n e t h e n the truth B o r k e n a u w i s h e d to report in 1940. Bor k e n a u b e g a n his b o o k wit h a chapter entitled " A n Ideological W a r , ” for this is h o w h e understood W o r l d W a r II: liberalism versus totalitarian­ ism. T h e pact b e t w e e n G e r m a n y a n d Russia (and in this book, B o r k e n a u hardly used the t e r m Soviet Union) h a d m a d e ideological clarity a n d p o ­ litical amicability easier for Britain a n d France, but it h a d complicated the position of W e s tern socialists w h o w a n t e d to hold to a n ideal of e c o n o m i c transformation a n d a n ideal of liberty. B o r k e n a u argued o n e m u s t c o n ­ clude either that b o t h Russia a n d G e r m a n y were socialist (in the e c o n o m i c sense) or that neither was: "A position such as this o u g h t to give g r o unds for the m o s t searching inquiries a n d revision of all views, b o t h o n the Right a n d o n the Left.”39 H e h o p e d to m a k e plain the terms of this appar­ ent c o n u n d r u m b y analyzing Nazi G e r m a n y ' s e c o n o m i c system. Nazi economics, B o r k e n a u concluded, d r e w o n n o coherent theory a n d involved swiftly changing, e v e n contradictory policies. But a few

T h e Lost D e b a t e

120

trends were clear to h i m : the d e v e l o p m e n t of a system of state slavery (for subject peoples, to b e sure, bu t also for m a n y G e r m a n s themselves); a military e c o n o m y that strictly controlled w o r k i n g hours, wages, a n d prices; a n d — m o s t question f r o m a socialist perspective— the suppression of class struggle for the purposes of the Nazi elite (Borkenau's a r g u m e n t s f r o m Pareto reappeared here, stated in precisely the s a m e terms). Borkenau, apparently anticipating the hostility this last point w o u l d provoke a m o n g the socialist a n d L a b o u r Party readers h e still valued, explained his position in this way: It h a s b e c o m e a p p a r e n t that t h e N a z i e c o n o m i c r é g i m e is directed against th e interests of ev e r y class of t h e G e r m a n population, w i t h th e e x ception of t h e N a z i b o d y g u a r d itself. T h a t is t h e reality b e h i n d t h e boast of t h e r é g i m e that it is in t h e service of n o class. T h e Nazis boast that t h e y h a v e s u p pressed t h e class struggle, b u t in reality it w a s a l w a y s their g a m e to stir u p t h e co n s c i o u s n e s s of e v e r y class. T h e y c a m e into p o w e r in alliance w i t h the m o s t reactionary g r o u p of capitalists, p r o m i s i n g t h e m that t h e y w o u l d w i p e o u t t h e L a b o u r m o v e m e n t , a n d t h e y actually did w i p e it out. B u t at th e s a m e t i m e t h e y s p o k e t h e l a n g u a g e of revolutionary e x t r e m i s m to t h e u n e m p l o y e d , p r o m i s i n g t h e destruction of th e capitalists, a n d in fact t h e y are destroying t h e m . T h e y h a v e c o n t i n u e d that g a m e in th e international s p h e r e ____40

In other words, the Nazis simply played o n e class against another to se­ cure power, for p o w e r w a s m o r e important to t h e m t h a n m e r e profit or control of the m e a n s of production. T h e “logic”of Nazi e c o n o m i c s led to b o t h collectivism a n d war.41 B o r k e n a u c o n c l u d e d this section with remarks a i m e d at his socialist audience. H e a c k n o w l e d g e d that his characterization of Nazi e c o n o m i c s as “socialist”b e g g e d the question of the relation b e t w e e n the socialist labor m o v e m e n t a n d the horror of National Socialism: “Yet w e c a n n o t b e content w i t h the simple statement that this society of slaves a n d slavedrivers is in m a n y respects the exact contrary of the ideals of democratic Socialists---- [B]ut so m u c h is clear, that it has certain points in c o m m o n with the society Socialists w ere a i m i n g at. A n d the question remains: h o w far c an the desirable features of the system, if there are any, materialize without its abhorrent features?”42 Fear of controversial positions w a s not part of Borkenau's style. H e p l u n g e d forward to a discussion of w h a t h e understood as the inexorable m o d e r n trend toward “ collectivism,”w h i c h h e also characterized as “socialism.” Paying h o m a g e to Marx's accurate prediction that e c o n o m i c c o m p e -

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

121

tition w o u l d lead to larger a n d larger corporations—the trend toward "col­ lectivism”— a n d disruption o n a m a s s scale w h e n e v e r o n e of these h u g e enterprises w e n t under, B o r k e n a u dismissed virtually all other vital c o m ­ p o n e n t s of the M a r x i a n theoretical apparatus: the labor theory of value, the proletarian-bourgeois class struggle, the e n d of capitalism a n d private property as the result of e c o n o m i c crisis a n d a climactic revolutionary struggle.43 B o r k e n a u claimed that the Nazis h a d p u s h e d toward a M a r x ­ ian-type e c o n o m i c collectivism e v e n m o r e rapidly t h a n h a d socialists— e v e n t h o u g h the National Socialists h a d p ursued their policies in a b r u ­ tal m a n n e r at o d d s w i t h the humanistic ideals of socialism. This reversal of roles B o r k e n a u s a w as yet another of the bitter "dialectical”ironies of history.44 T h a t is, in Borkenau's view, the Nazis were a revolutionary force acting to speed the e c o n o m i c collectivism envisioned as a positive goal b y their m o s t p r o m i n e n t ideological e n e m y : Karl M a r x . 45 Interestingly, e v e n as B o r k e n a u set forth his idiosyncratic analysis a n d described the paradoxes of Nazi economics, h e held n o h o p e for a return to w h a t h e called " o r t h o d o x Liberalism.”B o r k e n a u also understood the trend towa r d centrally organized a n d p l a n n e d e c o n o m i e s as a generally desirable a n d necessary one. T h e d o g m a of free markets a n d competition, carried into full practice u n d e r the conditions prevailing in the twentieth century, w o u l d result in h o r r e n d o u s social disruption: T h e o r t h o d o x Liberal a r g u m e n t far surpasses in ruthlessness a n y t h i n g ever c o n c e i v e d b y Nazis a n d Bolsheviks. S u p p o s i n g n o e c o n o m i c unit w e r e p r o ­ tected, a n d n o doles w e r e g i v e n to t h e u n e m p l o y e d , m o s t of t h e victims of t h e s l u m p w o u l d p r o b a b l y n o t find n e w e m p l o y m e n t before t h e y starved. T h e a r g u m e n t is in s u b s t a n c e identical w i t h the Bolshevik a r g u m e n t that a f e w tens of millions of p e o p l e killed in a w o r l d revolution d o n o t matter, if o n l y th e killing brings a b o u t social progress. T h e o n l y difference is, that th e m u r d e r o u s effects of unrestricted c o m p e t i t i o n w o u l d b e infinitely m o r e cruel, in o u r present stage of industrial d e v e l o p m e n t , t h a n th e m o s t cruel w o r l d revolution.46

Just w h e n B o r k e n a u seemed, in the v e h e m e n c e of his attacks o n "the col­ lectivists,”to hav e joined forces w i t h L u d w i g v o n Mises, Friedrich Hayek, et al. in c h a m p i o n i n g the free m a r k e t system of classical liberalism, h e m a d e statements such as this, w h i c h s h o w h o w m u c h h e h a d accepted the notion c o m m o n a m o n g intellectuals of the Left— including Löwenthal, Marcuse, Horkheimer, a n d K o r s c h — that the world e c o n o m i c crisis a n d the w a r that followed represented the absolute a n d final e n d of free m a r ­ ket capitalism as b o t h theory a n d practice.47 H e w a s also extremely inter-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

122

ested in i m a g i n i n g w h a t w o u l d follow the current crisis. T h e n e w e c o ­ n o m i c order, in Borkenau's view, could only be s o m e kind of “collectiv­ ism.”T h e r e m a i n i n g question— a n d b y far the m o r e impor t a n t o n e to B o r k e n a u — h a d to d o w i t h the nature of the n e w political order: w o u l d it b e a totalitarian dictatorship or a democratic system? M o s t of the following three chapters, “Nazi Mentality a n d Its B a c k ­ ground,”“ T h e N e w Tyranny,”a n d “ T h e Nazi War , ”consist of fairly typical anti-Nazi writing of the wart i m e period. T h e y contain a lengthy a n d largely unremarkable historical interpretation of Nazi ideology, the political ori­ gins of the m o v e m e n t , a n d the personal degeneracy of its leaders. But they also contain, in s o m e brief passages of this particularly rambling a n d poorly organized section of the book, Borkenau's thoughts o n the political ques­ tion alluded to in the previous paragraph: did a transformed a n d “collec­ tivized”e c o n o m i c system such as the Nazis h a d introduced—w h i c h Borke­ n a u called “State Socialism of the Nazi type” — inevitably lead to state-party dictatorship, or were other alternative political orders possible?48 Fascism, B o r k e n a u concluded, w a s not inevitable, but the stalemate or collapse of parliamentary systems in the face of crisis did inevitably invite a return to a “paternal g o v e r n m e n t . ”If that solution failed, as it h a d in G e r m a n y f r o m 1930 to 1933, the w a y w o u l d b e o p e n for a coalition of d é ­ classés— a n observation that o n c e again e c h o e d the a r g uments of Thalheimer’ s essay of 1930 as well as L ö w e n t h a T s writings o n fascism: “In the Nazi Party there m e t l a n d o w n e r s a n d industrialists threatened w i t h b a n k ­ ruptcy, y o u n g people f r o m the universities w h o h a d never a h o p e of finding jobs, workers f r o m decaying industries, or u n e m p l o y e d , peasants threatened with eviction o w i n g to their inability to p a y taxes.” 49 T h e only h o p e for parliamentary systems rested with the ability of the elected lead­ ership to resolve crises within the institutional f r a m e w o r k ofthat particu­ lar state. Failing this, the old elite, a n d indeed the entire state apparatus, w o u l d fall prey to a n opportunistic fascist m o v e m e n t like National Social­ ism.50 T h e Nazis m a d e swift electoral gains because they offered s o m e p r o mise of relief for virtually everyone— except, of course, Jews. A s yet, however, B o r k e n a u h a d little to say about Nazi anti-Semitism. This passage o n the fluid a n d heterogeneous composition of the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft r e m i n d s us that it w a s crucial to Borkenau's analysis of state-party dictatorship, f r o m the mid-thirties on, to avoid a class analy­ sis of the support for fascism that did not account for the w a y in w h i c h e c o n o m i c crisis led to great differences in the vulnerabilities of people w h o occupied the s a m e class. In his view, m a s s voter support for fascist parties could be understood only b y attending to the complexity of divi-

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

123

sions within as well as b e t w e e n classes. For all the occasional b o m b a s t of his arguments, B o r k e n a u never relied o n the capitalist “agent”theories so endearing to the Comintern's s p o k e s m e n , n o r did h e b l a m e the “petty bourgeoisie”or the “Lumpenproletariat”for the advent of fascism. A c ­ cording to Borkenau, the totalitarian state-party inevitably tried to d r a w f r o m as broad a constituency of support as its m o m e n t a r y needs w o u l d allow or require. This resulted in a labile internal politics that turned cyni­ cal o p p o r t u n i s m into the highest c a m p a i g n - t i m e virtue. T h e Hitler-Stalin Pact w a s a n e x a m p l e of this s a m e opportunistic prin­ ciple carried into the realm of foreign policy.51 B o r k e n a u s a w the military nonaggression a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U n i o n as a n act of desperation rather t h a n calculation o n the part of the Nazis. Inter­ nal conditions of labor a n d production in G e r m a n y h a d worsened, a n d the popular euphoria of the early years of the Nazi regime h a d dissipated, leaving aggression as the sole m e a n s of reinvigorating the m o v e m e n t . Nazi G e r m a n y consented only reluctantly (Hitler m o s t reluctantly of all, B o r k e n a u speculated) to the sacrifice of its m o s t cherished plans to e x p a n d eastward. W a r could simply wait n o longer, a n d Hitler a n d the military w a n t e d at least a relatively secure eastern front. Despite his e mphasis o n the similarities b e t w e e n the t w o regimes, B o r k e n a u never w e n t so far as to claim that this alliance w a s a natural a n d inevitable o n e b e t w e e n the “ brother”totalitarians Hitler a n d Stalin. T h e chief totalitarian m o v e m e n t , in Borkenau's account of the advent of war, r e m a i n e d the C o m m u n i s t Party of the Soviet Union. Like the rest of the book, this section of the text s h o w s the uneve n n e s s of a n extremely hasty job. Nevertheless, these final pages contain Borkenau's u n e q u i v o ­ cal indictment of the Soviet Union: “Russia is the totalitarian country par excellence; C o m m u n i s m the purest a n d m o s t logical f o r m of totalitarian­ ism.”52 B o r k e n a u offered evidence for this blistering c o n d e m n a t i o n in his discussion of the Bolshevik Revolution a n d Soviet d e v e l o p m e n t s during the 1920s. Unlike Rühle, w h o h a d a i m e d m u c h of the fury of his attack o n totalitarianism at Lenin, B o r k e n a u directed his sharpest attacks at Stalin: “ T h e year 1929, w h e n the first Five-Year plan w a s launched, m a r k s the final e m e r g e n c e of totalitarianism in Russia.”53 But like Rühle, B o r k e n a u leveled sharp criticism at Trotsky as well, w h o m B o r k e n a u la­ beled the “arch-Fascist.”In Borkenau's opinion, Stalin's a s c endancy cul­ m i n a t e d a process initiated primarily u n d e r Trotsky's “ War Communism,” w h e r e b y “e c o n o m i c s were subordinated to politics, w h i c h is o n e of the m o s t distinctive features of a totalitarian régime.”54 B o r k e n a u a d m i r e d rather t h a n decried Lenin's flexibility in policy matters, as R ü hle had.

T h e Lost D e b a t e

124

Lenin, despite his ruthlessness, w a s m o v e d b y serious ideals a n d pursued clear goals, as B o r k e n a u s a w it, a n d h e described the collapse of the old Bolshevik m o v e m e n t in the face of miserable a n d unyielding e c o n o m i c a n d political conditions a n d the social a n d political violence that resulted as the “ tragedy”of those w h o p u r sued the illusion of a global proletarian revolution.55 Bor k e n a u also argued that the totalitarian dictatorship in the Soviet U n i o n u n d e r Stalin w a s m o r e a d v a n c e d — in s o m e respects eve n m o r e structurally ossified— t h a n the fascist regimes in Italy a n d G e r m a n y . But the leaders of Nazi G e r m a n y , B o r k e n a u warned, were quickly attain­ ing the levels of totalitarian control present in the Soviet U n i o n a n d were already advan c i n g eve n m o r e rapidly in their oppressive internal policies a n d aggressive territorial conquests.56 T h e concluding p r o p a g a n d a point of the b o o k c a n be expressed s i m ­ ply: defeat G e r m a n y . Borkenau's peroration called for E ngland to “save the world f r o m Nazi barbarism.”57 There w a s at this point in Borkenau's text n o m e n t i o n whatever of the Soviet U n i o n as o n e of the “ totalitarian e n ­ emies.”O n the o n e hand, the b o o k presented a remarkable foretaste of the cold w a r antitotalitarianism to c o m e , yet, o n the other hand, its i n c o n ­ sistencies a n d oversimplifications m a k e it a n inferior e x a m p l e of Borkenau's thinking a n d writing. Th e Totalitarian E n e m y m i g h t be fairly described as the anticipation of a n issue, the barest outlines of a n antitotalitarian theory, all c o u c h e d in a w a r t i m e exhortation a i m e d at that reader w h o s e political outlook rested o n the shifting frontier b e t w e e n liberalism a n d so­ cialism—w h i c h w a s w h e r e B o r k e n a u s e e m s to hav e f o u n d himself at the time. D u r i n g 1940, B o r k e n a u c o n t i n u e d his friendly chats w i t h G e o r g e Orwell about current w a r t i m e events a n d strategies, but s o o n h e w a s in­ terned as a n “e n e m y alien.”58 A s his friend Richard L ö w e n t h a l r e m e m ­ bered the episode, B o r k e n a u w a s given the choice to r e m a i n in Great Brit­ ain or g o to Australia. H e c h ose the latter because h e t h o u g h t E n g l a n d w o u l d be defeated. At least o n e of Borkenau's leftist acquaintances f r o m W e i m a r days could not contain his sarcasm. In a review of o n e of Borkenau's several b o o k s o n global events, Karl Korsch noted B o r k e n a u 's recent internment in a hostile swipe at his faith in the tolerance a n d goodwill of parliamentary regimes. T h e decision to accept internment in Australia did not endear h i m to s o m e of his non-Marxist acquaintances in E n g l a n d ei­ ther, a n d u p o n his return, B o r k e n a u looked for w a y s to leave E n g l a n d for the Unit e d States or the Continent, w h e r e better opportunities m i g h t await h i m . 59 In the m e a n t i m e , K orsch w o u l d h a v e to w o r k out his o w n theoretical position o n the n e w events in Europe.

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

125

The Totalitarian Counterrevolution Karl Korsch's fragmentary exile oeuvre yields s o m e of the m o s t controver­ sial contributions to the debate o n the similarities a n d differences b e ­ t w e e n the dictatorships in G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U nion. D u r i n g late 1939; for example, h e b e g a n to formulate his o w n theory of “counter-revo­ lution.”Korsch h a d briefly m e n t i o n e d the Hitler-Stalin Pact a n d the out­ break of w a r in a letter to M a x Ho r k h e i m e r , describing b o t h events as s y m p t o m s of a powerfully antirevolutionary t e n d e n c y in the current p e ­ riod.60 In three brief articles, published in M o d e r n Quarterly a n d Living M a r x i s m ,Korsch explained his v i e w that the “ counter-revolution”w a s the m a i n m o v e m e n t of the m o m e n t — a n d at the s a m e time h e pointed out “ o r t h o d o x ”Marxism's inability to figure a theoretical or practical w a y out of the situation.61 In “State a n d Counter-Revolution,”Korsch described the counterrevo­ lution as the variety of efforts in several nations— including nations politi­ cally a n d even militarily o p p o s e d to o n e another— to nullify the “i n d epen­ dent m o v e m e n t of the E u r o p e a n w o r k i n g class.” 62 T h e leading party in this process that Korsch identified w a s the Soviet Union, w h i c h h a d “degener­ ated”(Korsch's term) steadily since it b e c a m e isolated at the e n d of the last war: “ T h e Russian state has a b a n d o n e d m o r e a n d m o r e ilz original revolu­ tionary a n d proletarian features. T h r o u g h the comprehensiveness of its anti-democratic a n d totalitarian d e v e l o p m e n t it has often anticipated the so-called fascist characteristics of the openly counterrevolutionary states of Europe a n d Asia___ T h e leading bureaucracy of the so-called workers' state has b e c o m e irretrievably e n m e s h e d in the counterrevolutionary as­ pects of present-day E u r o p e a n politics.” 63 T h u s far, Korsch s o u n d e d quite like Borkenau in his writings of the early 1940s. For a solution to this threat­ e ning historical problem, however, Korsch returned swiftly to his faith in the radical working-class c a m p that B o r k e n a u h a d aban d o n e d : Russian a n d n o n - R u s s i a n w o r k e r s t o d a y c a n n o t confine t h e m s e l v e s to e x ­ p e riencing t h e steadily a d v a n c i n g c o u n t e r revolution w i t h o u t m a k i n g e v ­ ery effort to interpret its significance. B y a careful e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e past t h e y m u s t find o u t b o t h t h e objective a n d t h e subjective causes for t h e victory of fascist state capitalism.... Finally t h e y m u s t find o u t a practi­ cal w a y to resist, as a class, t h e further e n c r o a c h m e n t s of t h e c o u n t e r r e v o ­ lution a n d later to pass f r o m a n active resistance to a n e v e n m o r e active counteroffensive in order to o v e r t h r o w b o t h t h e particular state capitalist f o r m recently a d o p t e d a n d t h e general principle of exploitation inhe r e n t in all old a n d n e w f o r m s of b o u r g e o i s society a n d its state p o w e r . 64

T h e Lost D e b a t e

126

Unfortunately for the w o r k i n g class, according to Korsch, M a r x h a d failed to study counterrevolution adequately. E v e n The Eighteenth Brumaire of­ fered only a b o t c h e d a n d partial effort at such analysis, in Korsch's view. Korsch w o u l d therefore try to supply the necessary theory. Korsch b e g a n this section of the article b y dismissing the Bonapartism explanation of dictatorship. T h e Bonapartist theory's e m p h a s i s o n the role of charismatic leaders a n d aggressive militarism did not convince Korsch of the theory's applicability in the current situation.65 T h e key to his o w n notion of counterrevolution lay in the properly Marxist e x a m i ­ nation of the e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t of class conflict— not in the study of the e p i p h e n o m e n a of politics that were the province of such B onapart­ i s m theorists as Thalheimer, w h o w a s a n old political a n d theoretical o p ­ p o n e n t of Korsch's in a n y case.66 T h e beginnings of the socialist e c o n o m i c structure of the Soviet U n i o n , artificially developed a n d protected during the period of “ W a r C o m m u n i s m , ' ' were o v e r w h e l m e d b y the contradic­ tions that the Soviet state, serving as a kind of “ transmission belt," inevi­ tably i mported into it in the course of the capitalist e c o n o m i c crises of the next decade. Th e s e ideas w e r e but the outline of a theory, as Korsch ac­ k n o wledged, but h e w o u l d return to it over the course of the following year.67 “ T h e Fascist Counter-Revolution" cont i n u e d almost exactly w h e r e “State a n d Counter-Revolution" h a d left off: with the attempt to articu­ late a general theory of the counterrevolution, since M a r x h a d failed to d o so. Korsch a n n o u n c e d w h a t h e described as the “law of the fully devel­ oped fascist counterrevolution of our time'1 Its tenets w e r e few: “ After the c omplete exhaustion a n d defeat of the revolutionary forces, the fascist counterrevolution attempts to fulfill, b y n e w revolutionary m e t h o d s a n d in widely different form, those social a n d political tasks w h i c h the socalled reformistic parties a n d trade unio n s h a d p r o m i s e d to achieve but in w h i c h they could n o longer succeed u n d e r the given historical c ondi­ tions."68 Korsch, in attempting to offer a M a r x i a n i m p r o v e m e n t o n M a r x b y explaining the counterrevolution, returned to a touchstone of M a r x ­ ian theory (without bothering to cite it): the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.69 Korsch explained the success of fascism in the postwar period b y stating that capitalism “ h a d not, in fact, devel­ o p e d all the forces of production."70 In b o t h peace a n d war, fascism h a d continued to revolutionize the capitalist forces of production, despite its anticapitalistic p r o p a g a n d a a n d its claims to put a n e n d to class conflict. This continued d e v e l o p m e n t of the capitalist forces of production should not, Korsch w a r n e d , be transformed in the thinking of socialists into a

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

127

"preparation stage”for the inevitable revolution. Fascism actually repre­ sented the d a n g e r of a m o r e or less p e r m a n e n t defeat of the w o r k i n g class.71 T h e only w a y out of this impasse, Korsch concluded, w a s t h o u g h a working-class revolution that w o u l d also be a confirmation of f u n d a ­ m e n t a l M a r x i a n insights: "Total mobilization of the productive forces pre­ supposes total mobilization of that greatest productive force w h i c h is the revolutionary w o r k i n g class itself.”72 O n c e again, a n d in this h e s e l d o m varied, Korsch placed his ho p e s o n the revolutionary capacity of the w o r k ­ ing class. A s closely as h e w o u l d at times a p p r o a c h s o m e of the radical revisionism of H o r k h e i m e r or the bitterly anti-Soviet rhetoric of B o r kenau or Rühle, K orsch co n t i n u e d to apply— in fact increasingly turned to— M a r x i a n categories that h e apparently continued to believe w o u l d provide a reliable guide to the criticism of capitalist society. His protests about the ina d e q u a c y of " M a r x i s m ”(his quotation marks) h a d to d o w i t h the dis­ tortions w r o u g h t b y the revisionists a n d Bolshevist epigones, not the original w o r k of M a r x a n d Engels (and s o m e t i m e s L u x e m b u r g a n d Lenin as well) as critics of capitalism. " D e m o c r a c y ”a n d the capitalism of the nonfascist, a n d non-"socialist”countries w e r e the targets of KorsclTs next article o n the t h e m e of counterrevolution, " T h e Workers' Fight against Fascism”(1942). Korsch b e g a n this article, in w h i c h disdainful quotation m a r k s a b o u n d e d , wit h the statement that the w o r k i n g class w a s not interested in defending the " d e m o c r a c y ”represented b y the W e s t e r n capitalist nations: " T h e 'secret' underlying the verbal battles b e t w e e n 'totalitarianism' a n d 'anti-totalitari­ anism' a n d the m o r e important diplomatic a n d military struggle b e t w e e n the Axis a n d the A n g l o - A m e r i c a n g r o u p of imperialist p o w e r s is the his­ torical fact that the worst, a n d the m o s t intimate foe of d e m o c r a c y today is not Herr Hitler, but 'democracy' itself.”73 " D e m o c r a c y ”m e a n t the p o ­ litical order in the capitalist nations, their "nostalgia”for individual rights, free trade, a n d constitutional forms, all of w h i c h Korsch v iewed as a m a s k for persisting class conflict. For the workers, there w a s n o desirable choice b e t w e e n Hitler a n d "democracy.” Indeed, m o r e t h a n a n y other of the leftist o p p o n e n t s of totalitarian­ ism, Korsch refused to a c k n o w l e d g e a n y overriding difference b e t w e e n the t w o sets of w a r t i m e combat a n t s or a n y practical n e e d for the wo r k i n g class to choose allegiance to o n e over the other. His overarching theory of c o u n ­ terrevolution s u b s u m e d b o t h "totalitarian”fascism a n d "democratic” fascism— " t w o equally capitalistic parts of that o n e big capitalist p o w e r that rules the world today.”74 Korsch's verdict o n " d e m o c r a c y ”in the W e s t e r n capitalist nations

T h e Lost D e b a t e

128

further indicated a potential for the increased similarity of the t w o types of totalitarian order. T h e criticism of N a z i s m in these lands— particularly the United States— w a s specious, h e declared, for while fascist ruthlessness d r e w fire, fascist e c o n o m i c efficiency a n d civil order were secretly envied.75 In the West, “sentimentality”a b out democratic a n d liberal political tra­ ditions steadily gave g r o u n d to the n e e d for a n administratively rational­ ized capitalist e c o n o m y to c o m p e t e with those of the openly fascist nations. T h e resort to outright fascism w a s not unimaginable. Mar k e t capitalism w a s o n its w a y out; a n e w f o r m of highly concentrated m o n o p o l y capital­ i s m h a d emerged. T h e “E n d of E c o n o m i c M a n ”w a s at least a half truth, Korsch insisted.76 W h a t to call this n e w f o r m of capitalism, w h i c h w a s the e c o n o m i c basis of the continuing counterrevolution, p o s e d a n interesting but not especially troublesome issue for Korsch: It d o e s n o t m a t t e r so m u c h w h e t h e r w e describe t h e n e w s y s t e m that h a s replaced it in t e r m s of “m o n o p o l y capitalism,”“state capitalism,”or “a corporate state.”T h e last t e r m s e e m s m o s t appropriate to t h e writer for th e r e a s o n that it recalls at o n c e t h e n a m e that w a s g i v e n to t h e n e w totalitar­ ian f o r m of society after t h e rise of fascism in Italy t w e n t y years ago. T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , a difference. T h e corporate c o m m u n i t y of t h e U S represents as yet o n l y t h e “e c o n o m i c basis”of a full-fledged totalitarian system, a n d n o t its political a n d ideological superstructure. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , o n e m i g h t say that in b a c k w a r d countries like Italy a n d S p a i n there exists as yet o n l y t h e totalitarian superstructure, w i t h o u t a fully d e v e l o p e d e c o n o m i c basis.77

W h a t the passage s h o w s a b ove all is that Korsch's notion of counterrevo­ lutionary totalitarianism could n o w be applied to the study of virtually a n y nation's e c o n o m i c or political modernization. His m o d e l of m i d ­ century historical c h a n g e n o w took o n a quality of inevitability a n d d e ­ cisiveness: a final battle b e t w e e n revolution a n d counterrevolution w a s afoot, Korsch intimated. In addition to its apocalyptic ton e — quite u n d e r ­ standable for a n essay written b y a leftist (or anyone, for that matter) in 1941— Korsch's theory of totalitarian base a n d superstructure could be m a n i p u l a t e d quite freely. For all its apparent M a r x i a n orthodoxy, the m o d e l h e offered identified neither base n o r superstructure as the deter­ m i n i n g or conditioning social factor. This flexibility of theory m a y have b e e n a n advance over the “ vulgar”m o d e l s of other theorists, but it s e e m e d to indicate e ven m o r e the unfinished character of Korsch's o w n notion. His concept of totalitarian counterrevolution functioned for h i m as a kind

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

129

of analytical adjustable w r e n c h w i t h w h i c h h e could grasp the e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t of a n y nation— even if in the course of the analysis the sharp corners of historical situations w e r e r o u n d e d off a bit because of the i m ­ precision of the tool. Korsch's “ counter-revolutionary totalitarianism”w a s finally too broad a n d generalized to have persuasive explanatory power. T h e o n e consistent point in K o r s d T s suggestive but underdev e l o p e d analysis of counterrevo­ lution w a s the call for the workers to overthrow b o t h the “democratic”a n d the “ totalitarian”forms of capitalism a n d to institute socialism. E v e n as his isolation increased a n d his defense of M a r x i a n analysis alternately w a x e d a n d w a n e d , his close attention to class struggle a n d his genu i n e h o p e s for proletarian revolution never disappeared. After the war, Korsch continued to h o p e that the w o r k i n g class could ride out the long “Kondratieff W a v e ”of counterrevolution that h a d yet to subside.78

Responding to the N e w Authoritarian State In 1940, at about the s a m e time Korsch w a s writing about the “totalitar­ ian counter-revolution”a n d Hilferding w a s developing his essay o n the “totalitarian state e c o n o m y , ”M a x Horkheimer, w h o did not often write about politics as such, generated perhaps his m o s t radical a n d provocative essay o n the current dictatorial regimes in Europe. H e labeled the various kinds of regimes h e discussed as versions or special types u n d e r the g e n ­ eral rubric of the “authoritarian state.”H e h a d apparently h a d s o m e difficulty deciding o n the appropriate t e r m to use in describing the n e w dictatorships. A letter f r o m Karl Korsch, w h i c h takes u p a discussion of the relative applicability of the t erms Staatssozialismus, Staatskapitalismus, autoritärer Staat, a n d Faschismus, m a y indicate that H o r k h e i m e r w a n t e d to s o u n d out Korsch not only o n the content of the essay but also a n the issue of nomenclature.79 T hese are hardly fundamentally significant m a t ­ ters in the larger context a n d course of Horkheimer's scholarly career, but they are intriguing faint traces of his role in the subsequent “state capi­ talism”debate that took place within the institute. Horkheimer's 1 9 4 0 essay “ Autoritärer Staat”constitutes far m o r e t h a n a faint trace of his developing social theory, however. As the m o s t outspo­ k e n political cri de coeur to b e f o u n d a m o n g Horkheimer's writings of the w a r t i m e period, the essay has gained the well-deserved attention of schol­ ars. Apparently h e b e g a n to write it about the time h e w a s initiating plans to m o v e f r o m N e w York to the Los Angeles area, a c h a n g e that resulted in a division a n d eventual reorganization of the institute. However, the es-

The Lost Debate

130

say circulated for the first time a m o n g only a very small g r oup in 1942 as part of a m i m e o g r a p h e d collection of writings dedicated to the m e m o r y of Walter Benjamin, the brilliant essayist, critic, a n d former associate of the institute w h o h a d died tragically during his flight f r o m France to Spain after the G e r m a n occupation of Paris.80 T h e article s h o w s Horkheimer's reliance o n the concept of state capitalism but also indicates the w a y s in w h i c h h e attended to the differences a n d similarities b e t w e e n the Soviet U n i o n a n d the fascist states. At the s a m e time, the article cleared a space to differentiate his o w n thoughts o n dictatorship f r o m those of Korsch, Hilferding, a n d his colleagues at the institute, Friedrich Pollock a n d Franz Neumann. W i t h the t e r m authoritarian state, H o r k h e i m e r indicated the regimes a n d e c o n o m i c systems of b o t h National Socialist fascism (which h e called “state capitalism”or simply “fascism”) a n d the Soviet U n i o n ( w h i c h h e did not call b y n a m e but instead labeled as “ integral statism”or “state socialism”).81 His terminology, w h i c h bracketed the Soviet a n d G e r m a n states as different species of the genus “ authoritarian state,”approximated a r g u m e n t s that Hilferding w a s raising against the concept of state capital­ is m yet also avoided s o m e of the oversimplifications of Korsch's “counter­ revolution”thesis. T h a t H o r k h e i m e r w a s familiar with the ideas of b o t h thinkers ca n b e inferred b y his continuing correspondence with Korsch at the time of writing a n d revising the essay a n d b y the attention of his colleagues Friedrich Pollock a n d Franz N e u m a n n to Rudolf Hilferding’ s a r g u m e n t about the Soviet “ totalitarian state e c o n o m y ”in their o w n writ­ ings of 1941-42. H o r k h e i m e r did not a b a n d o n the t e r m state capitalism, even as h e put forth his s o m e w h a t different a n d broader concept of the authoritarian state, asserting in his o p e n i n g paragraph that “state capitalism is the a u ­ thoritarian state of the present.”82 T h e p r o b l e m that H o r k h e i m e r a d ­ dressed initially w a s that the e n d of capitalism that M a r x i s m foretold— crisis, collapse, a n d revolution— h a d b e e n forestalled b y the adve n t of state capitalism, w h i c h replaced the free market a n d attempted to c i r c u m ­ vent its manifest weaknesses. Unfortunately, as a part of the m o n o p o l i z a ­ tion a n d centralization process that resulted in state capitalism, the w o r k ­ ers' organizations themselves h a d b e e n integrated into the bureaucratic apparatus of the transformed but still capitalist e c o n o m y . 83 H e w a r n e d that “adaptation is the price that individuals a n d organizations m u s t p a y in order to prosper u n d e r capitalism.” 84 H o r k h e i m e r f o u n d the symbolic historical origins of this process in G e r m a n y a d u m b r a t e d in “ the s h a d o w y relationship b e t w e e n Lassalle, the founder of the G e r m a n Socialist m a s s

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

131

party, a n d Bismarck, the father of G e r m a n state capitalism/'85 S o m e type of authoritarian state waited in the win g s f r o m the time of these n i n e ­ teenth-century events, for it w a s clear that the bureaucracies of b o t h the g o v e r n m e n t a n d its “ opposition”h a d a m u t u a l interest in e x p a n d i n g a n d rationalizing state control. T h e question w o u l d be: w h i c h kind of authori­ tarian state w o u l d e m e r g e ? At this point, H o r k h e i m e r introduced the Soviet mod e l , u n d e r the p s e u d o n y m of “integral statism”or “state socialism,”w h i c h h e said w a s “ the m o s t consistent f o r m of the authoritarian state.” 86 Its capacity to accelerate a c c u m ulation a n d production w a s extraordinary (Stalin's fiveyear plans were clearly the uncited evidence here). T h e Soviet bureaucratic state regime n t e d a n d regulated the entire society directly, a n d despite claims to the contrary, the proletariat r e m a i n e d in a position of powerless­ ness u n d e r “integral statism.”H o r k h e i m e r argued that the Soviet wo r k i n g class “ will b e trapped in a vicious circle of poverty, domination, war, a n d poverty until they break t h r o u g h it themselves.”87 H o r k h e i m e r s u m m e d u p his views o n the Soviet U n i o n , w h a t it was, a n d w h a t it m i g h t h a v e m e a n t to the working-class m o v e m e n t as follows: “O n l y the b a d in his­ tory is irrevocable: the unrealized possibilities, missed chances, m u r d e r w i t h a n d w i t h o u t juridical procedures, a n d that w h i c h d o m i n a t i o n inflicts o n h u m a n beings.”88 H o w e v e r delicately H o r k h e i m e r h a d d a n c e d a r o u n d the issue of w h a t to call the Soviet Union, his verdict o n the per­ f o r m a n c e of “integral statism”w a s clear enou g h . In contrast to the m o r e unitary f o r m of the Soviet regime, the fascist m o d e l of the authoritarian state s h o w e d a m i x e d form, H o r k h e i m e r in­ sisted. Fascism a p p r o a c h e d the style of “integral statism”in s o m e respects, but it left m u c h of the process of capital accumulation in private hands. In their e c o n o m i c policies, however, b o t h forms of the authoritarian state t e n d e d to reduce e c o n o m i c questions to issues of technique. P o w e r a n d control w o u l d lose all rational basis b e y o n d the “legitimacy”sustained b y their o w n m o m e n t u m . Terror a n d the authoritarian state w ere identical, a n d therefore n o “ progress”out of the authoritarian state should be i m a g ­ ined. Historical escape f r o m the authoritarian state d e m a n d e d the radi­ cal action of the w o r k i n g class: the only w a y out of either of the t w o forms w a s revolution. H o r k h e i m e r perceived “the system of workers' councils [das Rätesystem]”as the only kind of force that could lead a revolution. A revolution led b y a party w o u l d quickly turn into a n e w order of d o m i n a ­ tion.89 W i t h such dire predictions a n d formulas for action, Horkheimer's politics quite closely a p p r o a c h e d Korsch's a n d even Rühle's at that time— h e simply did not express himself so directly a n d polemically as they did.

T h e Lost D e b a t e

132

But e v e n as h e professed his belief in the n e e d for radical praxis, H o r k h e i m e r insisted, m o r e t h a n Korsch w o u l d at this time, o n the valid­ ity of a radical theory that refused to b e c o m e part of a n y n e w order of c o m m a n d — even a self-proclaimed revolutionary order— a n d w o u l d m a k e its solitary w a y t h r o u g h the ruins of the present: T h e readiness to obey, e v e n w h e n it sets o u t to think, is of n o use to theory. D e spite all t h e u r g e n c y w i t h w h i c h t h e o r y a t t e m p t s to illuminate t h e m o v e m e n t of t h e social totality e v e n in its m i n u t e s t details, it is u n a b l e to prescribe to individuals a n effective f o r m of resistance to injustice. T h o u g h t itself is already a sign of resistance, t h e effort to k e e p oneself f r o m b e i n g de c e i v e d a n y m o r e . T h o u g h t d o e s n o t s i m p l y s t a n d o p p o s e d to c o m m a n d a n d obedie n c e , b u t sets t h e m for the t i m e b e i n g in relationship to t h e re­ alization of f r e e d o m . Thi s relationship is in danger.90

“For the tim e being'' has often b e c o m e a p e r m a n e n t exhibition in the m u s e u m of false political expectations in this century, a n d Horkheimer's next m a j o r project, taken u p in collaboration w i t h T h e o d o r A d o r n o , w o u l d assert far m o r e emphatically the necessity of theory's divorce f r o m practice. His 1 9 4 0 call for a m o m e n t a r y holding action later b e g a n to a p ­ pear as the begi n n i n g of a slow, steady retreat. H e did not, however, close the essay with this appeal to a n d for theory. H o r k h e i m e r spent his last paragraph in a response to those w h o , like B o r k e n a u a n d to a certain extent his friend Friedrich Pollock as well, ar­ g u e d for adapting to the imperatives of state capitalism. H o r k h e i m e r para­ phrased this position in a passage that conveys at o n c e a sense of irony, restrained rage, a n d a battle against resignation: If there is n o return to liberalism, t h e correct f o r m of activity a p p e a r s to b e th e e x t e n s i o n of state capitalism. T o w o r k w i t h it, e x p a n d it, a n d e x t e n d it e v e r y w h e r e to a d v a n c e d f o r m s appears to offer th e a d v a n t a g e of progress a n d all t h e security of success, w h i c h o n e c a n o n l y w i s h for politique scientifique. B e c a u s e t h e proletariat h a s n o t h i n g m o r e to ex p e c t f r o m t h e old pow e r s , there is n o t h i n g left b u t u n i o n w i t h t h e n e w . ... It w o u l d b e s e n t i m e n t a l to r e m a i n o p p o s e d to state capitalism m e r e l y o n a c c o u n t of th e slain. It c o u l d b e said that th e J e w s w e r e m o s t l y capitalists, after all, a n d that the small nations h a v e n o right to exist. State capitalism is s i m p l y w h a t is possible t o d a y . ... B u t t h e historical o u t l o o k of s u c h r e a s o n i n g r e c o g ­ nizes o n l y t h e d i m e n s i o n in w h i c h progress a n d regression take place; it ignores h u m a n intervention. It values p e o p l e o n l y for w h a t t h e y are u n ­ der capitalism: as social quantities, as things. A s l o n g as w o r l d history fol­ l o w s its logical course, it fails to fulfill its h u m a n destiny.91

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

133

Poised b e t w e e n radical t h o u g h t a n d revolutionary act, the a r g u m e n t of Horkheimer's “ Autoritärer Staat”could be fairly described as the sublima­ tion of his w a r t i m e political a n d theoretical ambivalence. Appropriately e n o u g h , Horkheimer's essay stands also as a kind of ext e n d e d c o m m e n ­ tary o n the last phrase of Walter Benjamin's “ Theses o n the Philosophy of History,”w h i c h asserts that “every sec o n d of time w a s the strait gate t h r o u g h w h i c h the M e s s i a h m i g h t enter.”92 T h a t is, the m o m e n t for the necessary revolutionary response to the authoritarian state is the per­ petual n o w : Jetztzeit. In terms of his general u n d e rstanding of the “authoritarian state,” H o r k h e i m e r h a d held to a notion of state capitalism but h a d not m a d e its defense or definition the centerpiece of his presentation. H e agreed with Rudolf Hilferding's conclusion during the early m o n t h s of the w a r that the state n o w a s s u m e d a n e w role as the m a n a g e r of the e c o n o m y a n d the dis­ tributor of its rewards, but h e continued to use the “state capitalist”desig­ nation that Hilferding h a d b y t h e n rejected. H o r k h e i m e r h a d avoided, or at least put off for the m o m e n t , the kind of revision or direct refutation of M a r x i a n theory for w h i c h Hilferding s e e m e d headed. A s it h a p p e n e d , Horkheimer's colleagues Friedrich Pollock a n d Franz N e u m a n n were about to hav e it out over the notion of state capitalism, a n d each of these insti­ tute colleagues cited Hilferding (not H o r k h e i m e r ) p r o m i n e n t l y in the course of their arguments. It w o u l d be mistaken to read too m u c h into this “ neglect,”however. Horkheimer's essay h a d perhaps not yet circulated at that time, and, in a n y case, it h a d to attend to business other t h a n the c o n ­ cept of state capitalism. Instead of discussing the app r o a c h that critique of dictatorship should take— the proper weighting of political a n d e c o n o m i c factors in the analysis of totalitarian states— H o r k h e i m e r h a d b e e n m o r e interested in asserting the urgent n e e d for radical theory that did not bind itself in a d v a n c e to a party position. In leftist p r o g r a m m a t i c terms, H o r k h e i m e r h a d also a p p r o x i m a t e d Korsch's insistence o n the n e e d for revolution to overturn b o t h fascist a n d “integral”states, but m o r e as the understanding of a n unrealized m o m e n t of history t h a n as the direct call for action. Horkheimer's “authoritarian state”differed also f r o m Korsch's idea of “counter-revolution”in that Horkheimer's understanding of dictatorial regimes led h i m to focus m o r e sharply o n Nazi G e r m a n y as the p r i m a r y dang e r to the w o r k i n g class a n d to critical t h o u g h t itself. Korsch's o u t s p o k e n a n d e v e n h a n d e d c o n d e m ­ nation of b o t h “totalitarian”a n d “antitotalitarian”p owers did not find a direct equivalent in Horkheimer's subtler a n d m o r e cautious analysis. Horkheimer's next m a j o r analysis of the “totalitarian”order w o u l d lead

T h e Lost D e b a t e

134

h i m still further f r o m the social/historical categories a n d notions of praxis associated w i t h M a r x i a n critique.

Totalitarianism a n d the State Capitalism Debate G e r m a n leftist intellectuals' use of the notion of state capitalism in d e ­ bates about dictatorship arose f r o m the n e e d to explain the apparently n e w kinds of e c o n o m i e s in several E u r o p e a n nations n o w u n d e r singleparty rule. T h e t e r m state capitalism w o u l d appear in a n u m b e r of b o o k s a n d articles in addition to Arthur Rosenberg's b o o k o n Bolshevism a n d Horkheimer's essay o n the authoritarian state. Rosenberg's formulation of the notion of state capitalism in relation to the Soviet U n i o n w a s a n explicitly critical one. Later in the 1930s, however, defining the t e r m state capitalism— w h i c h h a d apparently b e e n a relatively routine matter for s o m e thinkers, including Korsch a n d H o r k h e i m e r — b e c a m e a n ever m o r e controversial issue for several G e r m a n leftists writing o n the p r o b l e m of dictatorship. In v i e w of the import a n c e of this concept in the writings of several thinkers w h o s e ideas about dictatorship t ended in the direction of totalitarian theory, a f e w of these essays a n d debates o n state capitalism merit particular attention. S o m e formulations of the concept of state capi­ talism closely a c c o m p a n i e d the use of comparative notions of totalitari­ anism. In this g r o u p of writings, the key issue at stake w a s the relative import a n c e theorists granted to, o n the o n e hand, the a g e n c y of the p o ­ litical state in the totalitarian dictatorship or, o n the other hand, to the ultimately determining forces of the capitalist e c o n o m y that continued to b e a source of contradiction a n d crisis. For theorists w h o still consid­ ered themselves part of a Marxist tradition, interpretive questions regard­ ing e c o n o m i c determination "in the last analysis,'' the relative or absolute a u t o n o m y of the n e w political dictatorships, a n d the issue of w h e t h e r capitalism in its free mar k e t or monopolistic forms w a s e m b o d i e d or sur­ passed in these n e w dictatorships were of critical importance. T h e m e c h a ­ n i s m of crisis, if any, that these authors hypothesized a n d w h e t h e r they argued that the w o r k i n g class w o u l d play a role in overthrowing dictator­ ships w ere also crucial. A touchstone for this discussion of the e c o n o m i c a n d political char­ acter of the n e w dictatorships w a s a n essay written in 1 9 4 0 b y Rudolf Hilferding. His analysis of the relative usefulness of the rival m o d e l s of state capitalism a n d totalitarianism w a s u n i q u e a m o n g writings of the G e r m a n exiles in that it focused almost exclusively o n the Soviet U n i o n instead of o n Fascist Italy or Nazi G e r m a n y . In addition, of the G e r m a n

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

135

socialists w h o developed a critique of totalitarianism that closely c o m ­ pared Nazi G e r m a n y w i t h the Soviet Unio n , Rudolf Hilferding possessed the greatest international stature. A s A n d r é Liebich has argued, Hilfer­ ding likely d r e w inspiration a n d perhaps specific ideas regarding the for­ mulation of such a critique of Soviet totalitarianism f r o m his close friends in the circle of Mensheviks-in-exile w h o staffed Die Gesellschaft a n d the later Zeitschrift für Sozialismus.93 Indeed, Hilferding's article o n the Soviet totalitarian s y s t e m first a p p e a r e d in the exile M e n s h e v i k publication Sotsialisticheskii Vestnik94 Unlike other socialist writers w h o focused pri­ marily o n the state-party a n d its relation to individuals a n d national in­ stitutions, a n d w h o described the Soviet e c o n o m y , as well as fascist ones, as particular f orms of “state capitalism,”Hilferding used his e c o n o m i c expertise to fashion a n analysis of the dictatorial state's n e w position o n the pro d u c t i o n a n d distribution of g o o d s as the decisive factor. H e claimed that the d e v e l o p m e n t of the “ totalitarian state e c o n o m y ”in the Soviet U n i o n m a r k e d the appearance of a n u n p recedented f o r m of social organization: the “first totalitarian state— e v e n before the n a m e w a s in­ vented.”95 Hilferding declared that “the concept of 'state capitalism' c a n hardly pass the test of e c o n o m i c analysis.”It not only w a s inadequate to describe the n e w kind of regime represented b y the Stalinist dictatorship but w a s actually misleading. State capitalism could b e understood eve n b y s o m e socialists as a transitional stage t o w a r d socialism, but such w a s not the case. T h e notion of state capitalism implied that the market c ontinued to operate a n d that s o m e t h i n g resembling a traditional state apparatus n o w took over the bourgeoisie's previous role of enforcing capital a c c u m u l a ­ tion. B o t h notions wer e certainly false, Hilferding stated, at least w i t h re­ spect to the Soviet U n i o n . 96 The “ totalitarian state e c o n o m y , ”as Hilferding labeled the Soviet sys­ tem, w a s not governed b y the rules of competition that characterize a m a r ­ ket system, no r did “ profit”exist, at least in the capitalist sense of private accumulation a n d “o w n e r s h i p ”of surplus production. A c c u m u l a t i o n in the Soviet e c o n o m y , Hilferding continued, h a d nothing to d o with the ac­ c u m ulation of capital in a system of capitalist production but instead c o n ­ stituted the fuel for a consumption-based e c o n o m y organized b y the bureau­ cracy but controlled b y the C o m m u n i s t party leadership. T h e party, th r ough the state's bureaucratic apparatus, allocated the “rewards”of eco­ n o m i c production. In short, politics h a d gained control over e c o n o m i c s a n d subjected it to the decisions of the party elite. T h e idea of the p r i m a c y of politics that L ö w e n t h a l h a d m e n t i o n e d in his analysis of e c o n o m i c s in

T h e Lost D e b a t e

136

National Socialist G e r m a n y n o w b e c a m e central to the n e w notion of to­ talitarianism in the Soviet U n i o n p r o p o u n d e d b y Hilferding: “ A state e c o n o m y ... eliminates precisely the a u t o n o m y of e c o n o m i c laws. It rep­ resents not a market but a consumers' e c o n o m y . It is n o longer price but rather a state planning c o m m i s s i o n that n o w determines w h a t is p roduced a n d h o w . Formally, prices a n d w a g e s still exist, but their function is n o longer the same; t hey n o longer d e t ermine the process of production w h i c h is n o w controlled b y a central p o w e r that fixes prices a n d wages.” 97 Moreover, Hilferding insisted, the system that h a d developed in the Soviet U n i o n during the twenties a n d thirties w a s neither properly capitalist nor socialist: "It represents a totalitarian state e c o n o m y , i.e., a system to w h i c h the e c o n o m i e s of G e r m a n y a n d Italy are d rawing closer a n d closer.”98 T h e implications of his analysis for traditional M a r x i s m s e e m e d clear, a n d Hilferding did not shy a w a y f r o m the n e e d for a thor o u g h g o i n g recon­ sideration of inherited socialist doctrine. Marxist Social D e m o c r a t s h a d b e e n unable to i m a g i n e that "the political f o r m ofthat ' m a n a g e d e c o n o ­ m y ' w h i c h w a s to replace capitalist production for a free market could be unrestricted absolutism.”99 W h e t h e r Hilferding w o u l d have merely refash­ ioned M a r x i s m or w o u l d h a v e finally rejected it c a n n o t be k n o w n with absolute certainty, for h e did not live to pursue the provocative line of analysis that h e h a d initiated. His essay "Das historische P r o b l e m ”indi­ cates that h e w a s m o v i n g t o w a r d a n a r g u m e n t for the " p r i m a c y of the political”of the type that Löw e n t h a l h a d m e n t i o n e d in the mid-i930S a n d that w a s about to embroil the Institute of Social Research in o n e of its live­ liest internal disputes.100 Unlike m o s t of these writers, w h o b y the begin­ n i n g of the w a r h a d fled to E n g l a n d or N o r t h America, Hilferding re­ m a i n e d in Paris. S o m e m o n t h s after the G e r m a n a r m y defeated France, Hilferding w a s arrested in the southern part of the country, w h e r e h e w a s waiting for a n exit visa, taken b a c k to Paris, a n d died— evidently a sui­ cide— while in the brutal custody of the Gestapo. E v e n after his death, Hilferding's essays o n the totalitarian state e c o n o m y a n d "the historical p r o b l e m ”circulated widely a m o n g émigré socialists. But his comparative e c o n o m i c analysis of the "totalitarian state e c o n o m y ”w o u l d not be p u b ­ lished in English until 1947, w h e n it appeared in M o d e r n Review,a journal of democratic socialism. A s further testimony to the w a y s in w h i c h the fate of G e r m a n social d e m o c r a c y w a s b o u n d u p w i t h the fate of the Mensheviks, o n e of that journal's editors w a s Hilferding's old friend a n d c o m r a d e Iurii De n i c k e (Georg Decker), a n d its operations w ere supported b y Raphael Abramovitsch, the father of M a r k Rein, the missing volunteer for Republican Spain.101

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

137

A s Hilferding fitfully but forthrightly revised a n d rethought his t h e o ­ retical outlook during the 1930s a n d early 1940s, several y o u n g e r intellec­ tuals w e r e p aying close attention to his w o r k a n d generating their o w n bold revisions a n d innovations. H o r k h e i m e r 's essay o n the authoritarian state w a s but o n e of m a n y discussions of dictatorship h e a n d his colleagues in the Institute of Social Research generated. Collectively a n d individu­ ally, the m e m b e r s of the institute w ere responsible for several of the bestresearched a n d m o s t theoretically sophisticated studies of dictatorship p r o d u c e d during the w a r t i m e period. It is equally clear that b y the 1930s, the institute's leading figures held n o illusions about the direction of the Soviet U n i o n u n d e r Stalin. Moreover, attempts to explain the oppressive character of the Soviet dictatorship often appeared in connection with the analysis of the Nazi regime, m a k i n g possible a careful but critical c o m p a r i ­ sons of the t w o systems.102 But as H e l m u t Dubiel has noted, the heteroge­ neity of these various writings has caused t h e m to b e forgotten as a g r o u p of critiques— a collective b o d y of research a n d writing that a p p r o a c h e d m a n y aspects of the n e w dictatorships, the National Socialist regime in particular, f r o m a variety of angles.103 O n e of the central issues that divided the institute's writers in their appraisal of state-party regimes w a s the notion of state capitalism a n d its corollary, the idea of the p r i m a c y of the political. W i t h i n the Institute of Social Research, the debate over the influence a n d i mportance of the e c o n o m i c as o p p o s e d to the political aspects of the m o d e r n dictatorships took a n increasingly sharp, even personal f o r m in a controversy over the applicability of the concept of state capitalism. S o m e of the key a r g u m e n t s in this debate were responses to the theory that Hilferding h a d articulated in 1940, a n d his essay b e c a m e a n i m p o r ­ tant source of evidence for b o t h parties to the debate. T h e following sec­ tion s u m m a r i z e s the terms of this debate as they appeared in the writings of the key antagonists a n d looks at the w a y s in w h i c h this event not only revealed conflicts within the Institute of Social Research over theories of dictatorship but also c o n n e c t e d w i t h wider debates o n the exile G e r m a n left.104 T h e kernel of the "state capitalism" controversy within the institute w a s Franz N e u m a n n ' s response to Friedrich Pollock's position o n the sub­ ject as articulated in his article "State Capitalism: Its Possibilities a n d Limi­ tations." Pollock h a d a stronger a c a d e m i c training in e c o n o m i c s t h a n m o s t of the other m e m b e r s of the institute had. M a x H o r k h e i m e r h a d entrusted to Pollock, his friend f r o m school days, control of the business affairs of the institute, a n d therefore, despite the i m p o r t a n c e of his w o r k

T h e Lost D e b a t e

138

to the gr o u p as a whole, Pollock w a s left with less time t h a n the others h a d for research a n d writing.105 T h e article, o n e of the few publications that Pollock contributed dur­ ing the N e w York exile period of the institute, s h o w e d that Pollock, like Horkheimer, continued to rely o n the concept of state capitalism. Ev e n t h o u g h h e shared m a n y of the e c o n o m i c assumptions of Rudolf Hilferding, w h o h a d rejected the concept, Pollock kept the t e r m state capitalism a n d did not follow Horkheimer's alternative "authoritarian state”typology. H e instead arrived at his o w n set of categories for the m o d e r n state regimes. H e referred n o w to "democratic”a n d "totalitarian”forms of state capital­ ism. B o t h types of state capitalism h a d replaced the free market with a "sys­ t e m of direct controls.”T h e state n o w regulated b o t h production a n d c o n ­ s u m p t i o n t h r o u g h these controls. U n d e r the "totalitarian”f o r m of state capitalism, a party elite directed the e c o n o m y in collaboration with the state bureaucracy (Pollock included the military here) a n d the "top rank­ ing personnel”of the industrial a n d business sectors.106 Pollock's "totalitarian”state capitalist regimes were Nazi G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U n i o n , a n d in the article h e gave far m o r e attention to the former regime t h a n to the latter.107 His "democratic”state capitalist re­ g i mes were the industrialized W e s t e r n E u r o p e a n a n d A m e r i c a n nations. Pollock described that f o r m of state capitalism as democratic w i t h o u t using Korsch's scornful quotation m a r k s a n d w ithout repeating Ho r k h e i ­ mer's criticism of the working-class parties as being integrated into the state capitalist regime: " U n d e r a democratic f o r m of state capitalism the state has the s a m e controlling functions but is itself controlled b y the people. It is based o n institutions w h i c h prevent the bureaucracy f r o m transforming its administrative position into a n instrument of p o w e r a n d thus laying the basis for transshaping the democratic system into a totali­ tarian one.”108 E v e n if w e grant that h e w a s describing democratic state capitalism as a n ideal type, Pollock's uncritical a n d optimistic c o m m e n t s o n the p e r f o r m a n c e of the W e s t e r n capitalist, constitutional states stand out in contrast to the m o r e critical analyses of Korsch a n d Horkheimer. His analysis of totalitarian state capitalism, however, w o u l d approximate theirs m o r e closely. Pollock’ s description of the general m o d e l of state capitalism offered almost precisely the s a m e m e n u of characteristics that Hilferding h a d as­ s e m b l e d in his article of 1940: a central plan; controlled prices, p r o d u c ­ tion, a n d consumption; the gradual disappearance of "profit”as tradition­ ally u n d e r s t o o d (although Pollock allowed for the preservation of the "profit m o t i v e ”in performance); a n d application of principles of scientific

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

139

m a n a g e m e n t . 109 H e e ven cited Hilferding to support the a r g u m e n t that u n d e r state capitalism, c o m m o d i t y production for the market is replaced b y a state-mandated production for use.110 But Hilferding h a d focused o n the Soviet Union, not Nazi G e r m a n y , a n d h e also denied that the Soviet e c o n o m y could b e adequately defined as capitalist or socialist. W h i l e Hilferding decisively rejected the notion of state capitalism as h e f o r m u ­ lated it a n d s a w the greatest fulfillment of the n e w a n d noncapitalist to­ talitarian state tendencies in the Soviet Union, Pollock kept the t e r m state capitalism a n d s o m e of its c o m p o n e n t concepts, a n d h e did not g o far to specify their operation b e y o n d the e x a m p l e of Nazi G e r m a n y . T h a t is, ev e n t h o u g h h e implied that there w a s a global t e n d e n c y t o w a r d state capitalism, in Pollock's v i e w the National Socialist regime w a s clearly the m o s t compelling case.111 In further contrast to Hilferding's o p e n insistence o n the p r i m a c y of politics u n d e r the Soviet “ totalitarian state e c o n o m y , " Pollock s e e m e d almost to h a v e b a c k e d into a similar concept of the pri­ m a c y of politics in his o w n version of the state capitalism thesis, without following u p to a n y great extent o n the theoretical a n d practical implica­ tions of this line of argument. Franz N e u m a n n believed that h e u n d e r ­ stood these implications quite clearly, a n d h e rejected Pollock's state capi­ talism concept, especially insofar as it w a s intended to be a theory that m i g h t explain the e c o n o m y of Nazi G e r m a n y . At about the time Pollock's essay w a s published, N e u m a n n d e m o n ­ strated his a d a m a n t opposition to the state capitalism thesis in a letter to M a x H o r k h eimer, declaring that the state capitalism essay m a r k e d a n unequivocal farewell to M a r x i s m . 112 N e u m a n n s h a rpened a n d elaborated his objections later in 1941 as h e c o m p l e t e d his manuscript for the first edition of Behemoth. His criticism of Pollock's state capitalism m o d e l arose f r o m three m a j o r weaknesses that h e perceived in this concept: (1) it did not clearly identify a n inherent ten d e n c y to crisis in state capitalist e c o n o ­ mies, (2) it replaced the analysis of class struggle w i t h a n e x a m i nation of administrative-terroristic imperatives of managerial control, a n d (3) it c o n t e n d e d that e c o n o m i c relations in Nazi G e r m a n y were entirely su b ­ ordinate to political ones. Q uite soon, in his w a r t i m e book, B e h e m o t h , N e u m a n n w o u l d dismiss the theory outright: “ T h e very t e r m 'state capi­ talism' is a contradictio in adiecto. "113 At the o p e n i n g of his section entitled “ A n E c o n o m y w i t h o u t E c o n o m i c s ? " h e cited Pollock's article in a foot­ note, but the writer w h o h a d offered “ the best formulation of this type of theory," in N e u m a n n ' s view, w a s o n e of the m o s t out s p o k e n o p p o n e n t s of state capitalism terminology: Rudolf Hilferding.114 After restating Hilferding's a r g u m e n t s o n the Soviet e c o n o m y a n d noting the efforts of

T h e Lost D e b a t e

140

others to apply t h e m to G e r m a n y , N e u m a n n —w h o did not pause to di­ rectly refute or eve n address the applicability of the state capitalism c o n ­ cept to the Soviet U n i o n — l a u n c h e d into his o w n criticism of the concept. T o a very limited extent, N e u m a n n w o u l d agree w i t h Hilferding a n d Pollock at the level of theory. T h a t is, the kind of regime b o t h Hilferding a n d Pollock described ( t h o u g h their ter m i n o l o g y a n d conclusions di­ verged), in w h i c h the e c o n o m y h a d b e e n subordinated to political deci­ sions, w o u l d d o a w a y w i t h the contradictions inherent in capitalism. W h a t N e u m a n n denied w a s that such a n “ideal type”h a d b e e n realized in G e r m a n y . Moreover, h e rejected the d e e p pessi m i s m that a theory rest­ ing o n the p r i m a c y of politics legitimated: If w e share this view, w e m u s t also c o n c l u d e that n o t h i n g b u t a series of accidents c a n destroy s u c h systems. If t h e s y s t e m s are h e l d together o n l y b y political ties a n d n o t b y a n y inescapable e c o n o m i c necessity, o n l y p o ­ litical mistakes c a n destroy t h e m . B u t w h y s h o u l d political errors o c cur? Politics di v o r c e d f r o m e c o n o m i c s is a m e r e technique, a n art. In the era of state capitalism it is a t e c h n i q u e of m a s s d o m i n a t i o n , a t e c h n i q u e that h a s i n d e e d b e e n h i g h l y d e v e l o p e d . ... S o skilful a s y s t e m of m a s s d o m i n a t i o n m a y secure t h e stability of t h e s y s t e m for a t h o u s a n d years. T h a t is, indeed, t h e p r o m i s e that Hitler h o l d s o u t to his people.115

N e u m a n n could not, at least not in 1941, consider the rejection of w h a t w a s to h i m suc h a f u n d a m e n t a l notion: G e r m a n y r e m a i n e d a class soci­ ety, a n d its capitalism, regardless of its deviations f r o m the “ classic”m a r ­ ket model, carried within itself the s a m e social contradictions a n d inher­ ent tendencies t o w a r d crisis e n d e m i c to b o t h m a r k e t a n d m o n o p o l y capitalism. H e called his o w n theoretical m o d e l of the G e r m a n e c o n o m y a "totalitarian monopolistic e c o n o m y . ” N e u m a n n ' s co n c e p t of the totalitarian monopolistic e c o n o m y at­ t e m p t e d to h old to M a r x i a n categories in the analysis of w h a t h e a d m i t ­ ted w a s in s o m e w a y s a hybrid system, but o n e without a coherent politi­ cal center. First, h e asserted, the Nazis h a d n o e c o n o m i c theory w o r t h y of the n a m e , a n d their policies wer e a d h o c attempts to achieve short-term goals. Tha t did not, however, i m p l y that the e c o n o m y itself could not be explained.116 In fact, N e u m a n n argued, m u c h of the old system r e m a i n e d in place, for m o n o p o l y capitalism h a d survived f r o m the W e i m a r period into the Third Reich.117T h e n e w f o r m h e perceived, totalitarian m o n o p o l y capitalism, “ is a monopolistic e c o n o m y — a n d a c o m m a n d e c o n o m y . It is a private capitalistic e c o n o m y , regimented b y the totalitarian state.”118This n e w f o r m of capitalism s h o w e d a few p r i m a r y tendencies u n d e r the Nazi

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

141

regime (and here I h a v e c o n d e n s e d quite radically the s w e e p a n d detail of N e u m a n n ' s argument): to accelerate cartelization a n d rescue it f r o m the negative impact of the world e c o n o m i c crisis, largely b y m e a n s of military production; to lower u n e m p l o y m e n t t h r o u g h a variety of state c o m ­ m a n d e d projects administered u n d e r private or Nazi party leadership a n d quite often for private profit; to sustain a n d even to m a x i m i z e profit itself, w h i c h h a d not only not disappeared, as it w a s s upposed to u n d e r the state capitalism model, but h a d not e v e n b e e n properly regulated; to engage in military aggression, because the scarcity of resources a n d labor in G e r ­ m a n y could not b e m a d e u p t h r o u g h trade; to subject labor to a system of accelerated production a n d stabilized w a g e s at the s a m e time; a n d to sus­ tain a n d eve n intensify the e c o n o m i c effects of antagonistic class relations while it denied these relations in propaganda, atomized the work i n g class, a n d prevented a u t o n o m o u s workers' organizations. W h a t N e u m a n n c o n ­ t ended in his massively d o c u m e n t e d account w a s that such coherence as the Nazi regime possessed resided foremost in the persisting elements of capitalism a n d not in its chaotic political realm, w h i c h h e denied consti­ tuted a state, properly speaking, at all.119W i t h this verdict, N e u m a n n h a d not simply rejected the state capitalism concept, h e h a d turned it o n its h e a d — or put it o n its feet, d e p e n d i n g o n one's point of view. T h e i m p o r t a n c e of the state capitalism debate to the d e v e l o p m e n t of left-wing concepts of totalitarianism c an b e s u m m a r i z e d in the following observations. Hilferding's rejection of the state capitalism concept led h i m to the formulation of the totalitarian state e c o n o m y theory, w h i c h pointed to the Soviet U n i o n as its prototype, with Italy a n d G e r m a n y fol­ lowing close o n its heels. If the e c o n o m i c basis of these three regimes w a s similar, as his a r g u m e n t implied, it w a s but a short theoretical step, h o w ­ ever o n e judges its validity, to insist that the political f o r m of these regimes w a s b o u n d to b e similar as well. S o m e theorists, such as Hilferding, also perceived contradictions in the concept of state capitalism that inclined t h e m towa r d a rejection of the m o r e o r t h o d o x Marxist base-superstruc­ ture m o d e l in w h i c h the e c o n o m i c relations of the m o d e of production were the m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l factor conditioning other aspects of the so­ cial totality. T h e political practice likely to arise f r o m Hilferding's theory— that is, the potentially swift passage f r o m M a r x i a n o r t h o d o x y to a p o s ­ t a sy-included the likelihood of acceptance of m i x e d e c o n o m i e s a n d the e n d of appeals to revolutionary action in favor of u n m i x e d devotion to parliamentarism. T h e w a r t i m e political transformations of Franz Borken a u —w h o h a d already sketched his o w n notion of the p r i m a c y of poli­ tics in T h e Totalitarian E n e m y — a n d Richard L ö w e n t h a l —w h o h a d put off

The Lost Debate

142

his reckoning w i t h the s a m e notion only for a few years— could serve as the clearest e x a m p l e s of this transition.120 Pollock's adherence to the state capitalist concept h a d quite a differ­ ent political a n d theoretical o u t c o m e t h a n Borkenau's did. H e l m u t Dubiel speculates that Pollock's largely n o n - M a r x i a n revision of the notion of state-party dictatorship helped H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o free themselves f r o m eve n the s o m e w h a t ambivalent a n d increasingly m u t e d M a r x i a n focus o n economics, class relations, a n d revolution that h a d appeared in Horkheimer's “ Autoritärer Staat.''121 A d o r n o , w h o s e use of M a r x i a n c o n ­ cepts w a s always selective, s e e m s to h a v e b e e n s o m e w h a t less in n e e d of such a liberation t h a n H o r k h e i m e r was. In a n y case, Pollock h a d c h o p p e d a w a y at the brambles of e c o n o m i c analysis that m i g h t have blocked the p a t h for the kind of cultural a n d philosophical critique that H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o s o o n ventured in Dialektik de r A u f k l ä r u n g (Dialectic o f E n l i g h t ­ enment).

In terms of the theory-practice dialectic, Pollock's version of the

theory of the p r i m a c y of politics h a d helped sanction a further retreat f r o m practical politics. For all its assertiveness, N e u m a n n ' s dismissal of the state capitalist concept a n d the a c c o m p a n y i n g notion of the p r i m a c y of politics consti­ tuted a M a r x i a n holding action as m u c h as a critical advance. B e h e m o t h offered a kind of Marxist critique of the Nazi regime, but even s o m e of its admirers glimpsed ambiguity a n d ambivalence lurking within its formi­ dable scholarly apparatus. T h e M a r x i s m that N e u m a n n w a s prepared to use in B e h e m o t h did no t please the politically m o r e pessimistic H o r k ­ h e i m e r or pass m u s t e r w i t h Kors c h in his early 1940s e n r a g é phase. It would, however, b e lavishly praised b y Rosenberg, w h o w a s in the midst of a transition to social d e m o c r a c y — Franz N e u m a n n ' s now-rejected point of origin. E v e n the practical political c o m p o n e n t a n d the class subject of N e u m a n n ' s M a r x i s m w e r e b e c o m i n g m o r e t h a n a little murky. In his to­ talitarian m o n o p o l y capitalism model, N e u m a n n e m p h a s i z e d the contra­ dictions in the administrative a n d accumulation needs of the Nazi regime far m o r e t h a n h e did a n y overt manifestations of class conflict, t h o u g h these, too, could b e glimpsed. Nonetheless, the fact r e m a i n e d that issues of class consciousness a n d proletarian revolution, t h o u g h not absent, wer e not central to his analysis. T h e y appeared m o s t clearly at the e n d of the first section of the b o o k a n d in the book's conclusion, a series of specu­ lations a b o u t the “conscious political action of the oppressed masses, w h i c h will utilize the breaks in the system."122 But these “ breaks in the system," to the extent that they actually existed, did not allow for the kind of internal revolt against the Nazis that N e u m a n n at times envisioned.

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

143

Perhaps because a united working-class response w a s absent, the tensions within N e u m a n n ' s Marxist outlook w o u l d b e c o m e m o r e apparent in the postwar period.123 At the time of Behemoth's first publication, however, Neumann’ s ambivalence about the w o r k i n g class r e m a i n e d a subtle gap in the Marxist orientation of his remarkable presentation. Despite ac­ k n o w l e d g i n g the o v e r w h e l m i n g danger a n d difficulty of radical praxis in Nazi G e r m a n y , h e still insisted o n its possibility. W i t h such theoretical a n d political stakes as these, the state capitalism debate within the institute’ s circle was, at the time, s o m e t h i n g m o r e t h a n the “conflict a bout w o r d s ” that Rolf Wiggershaus, a leading historian of the Institute of Social R e ­ search, has labeled it.124 T h e conflict over the issue of state capitalism did no t prevent N e u ­ m a n n f r o m serving as a fund-seeking a m b a s s a d o r in the institute’ s behalf, however. Just three w e e k s after N e u m a n n h a d blasted Pollock’ s article, h e reported o n c e m o r e to H o r k h e i m e r o n a m e e t i n g h e h a d held w i t h a n administrator f r o m the a m p l y - f u n d e d Council for D e m o c r a c y regarding financial support for s o m e of the institute’ s research o n anti-Semitism. T h e official admitted skepticism about the institute’ s project because h e perceived the g r o u p as Marxist a n d therefore incapable of offering a n unbiased perspective. N e u m a n n wrote H o r k h e i m e r that h e h a d explained to the official that s o m e institute scholars were Marxists but that n o m e m ­ ber of the g r o u p w a s a m e m b e r of the C o m m u n i s t Party. Persuaded b y Neumann’ s arguments, the council official— a H arvard professor n a m e d Carl J. Friedrich, w h o w a s to play such a n important role in the formula­ tion of postwar totalitarian theory— p r o m i s e d to assist the institute in securing funds for its project.125 Also in 1941, another theorist with a professional a n d scholarly b a c k ­ g r o u n d remarkably like N e u m a n n ’ s offered his assessment of the G e r m a n dictatorship. T h e author, Ernst Fraenkel, h a d not h a d access to the eco­ n o m i c statistics that fueled N e u m a n n ' s analysis in B e h e m o t h , but h e h a d five years’experience as a labor lawyer u n d e r the Nazi regime. T h e b o o k Fraenkel wrote w a s quite well received at the tim e of its publication. Fraenkel’ s brief discussions of the concept of the totalitarian state merit careful consideration because of their u n i q u e angle o n the p r o b l e m of state-party dictatorship a n d totalitarian theory.

Case Study of a Totalitarian Legal System O n e of the difficulties in identifying the left-wing versions of anti­ totalitarianism p r o d u c e d b y G e r m a n intellectuals a n d scholars is that

T h e Lost D e b a t e

144

m o s t of the pertinent d o c u m e n t s w e r e written a n d published in exile— if they were published at all. Ernst FraenkePs b o o k T h e D u a l State: A Contri­ bution to the Theory of Dictatorship is exceptional in this regard, for it w a s mostly written in Nazi G e r m a n y . F r o m 1933 to 1938, Fraenkel continued to practice law in Berlin. A s a result of this u n i q u e experience, h e h a d ac­ cess to published sources related to Nazi law, a n d h e could observe juris­ tic practices firsthand. Fraenkel h a d b e e n a law partner of Franz N e u m a n n in the W e i m a r period, w h e n b o t h were active in behalf of trade unions a n d S P D political causes. Their b o o k s o n Nazi political, legal, a n d e c o n o m i c behavior stand as t w o of the best-informed a n d m o s t lasting contributions to scholarship o n Nazi G e r m a n y that w e r e published during the war. Unlike Borkenau's Totalitarian E n e m y ; w h i c h w a s clearly a i m e d at a popular reading audience, FraenkePs D u a l State h a d m o r e scholarly inten­ tions, as evidenced b y his financial a n d research supporters, described in the preface. Fraenkel h a d received help of o n e kind or another f r o m the N e w School for Social Research a n d its rival, Horkheimer's Institute of Social Research, as well as the aid of n u m e r o u s individuals, including Frederick Pollock, Franz N e u m a n n , a n d Carl J. Friedrich. In other words, t h o u g h h e h a d b e e n isolated personally a n d politically during his years in Nazi G e r m a n y , Fraenkel h a d very quickly r e s u m e d contact w i t h the G e r m a n exile groups a n d individuals in the United States to w h o s e w o r k his o w n bore s o m e resemblance.126 T h e preface w a s written in C h i cago a n d dated 15 J u n e 1940, just a w e e k before the signing of the armistice that conc l u d e d the G e r m a n army's shockingly easy defeat of France. T h e re­ g i m e that n o w controlled or intimidated nearly all of continental E urope n o w held e v e n greater significance for its opponents. Yet, unlike m o s t of the other b o o k s a n d essays discussed in this c h a p ­ ter, Th e D u a l State did not attempt a g r a n d interpretation of National S o ­ cialism that c o m p a r e d it to other regimes or e x a m i n e d it as a s y m p t o m of larger d e v e l o p m e n t s in W e s t e r n civilization. FraenkePs analysis focused almost exclusively o n legal systems a n d practices u n d e r the Nazi regime: "Totalitarian' is a w o r d of m a n y m e a n i n g s too often inadequately d e ­ fined. In this treatise w e h a v e tried to isolate o n e important characteris­ tic of the totalitarian state in G e r m a n y , a n d b y studying this f u n d a m e n ­ tal aspect of the National-Socialist r egime w e h o p e to m a k e clearer the legal reality of the Third Reich."127 Fraenkel w o r k e d f r o m n o particular general m o d e l or m e n u of characteristics that designated the totalitarian state, as B o r k e n a u t e n d e d to do, but instead proceeded in a m o r e rigor­ ously inductive fashion, f r o m concrete details to general conclusions. Indeed, Fraenkel w a s leery of the o n e general m o d e l of the totalitär-

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

145

ian state that h e described, a n d h e took s o m e pains to explain his decision to m a k e only limited use of s u c h a model. His reasons for rejecting the totalitarian state m o d e l in 1 9 4 0 bear closer examination: T h e c o n c e p t of t h e "totalitarian state”is n o t u n a m b i g u o u s . T h e a m b i g u ­ ity in t h e t e r m "totalitarian state”m a y b e e x p l a i n e d b y th e fact that there are t w o types of states w i t h totalitarian tendencies. T h e c o m m o n c h a r a c ­ ter of t h e totalitarian t e n dencies is t h e subo r d i n a t i o n of all activities to th e e n d s of the state. Thi s m a y b e d o n e o n th e o n e h a n d in t h e n a m e of the m a s s e s ____ O n t h e o t h e r h a n d a state m a y b e called totalitarian b e c a u s e of its absolute exercise of p o w e r in order to str e n g t h e n the state in its exter­ nal relationships.128

S u c h states w o u l d displease conservatives because of their political appeals to the masses a n d w o u l d anger liberals because of their denial of g u a r a n ­ teed rights. This m o d e l offered the options of yet another kind of emphasis in the effort to u nderstand the totalitarian state— study of its internal a n d external political policies. Fraenkel placed his emphasis almost entirely o n the former a n d arrived at a n encyclopedic a n d critical survey of the Nazi legal system that challenged the m o d e l of the totalitarian state”a “catch­ wo r d , ”as Fraenkel called it, that w a s already c o m i n g into vogue.129 In addition to the “ambiguities”Fraenkel located in the totalitarian state concept, h e cited p r o b l e m s w i t h o n e of its formulations taken f r o m Carl Schmitt: W e h a v e a v o i d e d u s i n g t h e t e r m "totalitarian state”b e c a u s e of its c o m ­ plex connotations. Its use in G e r m a n y goe s b a c k to Carl Schmitt's b o o k D e r H ü t e r der Verfassung [ T h e G u a r d i a n of th e Constitution] w h e r e t h e t e r m totalitarian state w a s u s e d for t h e first t i m e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Ernst Jiinger's c o n c e p t of "total mobilization.”Carl S c h m i t t refused to accept a definition of t h e "totalitarian state”as o n e w h i c h controls every aspect of social a n d e c o n o m i c life. H e distinguished b e t w e e n t w o types of totalitari­ a n i s m , t h e qualitative a n d t h e quantitative type.130

Schmitt h a d called the W e i m a r Republic a “quantitatively totalitarian state,”a f o r m that w a s the s u m total of its weaknesses, in his critical view. Fascism, however, represented for Schmitt a “qualitatively totalitarian state.”Schmitt's qualitative totalitarianism did not attempt to control all aspects of the society a n d e c o n o m y — a claim that stood in direct opposi­ tion to the typical postwar definition of totalitarianism— but left s o m e r o o m for “a free individual business enterprise a n d for a public sphere that does not overlap the sphere of the state.”131 Fraenkel offered the opinion

T h e Lost D e b a t e

146

that Schmitt's remarks o n the qualitative totalitarian state, taken f r o m a speech to a n industrial employers' g r o u p in N o v e m b e r 1932, differed little f r o m the notion of the totalitarian state expressed b y a Nazi legal official.132 T h e appearance of Schmitt's ideas in a discussion of totalitarianism b y a m e m b e r of the G e r m a n Left should b y n o w be n o surprise. Like M a r c u s e a n d N e u m a n n , Fraenkel gave Schmitt's formulations d u e attention, but the qualitative totalitarian state theory served for the m o s t part as a n o c ­ casional reference point, for Fraenkel did not simply accept Schmitt's cat­ egories of totalitarianism e v e n t h o u g h h e felt compelled to restate t h e m a n d m a d e limited use of t h e m . T h e gap b e t w e e n the Schmittian ideal type of the qualitative totalitarian state a n d the institutional a n d practical re­ ality Fraenkel h a d observed w a s finally the m o s t compelling reason for his extremely qualified use of the concept. T h e f r e e d o m that the Nazi regime allowed to private enterprise a n d corporatist “estates,”s o m e t i m e s actu­ ally d e n y i n g the state a n d police apparatus p o w e r over t h e m , indicated that eve n Schmitt's revision of the totalitarian state concept m a r k e d a n untenable retreat. U n d e r National Socialism, capitalism r e m a i n e d sacro­ sanct. A totalitarian state that limited the scope of its o w n police a n d regu­ latory powers a n d deferred in s o m e cases to the decisions of private groups a n d individuals was, o n e m i g h t reasonably conclude, a political entity u n c o n c e r n e d a bout contradictions b e t w e e n its advertised aims of “ total” control a n d the practical m e a n s of generating greater wealth a n d power.133 In his denial that the National Socialist state regulated all aspects of the e c o n o m y , Fraenkel also rejected, b y definition, Pollock's concept of state capitalism. As N e u m a n n w o u l d d o in B ehemoth, Fraenkel insisted o n the close a n d e v e n cooperative relationship b e t w e e n capitalism a n d N a ­ tional Socialism: “Faced with the choice b e t w e e n substantial rationality a n d substantial irrationality, G e r m a n capitalism casts its vote for the lat­ ter. It will a c c o m m o d a t e itself to a n y substantial irrationality if only the necessary pre-requisites for its technically rational order are preserved.... This symbiosis of capitalism a n d National-Socialism finds its institutional f o r m in the D u a l State.”134 T h e persisting anticapitalism of Th e D u a l State stands out all the m o r e boldly in the context of Fraenkel's low-key a n d tightly argued presentation. His simultaneous rejection of b o t h the actual Nazi dictatorship a n d too simple or too b e n i g n theoretical m o d e l s of dic­ tatorship, such as Schmitt's notion of the totalitarian state, demonstrates the self-conscious attention to theoretical a n d empirical analysis that m a r k e d the best w a r t i m e writing b y leftists o n state-party dictatorship. In terms of its m e t h o d o l o g y a n d its outlook o n the behavior of m o d ­ ern dictatorships, Fraenkel's b o o k contributed greatly to the empirical

Varieties o f Anti totalitarianism

147

analysis of the Nazi dictatorship. Its detailed arguments about specific laws continue to offer a point of departure for research into the fate of the G e r ­ m a n legal a n d gover n m e n t a l systems u n d e r Nazi rule.135 M o r e important, the broad f r a m e w o r k of Fraenkel's “ dual state" argument, in w h i c h h e dis­ tinguished b e t w e e n the coexisting “prerogative state" a n d “norma t i v e state," has also left its m a r k o n subsequent study of the Nazi regime, as well other totalitarian regimes. T h e “prerogative state" h e identified as the “ar­ bitrary measures (M a s s n a h m e n ), in w h i c h the d o m i n a n t officials exercise their discretionary prerogatives" a n d in w h i c h principles of justice, legal rights, jurisdictional limits, a n d regulation of politics or g o v e r n m e n t played n o role. T h e aims of the “prerogative state" were o v e r w h e l m i n g l y political— a n d in Nazi G e r m a n y “there is n o t hing w h i c h cann o t be clas­ sified as 'political.'"136 If the Nazi state were absolutely totalitarian, h e ar­ gued, the so-called normative state of jurisdictional procedures a n d pro­ tections w o u l d hav e b e e n entirely superseded a n d absorbed because of the d e m a n d s of the “prerogative state." W h y h a d this not occurred? Fraenkel claimed that the Nazis' desire to preserve a n d foster a productive capital­ ist e c o n o m y h a d allowed elements of the “normative state" to survive: In spite of t h e existing legal possibilities for intervention b y t h e Preroga­ tive State w h e r e a n d w h e n e v e r it desires, th e legal f o u n d a t i o n s of the capi­ talistic e c o n o m i c order h a v e b e e n m a i n t a i n e d ---T h e courts are responsible for seeing that th e principles of t h e capital­ ist order are m a i n t a i n e d — e v e n t h o u g h t h e Prerogative State occasionally exercises its right to deal w i t h individual cases in t h e light of e x p e d i e n c y a n d t h e special n a t u r e of t h e case at h a n d . T h e decisions s h o w that t h e courts h a v e successfully m a i n t a i n e d t h e legal s y s t e m n e c e s s a r y for t h e f unct i o n i n g of private capitalism. T h e legal institutions essential to private capitalism, s u c h as f r e e d o m of enterprise, sanctity of contracts, private property, t h e right of th e e n t r e p r e n e u r to control labor, regulation of u n ­ fair c o mpetition, regulation of patent, t r a d e - m a r k rights, etc., legal protec­ tion for interest agree m e n t s , prope r t y a n d transfer for p u r p o s e s of security, still exist in G e r m a n y . T o this extent the courts h a v e striven to m a i n t a i n th e s u p r e m a c y of t h e law. In order that w e m a y n o t c o m p l i c a t e o u r a n a l y ­ sis, w e are n o t c o nsidering cases t o u c h i n g o n t h e J e w i s h p r o b l e m . 137

T h e claim that the normative state's m o s t important role w a s the protec­ tion of capitalism w a s a n essential part of Fraenkel's project of radically qualifying Schmitt's notion of the totalitarian state while simultaneously c o n d e m n i n g G e r m a n capitalism. S u c h claims about the relationship b e ­ t w e e n the Nazi regime a n d capitalism hav e continued for over fifty years

T h e Lost D e b a t e

14 8

n o w to serve as a focus for important a n d impassioned debates about the ideological a n d practical character of G e r m a n fascism, the relative a u ­ t o n o m y of Nazi rule, and, b y comparative extension, the similarities a n d differences b e t w e e n Nazi a n d Soviet e c o n o m i c policy. Since Fraenkel h a d extensive k n o w l e d g e of Nazi legal practice, his readers in the present can only rue the fact that h e chose not to discuss in a n y detail the effects of the “dual state”o n the legal status of G e r m a n Jews.138 T h e broadly M a r x i a n outlook that i n f o r m e d FraenkeTs w a r t i m e study stood in contrast to the procapitalist or pro - “ m i x e d e c o n o m y ”a r g uments that characterized m u c h of the postwar writing o n totalitarian dictator­ ship p r o d u c e d in the Federal Republic. Bu t the questions a n d issues Fraenkel raised h ave attracted scholars representing a w i d e range of m e t h ­ odological a n d political perspectives. H e stands as a key figure in the moderately socialist political science tradition that arose—with important rivals to its right, to be sure— in the postwar period. Indeed, three of these interwar leftists, Fraenkel, Richard Löwenthal, a n d Ossip Flechtheim, w o u l d b y the 1960s b e c o m e professors of political science at the s a m e institution— the Free University of Berlin. Interestingly, the leftist legal perspective o n dictatorship a n d capital­ i s m c o m m o n to the w o r k of Fraenkel, Kirchheimer, a n d N e u m a n n w o u l d experience a notable revival during the late 1960s a n d early 1970s in such journals as Politische Justiz, w h o s e very title c a m e f r o m o n e of Kirchheimer's later books.139 But while several of Kirchheimer's a n d N e u m a n n ' s b o o k s of the exile period w e r e republished in G e r m a n during the 1960s, FraenkeTs b o o k o n the Nazi legal system w a s not available in G e r m a n until 1974. As evidence of the difficulties that return as well as exile p osed even to suc h successful scholars as Fraenkel, h e a n d M a n u e l a S c h ö p s h a d to translate T h e D u a l State b a c k into G e r m a n (as D e r Doppelstaat) f r o m the English version of 1941, because the final version of the G e r m a n - l a n g u a g e manuscript that h a d b e e n used for that w a r t i m e English translation w a s not preserved.140 Eagerly received b y m a n y y o u n g scholars of the G e r m a n N e w Left, FraenkeTs b o o k remains a m a j o r text in the tradition of d e m o ­ cratic socialist critique of the law. A n o t h e r key significance of the b o o k in terms of the political a n d theo­ retical status of left-wing antitotalitarianism is that FraenkeTs highly qualified a n d critical use of the idea of totalitarianism alerts us to the a m b i v a l e n c e w i t h w h i c h the t e r m w a s often b r o u g h t into play in the analysis of actual regimes. As w e shall see, Franz N e u m a n n ' s a p p r o a c h to a n d use of the related notion of the totalitarian state in B e h e m o t h w a s at o n c e even m o r e critical, m o r e theoretical, a n d m o r e broadly a i m e d in its

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

149

use of empirical evidence t h a n Fraenkel's fe w references to the notion in his m o n o g r a p h o n the Nazi legal system.

N a z i s m as “Totalitarianism”? Franz N e u m a n n ' s B e h e m o t h quickly took its place as o n e of the m o s t a u ­ thoritative studies of the Nazi regime. Its use of empirical data appealed to a n A n g l o - A m e r i c a n scholarly audience that w a s m o r e attuned to social scientific a r g u m e n t a t i o n t h a n to the type of philosophical writings pro­ d u c e d during the w a r b y N e u m a n n ' s former institute colleagues, such as M a r c u s e in Reason a n d Revolution or H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o in Dialectic of Enlightenment N e u m a n n ' s legal expertise as well as his studies with the British social scientist Harold Laski in the early exile years h a d given h i m a n extraordinary foundation for such a c o m p r e h e n s i v e study of G e r m a n y u n d e r Nazi rule.141 First published in 1942 a n d revised t w o years later in a s e c o n d edition, B e h e m o t h w a s the only o n e of the w a r t i m e texts that at­ t e m p t e d systematically to consider several other theoretical approaches to the Nazi order a n d to provide a corrective to their perceived weaknesses. F r o m the standpoint of a theory of dictatorship that accounts for its o w n origins a n d situates itself w i t h respect to other approaches, N e u m a n n ' s remains a w o r k clearly superior to the others of its d a y a n d type. A l o n g w i t h Fraenkel's D u a l State, B e h e m o t h has long served as a m o d e l for a so­ cial scientific a p p r o a c h that g r o w s out of Marxist theory. A s w e have seen earlier in this chapter, the book's position in the state capitalism debate w a s central. This section focuses primarily o n Behemoth's various re­ sponses to a n d tentative uses of a notion of the totalitarian state. Chronologically as well as theoretically, B e h emoth fell mostly outside the kind of cold war-era perspective o n Totalitarismustheorie identified with Carl J. Friedrich a n d Karl Dietrich Bracher, but N e u m a n n ' s masterful use of empirical evidence a n d his leftist historical perspective gave his w o r k a u n i q u e status. B e h e m o t h influenced b o t h Friedrich a n d Bracher in their investigations of the p r o b l e m of totalitarian dictatorship.142 A n u m b e r of Marxist scholars of the postwar Left h a v e also cautiously a p p roved of N e u m a n n ' s book. A s m e n t i o n e d in the introduction, Reinhard Kühnl's discussion of N e u m a n n ' s w o r k in a n essay o n left-wing versions of totali­ tarian theory a n d Eike Hennig's attention to N e u m a n n ' s atypical “left” version of Totalitarismustheorie stand as examples of this approval.143 Kiihnl, in particular, praised N e u m a n n ' s Behemoth a n d m e n t i o n e d his limited a n d n u a n c e d (and Marxian) use of a notion of totalitarianism. But n o n e of these writers analyzed N e u m a n n ' s actual use of the concept in a n y detail. Apart

The Lost Debate

150

f r o m political scientist Alfons Söllner's perceptive discussion of N e u m a n n ' s distinctive position in the d e v e l o p m e n t of theories of totalitarianism, the secondary literature virtually ignores the subject.144 This neglect of N e u ­ m a n n ' s a p p r o a c h to a n d ultimate rejection of the notion of the totalitar­ ian state in Behemoth is unfortunate, for such a n analytical focus reveals not only his reservations about the t e r m totalitarian a n d its cluster of m e a n i n g s but also the effort of a n important leftist scholar to define a n alternative to or at least a correction of the totalitarian state model. N e u m a n n b e g a n his b o o k b y redefining the nature of the society h e intended to explain. H e said that Nazi G e r m a n y w a s b e c o m i n g a “n o n state," a chaotic social a m a l g a m devoid of a rational basis of order in p o ­ litical theory or g o v e r n m e n t a l practice. W i t h this bold argument, N e u ­ m a n n began, in a sense, wit h Fraenkel's conclusion. B o r r o w i n g f r o m the writings of the Jewish eschatological tradition (with a n o d to Hobbes), N e u m a n n labeled the Nazi system “ T h e B e h e m o t h " — the n a m e of the m o n s t e r w h o w o u l d rule the land just before the e n d of the world, as Le­ viathan ruled the sea.145 A redoubtable rationalist, N e u m a n n u n d e r t o o k a n ordered portrait of a system that s e e m e d to spin itself into greater a n d greater m a g n i t u d e s of disorder. A l t h o u g h the internal tensions of this project left their traces in the text, N e u m a n n still demonstrated admirable skill at isolating the key elements of the Nazi r egime that w o u l d m a k e possible a coherent interpretation. H e divided his b o o k into five sections: a n introduction that sketched the collapse of the W e i m a r regime, a study of the political a n d ideologi­ cal basis of the Third Reich, a n analysis of the G e r m a n e c o n o m y u n d e r the Nazis, a description of the class character of G e r m a n society, a n d a brief s u m m a r y containing predictions a b o u t the likely d e v e l o p m e n t of N a ­ tional Socialism. As Ernst Fraenkel h a d done, N e u m a n n generated a per­ spective o n d e velopments u n d e r Nazi totalitarianism that stressed the lack of a rational legal order, but h e w e n t far b e y o n d the scope of Fraenkel's w o r k in discussing matters of e c o n o m i c practice a n d class relations in Nazi G e r m a n y . 146 A f ew sections of the b o o k presented N e u m a n n ' s distinctive contributions to the critique of totalitarian practice a n d the concept of totalitarianism that s h o w e d a n even m o r e e m p h a t i c e n g a g e m e n t w i t h these p r o b l e m s t h a n Fraenkel's D u a l State. Expansions of or revisions of his earlier writings o n totalitarian dicta­ torship e m e r g e d early in the text. N e u m a n n ' s historical section o n the collapse of the W e i m a r Republic s h o w e d that h e h a d not pursued the c o m ­ parative possibilities of his earlier bracketing of the Nazis a n d C o m m u n i s t s as “totalitarian" parties in the 1933 essay, “ T h e D e c a y of G e r m a n D e m o c -

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

151

racy.”N e u m a n n n o w qualified the a r g u m e n t that the W e i m a r Republic fell victim to the c o m b i n e d antidemocratic forces of the Left ( C o m m u ­ nism) a n d the Right (National Socialism). Instead, N e u m a n n repeated a n d intensified his hostility to the leadership a n d the decisions of the Social Democr a t i c Party. H e wrote, for instance, with unc o n c e a l e d scorn of the deal the Social D e m o c r a t i c Party leader Friedrich Ebert h a d cut with the G e r m a n A r m y H i g h C o m m a n d in N o v e m b e r 1918, a n d h e m a d e a point of disputing, t h o u g h w i t h respectful delicacy, Arth u r Rosenberg's dis­ missal of General W i l h e l m Groener's later testimony that substantiated Ebert's hostility to revolution (“B o l s h e v i s m ”) at the time.147 At times, N e u m a n n s e e m e d to lay the b l a m e for the d e m i s e of the W e i m a r R e p u b ­ lic at the feet of the Social Democrats, dismissing the v i e w of the Prussian Social D e m o c r a t Otto B r a u n that Versailles a n d M o s c o w were to blame: “ T h a t the Social D e m o c r a t i c party failed remains the crucial fact, regard­ less of a n y official explanation. It failed because it did not see that the central p r o b l e m w a s the imperialism of G e r m a n m o n o p o l y capital, b e ­ c o m i n g ever m o r e urgent w i t h the continued g r o w t h of the process of monopolization. T h e m o r e m o n o p o l y grew, the m o r e incompatible it b e c a m e with the political democracy.”148 N o text w e have discussed placed such h e a v y empha s i s o n the responsibility of the Social D e m o c r a t s for the collapse of W e i m a r democracy, a n d this is o n e e l e m e n t of N e u m a n n ' s b o o k that m a k e s it a controversial text even today. O t h e r portions of the text attended m o r e directly to the theoretical a n d practical issue of the totalitarian state. But N e u m a n n h a d n o c o m p a r a ­ tive m o d e l to articulate or R e d - B r o w n fascism a r g u m e n t to m a k e , à la B o r k e n a u or Rühle. Instead, N e u m a n n m e a s u r e d the totalitarianism c o n ­ cept as formulated b y the Nazis themselves against his assessment of the Nazi regime's actual practices: “ T h e idea of the totalitarian state g r e w out of the d e m a n d that all p o w e r b e concentrated in the h a n d s of the presi­ dent. I m m e d i a t e l y after Hitler's accession to power, political theorists b e g a n to m a k e m u c h of the totalitarian idea as elaborated b y the consti­ tutional lawyers. All p o w e r w a s to be vested in the state; a nything less w a s sabotage of the National Socialist revolution. T h e totalitarian state w a s described as a n order of d o m i n a t i o n a n d a f o r m of people's c o m m u ­ nity.”149 But this ideal, expressed b y such leading figures in the party as Hitler, Goebbels, a n d Frick, could not be realized.150 It h a d to be revised to fit wit h the existing e c o n o m i c a n d political conditions. Entering the scene just before the Nazi takeover w i t h a m o r e flexible version of the totalitarian state a r g u m e n t w a s Carl Schmitt. N e u m a n n cited precisely the s a m e theoretical distinction articulated in the 1932

T h e Lost D e b a t e

152

speech b y Schmitt to the industrialists' g r o u p that Fraenkel had, but the tone of his remarks w a s far less neutral a n d respectful: A special twist g i v e n t h e totalitarian doctrine b y Carl Schmitt, t h e m o s t intelligent a n d reliable of all N a t i o n a l Socialist constitutional lawyers, h e l p e d greatly. H e m a d e it palatable e v e n to big industry, s o m e t h i n g h e h a d set o u t to d o as early as 1 9 3 2 ____ H e i n v e n t e d a distinction b e t w e e n t w o kin d s of totality, t h e R o m a n a n d th e G e r m a n i c . R o m a n totality w a s q u a n ­ titative; t h e G e r m a n i c qualitative. T h e f o r m e r r e g i m e n t e d all spheres of life, interfering w i t h every h u m a n activity. In s h a r p contrast, the G e r m a n i c r e m a i n e d c o n t e n t w i t h a strong a n d p o w e r f u l state that d e m a n d e d full political control b u t left e c o n o m i c activities unrestricted. Schmitt's d o c ­ trine is, of course, n o m o r e G e r m a n i c t h a n its o p posite is R o m a n . 151

Schmitt's formula, N e u m a n n offered, w a s simply a second-rate r e f o r m u ­ lation of the ideas of the authoritarian liberal theorist Vilfredo Pareto. As propaganda, however, it h a d served quite well.152 For a brief time, according to N e u m a n n , the totalitarian state notion— as revised b y Schmitt a n d Hitler as well, to allow for the continued exist­ ence of capitalism— served the practical needs of the m o r e cautious a n d savvy Hitler faction of the N S D A P in the w e e k s a n d m o n t h s after the Machtergreifung. T h e Hitler faction w a s interested in maintaining its n e w l y w o n a n d fragile internal a n d international legitimacy in the face of the unrestrained desires of Ernst R ö h m ' s S A faction to “clean house" a n d seize as m u c h wealth a n d p o w e r as it could. Hitler a n d his secretary Rudolf Hess, claiming as justification for their actions the n e e d to maintain the neces­ sary conditions for achieving the totalitarian state, declared the army, the civil service, a n d business sacrosanct. O t h e r institutions a n d groups— the Reichstag, unions, Jews, social “ undesirables," left-wing parties, a n d the like— were no t so fortunate, a n d again the totalitarian theory of the state w a s invoked, but this time as a justification for the brutal “synchroniza­ tion" of all public institutions a n d activities.153 S o o n the legal basis of the state, the constitution, w a s so quickly a n d repeatedly mutilated b y vari­ ous Nazi policies that m u c h of the n e e d for a traditionally legitimate “state”vanished. Nazi success provided its o w n kind of “legitimacy," a n d the project of the totalitarian state faded into the ba c k g r o u n d . 154 As the totalitarian “ideal" dimi n i s h e d in importance, however, the actual d e v e l o p m e n t of the G e r m a n state in the Nazi period exhibited a m o r e c o m p l e x pattern. Indeed, N e u m a n n argued, tendencies t oward the totalitarian state in bureaucratic a n d military matters accelerated, particu­ larly u n d e r the pressures of e c o n o m i c mobilization a n d war.155 But these

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

153

events w o u l d simultaneously extend the p o w e r of the state a n d bring it into further conflict wit h the Nazi Party bureaucracy. Overlapping respon­ sibilities a n d barely circumscribed spheres of authority constantly plagued state-party relations in G e r m a n y . Ultimately, N e u m a n n w o u l d hypothesize a kind of stalemate: “ T h e state a n d the party stand side b y side. Legally neither controls the other, each is sovereign in its o w n field— a constitutional situation w h i c h is self-contradictory/7156 T h e “ un-state," or B e h e m o t h , w a s at its m o s t important a n d f u n d a m e n t a l level a result of the contradiction between, o n the o n e hand, the tendencies t oward real­ ization of totalitarian state m o d e l and, o n the other h and, the resistance to those trends e m b o d i e d in the irrationality of the Nazi Party m o v e m e n t that had, initially at least, declared the totalitarian state m o d e l as its goal a n d professed to h a v e realized it. N e u m a n n attempted to describe the re­ sult of the b r e a k d o w n or, better put, the inability to achieve this seamless totality of power: “I venture to suggest that w e are confronted with a f o r m of society in w h i c h the ruling groups control the rest of the population directly, wi t h o u t the m e d iation ofthat rational t h o u g h coercive appara­ tus hitherto k n o w n as the state. This n e w social f o r m is not yet fully real­ ized, but the trend exists w h i c h defines the very essence of the regime."157 T h a t this n e w social f o r m w a s oppressive a n d brutal w a s a n obvious fact for N e u m a n n , but h e did not m a k e a point of calling it “totalitarian77 in his conclusion. H e h a d applied the adjective totalitarian here a n d there t h r o u g h o u t the text. In his analysis of the e c o n o m i c system of Nazi G e r ­ m a n y , h e h a d e v e n f o u n d a place of p r o m i n e n c e for the term: Totalitar­ ian Monopolistic E c o n o m y . But in his discussion of the totalitarian state, his focus n a r r o w e d to considerations of its theoretical a n d p r o p a g a n d a m o d e l a n d the evidence h e h a d assembled regarding the regime's actual behavior. N e u m a n n ' s research disconfirmed the realization of the totali­ tarian state model, a n d h e did not attempt, in the Schmittian fashion, to qualify or i m p r o v e the totalitarian state concept or to replace it u n d e r the s a m e h e a d i n g to m a k e it fit his conclusions. H e also diverged f r o m Fraenkel's notion of the dual state, finding in Nazi G e r m a n y a structure of rule but no t a state. B e h e m o t h d r e w favorable notices i m m ediately after its publication. In o n e of the last review articles h e w o u l d write before his death, A rthur Ro s e n b e r g described N e u m a n n ' s b o o k o n Nazi G e r m a n y as a n analysis that w o u l d be of lasting value for a renewal of political science in the af­ te r m a t h of liberalism's defeat: “It is a m o s t impor t a n t part of our fight against Fascism to develop a n e w theory that fits into the c h a n g e d world a n d defeats Fascism o n its o w n field. It is the greatest merit of N e u m a n n ' s

T h e Lost D e b a t e

154

b o o k that it helps to clear the g r o u n d for the necessary n e w political sci­ ence of our time.”158 Rosenberg's estimation of B e h e m o t h as a w o r k that w o u l d outlast other c o n t e m p o r a r y writings o n dictatorship proved cor­ rect. It remains o n e of the handful of b o o k s written during the w a r that continues to serve as a m a j o r interpretation of Nazi G e r m a n y . 159 E v e n a m o n g this handful, only Ernst Fraenkel's D u a l State a n d S i g m u n d N e u ­ m a n n ' s P e r manent Revolution a p p r o a c h its importance.160 T h e book's role in clearing the w a y for a " n e w political science'' is another matter, h o w ­ ever, since Franz N e u m a n n ' s blend of historical a n d systematic analysis represented a w a n i n g m o r e t h a n a b u r g e o n i n g tradition in political sci­ ence. Nevertheless, n o other b o o k of his w o u l d have such a lasting impact o n scholarship. Despite Behemoth's qualification a n d ultimate rejection of the theoretical notion of the totalitarian state, this concept w o u l d be o n e to w h i c h N e u m a n n w o u l d return, w i t h all appropriate ambig u i t y a n d skepticism, in the postwar period. In that quite different context, N e u ­ m a n n w o u l d s o m e t i m e s find the totalitarian analogy m u c h m o r e useful a n d legitimate. Arthur Rosenberg's old c o m r a d e Karl Korsch agreed that N e u m a n n ' s b o o k w a s of great i m p o r t a n c e as a description of National Socialism, but h e offered a sharply different appraisal of Behemoth's value as a contribu­ tion to political theory. Korsch w e l c o m e d N e u m a n n ' s effort to fill a "de­ plorable ga p in the current anti-totalitarian literature,'' but h e m a d e n o secret of his disagreement wit h N e u m a n n ' s m o d e r a t e a n d parliamentary socialist perspective.161 For example, Korsch criticized N e u m a n n ' s "legal mind'' insofar as N e u m a n n c o n c e r n e d himself too greatly with constitu­ tional traditions, rational positive law, a n d the fate of the G e r m a n state wit h or wi t h o u t the Nazis.162 E v e n m o r e puzzling to Korsch wer e N e u m a n n ' s efforts to unravel the twists a n d turns of Nazi ideology even as N e u m a n n protested that n o c o n ­ sistent Nazi ideology could be isolated a n d analyzed, only a series of m a k e ­ shift slogans a n d p r o g r a m s that h a d b e e n t h r o w n aside as s o o n as they were n o longer serviceable. Korsch c o m p l a i n e d that N e u m a n n ' s assertion that Nazi ideology "offers the best clue to its ultimate aims'' w a s not only distracting but also dangerous, a n d h e claimed that "quite often'' N e u ­ m a n n "himself inadvertently falls for a n outright fascist idea.''163 Just w h i c h fascist ideas N e u m a n n "fell for,'' Korsch did not mention, however. Korsch next took N e u m a n n to task for failing to reconcile his critique of those w h o characterized the Nazi e c o n o m y as state capitalism with his o w n inability to conceive of the state itself as "an instrument of the rul­ ing industrial class.'' In other words, according to Korsch, N e u m a n n re-

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

155

tained b o t h a M a r x i a n v i e w of the Nazi e c o n o m y a n d a n o n - M a r x i a n (though f r o m Korsch's perspective, annoyingly Social Democratic) regard for the ability of the W e i m a r state a n d s o m e future G e r m a n parliamen­ tary state to mitigate or control m o n o p o l y capitalism: "If the m a i n cause of the present unsatisfactory state of affairs is the collapse of that system of checks a n d balances b y w h i c h the wild a n d insatiable forces of m o ­ n o p o l y capitalism were controlled a n d restrained at the time w h e n there w a s still a real 'state/ the first thing that is required after victory to destroy the scourge of N a z i s m is to restore the genuine political d e m o c r a c y of the W e i m a r Republic.”164 Korsch's ironic intent w ith these remarks w a s quite clear, for h e f o u n d this conclusion derived f r o m N e u m a n n ' s thinking a b o u t the role of the state particularly weak. At least, h e concluded, N e u m a n n himself provided evidence that h e k n e w a return to W e i m a r w o u l d not be desirable eve n if it were possible.165 A l m o s t certainly Korsch's harsh a n d s o m e t i m e s u n f o u n d e d criticisms of N e u m a n n ' s b o o k were a i m e d also at Korsch's old nemesis, the SPD, a n d perhaps also, t h o u g h indirectly, at the Institute of Social Research. Korsch h a d described the personnel of the institute in coolly hostile terms a few years before the review article, a n d h e h a d b e e n recently disappointed w h e n h e w a s a p p r o a c h e d for a n article for the institute's journal ( p u b ­ lished in the United States as Studies in Social Science a n d Philosophy) only to be put off s o m e t i m e later.166 N e u m a n n ' s former affiliation with the S P D m a d e h i m a particularly splendid target for Korsch's w r a t h against w h a t h e regarded as the sloppy theory of reformists— h e n c e the article's draft title identifying N e u m a n n as a n S P D s p o k e s m a n ("A Social D e m o c r a t Lo o k s at Totalitarianism'') w h e n this w a s certainly n o longer the case— a n d Korsch's incorrect p r e s u m p t i o n of N e u m a n n ' s continuing close rela­ tionship wit h the H o r k h e i m e r circle also set N e u m a n n u p as a scapegoat in the matter of Korsch's o w n u n h a p p y relationship with the institute. Perhaps unfortunately, the review did not lead to a n y d o c u m e n t e d e x ­ c h a n g e b e t w e e n Korsch a n d N e u m a n n . In fact, Behemoth's author m i g h t never hav e seen Korsch's review, for it w a s eventually published u n d e r a different title ("The Structure a n d Practice of Totalitarianism'') in the small circulation journal N e w Essays.167 For all his carping about N e u m a n n ' s book, however, Korsch himself s o o n arrived at s o m e quite similar conclusions about the Nazi regime in a 1943 lecture h e gave to a g r o u p of scholars in Seattle. H e insisted o n the capitalist character of the G e r m a n e c o n o m y , h e listed virtually the s a m e groups that N e u m a n n h a d — the party, the business elite, a n d the state bureaucracy— as the "ruling class”of G e r m a n y , a n d h e figured that exter-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

156

nal military defeat (not a n internal workers' revolt) w o J I be the e n d of “totalitarian G e r m a n y . ”168 Korsch did stress the importance of the connection b e t w e e n Hitler a n d the military elite far m o r e t h a n N e u m a n n h a d done. In fact, their argu­ m e n t s o n this single point were strongly at odds. Here is N e u m a n n ' s judg­ m e n t o n the role of the a r m y in the Nazi regime: T h e G e r m a n a r m y leadership, like t h e ministerial bureaucracy, is p r o b ­ ably n o t Nati o n a l Socialist, strictly speaking. N o o n e really k n o w s a n y t h i n g a b o u t the exact relation b e t w e e n the party a n d the a r m e d forces. O n e guess is as g o o d as a n o t h e r ____ It is n o t true that t h e a r m y rules G e r m a n y . It h a s n e v e r d o n e so a n d d o e s n o t n o w . In fact, it d o e s so less t o d a y t h a n in a n y previous war. A t th e s a m e time, t h e a r m y is t h e sole b o d y in present-day G e r m a n y that h a s k n o w n h o w to k e e p itself organizationally free f r o m party interference. T h r o u g h its e c o n o m i c generals, in fact, the a r m y h a s e n c r o a c h e d u p o n the party a n d t h e civil bureaucracies.169

Korsch offered a m arkedly different assessment, emphasizing the p o w e r ­ ful role of the G e r m a n a r m y in shaping the Nazi regime: “ that c o m p a r a ­ tively small n u m b e r of the officers [sic] caste of the old imperial a r m y w h o maintained their s u p r e m e control over the foreign as well as the domestic politics of G e r m a n y t h r o u g h the w h o l e interlude of the W e i m a r republic a n d o p p e n l y [sic] reasserted it with the advent of the n e w Nazi-Empire.''170 Perhaps Korsch's m u c h longer a n d m o r e distressing involvement in W o r l d W a r I fueled his w r a t h against the G e r m a n military. Korsch even w a r n e d that the officer corps of “ totalitarian Germany'' w o u l d continue to pose the gravest of postwar dangers.171 Clearly there w a s a great distance b e t w e e n the t w o m e n's views o n the role of the military in Nazi G e r m a n y . A m o r e important difference in the t w o thinkers' attitudes f r o m the standpoint of theory is that N e u m a n n w a s far m o r e interested in a classbased analysis of the Nazi regime that stressed the direct role of capitalist economics, while Korsch was, in this essay at least, willing to see the p o w e r of e c o n o m i c status a n d capitalist production media t e d in crucial w a y s b y the military institutions a n d individuals w h o h a d acted to preserve capi­ talist class relations but w e r e not necessarily themselves capitalists. Korsch's 1943 presentation does not fit well wit h the ultraorthodoxy of his essays of 1939-41 o n counterrevolution or his hostility to N e u m a n n ' s B e ­ h e m o t h , a b o o k that w a s for the m o s t part straightforwardly Marxist. Korsch also alluded to the possibilities of future collaboration b e t w e e n “totalitarian a n d anti-progressive forces everywhere,'' w i t h a déclassé

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

157

military elite f o r m i n g the nucleus of such a coalition. H e also stressed the c o n nection b e t w e e n b o t h w o r l d wars in a fashion that partially antici­ pated the claims abo u t G e r m a n e x p a n s i o n i s m put forth b y the historian Fritz Fischer in the 1960s. In sketching this picture of postwar dangers, Korsch indicated that portions of the G e r m a n a n d Italian military elites were a n even greater danger to “ the anti-totalitarian alliance," as h e called it, t h a n Hitler a n d the Nazis themselves— or their industrial-capitalist fel­ l o w travelers. H e also discussed the differential effects of the Nazi takeover o n a variety of classes a n d groups, e m p h a s i z i n g the role of the lower m i d d l e classes as supporters of Nazism, as in m o s t typical Marxist analy­ ses of that time, but h e did not leave the complicated matter of partial working-class support for a n d involvement in N a z i s m out of the picture. T h o u g h h e c o n tinued to e m p h a s i z e the tendencies of e c o n o m i c p r o d u c ­ tion as central to the d e v e l o p m e n t of Nazi G e r m a n y , it m u s t b e said that Korsch w a s not o n e to stick to o r t h o d o x formulas w h e n h e glimpsed a n a ­ lytical p r o b l e m s that a reductively economistic or “ vulgar Marxist" type of class analysis could not solve.172T h e oscillation b e t w e e n o r t h o d o x y a n d heterodoxy that m a r k e d his later writings lies at the heart of the a m b i v a ­ lent character a n d the m i x e d reception of that work. But in his w a r t i m e essays, Korsch only occasionally exhibited the tendency to veer a w a y f r o m a Marxist class-based critique of dictatorship, or “totalitarian fascism," that b e c a m e typical of others in this g r o u p of G e r m a n socialists. In his insistence o n the progressive (and at least potentially revolu­ tionary) character of the G e r m a n w o r k i n g class, Korsch r e m a i n e d u n r e ­ servedly Marxist. This again stands in m a r k e d contrast to N e u m a n n , w h o persisted in a m o r e traditionally Marxist theoretical m o d e l of Nazi e c o n o m i c s in B e h e m o t h but h a d already retreated f r o m the notion of the inherently progressive a n d revolutionary potential of the workers. In v i e w of the d e e p tensions in their theoretical a n d their political o u t ­ looks, it is n o w o n d e r that the t w o m e n r e m a i n e d alienated to s o m e extent f r o m b o t h A m e r i c a n liberalism a n d the Marxist Left during the 1950s. T h e marginalization of Korsch, in particular, b o t h o n the left a n d in the nation of his exile (the U nited States), a fate that Lukâcs n oted a n d used to legitimate his o w n rather m o r e tactful behavior towa r d the C o m ­ m u n i s t Party apparatus, finds a m p l e substantiation in the desultory character of his career d uring a n d after the w a r t i m e period.173 K o rsch m o v e d f r o m o n e short-term professorship to another, never finding p e r m a n e n t a c a d e m i c e m p l o y m e n t , a n d his fragmentary critical writings o n the p r o b l e m of “counterrevolutionary totalitarianism" h a v e n ot gained m u c h attention.174

T h e Lost D e b a t e

158

Perhaps it w a s as h e surveyed his o w n m e a g e r prospects in 1941 that Kor s c h w a s at last m o v e d to gru d g i n g praise for the H o r k h e i m e r circle ( t h o u g h his personal animosity never flagged) in a letter to a friend: “[T]hey h a v e d o n e better t h a n I should have expected. It is a sad fact that o n e m a y h a v e to a c k n o w l e d g e today w h a t o n e w o u l d h a v e despised s o m e years a g o but the gods are w i t h those w h o d o s o m e t h i n g whatever m i g h t h a v e b e e n d o n e but has no t b e e n d o n e in fact b y others.”175 A s Korsch wrote this rueful assessment of the w o r k of the Institute of Social Research, t w o of its leading figures, H o r k h e i m e r a n d Ad o r n o , w e r e about to take u p a project that w o u l d result in o n e of the m o s t important b o o k s of philoso­ p h y written during the w a r t i m e years.

T h e Critique of Totalitarian Reason M e m b e r s of the Institute of Social Research u n d e r w e n t yet another series of m o v e s a n d political transformations during a n d immediately after the war. H o r k h e i m e r 's relocation f r o m N e w York to California led to a cutback in the staff of the institute. In the face of these changes a n d in order to sup­ port their families, M a r c u s e a n d N e u m a n n took u p w o r k w i t h the U.S. military's Office of Strategic Services (OSS). T w o other institute colleagues, Arkadij G u r l a n d a n d Otto Kirchheimer, s o o n joined t h e m . N e u m a n n a n d K i r c h heimer in turn helped H e n r y Pachter acquire a position w i t h the Office of E u r o p e a n E c o n o m i c Research, w h i c h w a s affiliated with the OSS. Friedrich Pollock served as a consultant to the antitrust division of the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Justice, a n d another m e m b e r of the institute, L eo L o w e n thal, w o r k e d w i t h the Office of W a r Information. But the group's research a n d writing efforts continued, even as the institute experienced the disrup­ tions a n d reconfigured political orientations of the w a r t i m e years. O n e of the institute's research associates, the e x - C o m m u n i s t Paul Massing, w a s w o r k i n g o n a study of anti-Semitism in Imperial G e r m a n y , Rehearsal for Destruction. At the s a m e time, his wife, H e d e M a s s i n g — R u t h Fischer's for­ m e r sister-in-law— w a s reaching the e n d of her involvement with C o m m u ­ nism. A n o t h e r institute affiliate, Karl Wittfogel, h a d also brok e n with the C o m m u n i s t Party, at the time of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, and, throughout the exile years, h e p r o d u c e d n u m e r o u s articles a n d papers that d r e w o n the research h e h a d b e e n pursuing o n Chinese civilization. B y the e n d of the war, however, h e w a s at a great intellectual a n d personal distance f r o m Horkheimer. Wittfogel's role with the institute h a d long b e e n a marginal one, but his final break with the g roup w a s another s y m p t o m a t i c shift that augured the political a n d ideological battles of the cold war.

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

159

Institute publications as well as personal careers u n d e r w e n t a c h a n g e in focus a n d direction. A broadly conceived project o n anti-Semitism clearly d e m o n s t r a t e d Horkheimer's c o n cern about analyzing this crucial el e m e n t of Nazi p r o p a g a n d a a n d policy in its historical, psychological, a n d cultural origins a n d manifestations. But b y the e n d of 1941, the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung a n d its A m e r i c a n version, Studies in Philoso­ p h y a n d Social Science, h a d ceased publication. E v e n so, the intellectual productivity of the institute's m e m b e r s — old a n d new, marginal contribu­ tors a n d “inner circle”m e m b e r s — reached a pitch of collective intensity a n d quality during the w a r t i m e years. At about the time that Marcuse's Reason a n d Revolution a n d N e u m a n n ’ s B ehemoth were published, H orkhei­ m e r b e g a n w o r k wit h his longtime institute colleague T h e o d o r A d o r n o o n another m a j o r b o o k project.176 Adorno's w o r k has b e e n neglected or marginalized in the history of concepts of totalitarianism, yet his contribution is discernible a n d distinc­ tive.177 This neglect e m e rges f r o m the contested a n d often highly politi­ cized response to totalitarian theories. Scholars o n the left w o u l d tend to separate A d o r n o f r o m w h a t they regard as cold w a r ideology (or to criti­ cize his near a p p r o a c h to it), while liberal or conservative scholars m i g h t not see h o w Adorno's writings h ave anything in c o m m o n with the w o r k of such people as Friedrich, Arendt, or Bracher.178 T h e institute's brilliant p olymath, A d o r n o initially gained a reputation for his writings o n m u s i c a n d philosophy. B o r n in Frankfurt a m M a i n in 1903, T h e o d o r Wies e n g r u n d - A d o r n o g r e w u p in a n a t m o s p h e r e of material comfort a n d cultural attainment, provided b y his father's successful business a n d his mother's a n d aunt's strong musical talents. A precocious m e m b e r of the circle a r o u n d c o m p o s e r A r n o l d Schoenberg, A d o r n o p u r s u e d his university education at the G o e t h e University in Frankfurt, completing a disserta­ tion o n the p h e n o m e n o l o g i s t E d m u n d Husserl, but h e also studied K a n t w i t h a family friend, the prolific a n d i n d e p e n d e n t - m i n d e d scholar of culture Siegfried Kracauer. B y the mid-i920s, Adorno's circle of friends a n d acquaintances included the c o m p o s e r s Ernst Krenek, H a n n s Eisler, a n d Kurt Weill; the singer-actress Lotte Lenya; the poet-playwright Bertolt Brecht; the essayist Walter Benjamin; the philosopher Ernst Bloch, and, of course, M a x Horkheimer. M o s t of these individuals w e r e decidedly to the left politically, a n d A d o r n o himself joined in the reconsiderations of philosophical M a r x i s m inspired b y the writings of G e o r g Lukâcs, espe­ cially History a n d Class Consciousness. D u r i n g the early exile years, w h i c h h e spent largely in L o n d o n , A d o r n o wrote for the Zeitschrift für Sozial­ forschung a n d joined the institute in the United States only in 1938. For

T h e Lost D e b a t e

160

several years, his w o r k stood sharply apart f r o m the e c o n o m i c a n d politi­ cal studies of N e u m a n n a n d Kirchheimer, a n d h e ten d e d to h ave less to say about political issues t h a n either H o r k h e i m e r or Marcuse. But A d o r ­ no's intellectual influence o n H o r k h e i m e r g r e w during the exile years, a n d h e followed H o r k h e i m e r a n d Pollock s o o n after the y m o v e d to Santa M o n i c a , California. There, the c o n v e r g e n c e of s o m e of Adorno's a n d Horkheimer's ideas o n the crises of c o n t e m p o r a r y culture a n d their roots in the oppressive a n d rapidly multiplying p o w e r of instrumental reason a n d “enlightened" civilization led to a path-breaking collaboration. T h e y b e g a n w o r k o n the c o m p o n e n t s of a manuscript, originally entitled Philosophische Fragmente, analyzing the roots of the c o n t e m p o r a r y crisis of civilization in the early 1940s, c o m p l e t e d the draft in 1944, a n d p u b ­ lished it wit h a n additional section o n anti-Semitism three years later in A m s t e r d a m . 179 T h e b o o k that resulted f r o m this authorial partnership, Dialektik der Aufklärung (.Dialectic of Enlightenment), veered a w a y f r o m the p ath of vir­ tually all other left-wing critiques of totalitarianism. It clearly parted c o m ­ p a n y even wit h those texts of other institute thinkers that focused o n the origins a n d the character of the state-party dictatorship, even t h o u g h it bears a n identifiable relation to that type of critique. T h e filigree net of its theoretical apparatus caught a n d held s o m e M a r x i a n concepts— the irra­ tionality of m a r k e t capitalism, the alienation of the h u m a n subject, reification, the role of ideology in structures of culture a n d p o w e r — but it let others, such as the p r i m a c y of class conflict, the necessary a n d inevi­ table proletarian revolution, a n d the m o d e l of historically progressive e c o n o m i c development, slip o n through. O f the b o o k s that participated in the left-wing antitotalitarian discussions that took place during w a r ­ time, only Marcuse's Reason a n d Revolution d e m o n s t r a t e d a similarly strong philosophical orientation.180 Yet e v e n M a r c u s e did not venture so broad a n a r g u m e n t — in either its historical or its conceptual scope— as the o n e that H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o attempted. Because of its assertions about totalitarianism a n d the m a n n e r in w h i c h it strove to transcend tra­ ditional Marxist categories of social analysis even as it a c k n o w l e d g e d s o m e of their lasting power, the b o o k requires consideration in this study. T h e project of this section is not to analyze the book's a r g u m e n t s in all their detail but to define a n d interpret its unusual construction of the p r o b l e m of totalitarianism. In Dialectic of Enlightenment, H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o did not e x ­ pressly locate the origins of totalitarianism primarily in e c o n o m i c crisis, fascism, Bolshevism, or the ideology of Nazism. T h e y certainly referred

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

161

directly a n d indirectly to this related cluster of factors in the course of their arguments, but they v i e w e d t h e m as intensified recent m o m e n t s in the d e v e l o p m e n t of technically oriented rationality in the West, w h i c h w a s to t h e m the chief culpable historical process. Stated as boldly a n d provoca­ tively as possible, the thesis of their b o o k w a s "Enlightenment is totalitar­ ian."181 But the a r g u m e n t s that followed w e r e subtle a n d complex. T h e b o o k remains in s o m e w a y s the m o s t troubling of all the critiques of a n intractable p r o b l e m identified as "totalitarianism" that has yet appeared, precisely because of its radical character a n d its authors' only partial h o p e of finding political or cultural solutions to the pervasive p r o b l e m of totali­ tarian reason. In a fashion m a r k e d l y different f r o m Borkenau's a n d wit h a different audience in m i n d , A d o r n o a n d H o r k h e i m e r were also undertaking a clear departure f r o m M a r x i s m to offer a critical history of the current world crisis. M a r t i n Jay has aptly characterized this aspect of H o r k h e i m e r a n d Adorno's intellectual project: In calling H o r k h e i m e r ’ s a n d A d o r n o ' s critique “radical,”t h e w o r d s h o u l d b e u n d e r s t o o d in its e t y m o l o g i c a l sense of g o i n g to t h e roots of th e p r o b ­ lem. Thi s is especially i m p o r t a n t to grasp in v i e w of t h e Frankfurt S c h o o l ’ s g r o w i n g distrust of w h a t p a s s e d for "radical”politics in later years. Para­ doxically, as t h e t h e o r y b e c a m e m o r e radical, t h e Institut f o u n d itself decreasingly capable of finding a c o n n e c t i o n to radical praxis. T h e desperate h o p e s of H o r k h e i m e r ’ s w a r t i m e essay o n t h e “ Authoritarian State”s o o n g a v e w a y to a d e e p e n i n g g l o o m a b o u t t h e c h a n c e s for m e a n i n g f u l c h a n g e . Disillusioned w i t h t h e Soviet U n i o n , n o long e r e v e n ma r g i n a l l y s a n g u i n e a b o u t t h e w o r k i n g classes of t h e W e s t , appalled b y th e integrative p o w e r of m a s s culture, t h e Frankfurt S c h o o l traveled t h e last leg of its l o n g m a r c h a w a y f r o m o r t h o d o x M a r x i s m . 182

T o Jay's succinct ac c o u n t of the d e v e l o p m e n t of Horkheimer's a n d Adorno's t hought during the 1940s, o n e m i g h t a d d that Dialectic of Enlight­ e n m e n t c a n also be read as yet another text in the heterogeneous tradition of G e r m a n socialist antitotalitarian writings, which, as w e h ave seen, of­ ten served as avenues a w a y f r o m o r t h o d o x M a r x i s m — Borkenau's, L ö w e n thal's, Hilferding's, perhaps e v e n Korsch's, as well as those of several o t h ­ ers w h o h a d b e e n at o n e time associated with the Frankfurt Institute. In A d o r n o a n d Horkheimer's critique, the terms fascism a n d the totali­ tarian state were used interchangeably. In this terminological matter, their w o r k did not differ m u c h f r o m that of other left-wing writers of the p e ­ riod. But in the long-range historical perspective of their work, w h i c h

T h e Lost D e b a t e

162

understood the totalitarian state as a n inherent potential of W e s t e r n ra­ tional culture, they stood apart f r o m all other writers. T h e y b r o a d e n e d the historical boundaries of their investigations, but it w a s clear that their a p p r o a c h h a d n o aspiration to be a systematic, narrative historical inves­ tigation of the process of enlightenment. T h e y focused o n only a few cru­ cial cultural m o m e n t s in the long e p o c h of W e s t e r n civilization: the H o m e r i c tale of O dysseus (the epic of self-repression), the Juliette of Sade (the story of efficient brutality), the m o d e r n “culture industry”(the a d ­ ministration of m a s s deception), a n d anti-Semitism (the social m e c h a ­ n i s m of paranoia). Their remarks o n fascism a n d the totalitarian state were scattered a n d d o not constitute a n attempt at the kind of c o m p a r i s o n a n d empirical analysis favored b y Borkenau, Löwenthal, a n d especially N e u ­ m a n n . Nevertheless, H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o portrayed the dangers po s e d b y “totalitarian reason”as fundamental, a n d it is therefore neces­ sary to piece together s o m e of the elements of this problematic as it a p ­ pears in the text. T h e adjective totalitarian e m e r g e d in the vocabulary of A d o r n o a n d H o r k h e i m e r not as a n all-purpose t e r m describing state-party regimes but as a label the t w o theorists h a d attached to the unifying a n d flattening character of a n instrumentalized reason that did not tolerate a nything it could not organize. Opposition to totalitarianism in their conception of the p r o b l e m rested o n a philosophical resistance to the Hegelian notion of totality, w h i c h m e r g e d the subject a n d the object of philosophical understanding into a single, seamless conceptual entity. In other words, they rejected the totalitarian world that permitted n o gap b e t w e e n the concept of social totality a n d its realization. Totalitarian states were, to these thinkers, a disastrous o u t c o m e of this “identity theory”as it w a s realized in the sphere of political a n d e c o n o m i c behavior.183 As Martin Jay has argued, “In this view, totality b e c a m e little m o r e t h a n a s y n o n y m for totalitarianism.”184 Insisting o n “ difference”a n d “negation”of the social totality as essential principles a n d performances of critical philosophy a n d as social a n d political values as well, H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o attacked the We s t e r n cultural tradition for generating the technological m e a n s of re­ pression a n d the intolerant ideology of p o w e r as its o w n reward that cul­ m i n a t e d in the destruction of all space in w h i c h individuals m i g h t d e ­ velop a n d preserve their uniqueness. T h e “ base”of their theoretical m o d e l n o w replaced conflicts involving M a r x i a n class struggle with a broadly conceived dialectic of civilizing processes stressing conflicts b e t w e e n h u ­ m a n s a n d nature (the technological d i m e n s i o n of organized society), within h u m a n s themselves (the psychological d i m e n s i o n of individuals

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

163

in society), a n d b e t w e e n reason's p r o g r a m of e n l i ghtenment a n d its pr o ­ g r a m of control ( w h i c h b e c a m e manifest in b o t h technology a n d politi­ cal repression— the totalitarian state). A few of the book's m a n y references to political theory a n d practice indicate the accuracy of Jay's remarks about the pair's pessimism. A refer­ ence f r o m the "Notes a n d Drafts" section entitled " O n the Critique of the Philosophy of History"— "the philos o p h y of history" w a s the authors' c o d e d t e r m for M a r x i s m — s h o w s h o w deeply their disappointment ran: T h e a u t h o r s [of t h e p h i l o s o p h y of history] identified t h e m s e l v e s against their o w n will w i t h t h e s u p p r e s s i o n w h i c h t h e y w a n t e d to abolish. T h e p h i l o s o p h y of history repeats a process w h i c h o c curred in Christianity :the g o o d n e s s w h i c h in reality r e m a i n s at t h e m e r c y of suffering is c o n c e a l e d as t h e force w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s t h e cou r s e of history a n d ultimately tri­ u m p h s . It is idolized as t h e spirit of t h e w o r l d or as a n i m m a n e n t law. In this way , h o w e v e r , history is t r a n s f o r m e d directly into its opposite, a n d the idea itself ( w h i c h w a n t e d to arrest t h e logical co u r s e of events) is dis­ torted. ... Christianity, idealism, a n d materialism, w h i c h in t h e m s e l v e s c o n t a i n truth, are therefore also responsible for t h e barbaric acts p e r p e ­ trated in their n a m e . A s representatives of p o w e r — e v e n if of p o w e r for g o o d — t h e y t h e m s e l v e s b e c a m e historical forces w h i c h c o u l d b e organized, a n d as s u c h played a b l o o d y role in th e true history of the h u m a n race: that of t h e i n s t r u m e n t s of organization.185

M a r x i s m , in other words, could not be trusted to correct itself. It m i g h t d o so, but its paradoxically transhistorical claims to truth a n d its c o m m i t ­ m e n t to praxis left the matter in doubt, to say the least. T h e political point that H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o a d v a n c e d here bespoke a fastidious caution. T h e authors h a d delicately rested their critique of M a r x i s m (under a n alias) o n the evidence (uncited a n d unexplained) of the Soviet Union's violent n e w society (unmentioned). Fascism offered to H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o even m o r e horrifying a n d identifiable examp l e s of the perverse workings of civilization, in w h i c h only the worst potentials of historical d e v e l o p m e n t were realized a n d rea­ s o n a n d resistance eventually w ere bent to serve primal impulses of u n ­ reason a n d violent oppression: T h e carefully t h o u g h t o u t s y m b o l s ( w h i c h are pr o p e r to every c o u n t e r r e v o ­ lutionary m o v e m e n t ) , t h e skulls a n d disguises, t h e barbaric d r u m beats, t h e m o n o t o n o u s repetition of w o r d s a n d gestures, are si m p l y t h e organized imitation of m a g i c practices, t h e m i m e s i s of m i m e s i s . T h e leader w i t h his c o n t o r t e d face a n d the c h a r i s m a of a p p r o a c h i n g hysteria take c o m m a n d .

T h e Lost D e b a t e

164

T h e leader acts as a representative; h e portrays w h a t is f o r b i d d e n to e v e r y ­ o n e else in actual life. Hitler c a n gesticulate like a c l o w n , M u s s o l i n i strike false n o t e s like a provincial tenor, G o e b b e l s talk endlessly like a J e w i s h a g e n t w h o m h e w a n t s m u r d e r e d , a n d C o u g h l i n p r e a c h love like t h e sav­ ior w h o s e crucifixion h e portrays— all for t h e sake of still m o r e b l o o d s h e d . F a s c i s m is also totalitarian in that it seeks to m a k e t h e rebellion of s u p ­ pressed n a ture against d o m i n a t i o n directly useful to d o m i n a t i o n . T h i s m a c h i n e r y n e e d s t h e Jews. T h e i r artificially h e i g h t e n e d p r o m i ­ n e n c e acts o n t h e legitimate s o n of th e gentile civilization like a m a g n e t i c field. T h e gentile sees equality, h u m a n i t y , in his difference f r o m th e Jew, b u t this i n d u c e s a feeling of a n t a g o n i s m a n d alien being. A n d so i m p u l s e s w h i c h are n o r m a l l y t a b o o a n d conflict w i t h th e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e p r e ­ vailing f o r m of labor are t r a n s f o r m e d into c o n f o r m i n g idiosyncrasies.186

T h e spectacular success of fascism in this project of securing the totalitar­ ian e n t r a p m e n t of reason a n d rebellion in the logic of their o w n i m p e r a ­ tives simply multiplied the skepticism a n d p e s s i m i s m to w h i c h the b o o k gave voice. T h e rationalized unleashing of violence relied o n the indi­ vidual willing to o b e y in order to gain permission to “return to the m i ­ metic practice of sacrifice.”187 In the culminating realization of their in­ tent, the Nazis' p r o p a g a n d a a n d ceremonial i m a g e r y of death sanctioned murder. O n l y W i l h e l m Reich's M a s s Psychology of Fascism (1933) a n d Erich F r o m m ' s Escape from F reedom (1941) c a n b e c o m p a r e d w i t h Dialectic of Enlightenment as c o n t e m p o r a r y left-wing attempts to reveal the p s y c h o ­ logical elements of the violent n e w totalitarian m o v e m e n t s . 188 But in a d ­ dition to this passage's powerful effort to explain the appeal a n d the ef­ fects of the Nazi dictatorship, it s h o w s h o w A d o r n o a n d H o r k h e i m e r h a d b e g u n to link their critique of totalitarian d o m i n a t i o n m o r e closely to a critique of anti-Semitism. A few years earlier, in 1939, e v e n after exposure to a b u n d a n t evidence of Nazi attacks o n G e r m a n Jews a n d other E u r o p e a n Jews, their property, a n d their rights, H o rkheimer's analysis of antiS e m itism in the essay “Die J u d e n u n d Europa'' (“ T h e Jews a n d Europe'') s h o w e d little a d v a n c e o n the typically economistic explanations of antiS e m i t i s m offered b y o r t h o d o x Marxists (starting w i t h M a r x himself), t h o u g h it did attend to s o m e of the historical transformations of antiSemitism that h a d appeared in the context of political crisis a n d e c o n o m i c c h a n g e since W o r l d W a r I. A s several historians h a v e argued, antiS e m itism w a s central to Nazi ideology but w a s not the Nazis' sole or m o s t effective p r o p a g a n d a vehicle e ven in the late W e i m a r years. As the Nazis gained political supporters, anti-Semitism certainly persisted in Nazi

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

165

speeches but not always at the s a m e level of intensity. Moreover, while there w a s active G e r m a n participation in the so-called Kristallnacht antiJewish p o g r o m in N o v e m b e r 1938, there w a s also widespread criticism. In short, the route f r o m the Nazi seizure of p o w e r in 1933 to the genocide of the w a r years appears not to h a v e b e e n so direct as s o m e scholars argue.189 There is, then, a plausible explanation for Horkheimer's apparent in­ attention to the deadly character of Nazi anti-Semitism in his prewar writ­ ings. As the historians D a n Diner a n d Christopher B r o w n i n g have pointed out in different contexts, eve n in 1939 the m a s s m u r d e r of Jewish G e r m a n s a n d other E u r o p e a n Jews w a s m o n t h s away. T h e Nazi policy of genocide accelerated its m u r d e r o u s operations as the w a r itself e x p l o d e d into greater levels of violence, starting in 1941. Diner maintains that the fa­ m o u s sentence in Horkheimer's essay, " W h o e v e r refuses to speak of capi­ talism should also r e m a i n silent o n fascism,”m u s t be read in terms of its prewar context. "Die J u d e n u n d E u r o p a ”also argued that anti-Semitism a n d National Socialism w e r e tightly b o u n d together; indeed, the essay o p e n e d w i t h that assertion. But H o r k h e i m e r clearly did not v i e w antiS emitism as a given historical entity of a n unvar y i n g a n d inevitably m u r ­ derous intensity. In Horkheimer's view, Jews functioned for the Nazis as a personified (and, because of long-standing anti-Semitic prejudices a m o n g Christians, readily available) target for their rage against the eco­ n o m i c a n d social relations of the liberal, bourgeois order.190 T o a n extent, s u c h a n interpretation could b e seen as a n u p d a t e d ver­ sion of the critique of anti-Semitism as "the socialism of fools,”to b o r r o w the G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a t A u g u s t BebeTs phrase. But Horkheimer's statements also clearly relied o n Pollock's n otion of state capitalism, w h i c h argued that the state h a d u s u rped the traditional capitalizing a n d profit-making roles of corporations a n d financial institutions. Horkheimer's use of this premise led h i m to conclude that the recent shift to­ w a r d state capitalism h a d nullified the role of Jews in those segme n t s of the e c o n o m y in w h i c h t h e y h a d b e e n particularly important.191 Horkheimer's a r g u m e n t clearly attacked fascism, but it also a i m e d at liberal capitalism as the system that h a d s p a w n e d the Nazi regime. In "Die J u d e n u n d Europa,”w h i c h H o r k h e i m e r compl e t e d o n 1 Se p t e m b e r 1939, accord­ ing to his o w n statement at the e n d of the article— the d a y G e r m a n y in­ v a d e d P o l a n d — Central E u r o p e a n Jews, in their everyday reality as a n in­ ternally diverse religious a n d ethnic c o m m u n i t y that h a d b e e n swiftly a n d brutally disenfranchised dur i n g the 1930s a n d n o w stood u n d e r dire threat, held virtually n o place. Jews served as a kind of functional category in the service of w h a t r e m a i n e d a n analysis based primarily o n e c o n o m i c

T h e Lost D e b a t e

166

considerations. H o r k h e i m e r a n d Adorno's m o d e of understanding a n d explaining anti-Semitism s o o n b e g a n to change, however.192 In Dialectic of Enlightenment, H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o attended far m o r e carefully to the psychological a n d cultural c o m p o n e n t s of Nazi antiSemitism as well as to the m o r e frequently n o ted e c o n o m i c elements of this ideology. A s D a n Diner a n d M a r t i n Jay h ave b o t h argued, the discus­ sion of anti-Semitism in the b o o k gathered fragmentary insights a n d sug­ gested possible routes t o w a r d a m o r e systematic critique. It is true that for all the persisting traces of a n economistic type of Marxist treatment of the topic, the authors' insights into anti-Semitism continued to develop in the direction of a m o r e n u a n c e d a n d revealing M a r x i a n critique of ideol­ o g y that such essays as Marcuse's critique of the totalitarian v i e w of the state h a d m a p p e d out a dec a d e earlier.193 But these densely p a c k e d a n d suggestive passages— n o n e longer t h a n a d o z e n or so pages, the last a d d e d in 1947— c a n n o t b e described as a full-blown theory of anti-Semitism. Moreover, n o politics e m e r g e d f r o m this theorizing about anti-Semitism. T h e “powerlessness of the w o r k i n g class" that H o r k h e i m e r h a d described at the e n d of the W e i m a r Republic n o w s e e m e d transformed into the a u ­ thors' intriguing but also politically m a r o o n e d notion of the powerless­ ness of theory. In their discussion of anti-Semitism, the authors at least b e g a n to probe the elements of Nazi race hatred in terms of their p s y c h o ­ logical, behavioral, a n d ideological effects o n individuals a n d society at large. This step m a r k e d a significant interpretive a d v a n c e for a critical a p p r o a c h that c o n t i n u e d to s h o w at least tentative connections to the M a r x i a n Left, e v e n w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h the earlier efforts at a critique of dictatorship de v e l o p e d b y s u c h scrupulous analysts as Fraenkel a n d N e u m a n n , for instance, w h o s e efforts at understanding N a z i s m offered cautious a n d limited attention to anti-Semitism. A l o n g with this gain in the analytical force of critical theory, however, c a m e the di s m a y i n g p o ­ litical implications of Dialectic of Enlightenment T h e b o o k contains o n e of the m o s t provocative a n d far-reaching cri­ tiques of W e s t e r n civilization ever constructed, t h o u g h it ca n also be in­ terpreted as a kind of desperate rescue operation o n that s a m e civilization. B y thrusting before the reader the contradiction b e t w e e n the claims to progress a n d the actual barbaric state of the world, A d o r n o a n d H o r k ­ h e i m e r could at least h o p e for a critical réévaluation of modernity. But their b o o k offered little h o p e for cultural remedies, let alone political ones. Its authors c o n c l u d e d that a lack of formulas for action w a s hardly the m o s t d e m a n d i n g p r o b l e m at that m o m e n t . In a knotty concluding pas­ sage at the e n d of the final section, “Elements of Anti-Semitism," a por-

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

167

tion of the text that first appeared in the 1947 edition of the book, A d o r n o a n d H o r k h e i m e r offer o n e last tempting possibility (couched in a verbal a n d conceptual h e d g i n g of bets) of resistance against the o v e r w h e l m i n g t e n d e n c y t oward totalitarian administration that G e r m a n fascism repre­ sented: If t h e progressive ticket strives for s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is w o r s e t h a n its o w n content, t h e c o n t e n t of t h e Fascist p r o g r a m is so m e a n i n g l e s s that, as a substitute for s o m e t h i n g better, it c a n o n l y b e u p h e l d b y t h e desperate ef­ forts of t h e d e l u d e d . Its h o r r o r lies in th e fact that t h e lie is o b v i o u s b u t persists. T h o u g h this d e c e p t i o n allows of n o truth against w h i c h it c o u l d b e m e a s u r e d , t h e truth a p p e a r s negatively in [the] v e r y extent of th e c o n ­ tradiction; a n d t h e u n d i s c e r n i n g c a n b e p e r m a n e n t l y kept f r o m that truth o n l y if t h e y are w h o l l y d e p r i v e d of the faculty of t h o u g h t . E n l i g h t e n m e n t w h i c h is in possession of itself a n d c o m i n g to p o w e r c a n b r e a k t h e b o u n d s [Grenzen] of e n l i g h t e n m e n t . 194

A radical critique of the totalitarian order, yes, but note h o w far it lies f r o m the stubbornly Marxist basis of R ü h l e ’ s a n d Kors c h ’ s theories of revolu­ tionary proletarian praxis. Its political agnosticism also shared little wit h the perspectives of s u c h thinkers as B o r k e n a u a n d Löwenthal, w h o spent the w a r years as activists a n d publicists frequently offering specific p r o ­ grammatic recommendations. “ T h e undiscerning”are not a class but a m a s s w ithout character, thus far incapable of or prevented f r o m critical reason, let alone political revolt. Yet, to be fair, the thesis of Dialectic o f E n ­ lightenment also lies at a r e m o v e f r o m the kind of antirationalist assertions associated with Heideggerian Existenzphilosophie.195 As has often b e e n said of the H o r k h e i m e r circle, its critique h a d n o k n o w n addressee, save per­ h a p s other theorists. A d o r n o himself o n c e stated that it w a s a kin d of m e s s a g e in a bottle.196 At the time H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o were writing Dialectic of Enlight­ enment, their opposition to totalitarianism clearly did not lead to f o r m u ­ las for m a s s or individual political action; nor w a s such a project their goal. T h e y h a d offered a n analysis of totalitarianism w i t hout projecting a n y sort of antitotalitarian politics. This distinguished their a p p r o a c h f r o m those of other intellectuals o n the left, certainly f r o m Marxists, but also f r o m traditional liberals a n d conservatives ( w h o often hav e b e e n very ef­ fective in linking theory a n d practice). T h e lack of a n identifiable positive political a r g u m e n t is perhaps another reason w h y Dialectic of Enlighten­ m e n t has never m a d e it into the “c a n o n ”of antitotalitarian writings. T h e u n c oupling of theory f r o m practice, h o w e v e r useful a n d justifiable a m o v e

The Lost Debate

168

it m i g h t h a v e b e e n to protect t h o u g h t f r o m the predations of practical implementation, left H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o o p e n to a variety of politi­ cal a n d philosophical criticisms f r o m b o t h the Right a n d the Left. Yet u n d e r the conditions of the mid-i940S, political action— e v e n the d e ­ m a n d for it— indicated to H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o the surrender of theory to practice, the loss of the particular in the universal, a n d it served to accelerate tendencies toward centralized a n d totalitarian social a d m i n ­ istration. In fact, leading m e m b e r s of the institute always feared the p o s ­ sibility of totalitarian repression in their place of exile, the United States. As even o n e of the m o r e sympathetic historians of their efforts has pointed out, they never looked closely for the reasons w h y this trend towa r d to­ talitarianism did not manifest itself in the United States to the extent that it h a d in Europe.197 G i v e n the traumatic experiences a n d understandings that wer e a c c u m u l a t e d b y G e r m a n leftist exiles during the d o z e n years of the Nazi dictatorship, s u c h fears a b o u t the possibility of oppression or even attack are not too surprising. Arguably the events that e n d e d the w a r in 1945 also confi r m e d s o m e of their worst fears: the use of ato m i c w e a p ­ o n s represented yet another e x a m p l e of instrumentalized reason in the service of violence. E v e n so, the political despair a n d passivity to w h i c h A d o r n o a n d Horkheimer's analysis led hav e long generated criticism f r o m a variety of perspectives, especially f r o m the Left.198 T o a limited extent, H o r k h e i m e r c a n be a n s w e r e d even f r o m the perspective of his o w n earlier writings. As the W e i m a r Republic careened to its end, H o r k h e i m e r h a d argued that the powerlessness of the w o r king class h a d resulted from, a m o n g other things, the lack of theory. N o w H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o could b e accused of ac­ quiescing in a similar powerlessness, but lack of theory w a s hardly the problem. There w a s a n o v e r a b u n d a n c e of theory—but a n asymmetrical version of it. Dialectic of Enlightenment h a d generated a n indelible i m a g e of Enlightenment's instrumentalized reason as inexorably oppressive, a d y n a m i c , o m n i v o r o u s system, yet a system guided b y fixed imperatives. B y the close of W o r l d W a r II, however, a too selective field of historical vision h a d blinded H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o to a m o r e n u a n c e d v i e w of " E n l i g h t e n m e n t ”itself as b o t h a n historical m o m e n t a n d as a n historical process (not, of course, to be confused with simplistic, linear notions of historical "progress”). S t e p h e n B r o n n e r has pointed out that the values that g r o u n d e d the effective practical a n d philosophical opposition to fas­ c ism in the W e s t (not to m e n t i o n C o m m u n i s m in the East)— limits o n state power, o p e n n e s s to alternative explanations of natural or social re­ ality, a n d the e m a n c i p a t o r y traditions of "republicanism, socialism, a n d

Varieties ofAntitotalitarianism

169

internationalism" could all b e traced to the liberal legacy of the Enlight­ e n m e n t . 199 It is not necessary to c h a m p i o n such values as the unfailing antidote to "totalitarian reason," but their evident persistence represented the possibility of retaining (or regaining) precisely that crucial space that lay b e t w e e n the idea of social totality a n d its realization— a gap that could be used for the consideration or enaction of e m a n cipatory ideas a n d poli­ tics. H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o h a d c o m e quite close to declaring s u c h a possibility dead. T h e theorists w h o h a d so tellingly criticized "the philoso­ p h y of history" at last omitted too m u c h history—b o t h past a n d present— f r o m their ac c o u n t of philosophy. But in a m o v e typical of this pair of thinkers, they appear to h a v e anticipated this kind of criticism in their critique of Kantian ethics, a critique that historicized the efforts of "bour­ geois" philosophy to construct a barricade against the consequences of its o w n corrosive power: " T h e m o r a l teachings of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t bear witness to a hopeless attempt to replace enfeebled religion w ith s o m e rea­ son for persisting in society w h e n interest is absent.... It is the c o n v e n ­ tional attempt of bourgeois t h o u g h t to g r o u n d respect, w i t h o u t w h i c h civilization c a n n o t exist, u p o n s o m e t h i n g other t h a n material interest a n d force; it is m o r e sublime a n d paradoxical than, yet as e p h e m e r a l as, a n y previous attempt."200 Leaving n o privileged position— or even a hid­ ing place— for liberal o p t i m i s m a n d ethical appeals to reason, H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o held to a n i m a g e of reason as the inevitable, e v e n if unwill­ ing, servant of power. T h e totalitarian state w a s not a deviation or detour a w a y f r o m the a d v a n c e of reason; it w a s reason's political apotheosis. This passage also hinted at Horkheimer's later retreat b a c k to the terrain of cautious bourgeois convention a n d the reconsideration of religious yearn­ ings, h o w e v e r "enfeebled." Certainly n o unproblematic return to M a r x ­ is m could n o w b e undertaken.201 A d o r n o continued to appropriate M a r x ­ ian analytical tools in the analysis of culture, but the situation of culture a n d society appeared to h i m as it did to Horkheimer: a Marxist politics simply perpetuated s o m e of the m o s t dangerous notions of progress a n d totality. Adorno's later writings o n culture insisted o n particularity, dis­ sonance, a n d discrete aesthetic m o m e n t s — missed or realized. His friend­ ship w i t h H o r k h e i m e r persisted t h r o u g h o u t the remainder of their lives, but their projects ten d e d to diverge.202Dialectic of Enlightenment r e m a i n e d their o n e significant collaboration. E m a n a t i n g f r o m a strangely a n d only partially sheltered place in a n alien land during the m o s t violent decade in h u m a n history, it represented a timely a n d f u n d a m e n t a l reappraisal of civilization a n d of the prospects for its "improvement." For the sheer dis­ comforting boldness of its critique, the b o o k continues to d e m a n d atten-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

170

tion. But in its refusal of politics, Dialectic of Enlightenment offered at best a t e m p o r a r y place of refuge for social theory. T h e political pressures of the early postwar era h a d yet to gain their full force w h e n further splits a m o n g the m e m b e r s of the antitotalitarian Left b e g a n to appear. T h e postwar fate of the Institute of Social Research is a case in point. W h i l e M a r c u s e kept trying to discover theoretical a n d prac­ tical w a y s to reverse the long retreat of radical politics, H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o r e m a i n e d u n c o n v i n c e d of the possibility for societal c h a n g e in the direction of freedom. In 1946, M a r c u s e urged H o r k h e i m e r to reestab­ lish the Zeitschrift,but H o r k h e i m e r refused. E c o n o m i c circumstances a n d his wife's illness c o m pelled M a r c u s e to continue to w o r k in U.S. g o vern­ m e n t service until the early 1950s, w h e n h e w a s at last able to secure a teaching job.203 His subsequent experiments in radical theory h a d increas­ ingly less in c o m m o n politically w i t h Horkheimer's a n d Adorno's writ­ ings, t h o u g h his a r g u m e n t s often rested o n similar theoretical f o u n d a ­ tions. E v e n after they reestablished the institute in Frankfurt, H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o p ursued their projects in relative isolation, for in their view, the primary item o n the postwar social a g e n d a w a s the refinement of tech­ nologically assisted administrative capacity, w i t h all the horrors suc h b land language concealed: the totalitarian rationalization of unreason. It should be quite clear b y n o w that there w a s n o developed left-wing "school of tho u g h t " o n totalitarianism. T h e examples of antitotalitarian theory e x a m i n e d in this chapter f o r m e d n o single, cohesive outlook a n d were not, to say the least, stages o n the w a y to a left-wing consensus o n the p r o b l e m of "totalitarian dictatorship," "state capitalism," or the role of "totalitarian enlightenment." But the revivals, revisions, a n d even the rejections of M a r x i a n theory, particularly the left-wing theories of dicta­ torship, d o indicate at least the c o m m o n understanding of m o s t of these thinkers that b o t h the r e m n a n t s of S e c o n d International M a r x i s m a n d its p r i m a r y intraleft o p p o n e n t , Leninism, h a d prov e n utterly incapable of m e e t i n g the theoretical a n d practical challenges p o s e d b y the m o d e r n totalitarian state. T h e left-wing o p p o n e n t s of state-party dictatorship were also alike in their evident understanding of the n e e d for careful choices in the m e t h o d a n d object of their analyses a n d in their attention to the likely political c o n s e q u e n c e s of those choices. Moreover, apart f r o m A d o r n o a n d Horkheimer, they often attempted to follow the Marxist tra­ dition of unifying theory a n d practice, h o w e v e r ineffective these efforts m a y have b e e n in terms of their political results. D u r i n g the w a r a n d i m ­ mediately afterward, several of these thinkers b e c a m e directly active in military intelligence or occupation efforts that took t h e m far f r o m their

Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism

171

earlier careers a n d political c o m m i t m e n t s . B o r k e n a u served w i t h a press service attached to the U.S. A rmy's occupation forces in 1945-46. In 1944, Fraenkel p r o d u c e d a b o o k o n the occupation of G e r m a n y after W o r l d W a r I that clearly anticipated the occupation of G e r m a n y o n c e again in the near future. Kirchheimer, N e u m a n n , a n d M a r c u s e continued to w o r k for the O S S during the w a r — M a r c u s e stayed o n for several years m o r e with the State Depar t m e n t . W h a t the relative success or failure of these activi­ ties c a n teach about the Left's desire for the unity of theory a n d practice, however, remains o p e n to debate.204 W h a t e v e r their w a r t i m e fates a n d c o m m i t m e n t s , b y the e n d of W o r l d W a r II, G e r m a n socialist intellectuals h a d constructed several important approaches to the p r o b l e m of totalitarian dictatorship. B y 1940, Franz B o r k e n a u h a d already assembled m o s t of the c o m p o n e n t s for the “clas­ sic" model-building tradition of cold w a r antitotalitarianism that linked Nazi G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U n i o n . D u r i n g the w a r years, Richard L ö w e n t h a l a n d his colleagues in N e u B e g i n n e n cautiously used a rudi­ m e n t a r y totalitarian theory as a rationale for policy decisions— another precursor of cold w a r uses of the notion. Rudolf Hilferding constructed a broad version of totalitarian theory that focused o n e c o n o m i c policy in the course of a reformist c o n d e m n a t i o n of Nazi G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U n ion, while Karl Korsch a n d Otto Rühle a i m e d their radical revolution­ ary notions of “totalitarian counterrevolution" a n d “ b r o w n a n d red fas­ cism" as broadsides against these s a m e t w o regimes as well as the W e s t ­ ern capitalist allies. Scholars associated for a time wit h the Institute of Social Research— in particular Franz N e u m a n n a n d Otto Kirchheimer— along w i t h Ernst Fraenkel established the basis for a critical left-wing so­ cial science that m a d e only cautious a n d methodologically limited use of schematic m o d e l s of totalitarian dictatorship, a n d they subordinated that project to the analysis of empirical evidence f r o m specific case studies a n d the articulation of a socialist perspective. T h e surviving core m e m b e r s of the institute, led b y M a x H o r k h eimer, Friedrich Pollock, a n d T h e o d o r Adorno, continued to focus o n the ideological manifestations of totalitari­ a n i s m in terms of its continual rationalization of culture a n d social c o n ­ trol. Herbert Marcuse's postwar w o r k w o u l d d r a w o n b o t h of these strands of the institute's theorizing, the social scientific a n d the philosophicalcultural, but h e w o u l d attempt to argue in behalf of a m o r e radical poli­ tics t h a n w o u l d either c a m p of the interwar a n d w a r t i m e branches of the institute's researchers. In short, the attraction of a comparative analysis of fascist a n d C o m m u n i s t (and s o m e t i m e also capitalist) regimes proved irresistible for several G e r m a n socialist intellectuals, but others extended

T h e Lost D e b a t e

172

the range of left-wing theory b y creating alternative m e a n s of explaining the n e w systems of p o w e r — the Nazi a n d Stalinist regimes above all. T h e concluding chapter of this b o o k traces a f e w selected exa m p l e s of the historical transformation of these various conceptual strategies of leftw i n g antitotalitarianism into the cold w a r period. It also provides a look at s o m e of the effects of these h a r d - w o n perspectives o n the w o r k of indi­ vidual theorists of totalitarianism a n d other m o r e recent strains of post­ w a r political theory. But the conclusion of this study c a nnot complete the history of the fate of left-wing antitotalitarianism, for that history c o n ­ tinues into the present. A s is perhaps all too obvious, elements of each of the antitotalitarian outlooks e x a m i n e d here survived or were reinvented during the postwar period u n d e r radically different historical c i r c u m ­ stances. U n d e r the pressures of the cold war, left-wing antitotalitarianism w o u l d fracture still further, generating a variety of o p p o s e d perspectives: ideological justifications for a n t i - C o m m u n i s t policy a n d social scientific m o d e l s of totalitarianism, o n the o n e hand, a n d radical critiques of b o t h cold w a r bipolarism a n d its affiliated versions of the theory of totalitari­ anism, o n the other.

To t a l i t a r i a n i s m ’ s Te m p t a t i o n s : In t o

the

Cold W

ar

These days, the espousal o f M a r x i s m is considered a s y m p t o m o f national a n d h u m a n degeneracy. A t the s a m e time public discussion to a large extent n o w adopts a concept o f dictatorship that w a s decisively m o l d e d b y Marxist thought — O t t o K i r c h h e i m e r , 1933 I find it a s h a m e that Professors M a r c u s e a n d Löwenthal, with various differ­ ences, h a v e used the notion o f totalitarianism as a comprehensive concept for different systems. W i t h such a notion the historical dim e n s i o n gets lost.... — Rud i Dutschke, 1967

T h e closer o n e looks at the developing notions of totalitarianism, the m o r e o n e sees theoretical diversity, methodological controversy, and, above all, the intellectual a n d rhetorical effort to gain control over c o n ­ tested political terrain. Yet, for these intellectuals of the G e r m a n Left, this absence of consensus did not indicate that totalitarianism appeared as a theoretical a n d political p r o b l e m only “in the eye of the beholder.”There w e r e at least t w o significant points of a g r e e m e n t a m o n g this g r o u p of writers. First, they unequivocally rejected the m o d e l s of social a n d politi­ cal organization e m b o d i e d in the regimes of b o t h the Soviet U n i o n a n d Nazi G e r m a n y . Second, all of t h e m persisted, to s o m e extent at least, in expressing a critical attitude towa r d free market capitalism. In addition, several of t h e m continued to support a fu n d a m e n t a l transformation of so­ c i e t y - t h r o u g h either reform or revolution— that could reasonably be labeled “socialist.”W h a t w a s often lost or w a s retained only with a fiercely

173

T h e Lost D e b a t e

174

c o m b a t i v e persistence in the cold w a r years w a s the articulation of just s u c h a perspective, o n e that simultaneously challenged the legacy of Nazism, the persistence of the Soviet dictatorship, a n d the ideological, econo m i c , a n d political d o m i n a n c e of the W e s t e r n capitalist powers. It did not take long for the cold w a r to pro d u c e the characteristic ideo­ logical a n d political formations that, despite a series of challenges, w o u l d r e m a i n in place for the next four decades. Left-wing antitotalitarianism did no t completely disappear, but it b e c a m e a politically marginalized outlook in b o t h E u r o p e a n d the United States until the 1960s. Its a m b i v a ­ lent, fragmentary, a n d yet stubbornly socialist character held relatively little political or theoretical appeal in a time w h e n bipolarism s e e m e d to offer the only “realistic”choices— at least in the W e s t e r n Allied Z o n e s of G e r m a n y a n d in the United States. In a m o r e politically fluid postwar set­ ting, such as France, for example, w h e r e republican traditions h a d deeper roots t h a n in G e r m a n y a n d w h e r e there w a s a stronger a n d m o r e opposi­ tional Left d o m i n a t e d b y the presence of a large C o m m u n i s t Party, the n u a n c e d political tactics a c c o m p a n y i n g the search for a “ third p a t h ”— o n e that m i g h t avoid b o t h the bipolar p o w e r grid a n d the espousal of a Stalinist b r a n d of M a r x i s m — r e m a i n e d options for several years. T h e cel­ ebrated Sartre-Camus debate of 1952 in France departed f r o m b o t h the tone a n d the f o r m of postwar intellectual politics just across the border.1 But eve n the Camus-Sartre e x c h a n g e m a r k e d the e n d of the m o s t public phase of the “ third p a t h ”debate, not a significant a dvance or renewal, a n d left-wing criticism of the Soviet U n i o n co n t i n u e d to receive hostile re­ sponses f r o m the French C o m m u n i s t Left. T h e French leftist opposition to Soviet policy— e v e n w h e n it also criticized the policies of the United States— r e m a i n e d politically a n d theoretically isolated for years, as the fate of the Socialisme o u Barbarie g r o u p led b y C l a u d e Lefort a n d Cornelius Castoriadis during the 1950s w o u l d reveal. T h e French C o m m u n i s t Party r e m a i n e d the p r i m a r y institutional voice of the political Left, largely c r o w d i n g out the m o d e r a t e Socialist Party a n d other groups until after the upheavals of 1968. In the case of the t w o cold w a r Germa n i e s , b y contrast, the s a m e intraleft conflict took place across as well as within national borders, a n d the debates over notions of totalitarianism a n d fascism b e c a m e even m o r e intensely political battlefields t h a n they w o u l d b e for years in France. B y 1949, the former anti-Nazi Allies a n d their supporters in each sector sanc­ tioned the creation of t w o client G e r m a n states following the dramatic Berlin airlift that foiled the Soviet blockade of the city's western sectors. T h e forced unification of the Social Democ r a t i c a n d C o m m u n i s t parties

Totalitarianism's Temptations

175

in the Socialist U n i t y Party of G e r m a n y (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands— S E D ) of the Soviet sector h a d embittered m a n y of those w h o h a d h o p e d for s o m e other resolution to the bitter left-wing party battles. S o m e left-wing intellectuals, however, sensed that the possibility of generating a radical a n d democratic socialist political m o v e m e n t w a s at least temporarily m o r i b u n d eve n before the creation of the t w o sepa­ rate G ermanies.2

G e r m a n Socialist Intellectuals after the W a r In S e p t e m b e r 1947, a g r o u p of old friends a n d acquaintances m e t to dis­ cuss the current state of democratic socialism in G e r m a n y . A m o n g those in attendance were Franz N e u m a n n a n d t w o of his former colleagues f r o m the Institute of Social Research, Arkadij G u r l a n d a n d Paul Massing. G u r l a n d h a d b e e n associated w ith the old W eimar-era O R G led b y Walter L ö w e n h e i m , a n d Massing, as previously m e n t i o n e d , w a s yet another W e i m a r C o m m u n i s t w h o h a d eventually left the party to e m b r a c e parlia­ m e n t a r i s m a n d liberal politics.3 T h e y agreed that since there h a d b e e n n o socialist m o v e m e n t in G e r m a n y since 1933, there h a d b e e n n o socialist intellectuals either. T h e y also h a d n o t h i n g but complaints to register about the postwar revival of the SPD. T h e party h a d lost t o u c h with a n y truly democratic impulse, they argued, a n d its leader, Kurt S c h u m a c h e r , w a s content to preside over a r e m n a n t of the party's faithful supporters.4 A cluster of left-wing G e r m a n intellectuals thus dismissed the party w h o s e tactics, in their view, continued to ratify the impossibility of a socialist transformation of G e r m a n y , at the very m o m e n t w h e n the nation e x p e ­ rienced the painful process of shaping itself anew. T h e harsh verdicts o n the S P D are not surprising, N e u m a n n ' s in particular. This group's insis­ tence o n socialist intellectual w o r k as a function of the existence of a so­ cialist m a s s m o v e m e n t simply e c h o e d the tradition of generations of G e r ­ m a n Marxists. Nevertheless, the j u d g m e n t that there w e r e n o G e r m a n socialist intellectuals c a n b e challenged. T o h ave said that there w a s often little c o m m o n g r o u n d a m o n g intel­ lectual adherents of the G e r m a n socialist m o v e m e n t — or a n y large politi­ cal m o v e m e n t — w o u l d hav e b e e n to say that things were entirely typical. T o say that f r o m 1933 there w a s n o socialist m o v e m e n t in G e r m a n y m a y also true in a n important but very specific sense. In Nazi G e r m a n y , M a r x ­ ian socialism "existed" largely in prison, in subversion, in secret, or in si­ lence. But to say there h a d been, therefore, n o socialist intellectuals since 1933 is simply inaccurate. There h a d always b e e n a n international network

T h e Lost D e b a t e

176

of socialist parties, unions, a n d intellectuals— supported by, a m o n g other things, m a s s political organizations, research institutions a n d universities, a n d national g o v ernments. E v e n Borkenau, w i t h his n e w e m p h a s i s o n nationalism, did not d e n y the persistent international solidarity a m o n g socialists— e ven if h e insisted that it h a d s h o w n at best a primarily defen­ sive character.5 This socialist solidarity is precisely w h a t h a d sustained the individuals w h o issued their opinions in the dismal fall of 1947— enabled to be sure, b y other political traditions that s o m e m e m b e r s of this gr o u p of intellectuals h a d b e g u n to reconsider: liberal constitutionalism, indi­ vidual rights, a n d the granting of sanctuary to political refugees— h o w ­ ever institutionally fragile a n d horribly undercut b y anti-Semitism a n d a n t i - C o m m u n i s m these practices often were. W h a t the record of this m e e t i n g reveals above all is the d e p t h of pes­ s i m i s m a m o n g these particular left-wing writers, w h o h a d b e e n part of the W e i m a r S P D or K P D , h a d later joined the staff of the Institute of Social Research, a n d t h e n at last h a d f o u n d posts in U.S. military or a c a d e m i c institutions. It m a y also indicate a self-conscious u n h appiness about their present lack of a n y other t h a n academic, bureaucratic, or military affilia­ tion. Their earlier, m o r e directly political c o m m i t m e n t s h a d atrophied o w i n g to historical a n d personal factors largely b e y o n d their control. But in this sense, their criticism of the SPD, h o w e v e r valid, also h a d a kind of “sour grapes”quality to it. T h e party, after all, h a d o n c e b e e n the politi­ cal h o m e of N e u m a n n a n d Gurland, too, t h o u g h they h a d often despised the w o r k of its elders. T h e fate of the postwar S P D remained, for the time being at least, in the h a n d s of older, deeply c o m m i t t e d , but s o m e w h a t inflexible leaders, such as Kurt S c h u m a c h e r . 6 But it w a s about to be taken over b y a corps of younger, m o r e pragmatic figures associated wit h the Ernst Reuter circle— including several former N e u B e g i n n e n m e m b e r s . U n d e r different historical circumstances, Franz N e u m a n n , Arkadij G u r ­ land, a n d perhaps Otto Kirchheimer m i g h t h a v e b e c o m e leading party intellectuals— a role that it is impossible to i magine for such personalities as M a x Horkheimer, T h e o d o r A d o r n o , Herbert Marcuse, or Friedrich Pol­ lock. In 1947, however, they w e r e m o s t definitely o n the outside looking in, a n d it w a s not at all difficult for t h e m to find fault wit h w h a t they saw. T h e verdicts of these a l u m n i of the Institute of Social Research did not reflect the o pinion of several other survivors f r o m the Weimar-era intel­ lectual Left, w h o w e r e almost exhilarated b y the political prospects of postwar G e r m a n y — a n d b y their o w n revived fortunes as well. In G e r m a n y a n d the United States, s o m e of these other survivors of the w a r t i m e p e ­ riod played a n active role in journalism, a c a d e m i c institutions, govern-

Totalitarianism's Temptations

177

m e n t service, or all three— just as N e u m a n n a n d Kirchheimer h a d a n d would. In brief, the postwar careers of these writers followed a variety of paths, but their c o m m o n b a c k g r o u n d as critics of dictatorship persisted as o n e of the m o s t important factors in the kind of professional a n d t h e o ­ retical w o r k they undertook. Three of the G e r m a n left-wing antitotalitarians— Rudolf Hilferding, Otto Rühle, a n d Arthur Rosenberg— did not survive the w a r years. As dis­ cussed in the previous chapter, Hilferding died while in the h a n d s of the Gestapo. T h e other t w o m e n died of natural causes during 1943 while in exile.7 T h e contributions that these veterans of p r e - W o r l d W a r I strife o n the G e r m a n left m i g h t h ave m a d e to the postwar discussions of totalitari­ a n i s m c a n only be surmised. T h e direction of Hilferding's thinking about the Soviet U n i o n w o u l d likely hav e led h i m to r e m a i n in the postwar S P D a n d to advocate at least limited support for the N A T O alliance. E v e n h a d h e lived, however, it is s o m e w h a t difficult to imagine his taking m o r e t h a n a marginal, elder statesman's role in the reconstruction of the SPD. A r ­ thur's Rosenberg's later writings, particularly Demokratie u n d Sozialismus, indicate that h e w o u l d have b e e n a likely candidate for m e m b e r s h i p in o n e of the u n o r t h o d o x socialist groups of the E u r o p e a n or A m e r i c a n Left seek­ ing a third path. Or, perhaps h e m i g h t h ave joined his old friend a n d stu­ dent H e n r y Pachter, w h o as a m e m b e r of the circle associated w i t h the A m e r i c a n journal Dissent, supported the United States against the Soviet U n i o n but never m i n c e d his criticism of A m e r i c a n politics. Pachter also served as a cantankerous yet avuncular m e n t o r to y o u n g scholars inter­ ested in the interwar Left.8 Ott o Rühle, however, w o u l d likely h a v e re­ m a i n e d w h a t h e h a d b e c o m e after 1933— a n u n h a p p y exile, w i t h only his abiding faith in the proletariat a n d the m e m o r i e s of a few brief m o m e n t s of political glory to brighten his political isolation. H a d h e survived the w a r years, o n e c a n e v e n i m a g i n e h i m considering a return to East G e r ­ m a n y —w i t h plenty of rancor but perhaps w i t hout irony. T h e y o u n g e r survivors of the interwar a n d w a r t i m e G e r m a n Left faced quite a different series of intellectual a n d political challenges in the post­ w a r period. Particularly after 1949, left-wing scholars a n d intellectuals f r o m (and in) G e r m a n y h a d little r o o m in w h i c h to m a n euver. For those w h o a s s u m e d public political roles, choices of cold w a r allegiance wer e almost inevitable— a n d quickly the readily available sides were the United States a n d the Soviet U n i o n a n d their respective sets of allies in N A T O a n d the W a r s a w Pact. But for this g r o u p of G e r m a n socialists, such choosing p r o d u c e d a w i d e variety of allegiances. S o m e , such as Franz B o r k e n a u a n d R u t h Fischer, w h o together helped f o u n d the a n t i - C o m m u n i s t Congress

T h e Lost D e b a t e

178

for Cultural Freedom, enthusiastically e m b r a c e d the cause of the cold war. Others, such as Richard L ö w e n t h a l a n d Ernst Fraenkel, also supported the cold w a r a n d r e m a i n e d affiliated with the S P D in the postwar period. Ove r the following decades, they argued for the n e e d to support the capitalist p owers of N A T O in foreign policy matters— but w ithout a b a n d o n i n g pro­ gressive, albeit cautiously reformist w o r k i n g class-oriented domestic poli­ cies. Franz N e u m a n n often traveled to G e r m a n y in the early postwar years, but h e retained his C o l u m b i a University professorship a n d avoided direct political party involvement. Nevertheless, he, too, c a m e d o w n strongly o n the side of the W e s t e r n Allies during a n d after the Berlin blockade, declar­ ing that strong support for the western zones of Berlin w a s absolutely vi­ tal: “n o sacrifice c a n be great e n o u g h to m a k e the city viable— e c o n o m i ­ cally a n d politically.”9 E v e n for those w h o m a i n t a i n e d a d e e p skepticism a b o u t the W e s t ­ ern p o w e r s a n d the cultures they h a d bred, M a x H o rkheimer, T h e o d o r A dorno, a n d Friedrich Pollock, for instance, the perspectives of o r t h o d o x M a r x i s m a n d class struggle proved mostly or entirely disposable, a n d b y the late 1 9 6 0 s — e v e n before the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1 9 6 8 — the Soviet U n i o n b e c a m e the target of their m o s t d a m n i n g p r o n o u n c e ­ ment s . 10 It w a s m o r e t h a n a bit ironic that the G e r m a n exile radical w h o m a n a g e d to gain the m o s t attention in the postwar United States w a s a n advocate of the “ great refusal,”a writer o penly a n d unceasingly hostile to the culture a n d politics of the cold war: Herbert Marcuse. This concluding chapter offers a brief look at s o m e of the issues that m a r k e d the m o s t influential considerations o n totalitarianism a m o n g left­ ist G e r m a n intellectuals in the cold w a r era: postwar revisions or rejections of Marx i s m , divergent theoretical a n d practical responses to cold w a r poli­ tics, a n d the i m pact of totalitarian theory o n the study of politics a n d so­ ciety in postwar G e r m a n y . T h e course of the several notions of totalitari­ a n i s m offers peculiar insights into the fates of ideas. A l o n g with liberalism a n d socialism, but w ith even m o r e malleable political identity attached to it, the concept of totalitarianism has served as b o t h a n oppositional a n d a ruling idea. In terms of the significance of its historical context, opposition to totalitarianism carried a far different set of c o m m i t m e n t s a n d risks in the interwar a n d w a r t i m e years t h a n it did in the W e s t during the cold war. This b o o k closes w i t h a n assessment of the influential perspectives a n d theoretical issues that r e m a i n as legacies of the w o r k of these individuals a n d a reconsideration of the relative value that s o m e concepts of totalitari­ a n i s m m i g h t still possess.

Totalitarianism's Temptations

179

O n M a r x a n d Marxism: Further Revisions Several of these intellectuals f o u n d themselves b o t h professionally a n d politically adrift during the early cold w a r period, trying in their forties a n d fifties to secure a c a d e m i c careers in the United States or the Federal R e p u b ­ lic of G e r m a n y . N o t entirely comfortable either in or out of the political activist's role, they were keepers of the thin flame of socialist unorthodoxy, fellow travelers of liberalism w h o could not completely e m b r a c e it or its policies. M a r x i s m h a d b e c o m e for several m e m b e r s of this g roup either o n e of m a n y historically surpassed critical perspectives or a trusty but ou t ­ m o d e d tool that required radical refashioning. This g r o u p of thinkers w o u l d include Franz N e u m a n n a n d Otto Kirchheimer. Others, a m o n g t h e m Franz B o r k e n a u a n d Richard Löwenthal, sooner or later rejected all but the m o s t schematic elements of their earlier theoretical M arxism. T h e y n o w s h u n n e d a n d e v e n scorned a Marxist political perspective.11 Karl Korsch, however, appears never to h a v e a b a n d o n e d M a r x i s m al­ together, despite his severe criticisms of w h a t it h a d b e c o m e as institution­ alized practice. His postwar w o r k suffered because h e never f o u n d long­ t e r m e m p l o y m e n t in the United States. D u r i n g the war, h e h a d taught at the State College of W a s h i n g t o n in P u l l m a n (later W a s h i n g t o n State U n i ­ versity) a n d at Tulane University in N e w Orleans, but h e did not gain a teaching position thereafter.12 In the early cold w a r years, h e reestablished contact w i t h his old K P D c o m r a d e R u t h Fischer, w h o , after a series of in­ v o l v e m e n t s in left-wing splinter groups, h a d survived exile as a social worker a n d journalist in the United States. S h e e ven b e c a m e a favorite of the fiercely a n t i - C o m m u n i s t Luce publications. S h e consulted w i t h Korsch o n the manuscript of her lengthy a n d bitterly polemical history of the W e i m a r K P D , Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m — yet another i m p o r ­ tant e x a m p l e of e x - C o m m u n i s t a n t i - C o m m u n i s m . Their correspondence w a s friendly a n d topical. S he disagreed w i t h Korsch o n the prospects for the revolution in China, in w h i c h h e placed great hopes, a n d joked with h i m about the likely o u t c o m e of the 1952 presidential election. Their per­ sonal connections w i t h other antitotalitarian intellectuals also e m e r g e in these letters. K o r s c h asked Fischer to get copies of a review f r o m Franz Borkenau's journal, Ost-Probleme, a n d a n article b y Richard L ö w e n t h a l in D e r M o n a t H e told her of his admiration for M i l o v a n Djilas, the former m e m b e r of Tito's C o m m u n i s t g o v e r n m e n t in Yugoslavia w h o w a s begin­ n i n g to formulate the ideas that led to his dismissal f r o m the party a n d culminated in his f a m o u s critical appraisal of C o m m u n i s m in power, The

T h e Lost D e b a t e

180

N e w Class. T h e y discussed the personal a n d political up s a n d d o w n s of “Karl A u g u s t ”(Wittfogel), their m u t u a l friend f r o m the old days. T h e record of KorsclTs correspondence with Fischer breaks off in 1957, a n d it is apparent that his tragic a n d prolonged illness s o o n m a d e intellectual w o r k impossible.13 KorsclTs various c o m m e n t s o n the place of M a r x i s m in the revolution­ ary m o v e m e n t s of the century r e m a i n a s o m e w h a t controversial topic for s o m e leftist scholars, but his continuing interest in the fate of M a r x i s m is undeniable. In 1952, Korsch issued o n e of his oracular a n d wistfully h o p e ­ ful p r o n o u n c e m e n t s o n M a r xism: “ T h e broader d e v e l o p m e n t of M a r x i s m during the last 150 years, of w h i c h 'Soviet M a r x i s m ' will perhaps in a fu­ ture time appear as only 'a short a n d s o m e w h a t disreputable episode,' has not received d u e attention ... because f r o m 1917 to this d a y a dispropor­ tionate part of the general interest as well as that of the scholars has b e e n absorbed b y the sensational d r a m a that unfolded itself o n the Russian scene.''14 Little w o u l d occur over the next generation to c h a n g e the cir­ c u m s t a n c e s that gave rise to this judgment. H e w o u l d also insist, in his c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h Bertolt Brecht, that c o n d e m n a t i o n of the Soviet U n i o n served reactionary purposes.15 K o rsch did not specify the role that m i g h t r e m a i n for M a r x i s m as a foundation for political or philosophical critique. T h o u g h h e h a d c h o s e n not to publish it, h e h a d written “ T e n Theses o n Marxism,'' w h i c h sketched only the possibility of such a continuing use for M a r x i a n theory a n d even declared flatly that “ the first step in re-establishing a revolutionary theory a n d practice consists in breaking with the monopolistic claim of M a r x i s m to revolutionary initiative a n d to theoretical a n d practical leadership.''16 Debates persist as to w h e t h e r these remarks were intended as a conclusion or simply as a provocation to further M a r x i a n investigations. In w h a t w a s apparently his last letter to R u t h Fischer, dated 4 July 1957, h e h a d signed himself “ your old friend, co-Marxist a n d -Leninist.''17 S o m e forty years later, it is certainly possible to imagine that the appar­ ent transformation a n d at least temporary decline of the C o m m u n i s t Party of the former Soviet U n i o n m a y lead to a revival of Marxist theory a n d poli­ tics in s o m e parts of the world. T hat the fate of M a r x i s m has for so long b e e n intertwined with the status of Soviet C o m m u n i s m n e e d not lead to the conclusion that the future course of either is a short route to oblivion. In b o t h Russia a n d Poland, for example, revised versions of the C o m m u ­ nist Party h a v e m a n a g e d to survive. T hese parties are n o longer claiming to be the engines of radical social transformation but instead exist p r i m a ­ rily as creaky political vehicles for the defense of workers' interests in re-

Totalitarianism's Temptations

181

taining jobs a n d public services in the face of a h e a d l o n g rush to priva­ tization a n d free market capitalism. C o m m u n i s m ' s future appears even less assured, to say the least, in several of the other E u r o p e a n nations w h e r e “ official”M a r x i s m survived primarily as the ideological justification for oppressive regimes. It is possible to identify w a y s in w h i c h Korsch's specific criticisms of the lopsided, oppressive, a n d mechanistic M a r x i s m of the Soviet Union, criticisms that varied little in their essential points f r o m the late 1920s onward, have b e e n at least partly vindicated b y the events of the past decade. T h e proletarian revolution h e desired has not materialized, however, at least not as Korsch s e e m s to hav e i m a g i n e d it. Franz N e u m a n n ' s postwar revision of M a r x i s m w a s perhaps even m o r e personally a n d intellectually traumatic t h a n Korsch's or Fischer's. In a n y case, h e offered even less in the w a y of utopian political h o p e s tha n Korsch did. His bitterness or resignation about the collapse of the link b e t w e e n Marxist theory a n d practice often e m e r g e d indirectly, as in his increasing reliance o n liberal thinkers to g r o u n d his discussions of politics a n d law.18 Occasionally, however, h e articulated his harsh views o n the fate of M a r x ­ ism quite directly. In t w o radio broadcasts delivered in Berlin as part of a 1950 series o n M a r x i s m aired b y the “Radio University”p r o g r a m of station RIAS a n d sponsored b y the n e w l y established Freie Universität Berlin (Free University of Berlin), N e u m a n n offered his appraisal of the transforma­ tions of M a r x i s m a n d the relationship b e t w e e n M a r x i s m a n d intellectuals. H e linked the u n h a p p y fate of M a r x i s m to the historical succession f r o m Marx's democratic theory, to Lenin's “ aristocratic”political revolution, a n d finally to Stalin's “caesaristic a n d total dictatorship,”w h o s e m o s t i m ­ portant constituent element, N e u m a n n insisted, w a s terror. N e u m a n n traced the relationship b e t w e e n M a r x i s m a n d intellectuals in a similarly declining arc. H e listed four m a i n types of Mar x i s m : social re­ formist, revolutionary, Bolshevist, a n d purely academic. It w a s starkly evi­ dent that in 1950 n o n e of t h e m held m u c h appeal for N e u m a n n . Revolu­ tionary M a r x i s m , best represented b y Trotskyism, N e u m a n n dismissed as bo t h s h a d o w y a n d quite out of touch with reality. A c a d e m i c M a r x i s m that sundered praxis f r o m theory w a s n o kind of M a r x i s m at all. T h e field w a s left to social reformism a n d Bolshevism ( which N e u m a n n clearly equated w ith C o m m u n i s m ) . But social reformism n o longer n e e d e d Marx, N e u ­ m a n n contended. Kantian notions of h u m a n a u t o n o m y a n d m u t u a l re­ gard supplied the m o r a l basis for a reformist politics. For social democratic theory, M a r x i s m h a d b e c o m e simply a theoretical reflex disconnected f r o m a n y truly revolutionary outlook or intent. In practice, defense of the S o ­ cial Democratic Party a n d allied trade u n i o n organizations led to a defense

T h e Lost D e b a t e

182

of “invested interests”a n d the integration of the working-class organiza­ tions into capitalist society. These wer e the s a m e develo p m e n t s that h a d enraged N e u m a n n at the time of the W e i m a r Republic's destruction. In his view, intellectuals connected with social reformism tended to b e c o m e c o n ­ formist functionaries until n e w conflicts arose. O n l y t h e n could intellec­ tuals o n c e again take u p their proper role as critics of society. N e u m a n n a i m e d his sharpest criticism at Bolshevist intellectuals. T h e y wer e quite simply the functionaries of a terrorist system. H e n o t e d n a ­ tional differences: the shocking ignorance of A m e r i c a n C o m m u n i s t intel­ lectuals a n d the con f o r m i t y of Fren c h C o m m u n i s t intellectuals. H e a c k n o w l e d g e d that Marxism's all-embracing theory of society h a d a par­ ticularly seductive appeal for scholars a n d writers. Moreover, the p o w e r of the Soviet U n i o n h a d transfixed intellectuals in m a n y nations w h o failed to understand that Bolshevist M a r x i s m h a d n o t h i n g to d o with the original notion of f r e e d o m e m b o d i e d in M a r x i s m . Since 1927, N e u m a n n insisted, Bolshevist intellectuals h a d b e e n the instruments of a n appara­ tus of terror.19 N o t only did N e u m a n n see a diminished role for M a r x i s m in the post­ w a r period, h e also tacitly accepted the broad historical a n d theoretical consequences of Hilferding's notion of the totalitarian state e c o n o m y in the case of the Soviet Uni o n . T h a t is, b y the early 1950s, N e u m a n n h a d b e c o m e conv i n c e d of the p r i m a c y of politics that h e h a d only allowed as a slim a n d likely disastrous possibility at the time h e wrote Behemoth. In a speech delivered at the Berlin H o c h s c h u l e für Politik in 1951, h e e m p h a ­ sized his n e w position: “ T h e d o m i n a t i o n of politics over e c o n o m i c s is clear. But difficult questions arise here: if politics is thus predominant, can the d o m i n a t i o n of totalitarian politics be overthrown? O r are there inher­ ent laws in accord wit h w h i c h total politics m u s t collapse? M y ans w e r to this is, No/''20 N e u m a n n n o w c o n c l u d e d that M a r x i a n theories of class conflict a n d inherent tendencies t oward capitalist crisis, such as the o n e h e h a d attempted to articulate in the case of the “ un-state”of Nazi G e r ­ m a n y , were inoperative. This speech indicates that N e u m a n n h a d finally a b a n d o n e d the very position f r o m w h i c h h e h a d criticized Pollock ten years earlier. T h e theoretical difficulties created b y the success of the vari­ ous separate careers of m o d e r n totalitarian states b e c a m e for N e u m a n n a hindrance that eve n his r e n e w e d interest in liberal theory could not e n ­ tirely o v e r c o m e before his untim e l y death.21 N e u m a n n ' s e x a m p l e indicates that the c o m p l e x a n d d i s maying chal­ lenges to left-wing theory l a u n c h e d b y the interwar a n d w a r t i m e totali­ tarian dictatorships could threaten a n d e v e n sunder a n a t t a c h m e n t to

Totalitarianism's Temptations

183

M a r x i s m . In the case of several of these antitotalitarian writers, earlier o p t i m i s m regarding the future of revolutionary socialism vanished. T h e y adjusted, rearranged, or a b a n d o n e d their M a r x i s m in response to their n e w conclusions o n the active a n d even determining role of politics in society. T h e philosopher Judith Shklar wrote perceptively of this d i l e m m a in reference to Franz N e u m a n n ' s postwar turn: History for h i m w a s n o t just a m e a n i n g l e s s struggle for p o w e r b u t also a p u r p o s e f u l d e v e l o p m e n t of ideas. This, in fact, is as far as socialism t o d a y c a n go, apparently. T h e n e w recognition of t h e a u t o n o m y of politics in history n e e d n o t e n d in Mac h i a v e l l i s m , b u t it d o e s n o t s e e m to lead to a n e w radicalism. T h o u g h it implies that m e n are free to d e t e r m i n e their fate, it h a s s i m p l y n o t stirred socialists to n e w h o p e . But, since p u r e p o w e r w a s revealed to socialists for t h e first t i m e in its m o s t abhorrent, totalitarian f o r m , this is o n l y natural.22

N e u m a n n ' s postwar theoretical development, signified at o n e level b y his decisive m o v e a w a y f r o m M a r x i s m , s h o w e d the effects of the previous t w o decades that Shklar, also writing in the 1950s, described so ably a n d s y m ­ pathetically. Despite his frequent revisions a n d retreats, however, the theoretical a n d intellectual legacy of N e u m a n n continues in at least t w o traditions of social critique. T h o s e w h o w i s h to hold to a relatively flexible M a r x i s m that still insists o n the ultimately determining p o w e r of class relationships will find in B e h e m o t h a n d N e u m a n n ' s prewar essays a m o d e l of M a r x i a n scholarship that demonstrates a mastery of the available evidence of cur­ rent e c o n o m i c a n d political d e v e l o p m e n t s a n d a tenaciously rationalist presentation of b o t h evidence a n d conclusions. T h e Marxist historian T i m o t h y M a s o n skillfully built o n this portion of N e u m a n n ' s legacy in his provocative essay o n the p r i m a c y of politics in National Socialism a n d a variety of his other writings.23 T h e questions the Marxist N e u m a n n posed ab o u t the e c o n o m i c policies characteristic of m o d e r n capitalist parlia­ m e n t a r y systems or one-party “revolutionary" states, the sources of p o w e r in these regimes, the role of their political practices a n d ideologies, their beneficiaries, a n d the fate of the w o r k i n g classes within these systems re­ m a i n crucially i mportant questions for historians a n d political analysts. T h e liberal N e u m a n n p r o d u c e d extremely lucid but less d y n a m i c e x ­ a m p l e s of scholarship. Yet even this portion of his legacy still resounds in discussions of the rule of law a n d the d i l e m m a s of democratic politics in m o d e r n times. His postwar essays w e r e brilliant a n d learned consider­ ations of political concepts— natural law, freedom, federalism, a n d totali-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

184

tarian dictatorship— as well as political thinkers— Hobbes, Locke, M o n t e s ­ quieu, a n d Bodin, a m o n g others. Unfortunately for the reception of N e u m a n n ' s thoughtful a n d critical n e w line of analysis, these writings w e r e broadly historical in scope a n d conception a n d therefore at o d d s w i t h the g r o w i n g trend of political science t o w a r d quantification a n d synchronic models.24 In this “liberal”p h ase of his work, N e u m a n n h a d recourse to m o r e traditionally left-wing perspectives t h a n the fashionable jet age formulas of “ interest g roup politics" a n d “ the e n d of ideology." His late essay “ Anxiety a n d Politics," w h i c h s h o w s N e u m a n n ' s increasing turn to the psychology of collective social a n d political behavior that h a d long interested his f ormer Institute colleagues Marcuse, H o r k h eimer, a n d A d o r n o , at the s a m e time reveals h i m o n c e m o r e in the guise of the W e i ­ m a r S P D labor lawyer, pleading for m o r e vigorous public speaking a n d writing, democratic reformism, a n d “the h u m a n i z a t i o n of politics."25 N e u m a n n , despite his disillusionment w i t h M a r x i s m , w o u l d always be pulled t o ward radical social criticism a n d a n active e n d o r s e m e n t of p o p u ­ lar m o v e m e n t s for d e m o c r a c y a n d h u m a n rights. T h e postwar writings of N e u m a n n ' s former colleagues also serve as evidence of the m i x e d fate of their M a r x i s m . Marcuse's Eros a n d Civiliza­ tion a n d One-Dimensional M a n were, m o s t importantly, attempts to r e n e w the possibility of utopian theory a n d praxis. In the case of Horkheimer, b y contrast, the a b a n d o n m e n t of the M a r x i a n utopia ultimately separated political radicalism f r o m theoretical radicalism. For e a c h of these t heo­ rists, left-wing antitotalitarianism, w h e t h e r expressed as a n eclectic lib­ eralism ( N e u m a n n ) , a type of neo-utopianism (Marcuse), or a politically abstinent critical theory ( H o r k h e i m e r a n d Adorno), h a d represented a kind of defensive reaction a n d appeared at last as a n impoverished politi­ cal substitute for the revolutionary project of M a r x i s m , regardless of the theoretical contributions this gr o u p of thinkers achieved. E v e n Borkenau, w h o h a d traveled the furthest f r o m M a r x i s m , contin­ u e d to return to Marx's writings, not only to testify to their continuing international i m p o r t a n c e but also to c o m e to a clearer understanding of w h y the social theorist's ideas h a d o n c e b e e n so appealing. Borkenau's last b o o k project, c o m p l e t e d the year before his death, w a s a o n e - v o l u m e col­ lection of Marx's writings. In a long introductory essay, “Praxis u n d Utopie," h e c o m p a r e d Marx's theoretical adventure to the mythical flight of Icarus— a glorious a m b ition a n d a dete r m i n e d inventiveness resulting in disaster.26 T h a t B o r k e n a u w a s still p o k i n g a m o n g the fragments of the w r e c k spoke to the persistently compelling nature of w h a t h e himself h a d labeled as the abortive journey of revolutionary M a r x i s m .

Totalitarianism's Temptations

185

Responding to the Cold War: Pro a n d C o n O f the writers e x a m i n e d in this book, B o r k e n a u b e c a m e perhaps the m o s t important a n d prolific publicist for a n antitotalitarianism that focused almost solely o n the Soviet Union. After the war, h e returned to G e r m a n y wit h a press service attached to the U.S. A r m y , but h e s o o n accepted the rather surprising offer of a position as professor of history at the Univer­ sity of Marburg. D u r i n g the years of exile, his b o o k o n the d e v e l o p m e n t of the “ bourgeois i m a g e of the w o r l d ”apparently f o u n d a n audience of w h i c h h e h a d b e e n unaware.27 H e quickly f o u n d himself dissatisfied with a c a deme, however. H e left M a r b u r g in 1949 to e ngage actively o n c e m o r e in political journalism. For a f e w years, h e edited a journal o n Eastern E u r o p e a n affairs, Ost-Probleme, w h i c h received funding f r o m the U.S. g o v ­ ernment. His brief m o m e n t of f a m e a m o n g circles of policy analysts in the W e s t c a m e in 1953 w h e n h e accurately indicated that Stalin w a s either d e a d or seriously ill, because the Soviet newspapers gave unusual space to s o m e of his rivals a n d because, o n certain public occasions, Stalin w a s neither present n o r m e n t i o n e d so p r o m i nently as h a d b e e n customary. B o r k e n a u thus b e c a m e o n e of the f o u nding practitioners of the a p p roach to Soviet studies k n o w n as Kremlinology— discussed in G e r m a n y u n d e r the rather less respectful t e r m Kreml-Astrologie (Kremlin astrology).28 Borkenau's w o r k as a journalist yielded d ozens of publications in jour­ nals w ith a fairly broad circulation, such as D e r Monat, C o m m e n t a r y ; T w e n ­ tieth Century; Neues A b e ndland, a n d Rheinische Merkur.29 H e wrote mostly articles of political c o m m e n t a r y , a n d his w o r k s h o w e d a quality of insight a n d expertise that raised it well above the general r u n of cold war-era jour­ nalism. O n at least o n e occasion, however, B o r k e n a u b e c a m e reckless in his a n t i - C o m m u n i s t zeal. In 1951, h e testified against a U.S. officer of the occupation period, accusing the m a n of “C o m m u n i s t sympathies.”T h e target of this testimony w a s Joseph v o n Franckenstein, a courageous w a r ­ time spy for the Allies a n d the h u s b a n d of the writer K a y Boyle. H e s o o n lost his State D e p a r t m e n t job. Years of court appeals followed. A decision in April 1957 reversed Franckenstein's dismissal, in behalf of w h i c h Borke­ n a u h a d clearly b e e n a crucial witness. Tragically, Franckenstein died s o o n after his reinstatement.30 B o r k e n a u also played a n important part, along w ith R u t h Fischer a n d M e l v i n J. Lasky, in creating the Congress for Cultural Freedom. This orga­ nization sought to provide a platform for m o d e r a t e socialist a n d liberal a n t i - C o m m u n i s t intellectuals during the t u m u l t u o u s early years of the cold war. In J u n e 1950, B o r k e n a u served as a fiery a n d controversial

T h e Lost D e b a t e

186

speaker at the congress's inaugural public m e e t i n g in Berlin. Borkenau's speech, praising U.N. intervention in the K o r e a n War, struck a British participant at the congress, the historian H u g h Trevor-Roper, as a n inflam­ m a t o r y display, a n d the audience response to the speech r e m i n d e d h i m of the Nazi fanaticism of recent m e m o r y . 31 In 1952, B o r k e n a u published a n e w study of C o m m u n i s m , D e r Europäische K o m m u n i s m u s (issued in E n ­ glish the following year as European C o m m u n i s m ), w h i c h h e dedicated to his late friend G e o r g e Orwell, but it w a s inferior to his earlier b o o k o n the subject, T he C o m m u n i s t International (1938). B o t h of these books, along w i t h R u t h Fischer's Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , b e c a m e influential formulations of the so-called Stalinization thesis o n the d e v e l o p m e n t of the K P D . 32 A l t h o u g h h e gained a larger audience wit h his n e w b o o k o n C o m m u n i s m , his writing n o w d e s c e n d e d frequently into the bitterest polemics. T h e a n t i - C o m m u n i s t passions of the fifties s o m e t i m e s over­ w h e l m e d Borkenau's true gift for u n o r t h o d o x yet insightful analysis, the very quality that h a d b e e n the source of s o m e brilliant historical a n d so­ ciological writings in the thirties. Also, during the postwar years, h e m a d e n o further forays in the direction of refining or extending his pioneering theoretical w o r k o n the p r o b l e m of totalitarianism, leaving such w o r k to the a c a d e m i c social science c o m m u n i t y . O n l y in his p o s t h u m o u s l y col­ lected a n d edited historical essays of the postwar years d o w e encounter o n c e again the bold surveyor of the h u m a n landscape w h o s e writings are w o r t h reading for their spirit of intellectual a n d scholarly adventure.33 But it w a s his unrelenting postwar a n t i - C o m m u n i s m , his v o l u m i n o u s journal­ ism, a n d his occasional book-editing a n d translating efforts that m a d e h i m a w e l l - k n o w n figure to those interested in the study of international politics a n d political theory. Borkenau's W e i m a r c o m r a d e R u t h Fischer p ursued a similar cold w a r career as publicist a n d e x - C o m m u n i s t . A s discussed in the introduction, Fischer gained m e d i a publicity in the United States during the early post­ w a r years for publicly d e n o u n c i n g her brother, C o m m u n i s t Party m e m ­ ber Gerhart Eisler. S h e also m a i n t a i n e d contacts w i t h a n u m b e r of her acquaintances o n the G e r m a n left. H e r correspondents included suc h for m e r antagonists as Heinrich Brandler as well as s u c h old friends as Korsch, but she also m e t w ith s o m e w h a t m o r e cautious allies, including B o r k e n a u a n d Richard Löwenthal. T h e b o o k she h a d shared w i t h Karl Korsch in m a n uscript form, Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , struck pre­ cisely the right cold w a r note at the time of its publication in 1948, espe­ cially for those intellectuals w h o were seeking a m e a n s of explaining a n d validating the developing p o w e r alignments. Its insider's perspective a n d

Totalitarianism's Temptations

187

vivid characterizations of personalities a n d events a d d e d to the book's political appeal. Stalin hovered over the narrative as a pernicious yet s o m e ­ h o w elusive presence, the e m b o d i m e n t of the “state party." Fischer also e m p h a s i z e d the totalitarian character of the K P D a n d its postwar succes­ sor, the Socialist Uni t y Party in the m o s t provocative fashion, concluding that “ the Socialist U nity Party... unites the features of its t w o totalitar­ ian predecessors, the C o m m u n i s t s a n d the Nazis."34 Fischer offered n o comparative model, however, n o r did she h a v e m u c h at all to say about the National Socialists, save for a concluding passage that asserted the strong influence of Stalin o n Nazi organization, propaganda, a n d m e t h ­ ods of social control.35 H e r story w a s the tale of the defeat of the true revo­ lution (Lenin's) b y the false o n e (Stalin's), a me s s a g e w h o s e boldness of a n t i - C o m m u n i s t sentiment likely obscured the persistence of its leftist politics for m a n y readers in the United States. T h e reception of the b o o k a m o n g her old a n d n e w friends o n the left reveals the intense a n d m i x e d response that Fischer so often evoked. S he sent a c o p y of Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m to o n e of her old antagonists of the W e i m a r K P D ' s “Right," Heinrich Brandler, w i t h w h o m she h a d m a n a g e d to establish fairly cordial relations in exile. Brandler wrote to her that “apart f r o m a series of inaccurate details," the b o o k presented a “not u n i m p o r t a n t piece of history," but h e also called its style that of a “red conspiracy," provocatively c o m p a r i n g it with the fraudulent a n d viciously anti-Semitic tract Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Curt Geyer also wrote to Fischer in the fall of 1948, telling her that h e h a d reviewed the book. H e also corrected several of her errors a n d disputed a n u m b e r of her interpretations, continuing this discussion in a second, lengthy letter. G e o r g e Orwell, b y contrast, s o o n registered his great enth u s i a s m for her effort ( t h o u g h h e also offered a gentle correction, n a m e l y that Bertolt Brecht w a s living in G e r m a n y , not in the U nited States, as she h a d claimed), a n d h e m e n t i o n e d that a fo r t h c o m i n g novel of his m i g h t inter­ est her, t h o u g h h e did not reveal its title— Nineteen Eighty-Four.36 Fischer's English admirer w a s about to b e c o m e a far m o r e f a m o u s a n d influential— a n d arguably e v e n m o r e deeply m i s u n d e r s t o o d — leftist a n t i - C o m m u n i s t t h a n she w o u l d be. Karl August Wittfogel also participated in the a n t i - C o m m u n i s t d e n u n ­ ciations of the early cold war, t h o u g h in his o w n w o r k h e continued to d r a w o n portions of Marx's theoretical legacy. H a v i n g b u r n e d his bridges to the C o m m u n i s t Party after the Hitler-Stalin Pact a n d to the Institute of Social Research b y the early cold w a r years, Wittfogel also b e c a m e o n e of the important scholarly critics of C o m m u n i s t China, citing the n e w re-

The Lost Debate

188

g i m e as yet another m ajor e x a m p l e of totalitarian dictatorship. D u r i n g the war, Wittfogel h a d secured a p e r m a n e n t teaching position at the Univer­ sity of W a s h i n g t o n . In addition to his research a n d publication efforts, h e n o w offered his political expertise in the service of national efforts to c o m ­ bat C o m m u n i s m . WittfogePs testimony before congressional committees involved accusing m a j o r scholars in his field of C o m m u n i s t Party affilia­ tion or challenging their professional standing. His actions a n d state­ m e n t s were a n d rightly r e m a i n a controversial episode in the history of postwar a n t i - C o m m u n i s m . Nevertheless, his long-awaited b o o k o n China, Oriental Despotism, received generally positive notices u p o n its publication in 1957, despite his fears a b out organized C o m m u n i s t o p p o ­ sition.37 Its e x a m i n a t i o n of w h a t M a r x a n d other scholars h a d called the “ Asiatic m o d e of production”has, to b e sure, f o u n d its w a y into s o m e stud­ ies of China. But because of the i m m e n s e range of his a r g u m e n t s a n d evi­ dence, WittfogePs influence crossed disciplinary boundaries as well. His ideas o n “hydraulic societies”have f o u n d a place in, for instance, the w o r k of a y o u n g e r generation of innovative historians of the A m e r i c a n West.38 In addition to its c o m p r e h e n s i v e m o d e l of historical d e v e l opment, Oriental Despotism offered several a n t i - C o m m u n i s t diatribes. T h e intro­ duction, for example, contains WittfogePs claim that the “ Asiatic m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n ”c o n cept of civilization that h e p l a n n e d to explore h a d b e e n marginalized a n d even censored u n d e r Soviet authority: “T h e c a m ­ paign against the Asiatic concept s h o w s the master m i n d s of the C o m m u ­ nist c a m p u nable to bolster their rejection wit h rational arguments. This in turn explains the oblique a n d primarily negative m e t h o d s w i t h w h i c h the friends of C o m m u n i s t totalitarianism in the n o n - C o m m u n i s t world o p p o s e the outlawed concept.”39 T h e point here is not to enter into the debate about the a d e q u a c y of the concept of the Asiatic m o d e of p r o d u c ­ tion or WittfogePs investigations of “hydraulic societies”but simply to indicate the extent to w h i c h his scholarship o n the ancient past h a d b e ­ c o m e intertwined with the a n t i - C o m m u n i s t struggle of the present. H o s ­ tile references to the domestic terror in the Soviet U n i o n a n d images of a systematic C o m m u n i s t attack against h i m a n d his w o r k appear at several junctures in the book.40 Just as Fischer's e m b r a c e of anti-Soviet policy held n o interest for Korsch, Borkenau's a n d WittfogePs enthusiastic acceptance of the cold w a r a l i g n m e n t initially f o u n d fe w imitators a m o n g their form e r col­ leagues a n d acquaintances f r o m the Institute of Social Research. For sev­ eral of t h e m , cold w a r politics offered n o m o r e appeal t h a n W e i m a r ' s poli­ tics had. Bu t the w o r k of the institute itself steadily gained a place in

Totalitarianism's Temptations

189

postwar intellectual discussions in b o t h E u r o p e a n d the Unit e d States, cold w a r or no. Indeed, in addition to the inherent interest of m a n y of his philosophical writings, a striking element of M a x H o r k h e i m e r 's career w a s his ability to thrive as the h e a d of a research institute dedicated to projects outside the a c a d e m i c a n d political mainstream. His skills as a n organiza­ tional leader w e r e formidable. H e pared d o w n the institute during w a r ­ time a n d t h e n swiftly rebuilt it— b a c k in G e r m a n y , n o less— b y the m id1950s. T h e h a r d e n i n g of his views o n the issue of totalitarianism, however, m a r k e d Horkheimer's gradual a n d uneasy truce with the cold war. Despite his everlasting dislike for the United States a n d its culture, h e b e c a m e a n even m o r e o u t s p o k e n critic of the M a r x i s m of the Soviet Uni o n . E v e n in T h e Eclipse of Reason, published in 1947, H o r k h e i m e r m a d e explicitly p o ­ litical the kind of philosophical criticism of the Soviet U n i o n that h a d a ppeared earlier in Dialectic of Enlightenment a n d s o m e of his essays: 'Theories e m b o d y i n g critical insight into historical processes, w h e n used for panaceas, h a v e often turned into repressive doctrines. As recent his­ tory teaches, this holds true for radical as well as for conservative d o c ­ trines.” 41 H o r k h e i m e r did not n a m e names, but the target of these remarks is clear e nough. In the spirit of such writers as H a n n a h Arendt, Leo Strauss, D a n t e G e r m i n o , a n d Michael Oakeshott, H o r k h e i m e r labored to preserve for political philos o p h y a sphere " b e y o n d ideology”a n d partisan politi­ cal battles.42 T h e point of Horkheimer's unwillingness to participate m o r e directly in politics w a s not only or primarily, as a few of his Marxist crit­ ics have argued, just to indulge a reactionary a n d "existential”politics, or eve n simply to avoid getting his h a n d s dirty w ith partisan issues, but also to preserve a standpoint f r o m w h i c h to criticize the very character a n d concerns of c o n t e m p o r a r y political culture.43 In the context of the early postwar period, this goal allowed a m o r e o p e n rejection of not only W e s t ­ ern capitalism but Soviet C o m m u n i s m as well (if not always of M a r x i s m per se). H o r k h e i m e r a n d Adorno's critique of "totalitarian reason”a d ­ dressed W e s t e r n civilization's inherent tendencies t o w a r d d o m i n a t i o n that neither the great cold w a r powe r s n o r their m o s t influential political intellectuals paid m u c h attention to in the first decade after the war. In 1968, t w o long decades after the beginning of the cold war, Horkhei­ m e r wrote a n e w preface for s o m e old essays, the collection issued in E n ­ glish as Critical Theory. In this preface, written at the height of student protests in the Federal Republic, h e c o n d e m n e d b o t h Soviet totalitarian­ i s m a n d the N e w Left. As if to close the circle of his youthful radicalism a n d his later skepticism, h e attended to b o t h chores b y referring to the

T h e Lost D e b a t e

190

w o r d s of Rosa L u x e m b u r g — m a n a g i n g at the s a m e time to put in a g o o d word, if not exactly a hurrah, for “the so-called free w o r l d ”: Despite h e r a d h e r e n c e to t h e Russian Revolution, R o s a L u x e m b u r g , w h o m so m a n y students venerate, said fifty years a g o that “t h e r e m e d y w h i c h Trotsky a n d L e n i n h a v e f o u n d , t h e e l i m i nation of d e m o c r a c y as such, is w o r s e t h a n t h e disease it is s u p p o s e d to cure.”T o protect, preserve, and, w h e r e possible, e x t e n d t h e limited a n d e p h e m e r a l f r e e d o m of t h e indi­ vidual in t h e face of t h e g r o w i n g threat to it is far m o r e u r g e n t a task t h a n to issue abstract d e n u n c i a t i o n s of it or to e n d a n g e r it b y actions that h a v e n o h o p e of success. In totalitarian countries y o u t h is struggling precisely for that a u t o n o m y w h i c h is u n d e r p e r m a n e n t threat in nontotalitarian countries. W h a t e v e r th e reasons offered in justification, for t h e left to h e l p t h e a d v a n c e of a totalitarian b u r e a u c r a c y is a p s e u d o r e v o l u t i o n a r y act, a n d for t h e right to s u p p o r t t h e t e n d e n c y to terrorism is a p s e u d o c o n s e r v a t i v e act. A s recent history proves, b o t h tendencies are really m o r e closely related to e a c h o t h e r t h a n to t h e ideas to w h i c h t h e y a p p e a l for s u p p o r t . ... T o j u d g e t h e so-called free w o r l d b y its o w n c o n c e p t of itself, to take a critical attitude t o w a r d s it a n d yet to s t a n d b y its ideas, a n d to d e f e n d it against fascism, Stalinist, Hitlerian, or a n y other, is t h e right a n d d u t y of e v e r y th i n k i n g m a n . Despite its d a n g e r o u s potential, despite all th e injustice that m a r k s its course b o t h at h o m e a n d abroad, th e free w o r l d is at t h e m o m e n t still a n island in space a n d time, a n d its destruction in t h e o c e a n of rule b y violence w o u l d also m e a n t h e destruction of t h e culture of w h i c h t h e critical t h e o r y is a part. T o link these essays w i t h m y o w n current position o n these matt e r s is o n e m o t i v e for their reissue.44

Here w e find not only the equating of the Left's a n d the Right's hostility to a critical a n d rational We s t e r n tradition— o n e philosopher's only partly qualified support for the cold w a r antitotalitarian outlook— but also a hint of the durable “ b o t h ends against the m i d d l e ”explanation for the collapse of the W e i m a r Republic. In this preface, H o r k h e i m e r w a s not so distant in his thinking, or the tone of his expression of it, f r o m the early postwar writings of Franz Borkenau. T h e difficult strategy of theoretical critique a n d political distance h e a n d A d o r n o h a d attempted to practice proved increasingly u ntenable during the volatile 1960s. Yet to dismiss their project out of h a n d as insufficiently radical is to b e g the question of w h a t exactly constitutes a post-Marxian radical politics.45 Horkheimer's former colleague Herbert M a r c u s e w o u l d c h o o s e a different path, o n e that led in the direction of answering precisely that question. F r o m the mid-i93os on, M a r c u s e h a d consistently held to s o m e type of antitotalitarian critique, t h o u g h the nature a n d focus of that critique

Totalitarianism's Temptations

191

c h a n g e d s o m e w h a t over time. T h e cold war, however, r e m a i n e d for h i m a p rimary target. His postwar writings, w h i c h m a d e h i m o n e of the i m p o r ­ tant theoretical sources for adherents of the N e w Left in the United States, France, a n d G e r m a n y , have b e c o m e as widely k n o w n as those of a n y of the intellectuals of the G e r m a n Left discussed in this book. In the light of this fact, a f e w of those instances w h e n his singular b r a n d of antitotalitar­ ianism m a d e its appearance n e e d e m p hasis here, for h o w e v e r o n e judges its strengths a n d weaknesses, Marcuse's philosophical project constituted at least a n attempt to generate n e w currents of radical thinking a n d poli­ tics in the midst of w h a t h e perceived as cold w a r stagnation.46 His first m a j o r postwar b o o k w a s Eros a n d Civilization. O f all of his books, this o n e indicated m o s t clearly his aptitude for developing i n n o ­ vative philosophical constructions. M a r c u s e freely b o r r o w e d critical theo­ retical notions a n d terminology f r o m M a r x a n d Freud, but h e did not s i m ­ ply repeat the pattern of their conceptual architecture. In the d y n a m i c character of his philosophical work, h e h a d few peers a m o n g those w h o continued to call themselves Marxists during the cold war. Also during this period, his critique of totalitarianism, for all its challengeable a s s u m p ­ tions a n d occasional political naïveté, retained a provocative idiosyncrasy that— for s o m e N e w Leftists, at least— po s e d a tactically useful counter­ a r g u m e n t to h e g e m o n i c cold w a r ideology. His 1958 study, Soviet Marxism, for example, m u s t b e read as a gutsy t h o u g h at times necessarily a w k w a r d attempt to discuss the subject n a m e d in the title without “ playing into the h a n d s of”either party to the cold war.47 M o s t important, Marcuse's analy­ sis of totalitarianism insisted o n the c o m p l e x a n d historical character of political d e v e l o p m e n t s a n d intellectual traditions, a n d h e refused to m o d e l the Soviet U n i o n as a fixed a n d implacable social order. T h e very w o r d totalitarianism, M a r c u s e argued, s o m e t i m e s blocked a n effective in­ vestigation into the nature of the twentieth century: “ T h e usage of the w o r d 'totalitarianism' as a catchall for the Platonic, Hegelian, Fascist, a n d M a r x i a n philosophies readily serves to cover u p the historical link b e ­ t w e e n totalitarianism a n d its opposite, a n d the historical reasons w h i c h caused classical h u m a n i s m to turn into its negation.''48 T h e b o o k chal­ lenged a host of cold w a r terms a n d conclusions, a n d the m o s t important passages of Soviet M a r x i s m are those that attempt to highlight a n d evalu­ ate the fragmentary evidence of the transition a w a y f r o m the totalitarian terror of the Stalinist era. M a r c u s e w a s also u n i q u e a m o n g those w h o re­ ferred to the Soviet U n i o n as “totalitarian”in that h e argued that a f un­ d a m e n t a l difference b e t w e e n that r e gime a n d Nazi G e r m a n y w a s the former's historical roots in Marxist rationality a n d the latter's utterly de-

The Lost Debate

192

structive (th o u g h instrumentally rationalized) irrationality. In his view, Soviet M a r x i s m contained at least the possibility that its irrational c o m ­ ponents of exploitation a n d oppression w o u l d be eroded b y the persistent d e m a n d s of its rational social goals.49 H e explicitly m e n t i o n e d the p r o b l e m of totalitarianism only rarely in his renewal a n d redirection of Freudian social criticism, Eros a n d Civiliza­ tion. But w h e n discussion of this issue appeared in the text, it indicated the general target of his postwar writings, even t h o u g h the angle of attack w o u l d c h a n g e f r o m w o r k to work: 'Totalitarianism spreads over late in­ dustrial civilization w herever the interests of d o m i n a t i o n prevail u p o n productivity, arresting a n d diverting its potentialities. T h e people have to be kept in a state of p e r m a n e n t mobilization, internal a n d external. T h e rationality of d o m i n a t i o n has progressed to the point w h e r e it threatens to invalidate its foundations; therefore it m u s t be reaffirmed m o r e effec­ tively t h a n ever before.”50 T h e target w a s "late industrial civilization”— often simply called, rather hopefully, "late capitalism”— a n d M a r c u s e w a n t e d to exp o s e its oppressive character, particularly in the Unit e d States. In a critique that h e shared w i t h the authors of Dialectic of Enlight­ enment, H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o , M a r c u s e pointed to the "rationality of d o m i n a t i o n ”as the ideology undergirding the i m m e n s e structure of the m o d e r n military-industrial state. These a r g uments were to b e c o m e staples of N e w Left critique—with the t e r m totalitarianism typically omitted b e ­ cause of its association wit h pro-Western a n t i - C o m m u n i s m . In his c o n ­ tinued use of the terms totalitarian a n d totalitarianism, M a r c u s e stood vir­ tually alone a m o n g radical leftist thinkers. Hence, the sharply hostile response of the G e r m a n student radical Rudi D u t s c h k e in 1967 to M a r ­ cuse's use of the t e r m totalitarian to describe the Soviet U nion, a n d M a r x ­ ist historian R e i nhard K ü h n T s sarcastic quotation m a r k s w h e n h e dis­ cussed Marcuse's "left”version of the theory of totalitarianism.51 B y using the t e r m totalitarian, though, M a r c u s e did not intend merely to disparage certain objectionable political-state regimes. Instead, h e re­ ferred to all "overdeveloped”societies (as h e called t h e m in Eros a n d Civi­ lization) that denied the possibilities of f r e e d o m in the n a m e of efficiency a n d order. This u n o r t h o d o x use of the t e r m certainly served to anger those w h o w o u l d never i m a g i n e bracketing the U nited States a n d the Soviet U n i o n as c o m m o n l y "totalitarian”regimes. Moreover, as the historian Christopher Lasch w o u l d argue s o m e years later in T h e M i n i m a l Self Marcuse's provocative use of the t e r m risked dissipating the force of the w o r d that h a d o n c e b e e n reserved as a label for the m o s t murderously vio­ lent regimes a n d practices of the century. In this sense, Lasch continued,

Totalitarianism's Temptations

193

the w o r k of Orwell a n d Arendt o n the p r o b l e m of totalitarianism w a s far superior to all the variations o n the t h e m e that followed during the 1950s, for, in spite of the questions that could be raised about elements of their w o r k a n d their politics, Orwell a n d Arendt h a d b e e n right in insisting o n b o t h the horror a n d the novelty of Nazi a n d Stalinist totalitarianism, t h o u g h Arendt w o u l d later blunt the force of this critique s o m e w h a t with her f a m o u s formulation o n the Nazi “ banality of evil.”C o l d w a r totalitar­ ian theory typologists a n d left-wing critics of totalitarianism alike h a d too often missed, ignored, or occasionally e v e n “trivialized”these issues. Lasch's points in this discussion are largely o n the mark. For all its philo­ sophical a n d political radicalism, Marcuse's antitotalitarian critique of the interwar years gradually lost its edge in the postwar period. His defiant resistance to postwar intellectual a c c o m m o d a t i o n i s m r e m a i n e d appeal­ ing to m a n y individuals in the y o u n g e r generation of students a n d schol­ ars, but his political conclusions s o m e t i m e s rang false, particularly w h e n they attempted to stretch a comparative m o d e l of totalitarianism to suit a n embattled anti-cold w a r perspective. It m u s t be men t i o n e d , however, that in their blurring of political a n d historical distinctions in the service of politics or policies quite at o d d s with Marcuse's perspective, the d o m i ­ n a n t cold w a r versions of totalitarian theory were often n o better. T h e m o s t interesting a n d successful of M a r c u s e ’ s considerations of totalitarianism deflects at least partially the kind of criticisms Lasch raised. One-Dimensional M a n also risked trivializing or at least diminishing the terror a n d oppression of the totalitarian states of the 1930s a n d 1940s, but a n y o n e w h o uses the t e r m totalitarian in a comparative sense risks this. One-Dimensional M a n argued that the brutally violent techniques of the crude a n d horrible Nazi a n d Stalinist totalitarian regimes m a y n o longer be necessary. T h e diversity of ideological instruments b y w h i c h industrial civilization sustains itself has created a different kind of totalitarianism. It generates support a n d subverts criticism without the n e e d to apply ran­ d o m or systematic terror a n d o p e n threats of physical coercion. In short, M a r c u s e maintained, the success of “ the empire of civilization”has b e ­ c o m e so c o m p l e t e that “o n e is willing to a d m i t e c o n o m i c a n d political m a d n e s s — a n d o n e buy s it.”52 Totalitarianism, M a r c u s e intimated, is n o w in your head, so to speak, a psychologically i m p o s e d force of “repressive desublimation”in the service of the needs of d o m i n a n t institutions to d e n y individual liberation a n d happiness. His perspective o n the p r o b l e m of totalitarian authority closely paralleled the concerns of H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o . But instead of accepting their pessimistic political conclu­ sions, M a r c u s e focused, for a time at least, o n the role of radical political

T h e Lost D e b a t e

194

action as at least a possible point of collective resistance to the n e w totali­ tarianism. T h e shifting topical emp h a s i s a n d diverse rhetorical tones of Marcuse's philosophical writings m a y be interpreted as effectively through the grid of his persisting antitotalitarianism as they are b y m e a n s of his m o r e obvious focus o n liberation, for w h e t h e r h e discussed t h e m in terms of political ideology, idealist philosophy, social a n d individual psychology, or utopian revolution, totalitarianism a n d liberation— as h e defined t h e m — r e m a i n e d the essential polar stars b y w h i c h M a r c u s e navigated his evolving philosophical project for over four decades.53 T h e manifest strengths a n d weaknesses of Marcuse's w o r k raise the question of w h e t h e r a n y concept of totalitarianism is really required to provide the basis of struggles for “liberation" or “containment," for this is w h a t these theories are ultimately about, in practical political a n d ideo­ logical terms: conflict, oppression, resistance, a n d liberation. T h e “great refusal" of cold w a r bipolarism advocated b y M a r c u s e offered at least a theoretical m e a n s of holding to a kind of radicalism (and the question of w h e t h e r his w a s a Marxist radicalism is u n i m p o r t a n t to m y specific point here) a n d at the s a m e time subverting b o t h the terminology a n d the as­ s u m p t i o n s of the cold war. A s a strategy, the “great refusal”d e m a n d e d a degree of critical tenacity a n d a n acceptance of personal isolation for w h i c h o n l y a very f e w m e m b e r s of Marcuse's y o u n g e r a udience h a d sufficient patience. A s s o m e of his socialist critics w o u l d argue, this strat­ egy still left o p e n the question of w h e t h e r such a “refusal" constituted a n effective radical politics. At the s a m e time, s o m e of his even m o r e hostile a n d vociferous conservative a n d liberal o p p o n e n t s w o u l d insist that his political position simply registered the discontent of a defeated philo­ sophical-utopian elite.54 Marcuse's writings stand as a paradoxical a n d contested r e m n a n t of the heterodox leftist tradition of antitotalitarian critique.

T he L o n g M a r c h Through the Institutions O n e of the m o s t important intellectual a n d cultural consequences of leftw i n g antitotalitarianism in the postwar period w a s its impact o n the post­ w a r G e r m a n a c a d e m y . T h e return of H o r k h e i m e r a n d the institute to Frankfurt a n d the subsequent careers of b o t h constitute important epi­ sodes, but the institute's retreat f r o m politics w a s strongly evident until the e m e r g e n c e of Jürgen H a b e r m a s as the leading figure in a n e w genera­ tion of institute scholars.55 A n o t h e r a c a d e m i c institution b e c a m e a m u c h m o r e vital scene of the creation a n d reception of political a n d scholarly

Totalitarianism's Temptations

195

antitotalitarianism: the Freie Universität Berlin. F o u n d e d in 1948 during the Berlin blockade as a n alternative to the H u m b o l d t Universität in the Soviet sector of Berlin, the Free University w a s certainly the quintessen­ tial cold w a r institution of higher education in postwar G e r m a n y . Franz N e u m a n n h a d b e e n o n e of the m o s t important advocates of a n e w un i ­ versity in the A m e r i c a n z o n e of the city. A n o t h e r f ounding figure of the Free University a n d a key on-site adviser to the A m e r i c a n general Lucius Clay w a s Carl J. Friedrich, the H a r v a r d professor w h o s o o n b e c a m e the leading theorist of totalitarianism in the United States.56 O t h e r scholars associated w i t h totalitarian theory w h o taught at the Free University in the cold w a r period included Richard L ö w enthal a n d Ernst Fraenkel. Ossip Flechtheim, w h o h a d b e e n a n Institute of Social Research assistant to Franz N e u m a n n a n d w h o w a s also a n old N e u B e g i n n e n c o m r a d e of Löwenthal, w a s another left antitotalitarian w h o eventually joined the political science faculty in Berlin.57 Ernst Fraenkel's postwar approach to political science s h o w s even m o r e clearly t h a n N e u m a n n ' s h o w M a r x i s m w a s a b a n d o n e d a n d antitotal­ itarianism a n d parliamentary interest-group theory took its place. In his relatively rapid integration into the postwar a c a demic scene, Fraenkel w a s a n atypical e x a m p l e of those left-wing antitotalitarians w h o f o u n d places in the G e r m a n acade m y . H e m o v e d perhaps the furthest a w a y f r o m c o n ­ nections w i t h eve n the “ purely academic" M a r x i s m that N e u m a n n h a d described in his Berlin radio lecture of 1950, a n d his w o r k did not often s o u n d the s a m e notes of irritation a n d dissent that frequently e m e r g e d in the writings of b o t h N e u m a n n a n d Otto Kirchheimer.58 Fraenkel b e c a m e k n o w n for a party a n d institutional a p p r o a c h to politics that m e s h e d neatly w i t h the social scientific m e t h o d s t h e n d o m i n a n t in the United States. His long a n d productive tenure at the Free University, w h i c h h e capped, appropriately enou g h , as director of the school's center for A m e r i ­ ca n studies ( e x p a n d e d u n d e r the n a m e J o h n F. K e n n e d y Institut starting in late ^63), w a s m a r k e d b y a n initially c a l m period of political m o d e r a ­ tion a n d methodological orthodoxy, later shattered b y the student m o v e ­ m e n t of the late 1960s.59 C o l d war-era adherence to the social scientific m o d e l of totalitarianism w a s o n e of the issues that w o u l d provoke the indignation of s o m e of the N e w Left's m o r e theoretically adept m e m b e r s . A n o t h e r of the left-wing antitotalitarians w h o taught politics at the Free University during the 1960s, Richard Löwenthal, h a d concluded the w a r ­ time period w o r k i n g as a correspondent for the B B C but the n returned to G e r m a n y , w h e r e h e participated in the reorganization of the SPD. H e b e ­ c a m e friendly with o n e of the other y o u n g returning exiles w h o gathered

T h e Lost D e b a t e

196

in Berlin: Willy Brandt. In 1946, h e also authored a n important study of e c o n o m i c s a n d politics entitled Jenseits des Kapitalismus (.Beyond Capital­ ism).60 After several years of w o r k as a journalist in Europe a n d as a scholar in the United States, Löwe n t h a l eventually gained a chair o n the faculty of the Institut für Politikwissenschaft (Institute of Political Science) at the Free University.61 There h e b e c a m e k n o w n as a n expert o n Soviet a n d Asian p o ­ litical developments. H e also involved himself as Rudi Dutschke's antago­ nist during debates in connection wit h the Socialist G e r m a n Students' League (Sozialistische Deutsche Studenten— SDS) protests of 1967 a n d 1968 against the shah of Iran a n d the w a r policy of the United States in Vietnam.62 D u t s c h k e w a s o n e of the m o s t brilliant a n d certainly the m o s t charis­ matic of the y o u n g intellectuals of the G e r m a n N e w Left ( N e u e Linke). After barely surviving a brutal assassination attempt in 1968, D u t s c h k e w o u l d p r o d u c e his o w n reinterpretation of M a r x i s m , o n e that d r e w heavily o n the writings of Lenin a n d G e o r g Lukâcs— the intellectual revo­ lutionary a n d the revolutionary intellectual— w h o h a d b e e n so m arkedly influential o n the y o u n g G e r m a n leftists of Löwenthal's generation. Dutschke's book, Ein Versuch Lenin au f die F ü ß e zu stellen (An Attempt to Stand Lenin on His Feet)fexplored the legacy of the Russian Revolution in search of a foundation for the kind of Marxist revolutionary politics that L ö w e n t h a l h a d long since a b a n d o n e d . E v e n their shared emphasis o n the role of avant-garde leftist groups a n d their admiration for Lenin could not bridge the political gap regarding U.S. foreign policy, university issues, a n d the S P D itself that lay b e t w e e n t h e m . Their confrontation during the height of leftist activism against the politics a n d policies of the Federal Republic thus offered a powerful distillation of intraleft generational conflict: the radical student leader of the late W e i m a r years took o n the radical student leader of the sixties.63 Herbert Marcuse's visit to the Free University in the s u m m e r of 1967 served as the catalyst for their public dispute. D u r i n g this debate in the c r o w d e d A u d i m a x o n the Free University campus, Dutschke m a d e his criti­ cal statement about Marcuse's a n d Löwenthal's use of the t e r m totalitarian in their remarks. Dutschke c o n d e m n e d Totalitarismustheorie as a n ideologi­ cal apparatus that flattened a n d distorted the past: "I find it a s h a m e that Professors M a r c u s e a n d Löwenthal, with various differences, have used the notion of totalitarianism as a comprehensive concept for different systems. W i t h such a notion the historical d i m e n s i o n gets lost... ."64 Dutschke's targets in 1967 were t w o veterans of these earlier discussions of totalitarian dictatorship, individuals w h o were each other's political a n d intellectual opponents, m e n w h o h a d for over twenty years b e e n contesting the m e a n -

Totalitarianism's Temptations

197

ing a n d function of totalitarianism a n d socialism in the postwar world. It s e e m s reasonable to call such a m o m e n t b o t h a typical a n d ironic e x a m p l e of the fate of left-wing antitotalitarianism in G e r m a n y . T h e divergent a n d c o m bative views of L ö w e n t h a l a n d M a r c u s e o n the p r o b l e m of totalitari­ a n i s m w ere at least partly lost o n the y o u n g e r Dutschke, w h o rejected the term's use out of hand. T h e m o s t logical target of Dutschke's remarks—the Friedrich-Brzezinski m o d e l of totalitarianism—w a s at best only partly rep­ resented b y Löwenthal's position in the debate, but n o matter. In addition to the other sparks that were struck that d a y — a n d there w ere apparently m a n y — the old a n t a g o n i s m b e t w e e n Löwenthal a n d M a r c u s e w a s o n e that flared quickly. As significant “elder statesmen" in the battles b e t w e e n the G e r m a n N e w Left a n d the SPD, M a r c u s e a n d L ö w e n t h a l each took u p the role of representative combatant. T h e philosopher d e f ended his revolu­ tionary a n d anticapitalist antitotalitarianism, a n d the political scientist d e ­ fended his reformist a n d a n t i - C o m m u n i s t antitotalitarianism. In his re­ m a i n i n g years, D u t s c h k e w o u l d attempt to carve his o w n path, but h e inevitably passed over s o m e of the s a m e political a n d theoretical terrain that M a r c u s e a n d L ö w e n t h a l h a d trodden decades earlier.65 L ö w e n t h a P s activities in Berlin were hardly limited to the cam p u s . H e also contributed mightily to the intellectual a n d policy debates within the SPD, remai n i n g a n important figure in the party's intelligentsia t h r o u g h the 1980s. Despite his willingness to maintain a dialogue with the Socialist U n i t y Party, his antipathy to C o m m u n i s m never flagged. Löwenthal's publications of the 1950s a n d 1960s bore such titles as World C o m m u n i s m : T h e Disintegration of a Secular Faith.66 In i960, h e published a n essay that placed h i m squarely a m o n g the defenders of a version of cold w a r anti­ totalitarianism, a n d for several years thereafter Löwenthal's b o o k s contin­ u e d to rely to s o m e extent o n the cold w a r totalitarianism m o d e l . 67 B y the 1970s a n d 1980s, however, as if in belated response to Dutschke's sharp w o r d s about the urgent n e e d to retain “the historical d i m e n ­ sion," L ö w e n t h a l b e g a n to insist that the notion of totalitarianism h a d outlived its proper historical context because the Soviet U n i o n h a d u n d e r ­ g o n e f u n d a m e n t a l c hanges since Stalin's death. H e b e g a n to argue that only the Hitler a n d Stalin dictatorships of the 1929-53 period merited the label “totalitarian.”Its c o n tinued use, L ö w e n t h a l concluded, w a s m o r e polemical t h a n scientific. T h e w o rld h a d entered a perplexing a n d still dangerous era, but o n e rich w i t h possibilities for cooperation or at least tolerance, w h i c h h e labeled “ post-totalitarian." Responses to Löwenthal's n ewest revisionism w e r e no t always positive, e v e n a m o n g s o m e of his lon g t i m e admirers, but his s h r e w d a n d forthright redefinitions of the

T h e Lost D e b a t e

198

probl e m s of dictatorship a n d revolution in his writings of the 1980s were characteristic m o v e s for this relentlessly skeptical political thinker.68 F r o m the W e i m a r C o m m u n i s t Party through N e u B e g innen to the post­ w a r SPD, L ö w e n t h a P s political a n d intellectual career characteristically re­ vealed a dispassionate sense of the possibilities of the given m o m e n t a n d the unstinting defense of reason in politics. H e also remained, in m a r k e d contrast to his old friend Franz Borkenau, a successful “organization m a n , ” a n outspoken a n d i n d e p e n d e n t - m i n d e d o n e to be sure but o n e w h o sought to exert influence t h r o u g h his role in the SPD, as a m e m b e r of a c a d e m i c c ommittees a n d institutions, a n d as a n adviser o n public policies as well as t h r ough his writings. Th e s e strategies a n d the organizational “insider style,”if o n e c an call it that, wer e typical of very few other intellectuals discussed in this book, perhaps only Franz N e u m a n n (with w h o m L ö w e n ­ thal h a d apparently h a d little or n o personal contact). In L ö w e n t h a P s c o n ­ sistent adherence to this strategy— a n d also in his formidable ability to pull it off— h e stands out a m o n g the thinkers of this group. His antitotal­ itarianism, with its roots in the W e i m a r period, w a s always theoretically a n d practically tactical, a n d it served primarily as a m e a n s of disassociat­ ing his cautious a n d institutionally oriented democratic socialism f r o m w h a t h e considered to be the disastrous legacy of C o m m u n i s m . T h e role of antitotalitarian theory in the postwar G e r m a n a c a d e m y has not disappeared since L ö w e n t h a l a n d Fraenkel were leading figures at the Free University, but it has certainly w a n e d , at least as a concern of politi­ cal scientists. Historians, however, have continued to discuss a n d debate the origins, adequacy, a n d purposes of Totalitarismustheorie. A small n u m ­ ber of scholars, particularly the controversial Ernst Nolte, w i s h e d to rein­ vigorate the cold w a r version of the notion, but others have discussed it mostly to c o n d e m n it as either a reductive m o d e l of limited use or the ideo­ logical tool of G e r m a n a n d A m e r i c a n neoconservatism. In late 1988, a lec­ ture took place at the Free University during its fortieth anniversary cel­ ebration that revealed s o m e t h i n g of the m i x e d fate of Totalitarismustheorie at that institution a n d the w a y s in w h i c h the conflicts over the concept dating b ack to the 1960s continued to be replayed there.69 In a discussion of the topic “Die F U — ein Bollwerk der Totalitarismustheorie?" (“ The F U — A Bulwark of Totalitarianism T h e o r y ? ”), the historian W o l f g a n g Wipperm a n n , a specialist o n fascism a n d N a z i s m a n d a veteran of the student political disputes of the 1960s, argued that the premises of the theory of totalitarianism were false but that it survived because it h a d long proven politically convenient for conservatives. Furthermore, h e argued, the Free University h a d served as a bastion of the theory f r o m 1948 to the present.

Totalitarianism's Temptations

199

In the course of his remarks, w h i c h w e r e quite well received b y the several d o z e n students in attendance, W i p p e r m a n n cited N e u m a n n , Löwenthal, Fraenkel, a n d Fle c h t h e i m as e x a m p l e s of leftist antifascists w h o h a d later b e c o m e antitotalitarians, for reasons h e did not attack. His sharpest criticisms w e r e a i m e d at the slavophobic scholars w o r k i n g o n topics related to Eastern E u r o p e (Ostforschung) a n d at “race”researchers at the university, including s o m e professors w h o h a d b e e n holdovers f r o m the Nazi period. In his response to W i p p e r m a n n ' s remarks, Gert-Joachim Glaeßner, a political scientist, did not disagree with his historian colleague but c o n cluded simply that f e w political scientists even cared m u c h about Totalitarismustheorie a n y longer. His criticism of the theory limited itself to totalitarianism's weaknesses as a n empirical concept a n d d o w n p l a y e d its political basis or implications. Before closing remarks or rebuttals could be offered, a lively, loud, a n d assertive g r o u p of student protesters entered the lecture hall, requested a n d received the attention of those assembled, a n d d e n o u n c e d proposed c h a n g e s in the university's Latin A m e r i c a n Institute, o n e of the last strongholds of leftist faculty radicalism. T h e demonstration gained n o ­ table numerical strength b y the addition of students f r o m the audience for this critical discussion of Totalitarismustheorie, w h i c h t h e n c a m e to a n abrupt halt. T h e protest action c o n t i n u e d that e vening a n d led to a universitywide strike that eventually spread to the d o w n t o w n c a m p u s of the Technische Universität a n d lasted the remainder of the winter s e m e s ­ ter. A course o n Faschismustheorie w a s a m o n g the better attended studentr u n seminars of the “ Streiksemester. ”O n e of the students' d e m a n d s (which, to the surprise of few, ultimately w e n t u n h e e d e d ) w a s to r e n a m e the Otto Suhr Institut— the university's D e p a r t m e n t of Political Science— the Rudi D utschke Institut. As this m i n o r episode s e e m e d to indicate, a truly “ postcold w a r ”Free University could be s o m e years in the m aking, despite the fall of the Berlin Wal l that occurred roughly a year later. M o r e important for the concerns of this study, the theory of totalitarianism proved o n c e m o r e to b e a n outcast notion for m a n y y o u n g e r G e r m a n leftists. In short, the ghosts of the N e u e Linke a n d N e u B e g i n n e n continued to engage in a bitter a n d earnest debate.

Legacies of the “ Lost De b a t e ” T h e repetition a n d fetishization of the cold w a r concept of totalitarian­ i s m b y political intellectuals a n d politicians o n the right in W e s t e r n E u ­ rope a n d the United States during the 1980s shrewdly took advantage of

T h e Lost D e b a t e

200

the utter rejection of the concept b y m a n y political intellectuals o n the left. T h e forgetfulness of m a n y leftists, liberals, a n d conservatives regard­ ing the varied but substantial historical legacy of left-wing criticism of totalitarian regimes served the political interests of conservatives a n d cold w a r liberals m o s t effectively. M a n y a m o n g the postwar generation of leftw i n g or liberal intellectuals in the United States a n d Euro p e often could neither entirely e m b r a c e n o r reject the p r e d o m i n a n t comparative m o d e l of totalitarian theory that w a s deployed with varying effectiveness over the years to attack the Soviet U n i o n and, b y extension, to explain the n e e d for the cold war. It was, after all, a m o d e l that often helped marginalize or even attack their scholarly a n d political activity.70 E v e n so, a n y failure to c o n d e m n a v o w e d l y left-wing dictatorial regimes because of the politi­ cal proximity of the target to one's o w n beliefs a n d ideas risked the kind of m u d d l e d avoidance, political duplicity, a n d intellectual cowardice c o n ­ d e m n e d b y s u c h Marxist a n d non-Marxist radicals as Karl K o r s c h a n d C l a u d e Lefort. O n e leftist scholar has argued the point this way: “T h e p h e n o m e n o n called 'totalitarianism' c a n neither b e explained a w a y b y 'circumstances,' nor denied simply because it serves 'the enemies of social­ ism.'"71 This is a crucial theoretical a n d political issue for a n y reconsidera­ tion of socialism in the late twentieth century. T h a t m a n y leftists c o n tinued to e m b r a c e the “Soviet m o d e l " or to e x ­ plain a w a y its various “flaws" is undeniable, but there were other voices o n the left as well. It is important to recall t w o related but distinct features of the history of the production a n d reception of totalitarian theory. First, criticism of dictatorship a n d the abuse of state p o w e r in regimes claiming a Marxist or socialist basis simply w a s not neglected b y a n u m b e r of think­ ers o n the left in G e r m a n y or other nations before, during, or after the cold war. S o m e G e r m a n leftists h a d b e g u n such a broadly comparative a n d politically focused critique of the Soviet U n i o n a n d Nazi G e r m a n y before the e n d of W e i m a r . Second, willingness to criticize the Soviet U n i o n — particularly its long Stalinist p h a s e — did not at the s a m e time license the conclusion that a n y a n d all versions of the totalitarianism thesis w e r e equally valid. E v e n into the 1980s, the various cold war-era versions of totalitarian theory w e r e alternatively accepted, qualified, revised, or re­ jected— a n d for historically specific a n d identifiable reasons—b y s o m e of the s a m e G e r m a n socialist intellectuals w h o h a d helped construct c o n ­ cepts of totalitarianism in the first place. T h e s e thinkers generally left b e h i n d neither a h a n d y policy formula n o r a n all-purpose comparative m o d e l but instead offered questions a n d alternatives, which, despite the passage of decades, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the e n d of the cold war, a n d

Totalitarianism's Temptations

201

perhaps e v e n the “e n d of history'7— w h i c h already appears to have b e e n t e m p o r a r y — h a v e not b e e n entirely surpassed.72 W h a t Jürgen H a b e r m a s wrote a decade ago in response to the attempt b y Ernst Nolte a n d others to write histories of the Nazi dictatorship that w o u l d “normalize”the past a n d provide a shared historical identity m i g h t also b e said of debates about the history of concepts of totalitarianism: T h e inevitable pluralism of readings, w h i c h is b y n o m e a n s u n m o n i t o r e d b u t o n th e co n t r a r y r e n d e r e d transparent, o n l y reflects th e structure of o p e n societies. It provides a n o p p o r t u n i t y to clarify one's o w n identity­ f o r m i n g traditions in their a m b i v alences. This is precisely w h a t is n e e d e d for t h e critical a p p r o priation of a m b i g u o u s traditions, that is, for t h e d e ­ v e l o p m e n t of a historical conscio u s n e s s that is equally i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h closed i m a g e s of history that h a v e a s e c o n d a r y quasi-natural character a n d w i t h all f o r m s of conventional, that is, prereflexively shared identity.73

As H a b e r m a s wrote wit h reference to the continuing debates about the G e r m a n historical past, it is equally clear that the role of the “a m b i g u o u s tradition”of antitotalitarianism in that very history will r e m a i n bitterly contested. Obviously, the pro b l e m s associated with the battles over the nature of m o d e r n dictatorship a n d the place of these debates in the c o n ­ voluted a n d often tragic history of the G e r m a n Left in the twentieth c e n ­ tury h ave not b e e n resolved in the course of this study— no r w a s such a resolution m y intent. A s of this writing, these p r o b l e m s have already re­ appeared but not in the terms c o m m o n in 1933 or 1945. T h e political ter­ rain of G e r m a n y looks familiar only to those w h o are eternally prepared to issue a n a n s w e r to “the G e r m a n Question.”This landscape has p r o b ­ ably c h a n g e d irreversibly, a n d the ideological boundaries of a n e w G e r ­ m a n political culture r e m a i n in considerable flux, eve n t h o u g h G e r m a n geographical boundaries are n o w likely to r e m a i n in place for s o m e time. G e r m a n a n d other leftists m a y well continue to conclude that n o n e of the past antitotalitarian outlooks of the sort discussed here is sufficient to the requirements of socialist theory or action in the present. But at least s o m e traces of the various theoretical debates I hav e reconstructed in the fore­ going pages r e m a i n e d visible in later considerations o n totalitarianism. W h a t follows is intended as a selective survey of these connections, not as a n exhaustive critique of all their n u m e r o u s ramifications. First, s o m e important ideas gr o w i n g out of G e r m a n left-wing critiques of dictatorship wer e evident in the w o r k of the t w o m o s t f a m o u s writers o n the topic of totalitarianism: H a n n a h Arendt a n d G e o r g e Orwell. Five decades after their first publication, T h e Origins of Totalitarianism a n d

T h e Lost D e b a t e

202

Nineteen Eighty-Four continue to be the m o s t influential interpretations of totalitarianism. E x a m i n i n g their relation to earlier leftist critiques is a m e a n s of articulating connections that are easily ignored. B o t h writers were familiar with s o m e of the b o o k s a n d essays of these G e r m a n intel­ lectuals of the Left. Arendt's k n o w l e d g e of m a n y of these writings w a s particularly extensive, as a perusal of her notes a n d references in Th e Ori­ gins of Totalitarianism reveals. In the course of her massive a n d c o m p l e x a rgument, she cited favorably the writings of Rosa L u x e m b u r g , Rudolf Hilferding, Franz Borkenau, Arthur Rosenberg, Franz N e u m a n n , Ernst Fraenkel, a n d Richard Löwenthal. H e r chapter "Totalitarianism in P o w e r ” reveals the influence of the debates a m o n g interwar a n d w a r t i m e leftw i n g theorists of dictatorship m o s t clearly: " W h a t strikes the observer of the totalitarian state is certainly not its monolithic structure. O n the c o n ­ trary, all serious students of the subject agree at least o n the co-existence (or the conflict) of a dual authority, the party a n d the state. M a n y , m o r e ­ over, have stressed the peculiar 'shapelessness' of the totalitarian govern­ m e n t . ”74 Quite appropriately, Arendt cited Franz N e u m a n n — o n e of those "serious students of the subject” — as a n authoritative source for this c e n ­ tral conclusion about the character of the totalitarian Nazi regime. For Arendt, N e u m a n n ' s B e h e m o t h h a d b e e n essential reading, t h o u g h she m i g h t w i t h equal logic h a v e given Ernst Fraenkel credit for his related notion of the dual state. But the personal, historical, a n d theoretical c o n ­ nections b e t w e e n Arendt a n d the G e r m a n socialist intellectuals w h o pre­ ceded her in their analysis of dictatorship d o not begin a n d e n d with foot­ note citations. S h e w a s married successively to t w o m e n w h o h a d b e e n closely involved w ith the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party, G ü n t h e r Stern a n d Heinrich Blücher. Blücher h a d b e e n affiliated for a time with the Spartacists even before the f o u n d i n g of the K P D . This m a k e s Arendt herself n o kind of Marxist, of course, but M a r x i s m w a s a world of discourse a n d poli­ tics w i t h w h i c h she w a s quite familiar.75 A l o n g w i t h the generation of G e r m a n socialist writers e x a m i n e d here, but in her o w n distinctive fash­ ion, she co n t i n u e d to e n g a g e M a r x a n d M a r x i s m in her philosophical writings. O n e of her m o s t provocative books, O n Revolution, argued for the vitality a n d spontaneity of revolutionary councils, citing a m o n g others the case of M u n i c h in 1918-19— 3 revolutionary e x a m p l e also favored b y Marcuse, Horkheimer, a n d Korsch. H e r review essay o n Rosa L u x e m b u r g , w h i c h is as m u c h a tribute as a critique, has long served as the introduc­ tion to J. P. Nettl's standard biography of this radical G e r m a n Marxist.76 In a n o d toward the internationalist strain in the socialist tradition, w h i c h w a s also a typical position of the thinkers e x a m i n e d here, she also h a d

Totalitarianism's Temptations

203

high regard for Rosa L u x e m b u r g ' s critique of imperialism as well as her courageous defense of democratic political participation a n d the prin­ ciple of social justice. T h e Origins of Totalitarianism a n d Arendt's later philosophical study T h e H u m a n Condition also deserve to b e read as i m ­ portant evidence of her contin u i n g critical dialogue w i t h the Marxist tradition, as Seyla B e n h a b i b has a rgued in T h e Reluctant M o d e r n i s m of H a n n a h Arendt.77 Orwell's connections to this b o d y of theoretical writing are perhaps less obvious t h a n Arendt's, but his participation in the left-wing o p p o ­ sition to Nazi a n d Stalinist dictatorships w a s perhaps even m o r e direct in a political sense. His passionately prorevolutionary m e m o i r of the S p a n ­ ish civil war, H o m a g e to Catalonia ( w h i c h Lionel Trilling quickly assimi­ lated into cold w a r a n t i - C o m m u n i s m in the Uni t e d States in his wellk n o w n introduction of 1952), w a s in m a n y respects a continuation of Borkenau's criticism— w h i c h also e m a n a t e d at that time f r o m a left-wing perspective— of the Spanish C o m m u n i s t leadership a n d the C o m i n t e r n in T h e Spanish Cockpit. B o r k e n a u himself m e n t i o n e d in a friendly letter to Orwell that their b o o k s were really t w o halves of a n extended c o m m e n ­ tary o n “ the revolutionary p hase of the Spanish war." It is also significant that in H o m a g e to Catalonia Orwell favorably cited only Borkenau's b o o k a m o n g the n u m e r o u s recent writings o n the Spanish civil w a r h e h a d read a n d reviewed, a n d yet the i m p o r t a n c e of his friendship a n d intellectual exchanges wit h B o r k e n a u is still little k n o w n , misunderstood, or misrep­ resented.78 There is another related point regarding the impact of the cold w a r o n the reception of socialist opposition to dictatorship: Arendt's a n d Orwell's powerful (t h o u g h not especially Marxist) criticisms of imperialism a n d capitalism. E v e n imperialism's role as a historical forerunner of totalitari­ a n i s m — a n essential a r g u m e n t in Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism a n d a n easily neglected e l e m e n t of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four— h a d b e e n briefly a n d pointedly elaborated years earlier b y o n e of the m o s t radical of the leftist G e r m a n critics of totalitarian dictatorship— Karl Korsch: “ The novelty of totalitarian politics in this respect is simply that the Nazis have e xtended to 'civilized' E u r o p e a n peoples the m e t h o d s hitherto reserved for the 'natives' or 'savages' living outside so-called civilization."79 Arendt m a k e s a similar a r g u m e n t in her section o n imperialism in Th e Origins of Totalitarianism, a n d it is no t at all difficult to i m a g i n e Orwell agreeing entirely w i t h b o t h the t o n e a n d the content of these remarks.80 But Arendt's extensive sympathies with leftist notions of anti-imperialism a n d a democratic, participatory council c o m m u n i s m — along wit h Orwell's

The Lost Debate

204

consistent a n d outsp o k e n advocacy of democratic socialism— continue to gain less attention t h a n their opposition to Soviet-style C o m m u n i s m . 81 It would, however, be a denial of their important differences to fit to­ gether the approaches a n d conclusions of these writers too neatly. Orwell a n d A rendt discussed the p r o b l e m of totalitarian dictatorship in quite divergent ways. Orwell evo k e d the subjective experience of totalitarian­ i s m in Nineteen Eighty-Four; while Aren d t evaluated its broad historicalphilosophical n e x u s in T h e Origins of Totalitarianism. T h e heterogenous theoretical a n d historical writings of the G e r m a n socialist intellectuals typically r e m a i n e d at a level s o m e w h e r e b e t w e e n these t w o approaches to the totalitarian experience. Marcuse, A d o r n o , a n d H o r k h e i m e r offered subtly reasoned insights into the m e a n s b y w h i c h individuals w e r e sub­ ordinated to totalitarian civilization, but generally their writings, for all their persisting interest, lacked the i m m e d i a c y a n d claustrophobic inten­ sity of Orwell's dystopian novel.82 N e u m a n n a n d Borkenau, to cite a scarcely compatible pair of thinkers w i t h significant socialist pasts, b o t h analyzed totalitarianism w i t h the goal of explaining its political a n d eco­ n o m i c operations but did not construct a n intellectual or historical f r ame­ w o r k c o m parable in its generalizing capacity to Arendt's distinctive philo­ sophical approach. T h e writings that m o s t closely attend to Arendt's philosophical concerns, but f r o m a m o r e clearly leftist political perspec­ tive, are the essays a n d b o o k s of C laude Lefort. Perhaps because of the very proximity of Lefort's ideas to her prodigious w o r k o n totalitarianism ( t h o u g h it is i m p o r t a n t to state here that Lefort's a r g u m e n t s are m u c h m o r e t h a n a m e r e “revision”of Arendt), h e has apparently b e e n unable to see m u c h evidence of leftist participation in antitotalitarian discourse. It is possible that Arendt's a n d Orwell's b o o k s h ave cast s u c h a d e e p s h a d o w over the antitotalitarian a r g u m e n t s that paralleled or preceded theirs that the occasionally quite similar a r g u m e n t s of Korsch, Borkenau, a n d Löwenthal, for instance, have r e m a i n e d relatively little k n o w n to such thinkers as Lefort, w h o later offered their o w n leftist criticisms of totali­ tarian dictatorship. T h e N e w Left's c o n d e m n a t i o n s of b o t h capitalism a n d Soviet C o m m u ­ n i s m also contained at least s o m e elements of the critiques of totalitarian dictatorships p r o d u c e d b y the m e m b e r s of the “ older”Left. In 1967, Rudi Dut s c h k e impishly a n d tellingly q u o t e d the w o r d s of the younger, m o r e radical L ö w e n t h a l to the older, m o r e conservative Löwenthal. But as their e x c h a n g e revealed, the very t e r m totalitarianism h a d b y t h e n b e c o m e s o m e t h i n g of a n obsession for b o t h generations of political theorists, a n d it stood as a barrier to discussion.83 For a few m e m b e r s of the older gen-

Totalitarianism's Temptations

205

eration of socialists, its use signified a willingness to criticize the “C o m ­ m u n i s t East.”For m a n y politically active leftists of the y o u n g e r genera­ tion, however, its use signified the desire to d e m o n i z e C o m m u n i s m as equivalent to N a z i s m in order to short-circuit criticism of the “capitalist West.”D u r i n g the 1960s a n d 1970s, these t w o positions were ultimately irreconcilable, w i t h c o n sequences that continue to play out o n the G e r ­ m a n political scene a n d elsewhere. E v e n a provisional j u d g m e n t o n the conceptual a n d practical useful­ ness of antitotalitarian theories c a n reasonably separate itself f r o m a n insistence o n their political a n d historical significance. Arguably, each of the theoretical perspectives developed o n the G e r m a n left br o u g h t w i t h it s o m e insights, as well as potential interpretive a n d political liabilities. T h e project of tracing the philosophical imp a c t of G e r m a n leftist antito­ talitarianism— particularly that generated b y H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o in Dialectic of Enlightenment— offers significant possibilities for a revised understanding of the “prereflexively”familiar history of the recent past. T h e philosophical critique of “totalitarian reason”developed b y these t w o thinkers, a n d in a different fashion b y Herbert Marcuse, for all its p o w e r to c o m p e l a rethinking of the project of civilization, still leaves us in the midst of that project w i t h n o other point of departure (regardless of w h e r e w e m i g h t b e headed). I state this wit h a d a u nting awareness of h o w critical theory a n d s o m e of the similar positions elaborated u n d e r the category of poststructuralism h a v e a r m e d themselves against s uch obvious complaints a n d against being incorporated into a n y kind of sta­ tus q u o or p r o g r a m m a t i c politics. Yet at the s a m e time, another thinker w i t h connections to the legacy of critical theory has sought m e a n s b y w h i c h w e m i g h t judge the project of civilization w ithout s h u n n i n g p o ­ litical involvement. A m o n g their m a n y other projects, the writings of Jürgen H a b e r m a s h a v e e n c o m p a s s e d b o t h a continuation of the interdis­ ciplinary w o r k that typified the a p p r o a c h of the Institute of Social R e ­ search a n d a rejection of the retreat f r o m politics that m a r k e d the later w o r k of M a x H o r k h e i m e r a n d T h e o d o r A d o r n o . 84 Habermas's defense of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t project of reason in the service of a chastened but persistent notion of progress has also included the strenuous conceptual effort to preserve multiple perspectives in the interpretation a n d articu­ lation of political choices. S u c h efforts c a n be legitimately u nderstood as a c o m p o n e n t of the n e e d to o p p o s e totalitarianism. His theories relying o n a pluralistic a n d discursive search for solutions to social a n d political p r o b l e m s c a n b e read, in other words, as the basis of a n antitotalitarian practice.85

T h e Lost D e b a t e

206

O t h e r philosophers/notably the French poststructuralists, w h o s e in­ tellectual kinship to H o r k h e i m e r a n d e v e n m o r e clearly to A d o r n o has n o w b e e n elaborated in s o m e detail, h a v e objected to H a b e r m a s ' s dis­ course theory.86 T h e y distrust its reliance o n a universal political ideal: a n “ideal speech situation," in w h i c h political decisions e m e r g e in the course of a discussion carried out a m o n g equals. S o m e of the poststructuralists h a v e followed (or, in s o m e cases, arrived independently at) the conclu­ sions of the later strain of critical theory— adopting a position similar to the political skepticism a n n o u n c e d in Dialectic of Enlightenment. JeanFrançois Lyotard's Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, published in 1979, offers a useful example. In this book, Lyotard sarcastically rebuked H a b e r m a s for discourse theory's insufficient inoculation against the n o ­ tion of social totality a n d universal ideas, w h o s e presence threatened to reproduce the oppressive “idea of a unitary e n d of history"— the totalitar­ ian legacy of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t (and Hegel a n d Marx).87 But the intense philosophical debates a m o n g these innovative theorists that have contin­ u e d over the past t w o decades still appear to leave social philosophy at a n impasse o n the matters of political practice a n d the dangers of totality: critique of p o w e r does no t enable or allow escape f r o m it. In v i e w of this, H a b e r m a s a n d s o m e of his poststructuralist critics frequently counsel a n d enact similar practices: local action, o p e n discussions, a n d democratic participation. I d o not m e a n to argue that their efforts to construct re­ sponses to the o v e r w h e l m i n g a n d all-too-familiar dangers of a u n i f o r m social totality (could w e call it totalitarianism?) are the same; rather, s o m e w a y s of reading their respective positions permit the conclusion that they are not always diametrically o p p o s e d to o n e another, as s o m e t i m e s m i g h t appear to b e the case. Discussions of another issue central to m o d e r n political theory a n d policy, h u m a n rights, offer additional fragmentary evidence of the pres­ ence of the totalitarianism concept. C l a u d e Lefort, for example, has criti­ cized the leftist neglect of not only totalitarian dictatorship but also the issue of rights. H e has pointed out that Marxist discussions of dictatorship hav e to their detriment often ignored or diminished the imp o r t a n c e of the ideas a n d practices of h u m a n rights.88 T h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t tradition of h u m a n rights, d e v eloped b o t h implicitly a n d explicitly b y Lefort, Haber m a s , a n d other c o n t e m p o r a r y scholars w o r k i n g in the s a m e general direction, offers b o t h a n alternative to the political failures of M a r x i s m a n d a continuing discussion about the nature, limits, a n d uses of power. Here, too, however, the persistently optimistic impulse of H a b e r m a s i a n democratic thinking confronts the poststructuralist rejection of a n y pu-

Totalitarianism's Temptations

207

tative individual “subject”of rights (whether presupposed or imposed) or “social totality”(whether of a Marxist or liberal-Enlightenment theoreti­ cal foundation) that m i g h t claim to grant or represent rights. Despite c o n ­ tinuing differences b e t w e e n these sets of intellectual antagonists, the battle lines o n the issue of h u m a n rights are less clearly drawn. D u r i n g a n interview that took place in 1984, Michel Foucault himself a c k n o w l e d g e d the persisting p o w e r of the idea a n d practice of rights inherent in a “dia­ logue situation.”89 Indeed, the considerations o n democratic participa­ tion a n d public life, law a n d constitutionalism, civil society, a n d h u m a n rights developed b y not only Lefort, Habe r m a s , a n d Foucault but also sev­ eral c o n t e m p o r a r y A m e r i c a n theorists a n d scholars, including Seyla Benhabib, Lisa Jane Disch, Jeffrey C. Isaac, Jean C o h e n , a n d A n d r e w Arato, demonstrate the extent to w h i c h the m a n y-sided discussion a m o n g the disunited heirs of s u c h antitotalitarian theorists as H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o , as well as H a n n a h Arendt, has r e m a i n e d a crucial presence in broader philosophical debates about politics over the past three decades.90 T h e historical configurations a n d philosophical oppositions that m a r k poststructuralist participation in antitotalitarian theorizing merit further attention in this context. S h a d o w i n g the efforts of H a b e r m a s , the w o r k of Foucault, Lyotard, a n d other poststructuralist thinkers has offered to the continuing debates o n totalitarianism a d e e p suspicion— rooted in a particular reading of the historical experiences of this century— regard­ ing the totalitarian potential of traditionally leftist or liberal “universal, ” such as the state, the individual subject, a n d the philosophical, scientific, a n d political pursuit of truth. Foucault's distinctive antitotalitarianism focused o n the relationship b e t w e e n E n l i g h t e n m e n t thinking a n d the controlled order of the B e n t h a m i t e Panopticon, or “carcéral society”as h e labeled it in Discipline a n d Punish. This a p p r o a c h to the p r o b l e m of p o w e r circumvented the preoccupation w ith particular state regimes that F o u ­ cault himself argued w a s a m a r k of a distorting a n d tendentious cold w a r discourse. In short, totalitarianism could always be c o n d e m n e d too eas­ ily as the technique of rule perfo r m e d b y the “other.”Foucault refused this particular language g a m e . 91 In addition, Foucault's focus o n the h u m a n b o d y as the object of punishment, normalization, a n d surveillance brought to philosophical investigation a n eloquent a n d unremitting protest against violence, a protest that sought n o “really existing”regime (such as the Soviet U n i o n ) or “ universal”a n d transhistorical standard (such as Habermas's discourse theory offers) as the g r o u n d for its legitimacy. T h e multifarious but related philosophical stances of poststructuralism a n d deconstructionism often a i m e d their political critiques at the intellectual

T h e Lost D e b a t e

208

a n d political legacy of C o m m u n i s m , a n d they located the rationalizing imperative of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t inheritance as the origin of totalitar­ ian dangers.92 In the light of this, Foucault's writings, along w i t h s o m e of those p r o d u c e d b y Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, a n d the socalled N e w Philosophers, could b e und e r s t o o d as w a r n i n g s ab o u t totali­ tarian control (both fascist a n d Marxist) a n d assertions of “difference” in a wo r l d of actual a n d potential “totalities.”E v e n so, Foucault's philo­ sophical a r g u m e n t s struck s o m e of his liberal a n d leftist critics as d a n ­ gerously untethered in political a n d ethical terms. W h e n H a b e r m a s re­ ferred to Foucault disparagingly as a “ y o u n g conservative,”it w a s partly because of his o w n historically based suspicions a b out the possible p o ­ litical direction in w h i c h the voluntarist a n d antirationalist elements of the F r e n c h m a n ' s p h i l o s o p h y m i g h t lead: totalitarian (specifically fascist or neofascist) u n f r e e d o m . E v e n t h o u g h Foucault's d eath over a d e c a d e a g o cut short his provocative dialogue w i t h H a b e r m a s , interest in the issues raised in the course of their various disputes has scarcely d i m i n ­ ished.93 As a n alternative philosophical a n d political stance, the m u c h older radical position of such leftist antitotalitarian “ council C o m m u n i s t ”theo­ rists as Korsch a n d R ühle could hardly pass muster w ith either H a b e r m a sian discourse the o r y or Foucauldian skepticism regarding s u c h total philosophical systems as M a r x i s m . T h e council C o m m u n i s t ideal did al­ l o w for a consistently radical a n d revolutionary Marxist critique of capi­ talism, dictatorship, a n d Soviet-style “ existing socialism,”but this outlook could quickly b e c o m e disengaged f r o m all but the m o s t marginalized or sectarian Marxist politics in the cold w a r period. It has also h a d the capac­ ity to perform the dubious chore of shielding M a r x i s m against a n y respon­ sibility for the f o r m a n d content of Soviet C o m m u n i s m or other m o v e ­ m e n t s claiming a Marxist inspiration. In terms of its o w n program, at least the radical leftist version of antitotalitarian theory refuses to accept the p e r m a n e n t victory of “counterrevolution”in either its capitalist or its C o m m u n i s t form. Korsch a n d Rühle also m a i ntained that working-class people w o u l d h a v e to b e the chief political agents of a n d the democratic participants in a n y f u n d a m e n t a l social c h a n g e — a position a b a n d o n e d b y m o s t of the key m e m b e r s of the Institute of Social Research as well as the y o u n g e r generation of s u c h e x - C o m m u n i s t s as Borkenau, w h o s e consis­ tent focus o n elites as the agents of historical c h a n g e indicates that h e h a d never believed m u c h in the revolutionary character of the proletariat in the first place. Council Marxism's neglect or even rejection of the less spec­ tacular— and, as w e learn all too frequently, partial a n d tenuous— gains of

Totalitarianism's Temptations

209

liberalism in terms of the ideas a n d institutions of constitutional checks o n state power, parliamentary democracy, tolerance for diverse opinions, practices, a n d beliefs, specified civil rights for individuals, a n d the ideal of the rule of law, however, leaves this ultraleft position a dubiously o n e ­ sided o n e in terms of political practice.94 T h e idea of a r e e n g a g e m e n t of radically Marxist antitotalitarianism with democratic revolution— a goal that calls M a r c u s e as well as Korsch a n d Rühle to m i n d — testifies at least as m u c h to stubborn Marxist h o p e s as to the current viability of a M a r x ­ ist political project. For all but a tiny r e m n a n t of its former following, the kind of “scientific”M a r x i s m that possessed all the answers is long gone. But as Korsch himself insisted, M a r x i s m could be only a developing criti­ cal position within capitalist society, not the platform for a fixed, transhistorical, a n d omniscient socialist theory. T h a t portion of the M a r x i a n tradition that is still capable of posing essential a n d as yet u n a n s w e r e d questions to capitalist societies— or fascist or totalitarian socialist o n e s — m a y yet h a v e a considerable future.95 T h e p r e d o m i n a n t type of cold w a r totalitarian m o d e l that views N a ­ zism a n d Soviet C o m m u n i s m as r o u g h equivalents, however, bears its o w n interpretive a n d political burdens even as it justifiably pleads for attention to the similarities b e t w e e n these t w o regimes in terms of their m e a n s of control a n d the incredible violence they inflicted. T h e model's c o m p a r a ­ tive equation has certainly help e d to u n d e r m i n e — at times usefully— absolute Left-Right dichotomies. M o r e important, it provides a m e a n s b y w h i c h to call the bluff of regimes that have claimed to b e “progressive” because they advertise a Marxist or socialist foundation. So long as this comparative m o d e l does not ignore fund a m e n t a l historical changes in the character a n d policy of regimes a n d focuses o n m e c h a n i s m s of rule in diverse state systems, its strengths are manifest. But for all its p o w e r to call critical attention to nations a n d policies, the totalitarianism concept too easily serves as a substitute for a differentiated a n d historical analysis of state-party political m o v e m e n t s a n d ideologies. Its continued validity in the critique of regimes in the present can be sustained m o s t effectively a n d persuasively w h e n the concept is utilized, for example, as a bulwark against the denial of h u m a n freedom, as in Lefort's arguments, w h e r e the cat­ egory of totalitarianism serves as a kind of negative standard b y w h i c h to gauge efforts to e x p a n d democratic participation a n d to protect a public f o r u m for the discussion of rights.96 E v e n w h e n writing in behalf of such projects, however, comparative totalitarian theory's adherents can still easily slip into c u s t o m a r y cold w a r m o d e s . S o m e of the recent writings of a widely a d m i r e d G e r m a n historian

The Lost Debate

210

a n d political scientist, Karl Dietrich Bracher, offer a n e x a m p l e of this p r o b ­ lem. In o n e of the m o r e persuasive of his essays o n totalitarianism a n d democracy, “Revolution against Totalitarianism,”Bracher argued that a “reconstructed E u r o p e ”m u s t offer federal structures of cooperation a n d integration “ w i t h protection for h u m a n a n d civil rights.”This hopeful i m a g e of a nontotalitarian future w a s in itself unobjectionable, especially since it w a s a c c o m p a n i e d b y Bracheres l a m e n t (in 1992) about the “ blo o d y civil wars that hav e b e e n raging in Yugoslavia.”But Bracheres brief analy­ sis of c o n t e m p o r a r y E u r o p e s h o w e d h o w e v e n a stubborn advocate of the comparative totalitarian m o d e l could miss w h a t m i g h t have b e e n o n e of the m o r e interesting opportunities to put it to use. Bracher cast the b l a m e for violence in the Balkans primarily o n “the C o m m u n i s t legacy.” 97 This is a n a r g u m e n t w o r t h examining, if only in a preliminary fashion, while bearing in m i n d the perspective of comparative totalitarian theory. First, looking for historical factors that m i g h t help explain the b l o o d y events in the Balkan region during this century is a reasonable undertak­ ing. S o m e explanations are far too simple: the region's history is not just a n u n b r o k e n series of ethnic conflicts. Bosnia a n d its capital of Sarajevo hav e b e e n the settings for a rich cosmopolitan culture. Nevertheless, re­ ligious a n d ethnic battles are a significant part of the region's history, as Bracher himself noted. But their episodic appearances long predated the arrival of C o m m u n i s m in the region. Moreover, the political boundaries of Yugoslavia that d r e w together “a diversity a n d intermingling of nation­ alities”were not simply a legacy of the O t t o m a n s or Hapsburgs. N o r w ere they initially d r a w n b y Stalin or Tito; they w ere generated primarily b y m e a n s of c o m p l e x a n d contested d i p l o m a c y u n d e r the aegis of the W e s t ­ ern Allies after W o r l d W a r I. Perhaps because Bracher n e e d e d to b e brief in w h a t was, admittedly, a topical essay a n d not a historical m o n o g r a p h , h e did not m e n t i o n these particular facts. T o b e sure, C o m m u n i s m a n d C o m m u n i s t s are, in a variety of w a y s that bear looking into, deeply i m ­ plicated in the events that shattered the former Yugoslavia, as Bracher claimed. But Bracher missed almost entirely the comparative perspective that m i g h t h a v e e m e r g e d b y taking into account not only the “C o m m u ­ nist legacy”but also the legacy of the interwar a n d w a r t i m e fascist nation­ alisms— including G e r m a n National Socialism— that h a v e sanctioned unspeakable violence in the Balkans. Instead of such a comparison, h e omitted a n y specific m e n t i o n of the impact of W o r l d W a r II in Yugosla­ via. This ga p in the narrative m a d e eve n less sense since the essay's stated t h e m e w a s the “revolution against totalitarianism.”T h e massacres perpe­ trated b y G e r m a n troops in the Balkans a n d the Nazis' sponsorship of the

Totalitarianism's Temptations

211

deadly Croatian Ustasha also constitute part of the region's history. It was, after all, the recently reunified Federal Republic of G e r m a n y that hastily recognized the i n d e p e n d e n c e of Slovenia a n d Croatia in 1991, accelerat­ ing the b r e a k u p of Yugoslavia, sanctioning the revival of m e m o r i e s of previous G e r m a n interventions in the region, and, not least of all, m a k ­ ing it easier to activate nationalist fears a n d hatreds a m o n g the Serbs. Bracher struck a little closer to the m a r k w h e n h e linked the m o s t recent Balkan w a r to the efforts of s o m e powerful Serbian factions in the govern­ m e n t a n d military in the oppression of other groups, m o s t notably the Albanians in Kosovo, but even this formulation oversimplifies the matter. H e also warned, accurately, that the E u r o p e a n C o m m u n i t y a n d the U n i ­ ted Nations appeared unprepared to act decisively in the interests of peace. E v e n so, Bracher's l a m e n t in the article's conclusion a bout the Balkan region's aggressive nationalisms (wh i c h h e avoided labeling as “fascism") just briefly m e n t i o n e d the role of N a z i s m a n d omitted entirely the actions of Imperial G e r m a n y a n d the reunified Federal Republic as possible fac­ tors in the historical b a c k g r o u n d of the recent Bosnian war.98 S i m p l y put, Bracher is far m o r e persuasive w h e n h e investigates the elements of a specific historical situation a n d leaves the totalitarian m o d e l to o n e side t h a n h e is w h e n h e uses it as the basis for a r g u m e n t s about the recent past. Bracher's authoritative writings o n the collapse of the W e i ­ m a r Republic a n d the Nazi state r e m a i n extremely valuable additions to our historical understanding of those events a n d regimes, but the i m p o r ­ tance of his b o o k s is tied m o r e closely to his extensive research a n d his undeniable skills as a writer t h a n to his specific a dvocacy of totalitarian theory. His c o n d e m n a t i o n s of the Nazi regime have for decades b e e n a d ­ mirably clear a n d unequivocal, but his remarks o n the effects of C o m m u ­ nist totalitarian rule in the postwar era, t h o u g h not w i t hout merit, are at times lamentably reductionist a n d so one-sided as to be of limited value for historical understanding, let alone political policy.99 In addition to the intensified politicization that has a c c o m p a n i e d the m o d e l s of totalitarianism p r o d u c e d during the early a n d late cold w a r years, there are methodological problems. If the totalitarian concept has certain strengths a n d usefulness for initial levels of political a n d histori­ cal comparison, the Friedrich-Brzezinski m o d e l also implicitly insists that t w o such brutal regimes as Nazi G e r m a n y a n d the Soviet U n i o n not only m u s t be c o n d e m n e d but also m u s t s o m e h o w b e bracketed conceptually. This is a position that, like m a n y of Borkenau's a r g u m e n t s in The Totali­ tarian E n e m y , energizes certain kinds of political opposition but also at times relies too heavily o n formulaic explanations for contingent a n d

The Lost Debate

212

conditioned historical changes. In place of official Marxism-Leninism's blindly hopeful scenarios of future socialist glories, s o m e of the cold w a r antitotalitarian a r g u m e n t s h a v e also often indulged in a kind of gratuitous political despair, as if the Soviet regime could be understood only as a n eternal a n d u n c h a n g i n g entity f r o m Stalin (or Lenin) d o w n . M y point here is not to s u c c u m b to the grotesque a n d false d i l e m m a that either left- or right-wing dictatorships are to be automatically “ preferred”but instead to insist that the comparative m o d e l s of totalitarianism, like other m o d ­ els generated b y m u c h of cold war-era social science, could all too readily a s s u m e a static a n d unhistorical character, w h i c h w o u l d t h e n be attrib­ uted to the object u n d e r investigation. O f the m a n y weaknesses of the cold w a r formulations of totalitarian theory that have often b e e n criticized, o n e of the m o s t important is insufficient attention to the actual a n d p o ­ tential c h a n g e s that take place in political regimes a n d the details a n d functions of their policies.100 W h e n , for instance, Friedrich's a n d Brzezinski's classic cold war-era m o d e l — so close in spirit a n d content to Franz Borkenau's interwar notions of fascist totalitarianism— describes the ter­ ror of totalitarian regimes as being l a u n c h e d against “arbitrarily selected” groups, there is a d anger that the violent anti-Semitism a n d antileftism that o u g h t to be essential topics for understanding the ideological a n d practical c o m p o n e n t s of National Socialism m o v e to the periphery of the analysis in order to m a k e N a z i s m c o m p a r a b l e to Soviet C o m m u n i s m , w h o s e policies of domestic terror ran m o r e broadly in a social sense and, especially u n d e r Stalin, less predictably t h a n Nazi terror. Neither dictatorship's system of terror c a n b e adequately explained as “arbitrary” or r a n d o m , however. T h e party-state dictatorships have often c h o s e n their h u m a n targets carefully, or they certainly h a d at least s o m e fairly definite social a n d political effects in m i n d w i t h the violence they inflicted. M o r e to the point, these regimes invented a n d i m p o s e d the categories of people w h o w o u l d b e “disappeared,”h o w e v e r different f r o m each other the vic­ tims m a y h a v e b e e n u n d e r e a c h regime or at different times in the c o n ­ tingent historical d e v e l o p m e n t of e a c h regime.101 In a n y case, for m a n y historians, the crucial ideological a n d historical differences b e t w e e n the political m o v e m e n t s a n d conditions that p r o ­ d u c e d Hitler's regime a n d those that generated Lenin's a n d Stalin's— dif­ ferences that often m a k e the d o m i n a n t cold w a r version of totalitarian­ ism theory so problematic a n d Procrustean— offer another set of problems to bedevil totalitarian theory. T h e s e problems, related to b o t h historical interpretation a n d politics, h a v e b e e n persuasively e n u m e r a t e d b y schol­ ars for over thirty years.102 W h a t T i m M a s o n declared in a discussion of the

Totalitarianism's Temptations

213

structuralist-intentionalist debates of the 1970s could often b e applied with equal logic to m a n y of the uses of comparative theories of totalitari­ anism: “If historians d o h a v e a public responsibility, if hating is part of their m e t h o d a n d w a r n i n g part of their task, it is necessary that they should hate precisely.”103 A n o t h e r closely related objection to totalitarian theory is that, all too often, the d o m i n a n t totalitarian m o d e l of the cold w a r era p r e s u m e d as a counter e x a m p l e a n always successful liberal m o d e l of legitimate parlia­ mentarism, legal guarantees of personal rights a n d freedoms, a n d progres­ sive capitalist development. For at least the first t w o decades of the cold war, if not well b e y o n d that period, this w a s hardly the political reality in a n u m b e r of W e s t e r n nations, including the United States.104 T h e role of totalitarian theory in helping to legitimate U.S. military interventions in Vietnam, C u b a , a n d Nicaragua that, whatever else they were intended to accomplish, also perpetuated a troubling heritage of overseas imperialism a n d the domestic repression of dissent has m a d e the task of separating the postwar idea of totalitarianism f r o m a legion of deeply controversial a n d antidemocratic political practices next to impossible.105 Current uses of s o m e forms of totalitarian theory to analyze a n d d e ­ scribe n o n - W e s t e r n societies, suc h as Islamic states or China, face similar objections. Totalitarian theories should no t necessarily b e a b a n d o n e d altogether for current analytical purposes, but such undertakings will offer substantial intellectual a n d political challenges to those scholars or policymakers w h o w o u l d attempt to avoid the self-serving ideological simplifications of a n “us-versus-them”s c h e m a that reproduces, albeit in a renovated, post-cold w a r antitotalitarian discourse, the imperialist mentalities a n d m isunderstandings of previous decades a n d centuries. Moreover, the implied reference to the e x a m p l e s of past “totalitarian” dictatorships that occurs a n y time the t e r m itself is invoked c a n n o longer be so easily contained a n d m a n i p u l a t e d as it w a s during the cold war. T h e selective uses of s uch c o m parisons d r a w n f r o m history to provide a n ideo­ logical sanction for foreign policy in the decade since the fall of the Ber­ lin Wal l are not especially encouraging evidence of the continued viabil­ ity of totalitarian t h e o r y as a tool for the clarification of public issues. Asserting that S a d d a m Hussein of Iraq is “ worse t h a n Hitler”m a y help legitimate a war, but at the s a m e time such a c o m p a r i s o n creates extraor­ dinary public expectations a bout the necessary o u t c o m e of the war. T h e gradual disappearance of the “ totalitarian”label in particular cases c a n be equally revealing evidence of its limitations. D u r i n g the 1980s, the adjec­ tive s o m e W e s t e r n leaders used to describe the Chinese g o v e r n m e n t a n d

The Lost Debate

214

its policies shifted f r o m totalitarian to authoritarian, reflecting the impact of e x p a n d i n g international trade relations m o r e t h a n a n y m a r k e d relax­ ation of the oppressiveness of China's domestic policies.106 T h e very t e r m totalitarian m i g h t eventually be d u m p e d f r o m official policy statements in s o m e countries as excess historical a n d ideological baggage. If c h a n g i n g foreign policy needs represent o n e d a nger to the survival of totalitarian theory, its lack of attention to labor a n d other class-related issues o u g h t to be another. T h e cold w a r m o d e l of totalitarianism often t e n d e d to shove the role of class in the origin a n d persistence of m o d e r n dictatorships to the periphery of scholarly discussion. Neglecting class a n d class conflict is u n d o u b t e d l y o n e of the central reasons w h y tradi­ tional Marxists a n d s o m e m e m b e r s of the N e w Left objected not only to the Friedrich-Brzezinski m o d e l but also to s o m e of the w a r t i m e a n d post­ w a r formulations of theorists w i t h roots o n the left, including H o r k ­ heimer, A d o r n o , a n d Marcuse. Theories of fascism h ave at the very least kept considerations of class a n d social organization u n d e r dictatorship f r o m dissolving into static historical or political m o d e l s of total control, pervasive social atomization, a n d a n undifferentiated m a s s society. T h e shift t o w a r d totalitarian theory a n d a w a y f r o m the analysis of fascism entailed the near disappearance of discussions of class f r o m the w o r k of several of the G e r m a n theorists discussed in this book, m o s t notably Borkenau, Horkheimer, a n d A dorno. Franz N e u m a n n ' s postwar w o r k re­ sisted this shift to s o m e extent, but h e still s h o w e d a diminished interest in class-based interpretation of politics.107 G i v e n the defeat or capture of in d e p e n d e n t working-class organizations b y the Nazi a n d Stalinist states, this reduced attention to class conflicts in the postwar period is not too surprising, but it w a s another e x a m p l e of the pernicious dehistoricization sanctioned b y postwar totalitarian theory: the w o r k i n g class, o n c e u n s u c ­ cessful (as in 1933), w a s in the postwar period m e r e social clay to be m o l d e d b y governments, political parties, or trade u n i o n bosses. Marcuse, for e x ­ ample, raised the issue of class in his postwar writings mostly to s h o w that the w o r k i n g class w a s n o w fully integrated into the totalitarian order a n d therefore could not b e considered a potential source of social or political transformation.108 Despite such dramatic examples as the Solidarity m o v e ­ m e n t in Poland, the issue of class continues to receive m u t e d attention in s o m e recent b o o k s about the d e v e l o p m e n t of totalitarian theory or his­ tories rooted in the theory of totalitarianism. Likewise, issues related to the construction of gender roles or sexual identity u n d e r m o d e r n dicta­ torships— topics that have received extensive a n d valuable attention for r oughly three decades— hav e appeared only fairly recently in the w o r k of

Totalitarianism's Temptations

215

historians or political theorists w h o continue to rely o n the cold w a r to­ talitarianism paradigm. N o t surprisingly, the historians w h o advocate totalitarian theory the m o s t strenuously are usually linked to a n older historiographical tradition that emphasizes the political history of lead­ ers, parties, a n d regimes.109 There is n o overriding methodological reason for these omissions or marginalizations, however. T h e s e differences of a p p r o a c h a n d focus emerge, m o r e likely, out of the political a n d n o r m a ­ tive e n g a g e m e n t s of scholars, w i t h generational shifts in research inter­ ests a n d approaches also playing a role. But the loss of the ideas of class a n d social conflict, w h i c h are of course f u n d a m e n t a l to a n y theories rooted in M a r x i s m but are hardly a n y longer its exclusive property, w a s not the only danger po s e d b y the turn to the Soviet-Nazi comparative version of totalitarian theory. T h e issue of the relationships b e t w e e n history, historiography, a n d politics has also d o g g e d concepts of totalitarianism. T h e comparative cold w a r version of the theory, w h i c h offered a m e a n s of c o n d e m n i n g N a z i s m a n d C o m m u n i s m at o n e stroke, could also— in the h a n d s of s o m e schol­ ars— h a v e the effect of relativizing the violence of these regimes. T h e Historikerstreit, or "historian's controversy,”of the late 1980s offered a particularly clear e x a m p l e of h o w long-standing debates about totalitari­ a n i s m could continue to play a dubious role in scholarly a n d public dis­ course about these t w o particular state-party dictatorships. T h e Historiker­ streit e m e r g e d in the charged political a t m o s p h e r e of w h a t turned out to be the last years of the cold war. A series of controversies in the Federal Republic about the structuralist a n d intentionalist interpretations of the Nazi regime, the emotional response of G e r m a n s to the airing of the U.S. television series T h e Holocaust; a n d the calls b y conservative politicians a n d historians for a "normalization”of G e r m a n history stirred public dis­ cussion of the Nazi era f r o m the late 1970s thr o u g h the mid-1980s. In 1985, W e s t G e r m a n chancellor H e l m u t K o h l invited U.S. president R o n a l d R e a g a n to visit a cemetery in Bitburg, G e r m a n y , w h e r e the remains of both Holocaust victims a n d W a f f e n SS troops were buried. T h e g r o w i n g contro­ versy in b o t h nations about the symbolic (and in Reagan's remarks, literal) equation of b o t h groups of w a r t i m e d e a d as "victims”b r o u g h t public debate about the past to n e w levels of intensity. T h e n the Berlin historian Ernst Nolte—yet another of Heidegger's former students— set off a n even m o r e a c r i m o n i o u s series of ex c h a n g e s a m o n g scholars a n d journalists w h e n h e suggested that Nazi genocide against E u r o p e a n Jews w a s m o d ­ eled o n Soviet terror a n d in s o m e sense justified b y alleged Zionist threats of violence against G e r m a n y . 110

The Lost Debate

216

Nolte's claims relied o n a version of the notion of totalitarianism that “explained”a n d relativized Nazi violence not only b y equating it wit h Soviet violence but also b y suggesting a causal relationship in w h i c h Hitler w a s provoked to genocide b y tales of C o m m u n i s t terror. This egregious use of a totalitarianism c o n c e p t threatened to sink— or in Nolte's phrase, “d e e p e n ”— the explanatory usefulness of the totalitarian idea clear out of sight.111Jürgen H a b e r m a s led the critical response to Nolte's a r g u m e n t a n d ext e n d e d his c o n d e m n a t i o n to the efforts of other G e r m a n historians, including Mich a e l Stürmer a n d A ndreas Hillgruber, w h o were generating accounts of the past that also served neoconservative political ends, t h o u g h their writings did not simply e c h o Nolte's work.112 A series of bit­ terly polemical b o o k s a n d articles a bout the G e r m a n past p o u r e d forth, a n d the question of h o w the story of twentieth-century G e r m a n y m i g h t acceptably b e narrated a n d u n d erstood eventually elicited the opinions of dozens of scholars a n d intellectuals in E u r o p e a n d the United States. T h e relationship b e t w e e n Nolte's expressed views a n d the controversial notion of totalitarianism w a s not the central focus of this dramatic a n d very public exchange, but the connection w a s unmistakable.113 Karl Dietrich Bracher's efforts to separate his o w n generally m o r e e m ­ pirical, traditionally liberal, a n d clearly articulated version of a totalitari­ a n i s m concept f r o m Nolte's v a g u e speculations a n d tendentious use of a comparative totalitarian notion for the p urpose of historical “normaliza­ tion”of the Nazi era offer evidence of Bracheres fears about the possible d a m a g e the Historikerstreit could d o to the very idea of totalitarianism. Bracher quickly took his stance ab o v e the polemics of the Historikerstreit b y dismissing b o t h of its chief antagonists, Nolte a n d H a b e r m a s , for their past role in “t abooing the conc e p t of totalitarianism a n d inflating the formula for fascism.”114 O n c e again, Bracheres concerns about saving his version of the concept w e r e timely. W i t h i n a handful of years, the fall of the Berlin Wall a n d the swift decline of C o m m u n i s m in the former Soviet bloc h a d granted legitimacy to the comparative study of the consequences of the right- a n d left-wing dictatorships in Central a n d Eastern E u r o p e in this century— not to m e n t i o n greatly increased access to archives. U n ­ doubtedly, there will b e s o m e significant historical scholarship to e m e r g e f r o m this research, t h o u g h t w o of the m o s t innovative a n d knowledgeable n o n - G e r m a n historians w h o h a v e specialized in the topics of G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m a n d Nazi G e r m a n y — respectively, Eric W e i t z a n d Ian Ker­ s h a w —urge caution.115 Kershaw's remarks o n the usefulness a n d applica­ bility of the co n c e p t of totalitarianism are m o r e persuasive t h a n is Bracher's polemical defense of the concept: “T h e d e m i s e of the Soviet

Totalitarianism's Temptations

217

Empi r e a n d G e r m a n unification h a v e focused n e w attention o n the c o n ­ cept of totalitarianism a n d o p e n e d u p opportunities for comparative re­ search o n a n empirical basis. Empirical findings have not, however, neces­ sitated a m a j o r revision of the totalitarianism concept. N o r is it easy to see h o w they m i g h t d o so. T h e theoretical basis of the concept is largely u n ­ altered. Its limitations r e m a i n considerable.”116 Kershaw's criticisms of the totalitarianism concept are a i m e d primarily a n d with great effectiveness at the cold w a r version of the Nazi-Soviet comparative m o d e l that tried to e x tend the use of the c o n c e p t to post-Stalinist regimes. His carefully w r o u g h t a r g u m e n t s against this static, predictable, a n d highly politicized version of the c o n cept d o no t dismiss out of h a n d the usefulness of all formulations of the concept of totalitarianism. K e r s h a w tries instead to m a r k out reasonable limits to its applicability in comparative historical studies, a n d h e sees its m o s t important value as a m e a n s of “highlighting the singularity of e a c h system.”117 S t a linism a n d N a z i s m : Dictatorships in C o m p a r i s o n , a collection of essays

edited b y K e r s h a w a n d M o s h e Lewin, a n historian of the Soviet Unio n , offers powerful evidence that important comparative scholarship o n these t w o regimes c an proceed w i t h o u t a n y reliance whatsoever o n the concept of totalitarianism. Kershaw's contribution to the book, a n essay o n Hitler a n d Stalin entitled “ W o r k i n g towards the Führer,”pursues this very m e t h ­ odological a n d conceptual issue, t h o u g h at times indirectly. H e argues for the retention of concepts of fascism a n d targets the simple equation of the Hitlerist a n d Stalinist regimes as a misleading analytical focus o n “super­ ficial similarities.”His analysis of the t w o dictators a n d their styles of lead­ ership leads to a discussion of Hitler's role in the Nazi regime that is a u ­ thoritative, empirical, a n d systematically critical of a n y simple equation of Nazi political d y n a m i c s w i t h those of the Stalinist system of rule in the Soviet state. It m u s t b e also b e n o t e d here that in his concluding argu­ ments, K e r s h a w cites Franz N e u m a n n ' s B e h e m o t h as a key statement o n the nature of Nazi “g o v e r n m e n t a l disorder.”118 Kershaw's essay, along w i t h several others in Stalin a n d N a z i s m , demonstrates the value of a c o m p a r a ­ tive a p p r o a c h to the study of dictatorship a n d at the s a m e time goes far to render “the totalitarianism c o n c e p t ”a n analytical relic in the field of historical studies. Indeed, the b o o k offers perhaps the m o s t effective schol­ arly a r g u m e n t yet lodged against the continued use of totalitarian theory, w i t hout m a k i n g that a r g u m e n t its p r i mary task. Kershaw's critique of the co n c e p t of totalitarianism in its cold w a r guise has n o w b e e n joined b y several recent historical studies of dictator­ ship that simply d o w i t h o u t concepts of totalitarianism.119 But as Ker-

T h e Lost D e b a t e

218

shaw’ s discussions of the issue acknowledge, even the criticisms d o not negate the n e e d for the study of the concepts of totalitarianism. I have argued here that a longer historical perspective o n several of these c o n ­ cepts a n d considerations of totalitarianism m u s t be offered, o n e that takes into account the explorations of the totalitarian analytical s c h e m a that preceded the cold war. As this chapter has sho w n , G e r m a n leftist antitotal­ itarianism has b e e n varied a n d a m b i g u o u s in its effects, but it has also b e e n of considerable importance to the postwar intellectual exchanges in E urope a n d the United States. This m i x e d fate of the concepts of totalitari­ a n i s m even enters into Kershaw's critique: as h e persuades us of the w e a k ­ ness of o n e version of the totalitarian concept, h e cites the central inter­ pretation of N a z i s m formulated b y Franz N e u m a n n , o n e of totalitarianism theory's m o s t important left-wing investigators. In addition, even if the role of totalitarianism concepts in historical studies has entered a final decline— a conclusion that is, for better or worse, not yet w a r r a n t e d — concepts of totalitarianism m a y have other valid uses. A s m e n t i o n e d pre­ viously, they continue to appear as effective critical elements in a c o n ­ t e m p o r a r y political p hilosophy of rights, sustaining the heterogeneous postwar tradition that runs f r o m Arendt to Lefort, H a b e r m a s , a n d others. At present, s u c h a use of totalitarian concepts s h o w s m o r e life a n d p r o m ­ ise t h a n the persistence of these concepts in historical or foreign policyoriented scholarship; however, a n y speculations ventured here about the relative w o r t h of particular concepts of totalitarianism will neither settle n o r direct their future. If the experience of the past five decades is a n y guide, scholars will continue to praise or c o n d e m n concepts of totalitari­ anism, but they will not b e able to b u r y t h e m . For all their m otley c o n c e p ­ tual a n d historical baggage, the t e r m totalitarianism a n d the n u m e r o u s comparative analytical concepts a n d polemical a r g u m e n t s m ustered u n ­ der its b a n n e r will likely survive.120 Finally, yet another o u t c o m e of interwar a n d w a r t i m e thinking about totalitarianism m a y persist, t h o u g h in a less obvious way. O n e of the m o s t im p o r t a n t scholarly legacies of the left-wing tradition of antitotalitar­ ianism has b e e n the critical a n d historically oriented social scientific analysis of dictatorship generated b y such writers as Franz N e u m a n n , Otto Kirchheimer, Ernst Fraenkel, a n d Richard Löwenthal. Since their lives a n d understandings were so deeply m a r k e d b y historical crises, it is not surpris­ ing that their w o r k has b e e n m o s t influential in the field of historical stud­ ies. T h e w o r k of s u c h historians as T i m M a s o n , Jane Caplan, Detlev Peukert, a n d Ian Kershaw, to cite but four notable examples, arguably carries forward s o m e of the m o s t important results a n d approaches of those ear-

Totalitarianism's Temptations

21 9

lier scholars of dictatorship, t h o u g h with a m u c h larger store of archival material at h and. A l t h o u g h they m a y not f o r m a “school”of historical writing, w i t h all of the personal, institutional, a n d methodological c o n ­ nections that s u c h a t e r m implies, they h a v e often a c k n o w l e d g e d the important influence of the earlier generation of leftist G e r m a n scholars o n the study of dictatorship.121 Ideas about the internally conflicted structure of the Nazi regime a n d the p r i m a c y of the political in m o d e r n dictatorships, w h i c h e m e r g e d m o s t clearly in Franz N e u m a n n ' s work, w ere a significant a d v a n c e for leftoriented historical approaches in n e e d of alternatives to economistic a n d reductive types of M a r x i s m a n d traditionalist scholarly e m p h a s i s o n the m o s t obvious political manifestations of rule, such as the person a n d per­ sonality of the dictator. Attention to developing class relations a n d the social a n d cultural tensions inherent in m o d e r n dictatorships were evi­ den t in the m o s t valuable writings p r o d u c e d b y Arthur Rosenberg, Rich­ ard Löwenthal, a n d Franz B o r k e n a u as well as the intellectuals mos t l y closely associated wit h the Institute of Social Research. Moreover, for all their frequent conceptual shifts a w a y f r o m a formal reliance o n M a r x i s m , these scholars of totalitarian dictatorship did not lose sight of the histori­ cal d e v e l o p m e n t of b o t h ideology a n d policy, a n d they w e r e willing to revise or jettison m o d e l s a n d assumptions— including s o m e formulations of the concept of totalitarianism itself— that failed to explain the politi­ cal p h e n o m e n a they observed. A l t h o u g h their w a r t i m e analytical strate­ gies a n d conclusions m a y be dismissed b y s o m e Marxists or other critical radicals as “ positivist”or even “defeatist”or b y liberal a n d conservative scholars as politically “ biased”toward M a r x i a n formulations, these t h e o ­ rists consistently o p p o s e d state-party dictatorships— b o t h Nazi a n d S o ­ viet— w i t h o u t subscribing quietly to all of the policies a n d ideological claims of the W e s t during the cold war.122 Their sustained a d v o c a c y of democratic political institutions a n d at least moderately socialist public policies indicates that these thinkers were as clear about w h i c h political practices they favored— even u n d e r the postwar conditions of “existing capitalism” — as they were about those they opposed. T h e results of their efforts wer e not at all revolutionary, as if the w o r k of intellectuals alone could h a v e m a n u f a c t u r e d such a result, but c o m p a r e d w i t h the remains of other intellectual a n d political tendencies of this century, theirs is not suc h a p o o r legacy. A fe w essential conclusions about the i m p o r t a n c e of these traces of left-wing antitotalitarianism m a y be stated m o r e simply a n d u n e q u i v o ­ cally: G e r m a n socialists were s o m e of the m o s t important thinkers a n d

T h e Lost D e b a t e

220

writers w h o originated a n d sustained a debate about the causes a n d char­ acter of totalitarian dictatorships. W i t h i n the G e r m a n Left of the inter­ w a r a n d w a r t i m e years, there w a s bitter disagreement about the definition of, origins of, nature of, a n d m e a n s of o v e r c o m i n g totalitarianism, a n d for some, the t e r m w a s but a n occasional substitute for fascism. T h o s e w h o identified themselves as leftists m i g h t deploy or reject the t e r m totalitari­ anism as they chose, a n d in using it they could d r a w o n a n array of po s ­ sible definitions, s o m e of t h e m rooted in the tradition of revolutionary M a r x i s m , s o m e not. But as the e x a m p l e s in this study h ave s h o w n , the term's use or n o n u s e b y intellectuals o n the G e r m a n left f r o m the W e i m a r Republic to the B o n n a n d Berlin republics did not always constitute a lit­ m u s test of socialist radicalism. Likewise, those w h o regarded themselves as liberals or conservatives did not exercise sole claim to use of the w o r d totalitarian. Regardless of w h o has used or still uses concepts of totalitarianism, it should b e clear b y n o w that for a time s u c h notions wer e held b y m e m ­ bers of the Marxist or quasi-Marxist G e r m a n Left as well as liberals a n d the Right. It is equally evident that left-wing opposition to fascism did not preclude theoretical or practical opposition to Bolshevism, C o m m u n i s m , or Stalinism— before, during, or after W o r l d W a r II. In fact, for a n u m b e r of G e r m a n intellectuals w h o e n g a g e d in political a n d scholarly debates f r o m the e n d of the W e i m a r Republic to the beginning of the cold war, a n d s o m e t i m e s e ven later, o p p o s i n g totalitarianism could also m e a n w o r k i n g in defense of socialism.

NOTES

Introduction 1. C l a u d e Lefort, T h e Political F o r m s o f M o d e r n Society: Bureaucracy, Democracy, Totalitarianism, ed. a n d trans. J o h n B. T h o m p s o n ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1986), 274-75. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e cited, all translations f r o m f o reign-language sources into English are m y o w n . 2. Several of Lefort’ s b o o k s a n d essays, n o t a b l y t h e writings collected in T h e Political F o r m s o f M o d e r n Society, offer s o m e of the m o s t provocative a n d systematic critical readings of M a r x b y a f o r m e r M a r x i s t that h a v e a p p e a r e d in t h e p o s t w a r period. O t h e r pe r t i n e n t writings b y Lefort i n c l u d e Él é m e n t s d ' une critique de la bureaucratie ( G e n e v a : D roz, 1971); U n h o m m e en trop: Réflections sur "L'Archipel d u G o u l a g " (Paris: Seuil, 1976); Sur u n e colonne absente: Écrits autour de Merleau-Ponty (Paris: G a l l i m a r d , 1978); L'invention démocratique: Les limites d e la d o m i n a t i o n totalitaire (Paris: Fayard, 1981); a n d Essais sur le politique (Paris: Seuil, 1986), trans­ lated b y D a v i d M a c e y as D e m o c r a c y a n d Political T h e o r y (Minneapolis: University of M i n n e s o t a Press, 1988). See also C o r n e l i u s Castoriadis, L a société bureaucratique (Paris: U n i o n générale d ’ éditions, 1973); L'experience d u m o u v e m e n t ouvrier, 2 vols. (Paris: U n i o n générale d'éditions, 1974); L'institution imaginaire de la société (Paris: Seuil, 1975); L a société française (Paris: U n i o n générale d ’ éditions, 1979); Capitalisme m o d e r n e et révolution (Paris: U n i o n générale d'éditions, 1979); Political a n d Social Writings, 2 vols., trans. a n d ed. D a v i d A m e s Curtis (Minneapolis: University of M i n ­ neso t a Press, 1988); Philosophy, Politics, A u t o n o m y : Essays in Political Philosophy, ed. D a v i d A m e s Curtis ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1991); “P o w e r , Politics, A u t o n o m y , ”in Cultural-Political Interventions in the Unfinished Project o f Enlighten­ ment, ed. Axel H o n n e t h et al. ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1992), 269-97; a n d T h e

221

Notes to Pages 3 - 4

222

Castoriadis Reader; trans. D a v i d A m e s Curtis (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997). T h e best analysis in English of the w o r k of Lefort a n d Castoriadis is D i c k H o w a r d , T h e M a r x ­ ian Legacy, 2 d ed. (Minneapolis: University of M i n n e s o t a Press, 1988). A m o n g the writings of Jean-François Lyo t a r d that are m o s t pertinent to t h e history of t h e cri­ tiques of totalitarianism are L a condition p o s t m o d e r n e : Rapport sur la savoir (Paris: Éditions d e M i n u i t , 1979) a n d L e p o s t m o d e r n e expliqué a u x enfants (Paris: Éditions Galilée, 1988). I m p o r t a n t writings o n politics a n d totalitarian dictatorship b y the others m e n t i o n e d her e i n c lude D a v i d Rousset, L ’ univers concentrationnaire (Paris: Éditions d u Pavois, 1946); Albert C a m u s , L ’ h o m m e révolté (Paris: Gallimard, 1951); a n d R a y m o n d Aron, L ’ o p i u m des intellectuels (Paris: C a l m a n n - L é v y , 1955) a n d Démo c r a t i e et totalitarisme (Paris: Gallimard, 1965). A r o n w a s a liberal, n o t a social­ ist, b u t for a t i m e h e h a d friends o n the intellectual left, i n cluding Jean-Paul Sartre a n d S i m o n e d e Beauvoir. 3. O n t h e p o s t w a r left in France, see D a v i d Caute, T h e Fellow-Travellers: A Post­ script to the Enlight e n m e n t ( N e w York: M a c m i l l a n , 1973); T o n y j u d t , M a r x i s m a n d the French Left: Studies o n L a b o u r a n d Politics in France, 1 8 3 0 - 1 9 8 1 (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1989) a n d Past Imperfect: French Intellectuals, 1 9 4 4 - 1 9 5 6 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992); a n d S u d h i r Hazareesingh, Intellectuals a n d the French C o m ­ m u n i s t Party: Disillusion a n d Decline ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1992). See also t h e discussions of t h e C o m m u n i s t Left a n d t h e p r o b l e m of totalitarianism in François Furet, L e passé d ’ u n e illusion: Essai sur l’ idée c o m m u n i s t e a u X X e siècle (Paris: L a f f o n t / C a l m a n n - L é v y , 1995). 4. A short list of t h e b e s t - k n o w n , or at a n y rate m o s t influential, cold w a r - e r a writings (apart f r o m Koestler’ s w a r t i m e D a r kness as N o o n ) that a t t e m p t e d to a n a ­ lyze or portray t h e n a t u r e of totalitarian r e g i m e s includes A r t h u r Koestler, D a r k ­ ness at N o o n ( N e w York: M a c m i l l a n , 1941); G e o r g e Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four ( L o n d o n : Seeker a n d W a r b u r g , 1949); H a n n a h Arendt, T h e Origins o f Totalitarian­ is m (1951; reprint, N e w York: H a r c o u r t Brace J o v a n o v i c h , 1979); J a c o b L. T a l m o n , T h e Origins o f Totalitarian D e m o c r a c y (Boston: B e a c o n , 1952); C z e s l a w Milosz, T h e Captive M i n d , trans. J a n e Z i e l o n k o ( N e w York: Kn o p f , 1953); Carl J. Friedrich a n d Z b i g n i e w Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship a n d Autocracy ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, 1956; 2 d ed., 1965); Barrin g t o n M o o r e Jr., Social Origins o f Dictatorship a n d D e m o c r a c y : L o r d a n d P e asant in the M a k i n g o f the M o d e r n W o r l d (Boston: B e a c o n , 1967); a n d Karl Dietrich Bracher, D i e A u f l ö s u n g der W e i m a r e r Republik: Eine Studie z u m P r o b l e m des Machtverfalls in der Demokr a t i e (Stuttgart: Ring, i 9 5 S)> D i e deutsche Diktatur: Entstehung, Struktur, Folgen des Nationalsozialismus (Ber­ lin: K i e p e n h e u e r u n d W i t s c h , 1969), Zeitgeschichtliche Kontroversen: U m Faschismus, Totalitarismus, D e m o k r a t i e ( M u n i c h : Piper, 1984), a n d D i e totalitäre E r f a h r u n g ( M u n i c h : Piper, 1987). See also t h e v o l u m i n o u s fictional, autobiographical, a n d historical writings of A l e x a n d e r Solzhenitsyn, P r i m o Levi, Jorge S e m p r u n , Ignazio Silone, Victor Serge, Elie Wiesel, M a r g a r e t e B u b e r - N e u m a n n , M i l a n K u n d e r a , V a c l a v Havel, D a n i l o Kis, Nicola C h i a r a m o n t e , M i l o v a n Djilas, a n d R o y M e d v e d e v , a m o n g others. In t h e spirit of G e o r g e O r w e l P s imaginative construction of a night-

N o t e to P a g e 4

223

m a r i s h social order, M a r g a r e t A t w o o d ' s H a n d m a i d ' s Tale (Boston: H o u g h t o n Mifflin, 1986) offers a vivid a n d p o w e r f u l feminist perspective o n t h e p r o b l e m of totalitarian p o w e r . T h e issue of East E u r o p e a n uses of t h e totalitarianism idea h a s e m e r g e d m o r e clearly since 1989. For a n u n c o n v e n t i o n a l e x a m p l e of t h e us e of antitotalitarian critique in Eastern E u r o p e , see V a c l a v Havel, “T h e Velvet H a n g o v e r , ”trans. K â c a P o l â c k o v â Henley, Harper's 281 ( O c t o b e r 1990): 18-21. In this translation of a s p e e c h g i ven in July 1990, H a v e l referred to “t h e shattering of t h e totalitarian s y s t e m ”a n d to “t h e n e w totalitarianism of c o n s u m p t i o n , c o m m e r c e , a n d m o n e y . ”A s w e shall see, H a v e l to s o m e extent followed t h e u s a g e of s u c h earlier G e r m a n leftist writers as Karl K o r s c h a n d H e r b e r t M a r c u s e in describing b o t h c o m m u n i s m a n d capital­ i s m as exhibiting “totalitarian”characteristics. A timely a n d provocative collection of a n t i - C o m m u n i s t writings w i t h a generally Eastern E u r o p e a n focus is Ellen Frankel Paul, ed., Totalitarianism at the Crossroads ( N e w B r u n s w i c k , N.J.: T r a n s a c ­ tion B o o k s , 1990). Essays b y V l a d i m i r B u k o v s k y , A n d r z e j Walicki, a n d Z b i g n i e w R a u offer various perspectives of Eastern E u r o p e a n é m i g r é s f r o m t h e m o n t h s just before t h e fall of t h e Berlin Wall. Still better is Andrzej Walicki, M a r x i s m a n d the L e a p to the K i n g d o m o f Freedom: T h e Rise a n d Fall o f the C o m m u n i s t Utopia (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1995). E v e n f o r m e r C o m m u n i s t Party apparatchiks h a v e gott e n into t h e act. For e x ­ a m p l e , A l e x a n d e r N . Yakovlev, a Soviet-Russian reformist a n d a survivor of regimes f r o m Stalin t h r o u g h Yeltsin, h a s a r g u e d that “the totalitarian, Stalinist r e g i m e in Russia h a d to b e e x p l o d e d f r o m w i t h i n t h e totalitarian p a r t y ”( q u o t e d in Carol J. Williams, “W o r l d R e p o r t Profile: A l e x a n d e r N. Yakovlev,”Lo s Angeles Times, M a y 23,1995, H5). See also A b b o t t Gleason's discussion of s o m e of t h e t e r m ’ s n e w ad­ vocates in Totalitarianism: T h e Inner History o f the C o l d W a r ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1995), 211-16. F o r m e r W e s t e r n C o m m u n i s t s h a v e c o n t i n u e d to t u r n o u t ferocious c o n d e m ­ n a t ions of their earlier politics. O n e of th e m o s t i m p o r t a n t of t h e recent b o o k s of this t y p e is Furet's L e passé d'une illusion. See also T i m Snyder's re v i e w of Furet's, Walicki’ s, a n d Gleason's b o o k s o n totalitarianism: “‘ C o m i n g to T e r m s w i t h th e C h a r m a n d P o w e r of Soviet C o m m u n i s m , ' ”C o n t e m p o r a r y E u r o p e a n History 6, no. 1 (1997): 133-44. S n y d e r s h r e w d l y elucidates e a c h author's p e r sonal relationship to t h e history of C o m m u n i s m w h i l e at t h e s a m e t i m e a v o i d i n g a reductive b i o ­ graphical interpretation. 5.

Friedrich, w h o r a n k e d as a form i d a b l e historian a n d political scientist before

t h e a d v e n t of t h e col d war, first publicly discussed his systematic m o d e l of totali­ tarianism at a c o n f e r e n c e h e o r g a n i z e d o n the subject. See t h e b o o k that resulted f r o m this gathe r i n g of influential scholars f r o m diverse fields: Carl J. Friedrich, ed., Totalitarianism: Proceedings o f a Conference H e l d at the A m e r i c a n A c a d e m y o f Arts a n d Sciences, M a r c h 1 9 5 3 ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, 1954). In this context, it is also w o r t h n o t i n g that th e controversial G e r m a n historian Ernst Nolte h a s stated that “t h e w e l l - k n o w n f o r m of th e t h e o r y [of totalitarianism] w a s devel-

Notes to Pages 4 - 5

224

o p e d b y G e r m a n or G e r m a n - J e w i s h i m m i g r a n t s to t h e U n i t e d States s u c h as Franz B o r k e n a u , H a n n a h Arendt, a n d Carl J. Friedrich.”See Nolte, Streitpunkte: Heutige u n d künftige Kontroversen u m d e n Nationalsozialismus (Berlin: Propyläen, 1993), 28. I w o u l d a d d that B o r k e n a u a n d A r e n d t m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y b e described in s o m e re­ spects a n d for s o m e p u r p o s e s as b o t h G e r m a n a n d G e r m a n - J e w i s h . Borkenau's case is rather complicated, for h e w a s also at tim e s Austrian, Christian, C o m m u n i s t , a n d a n t i - C o m m u n i s t . N o l t e is th e o n l y scholar I k n o w of w h o m e n t i o n s Borken a u ' s innovative w o r k o n t h e c o n c e p t of totalitarianism alongside that of A r e n d t a n d Friedrich. B o r k e n a u ' s n u m e r o u s writings of t h e interwar years are a n i m p o r t a n t focus of this b o o k . 6. D u r i n g t h e 1960s, Brzezinski gradually a b a n d o n e d us e of t h e totalitarian m o d e l in his o w n w o r k . A b b o t t Gl e a s o n , t h e a u t h o r of a recent history of totali­ tarianism, h a s speculated that this shift a w a y f r o m t h e m o d e l likely o c c u r r e d as a result of Brzezinski's i n v o l v e m e n t in p o l i c y - m a k i n g d u r i n g t h e K e n n e d y a d m i n ­ istration a n d later as national security adviser to President Carter. Friedrich, h o w ­ ever, c o n t i n u e d to d e f e n d t h e n o t i o n against its various critics d u r i n g t h e crucial co l d w a r years f r o m th e early 1 9 5 0 s to t h e late 1960s. See G l e a s o n , Totalitarianism, 202. Brzezinski h a d appare n t l y c e ased to rely o n t h e totalitarianism p a r a d i g m b e ­ fore th e 1970s, since Friedrich l a m e n t e d his f o r m e r ally’ s departure f r o m the m o d e l , citing a n article Brzezinski h a d p u b l i s h e d in 1966. See Carl J. Friedrich, " T h e Evo l v ­ in g T h e o r y a n d Practice of Totalitarian R e g i m e s , ”in Totalitarianism in Perspective: Three Views, b y Carl J. Friedrich, M i c h a e l Curtis, a n d B e n j a m i n R. B a rber ( N e w York: Praeger, 1969), 123-64; a n d CarlJ. Friedrich, "F a s c i s m versus Totalitarianism: Ernst Nolte's V i e w s R e e x a m i n e d , ”Central E u r o p e a n History 4, no. 3 (1971): 271-84. T h e article Friedrich criticized w a s Z b i g n i e w Brzezinski, " T h e Soviet Political Sys­ t e m : T r a n s f o r m a t i o n or D e g e n e r a t i o n ? ”P r o blems o f C o m m u n i s m 15, no. 1 (1966): 1-15. O n Friedrich's career a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of his ver s i o n of totalitarian theory, see H a n s J. L i e t z m a n n , " V o n der konstitutionellen zur totalitären Diktatur: Carl J o a c h i m Friedrichs Totalitarismustheorie,”in Totalitarismus: Eine Ideenge­ schichte des 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. Alfons Söllner, Ralf W a l k e n h a u s , a n d K a r i n W i e ­ l a n d (Berlin: A k a d e m i e , 1997), 174-92. 7. Friedrich a n d Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship a n d Autocracy, ist ed., 9-10. 8. Seyla B e n h a b i b , T h e Reluctant M o d e r n i s m o f H a n n a h A r e n d t ( T h o u s a n d Oaks, Calif.: S a g e Publications, 1996), 67; Carl E. Schorske, R e v i e w of Totalitarian Dicta­ torship a n d Autocracy, b y CarlJ. Friedrich a n d Z b i g n i e w Brzezinski, A m e r i c a n Hi s ­ torical R e v i e w 63, no. 2 (1957): 367-68. I use fascism to indicate s u c h political m o v e m e n t s a n d ideas collectively a n d u p p e r c a s e it o n l y w h e n discussing the Fascist Party of Italy. Likewise, th e t e r m so­ cialism refers to leftist m o v e m e n t s a n d ideas generally, a n d Socialist ox Social D e m o ­ crat refers to specific parties a n d their m e m b e r s . Since t h e t e r m s C o m m u n i s t a n d C o m m u n i s m m o s t often refer to a party a n d its m e m b e r s , theories, or policies in this b o o k a n d since t h e y are s o m e w h a t less generic t h a n t h e others, I leave t h e m

Notes to Pages 5 - 6

225

capitalized. T h e a u t h o r s I discuss, h o w e v e r , generally d i d n o t a d h e r e to s u c h dis­ tinctions, a n d I h a v e n o t altered their spelling or t e r m i n o l o g y to fit m i n e . 9. G l e a s o n also m e n t i o n s th e d o m i n a n t influence of t h e Friedrich-Brzezinski m o d e l in Totalitarianism, r25. T h e m o d e l ' s career is h a r d l y over. O n e recent a n d w i d e l y praised study, Klaus P. Fischer's N a z i G e r m a n y : A N e w History ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m , r995), o p e n s w i t h a c h a p t e r entitled " T h e Origins of Totalitarianism'' that cites t h e Friedrich-Brzezinski m o d e l as a basis of t h e book's analysis (r7-r8). 10. A w i d e - r a n g i n g discussion of t h e d o m e s t i c political a n d ideological effects of anti-Soviet foreign policy a n d a n t i - C o m m u n i s t d o m e s t i c policy in t h e U n i t e d States app e a r s in S t e p h e n J. Whitfield, T h e Culture o f the C o l d W a r (Baltimore: J o h n s H o p k i n s University Press, T991). See also Whitfield's c o m m e n t s o n t h e decline of t h e idea of totalitarianism d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of d e t e n t e in "Totalitarianism' in Eclipse: T h e R e c e n t Fate of a n Idea,”in I m a g e s a n d Ideas in A m e r i c a n Culture: Essays in M e m o r y o f Philip Rahv, ed. A r t h u r Edelstein ( H a n over, N.H.: University Press of N e w E n g l a n d , r979), 60 - 9 5 . rr. E v e n s o m e conservative a n d liberal social scientists r e m a i n e d unsatisfied w i t h t h e Friedrich-Brzezinski m o d e l of totalitarian regimes. L e o n a r d Schapiro, a specialist in Soviet studies, prese n t e d his o w n m o d e l in Totalitarianism ( N e w York: Praeger, r972). O t h e r essential discussions of totalitarianism a n d totalitarian t h e o r y include H a n s B u c h h e i m , Totalitäre Herrschaft: W e s e n u n d M e r k m a l e (M u n i c h : Kösel, r962); K o n r a d L ö w , ed., Totalitarismus (Berlin: D u n c k e r u n d H u m b l o t , T988); M i ­ chael Curtis, Totalitarianism ( N e w B r u n s w i c k , N.J.: T r a n s a c t i o n B o o k s , r979); M a n f r e d F u n k e , ed., Totalitarismus: Ein Studien-Reader zur Herrschaftsanalyse m o ­ dernen Diktaturen (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1978); M a r t i n Jänicke, Totalitäre Herrschaft: A n a t o m i e eines politischen Begriffs (Berlin: D u n c k e r u n d H u m b l o t , r97r); A r y e h L. U n g e r , T h e Totalitarian Party: Party a n d People in N a z i G e r m a n y a n d Soviet Russia ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, r974); a n d B r u n o Seidel a n d Siegfried Jenker, eds, W e g e D e r Totalitarismus forschung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche B u c h ­ gesellschaft, 1974). B r a c h e r ha s also articulated his o w n m o r e historically oriented version of totalitarian t h e o r y in Zeitgeschichtliche Kontroversen, 4 3 - 4 4 . Yet a n o t h e r scholar, H e r b e r t Spiro, f o u n d totalitarian t h e o r y w a n t i n g for b o t h political a n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l reasons. H e suggested in his definition of t h e t e r m totalitarianism in t h e s e c o n d edition of th e International Encyclopedia o f the Social Sciences that "a third e n c y c l o p e d i a of t h e social sciences, like th e first one, will n o t list ‘ totalitari­ anism.'”See Spiro, "Totalitarianism,”in International Encyclopedia o f the Social Sci­ ences, 2 d ed., vol. r6 ( N e w York: M a c m i l l a n , r968), rr2. r2. Q u o t e d in Karl Dietrich Bracher, “Totalitarianism,”in Dictionary o f the Hi s ­ tory o f Ideas, vol. 4, ed. Philip P. W i e n e r ( N e w York: Scribner, r974), 408. 13.

For t h e history of these early uses of the t e r m totalitarian, see Je n s Peterson,

" D i e E n t s t e h u n g des Totalitarismusbegriffs,”in Totalitarismus, ed. F u n k e , ro5~28; a n d Ian K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dictatorship: Problems a n d Perspectives o f Interpretation, 3 d ed. ( L o n d o n : E d w a r d A r n o l d , r993), 19-22.

Notes to Pages 7 - 8

226

14. Karl M a n n h e i m , Ideology a n d Utopia, trans. Louis W i r t h a n d E d w a r d Shils (San Diego: H a r c o u r t Bra c e j o v a n o v i c h , 1985), 145-46. T h e source of this translated passage is Karl M a n n h e i m , Ideologie u n d Utopie ( B o n n : C o h e n , 1929), i n - 1 2 . 15. T h e objections to the c o m p a r i s o n (Vergleich) of N a z i s m a n d Soviet C o m m u ­ n i s m registered b y p o s t w a r scholarly writers are partly similar to t h o s e raised b y M a n n h e i m over sixty years ago. See, for instance, H a n s M o m m s e n , “T h e C o n c e p t of Totalitarian Dictatorship vs. t h e C o m p a r a t i v e T h e o r y of Fascism: T h e C a s e of Na t i o n a l Socialism,”in Totalitarianism Reconsidered, ed. Ernest M e n z e (Port W a s h ­ ington, N.Y.: Kennikat, 1981), 146-65; B e n j a m i n Barber, “C o n c e p t u a l F o u n d a t i o n s of Totalitarianism,”in Totalitarianism in Perspective, b y Friedrich, Curtis, a n d Bar­ ber, 3-39; a n d W o l f g a n g W i p p e r m a n n , Faschismustheorien: Z u m Stand der g e g enwär­ tigen Diskussion, 5 t h ed. ( D armstadt: Wi s s e nschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1989), 96-101. 16. T h e strong c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n the t w o m o v e m e n t s receive a brief a n d vig­ o r o u s reappraisal in T i m M a s o n , “W h a t e v e r H a p p e n e d to 'Fascism?'”in N a z ism, Fascism a n d the W o r k i n g Class: Essays b y T i m M a s o n , ed. J a n e C a p l a n ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1995), 323-31. See also the excellent discussions of the t w o regimes b y Tobias Abse, Tilla Siegel, M i c h a e l Geyer, a n d others in Richard Bessel, ed., Fascist Italy a n d N a z i G e r m a n y : C o m p a r i s o n s a n d Contrasts (C a m b r i d g e : C a m ­ bridge University Press, 1996). Fittingly, this collection of essays e m e r g e d as the re­ sult of a conf e r e n c e h e l d at St. Peter's College, Oxford, in 1993 to h o n o r the m e m o r y of T i m M a s o n . Fasc i s m studies are in t h e m i d s t of a renaissance these days, m a r k e d b y the a p p e a r a n c e of several i m p o r t a n t b o o k s o n the topic written f r o m diverse per­ spectives, i n c l uding M a s o n , Nazi s m , Fascism a n d the W o r k i n g Class; R o g e r Eatwell, Fascism: A History ( N e w York: P e n g u i n Books, 1996); R o g e r Griffin, T h e Nature of Fas­ cism ( N e w York: St. Martin's, 1991); Stanley G. Payne, A History o f Fascism, 1 9 1 4 - 1 9 4 5 ( M a d i s o n : University of W i s c o n s i n Press, 1995); W a l t e r Laqu e u r , Fascism: Past, Present, Future ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1996); a n d M a r k Neocleous, Fas­ cism (Minneapolis: University of M i n n e s o t a Press, 1997). This proliferation of i m ­ por t a n t w o r k o n fascism h a s o c c u r r e d partly b e c a u s e rightist m o v e m e n t s h a v e re­ t u r n e d to political p r o m i n e n c e in Europe. T h e innovative w o r k of o n e scholar, Z e e v Sternhell, w h o h a s a r g u e d that Fr a n c e w a s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t source of fascist ideas, h a s also p l a y e d a significant role. See Sternhell, N i droite, ni g a u c h e (Paris: Édition d u Seuil, 1983); “T h e 'Anti-Materialist' Revision of M a r x i s m as a n A s p e c t of the Rise of Fascist Ideology,”Journal o f C o n t e m p o r a r y History 22, no. 3 (1987): 37 9 4 0 0 ; a n d Sternhell, Z. Sznajder, a n d M . Asheri, eds., T h e Birth o f Fascist Ideology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994). For a carefully a r g u e d discussion of fascism a n d t h e “N e w Radical R i g h t ”in E u rope, see D i e t h e l m Prowe, '"Classic' F a s c i s m a n d t h e N e w Radical R i ght in W e s t e r n E u r o p e : C o m p a r i s o n s a n d C o n ­ trasts,”C o n t e m p o r a r y E u r o p e a n History 3, no. 3 (1994): 289-313. 17. K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dictatorship, 20. 18. K e r s h a w r e s p o n d e d quite g e n e r o u s l y to a n earlier version of o n e of this book's chapters a n d a c k n o w l e d g e d m y a r g u m e n t s regarding Fra n z B o r kenau's for-

Notes to Pages 9 - 1 0

227

m u l a t i o n of a c o m p a r a t i v e totalitarianism c o n c e p t in the late 1930s. See W i l l i a m D a v i d Jones, “ T o w a r d a T h e o r y of Totalitarianism: Franz Borken a i T s Pareto,”Jour­ nal o f the History o f Ideas 53, no. 3 (1992): 4 5 5 - 6 6 . For discussions of Hilferding’ s version of t h e idea of totalitarianism, see A n d r é Liebich, “M a r x i s m a n d Totalitari­ a n i s m : R u d o l f Hilferding a n d t h e M e n s h e v i k s , ”Dissent 3 4 (Spring 1987): 2 2 3 - 4 0 ; a n d W i l l i a m S m a l d o n e , “R u d o l f Hilferding a n d t h e Total State,”Historian 5 6 ( A u ­ gust 1994): 97-112. R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a T s earliest uses of th e totalitarian c o m p a r i ­ s o n a p p e a r e d in s o m e of his u n p u b l i s h e d writings f r o m th e w a r t i m e period, w h i c h are discussed later in this b o o k . 19. For excellent a c c o u n t s of t h e G e r m a n Left’ s analyses of fascism, w i t h e m ­ phasis o n th e p o s t w a r era, see W o l f g a n g W i p p e r m a n n , " T h e P o s t - W a r G e r m a n Left a n d Fascism,”Journal o f C o n t e m p o r a r y History 11, no. 4 (1976): 185-219; a n d W o l f ­ g a n g W i p p e r m a n n , “F a s c h i s m u s — n u r ein S c h l a g w o r t ? ”in Tel Aviver Jahrbuch für deutsche Geschichte, vol. 16 (Gerlingen: Bleicher, 1987): 3 4 6 - 6 6 . 20. E. P. T h o m p s o n , “Inside W h i c h W h a l e ? ”in George Orwell: A Collection o f Critical Essays, ed. R a y m o n d W i l l i a m s ( E n g l e w o o d Cliffs, N J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), 87. T h e title of T h o m p s o n ’ s essay— a n d m u c h of its c o n t e n t as well— w a s a hostile rejoinder to O r w e l l ’ s “Inside t h e W h a l e , ”in Inside the W h a l e a n d Other Essays ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , E n g l a n d : P e n g u i n Books, 1982), 9-50. 21. Al f o n s Söllner elaborates a perspective o n t h e politicization of the t e r m s similar to t h e o n e I a r g u e h e r e in his i n t r o d u c t o r y essay, “D a s Totalitarism­ u s k o n z e p t in der I d e e n g e s c h i c h t e de s 20. J a h r h u n d e r t s , ”in Totalitarismus, ed. Söllner, W a l k e n h a u s , a n d W i e l a n d , 10-21. J u a n Linz aptly points o u t that t h e dis­ p u t e over t h e relative valuation of fascism a n d totalitarianism as analytical c a t e g o ­ ries w a s i m portant, b u t h e a d d s that this issue d o e s n o t entirely explain the debates o n dictatorship of t h e 1960s. See Linz, “Totalitarianism a n d Authoritarianism: M y Recollections o n t h e D e v e l o p m e n t of C o m p a r a t i v e Politics,”in Totalitarismus, ed. Söllner, W a l k e n h a u s , a n d W i e l a n d , 151-53. See also W o l f g a n g Sauer, “N a t i o n a l Socialism: Totalitarianism or F a s c i s m ? ”A m e r i c a n Historical R e v i e w 73, no. 2 (1967): 4 0 4 - 2 4 . B y th e late 1970s, scholars w e r e discussing th e a p p a r e n t decline of both concepts. See Whitfield, “'Totalitarianism’in Eclipse”; a n d Gilbert Allardyce, “W h a t Fas c i s m Is N o t : T h o u g h t s o n the Deflation of a C o n c e p t , ”A m e r i c a n Histori­ cal R e v i e w 84, no. 2 (1979): 367-88. T h e e n d of détente b r o u g h t t h e m b o t h roaring b a c k — especially totalitarianism. 22. R e i n h a r d K ü h n l , “Z u r politischen F u n k t i o n der Totalitarismustheorien in der B R D , ”in Totalitarismus: Z u r Problematik eines politischen Begriffs, ed. M . Greiffenh a g e n , R. K ü h n l , a n d J. B. M ü l l e r ( M u n i c h : List, 1972), 7. 23. W i p p e r m a n n , “T h e P o s t - W a r G e r m a n Left a n d Fascism,”193. 24. T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t sources o n th e history of t h e Institute of Social R e ­ search a n d t h e Frankfurt S c h o o l are M a r t i n Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination: A Hi s ­ tory o f the Frankfurt School a n d the Institute o f Social Research (Boston: Little, B r o w n , 1 9 7 3 ); a n d Rolf W i g g e r s h a u s ,D i e Frankfurter Schule: Geschichte, Theoretische Entwick­

lung, Politische B e d e u t u n g ( M u n i c h : D e u t s c h e r T a s c h e n b u c h , 1988), translated b y

N o t e to P a g e ii

228

M i c h a e l R o b e r t s o n as T h e Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, a n d Political Significance ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1994). O n t h e g r o u p ’ s theoretical b a c k ­ g r o u n d a n d d e v e l o p m e n t , see also D a v i d Held, Introduction to Critical Theory: H o r k h e i m e r to H a b e r m a s (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980); J u d i t h M a r c u s a n d Z o l t â n Tar, eds., Foundations o f the Frankfurt School o f Social Research ( N e w B r u n s w i c k , N.J.: Transaction Books, 1984); T h o m a s B o t t o m o r e , T h e Frankfurt School (Sussex: Ellis H o r w o o d , 1984); Seyla B e n h a b i b , Critique, N o r m , a n d Utopia: A Study o f the Foundations o f Critical Theory ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1986); D o u g l a s Kellner, Critical Theory, M a r x i s m , a n d M o d e r n i t y (Baltimore: J o h n s H o p k i n s University Press, 1989); a n d S t e p h e n Eric Bron n e r , O f Critical Th e o r y a n d Its Theorists ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: Blackwell, 1994). 25. See also A n d r e a s Wildt, “Totalitarian State Capitalism,”Telos, no. 41 (Fall

1979): 33-5726. R e i n h a r d K ü h n l , “'Linke’Totalitarismusversionen,”in Totalitarismus, ed. G r e i f fenhagen, K ü h n l , a n d Müller, 9 7 - 1 1 9 , 1 4 1 - 4 4 (notes). O t h e r critical Mar x i s t discussions o f t h e theories of totalitarianism a n d fascism in t h e writings of H o r k h e i m e r a n d his institute collègues a p p e a r in Z o l t â n Tar, T h e Frankfurt School: T h e Critical Theories o f M a x H o r k h e i m e r a n d T h e o d o r W . A d o r n o ( N e w York: J o h n W i l e y a n d Sons, 1977), 113-15; Phil Slater, Origin a n d Significance o f the Frankfurt School: A Marxist Perspective ( L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e a n d K e g a n Paul, 1977), 59-62; a n d M i c h a e l L ö w y , “Partisan Truth: K n o w l e d g e a n d Social Classes in Critical T h e o r y , ” in Foundations o f the Frankfurt School o f Social Research, ed. M a r c u s a n d Tar, 2 8 9 - 3 0 4 . These books a n d L ö w y ’ s article, a l o n g w i t h Perry A n d e r s o n ’ s Considerations o n Western M a r x i s m ( L o n d o n : N e w Left Books, 1976), still offer t h e m o s t systematic, forceful, a n d clearly stated M a r x i s t critiques of t h e Frankfurt School. For a n English-language collection of th e k e y d o c u m e n t s in t h e Historikerstreit, see Forever in the S h a d o w o f Hitler? Original D o c u m e n t s o f the Historikerstreit, the C o n ­ troversy concerning the Singularity o f the Holocaust, trans. J a m e s K n o w l t o n a n d Truett C a t e s (Atlantic H i g h l a n d s , N.J.: H u m a n i t i e s , 1993). A brief discussion of t h e Historikerstreit also a p p e a r s in t h e final c h a p t e r of this b o o k . F o r a controversial v o l u m e of writings o n th e Historikerstreit, see R e i n h a r d K ü h n l , Vergangenheit, die nicht vergeht: D i e “ Historiker-Debatte” ; Darstellung, D o k u m e n t a t i o n , Kritik ( C o l ogne: Pahl-Rugenstein, 1987). 27. Eike H e n n i g , Z u m Historikerstreit: W a s heißt u n d z u w e l c h e m E n d e studiert m a n F a s c h i s m u s ? (Frankfurt a m M a i n : A t h e n ä u m , 1988), 69; Eike H e n n i g , “Z u r T h e o r i e der Totalitarismustheorien o d e r A n m e r k u n g e n z u m N i m b u s eines politi­ s c h e n Begriffs,”N e u e Politische Literatur 21, no. 1 (1976): 1-25. S o m e of H e n n i g ’ sap­ praisals of b o t h t h e cold w a r - e r a t h e o r y a n d t h e various left-wing versions of t h e t h e o r y a m o n g scholars affiliated w i t h t h e Frankfurt Institute of Social R e s e a r c h are f o u n d in T h e s e n zur deutschen Sozial- u n d Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1933 bis 1 9 3 8 (Frankfurt a m M a i n : S u h r k a m p , 1973), 2 4 5 - 4 8 ; a n d Bürgerliche Gesellschaft u n d F a s c h i s m u s in Deutschland: Ein Forschungsbericht (Frankfurt a m M a i n : S u h r k a m p , 1982), 29-31, 56-63.

Notes to Pages 11-13

229

28. K e r s h a w h a s offered s o m e of t h e m o s t t h o u g h t f u l a n d persuasive recent criticisms of t h e revival of totalitarian t h e o r y following t h e collapse of t h e Soviet U n i o n . See his “' W o r k i n g t o w a r d s t h e Führer': Reflections o n t h e N a t u r e of th e Hitler Dictatorship,”C o n t e m p o r a r y E u r o p e a n History 2, no. 2 (1993): 103-18; a n d “Totalitarianism Revisited: N a z i s m a n d Stalinism in C o m p a r a t i v e Perspective,”in Tel Aviver fahrbuch für deutsche Geschichte, vol. 23 (Gerlingen: Bleicher, 1994), 2340. For a w i d e - r a n g i n g collection of essays o n t h e Nazi-Soviet c o m p a r i s o n , see Ian K e r s h a w a n d M o s h e L e w i n , eds., Stalinism a n d N a z i s m : Dictatorships in C o m p a r i s o n ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1997). 29. See W o l f g a n g W i p p e r m a n n ' s c o m p a c t a n d t h o r o u g h l y d o c u m e n t e d Faschismustheorien a n d Z u r Analyse des Faschismus: D i e sozialistische u n d k o m m u n i ­ stischen Faschismustheorien, 1 9 2 1 - 1 9 4 5 (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Verlag M o r i t z Diester­ w e g , 1981). A n o t h e r helpful b o o k o n t h e topic of left-wing critiques of fascism is D a v i d B e e t h a m ' s excellent collection of p r i m a r y source texts, Marxists in Face o f Fascism: Writings b y Marxists o n F a s c i s m f r o m the Inter-War Period ( T otowa, N.J.: B a r n e s a n d N o b l e B o o k s , 1984). 30. Gleason's Totalitarianism offers n u m e r o u s useful discussions of M e n s h e v i k , G e r m a n leftist, a n d o t her socialist a r g u m e n t s against totalitarian dictatorship. See also Liebich, “M a r x i s m a n d Totaltarianism,”as well as t h e brief discussion of the issue in A n d r é Liebich, F r o m the O t her Shore: Russian Social D e m o c r a c y after 192 1 ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, 1997), 238-42. For essays that discuss th e part leftists, i n c l u d i n g s u c h f o r m e r C o m m u n i s t s as A r t h u r Koestler, M a r g a r e t e B u b e r - N e u m a n n , Cor n e l i u s Castoriadis, R u t h Fischer, a n d F r anz B o r k e n a u , played in d e v e l o p i n g n o t i o n s of totalitarianism, see Söllner, W a l k e n h a u s , a n d W i e l a n d , eds., Totalitarismus. 31. Ernst Nolte, Three Faces o f Fascism, trans. Leila V e n n e w i t z (1963; reprint, N e w York: N e w A m e r i c a n Library, 1969), 17-47,569-72. T h e original G e r m a n edi­ tion of t h e b o o k w a s entitled D e r F a s chismus in seiner E p o c h e ( M u n i c h : Piper, 1963). See also N o l t e 's Marxismus-Faschismus-Kalter Krieg: Vorträge u n d Aufsätze, 1 9 6 4 - 1 9 7 6 (Stuttgart: D e u t s c h e Verlagsanstalt, 1977); De u t s c h l a n d u n d der Kalte Krieg ( M u n i c h : Piper, 1974); a n d D e r europäische Bürgerkrieg, 1917-1 9 4 5 : Nationalsozialismus u n d B o l s c h e w i s m u s (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Propyläen, 1987). This last b o o k w a s Nolte's weightiest utterance in t h e Historikerstreit See also t h e collection of essays o n fas­ c i s m edited b y Nolte, Theorien über d e n F a s c h i s m u s ( C o l o g n e : K i e p e n h e u e r u n d W i t s c h , 1967). 32. Ernst Nolte, “F e r n s e g e s p r ä c h z w i s c h e n H a n s M o m m s e n u n d Ernst N o l t e v o m 7. F e b r u a r 1987,”in D a s Vergehen der Vergangenheit: A n t w o r t a n m e i n e Kritiker i m so g e n a n n t e n Historikerstreit (Berlin: Verlag Ullstein, 1987), 84-85. See also Ernst Nolte, “D i e historisch-genetisch V e r s i o n der Totalitarismustheorie: Ärgernis o d e r Einsicht?”Zeitschrift für Politik 4 3 (1996): i n - 2 2 . O n t h e historians' debate, see Forever in the S h a d o w o f Hitler? A m o r e extensive discussion of this controversy, w i t h a focus o n Nolte's singular use of t h e totalitarian c o m p a r i s o n , a p p e a r s in t h e c o n ­ c l u d i n g chapter.

Notes to Pages 13-14

230

33. Pierre Ayçoberry, T h e N a z i Question: A n E s s a y o n the Interpretations o f N a ­ tional Socialism (1922-1975), trans. R o b e r t H u r l e y ( L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e a n d K e g a n Paul, 1981). 34. Wa l t e r Schlan g e n , Theorie u n d Ideologie des Totalitarismus: Möglichkeiten u n d G r e n z e n einer liberalen Kritik politischer Herrschaft ( B o n n : B u n d e s z e n t r a l e fur politische Bildung, 1972); W a l t e r Sch l a n g e n , D i e Totalitarismus-Theorie: Entwicklung u n d Pr o b l e m e (Stuttgart: W . K o h l h a m m e r , 1976). W r i t i n g at a b o u t the s a m e time, L e szek Kolakowski, a Polish é m i g r é philosopher, offered a m a s s i v e a n d systematic historical-philosophical critique of M a r x i s m that i n c l u d e d several brief c o m m e n t s o n leftist antitotalitarian writings. His observations w e r e generally m o r e k n o w l ­ e d g e a b l e a n d e v e n m o r e hostile t o w a r d M a r x i s m t h a n S c h l a n g e n ’ s. B u t as w i t h Ayçoberry’ s N a z i Question, this critique w a s n o t t h e central focus of the b o o k . See Ko l a k o w s k i , M a i n Currents o f M a r x i s m , 3 vols. (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 1978). S t e p h e n Eric B r o n n e r h a s persuasively refuted s o m e of K o l a k o w s k i ’ s remarks o n Karl Korsch. See Bronner, O f Critical Theory a n d Its Theorists, 30, notes 4 9 a n d 57. 35. B r a c h e r ’ s m o s t i m p o r t a n t b o o k s are D i e Auflösung der W e i m a r e r Republik a n d D i e deutsche Diktatur. 36. Karl Dietrich Bracher, f o r e w o r d to Theorie a n d Ideologie des Totalitarismus, b y S c h l a n g e n , 7. For a m o r e elaborate a n d systematic def e n s e of Totalitarismus­ theorie, see Bracher, Zeitgeschichtliche Kontroversen, 34-62. See also his e m p h a t i c re s t a t e m e n t of s u p p o r t for totalitarianism theory, T u rning Points in M o d e r n Times: Essays o n G e r m a n a n d E u r o p e a n History, trans. T h o m a s D u n l a p ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, 1995). For a p o w e r f u l a c c o u n t — a n d persuasive refuta­ ti o n — of t h e various a t t e m p t s (as in B r a c h e r ’ s brief r e m a r k s in t h e f o r e w o r d to Schlangen’ s b o o k ) to bracket as closely a n d consistently similar t h e political t h e o ­ ries of t h e right-wing jurist of t h e W e i m a r period, Carl Schmitt, w h o eventually joi n e d t h e N a z i Party, a n d t h o s e of s o m e o f his M a r x i s t students, s u c h as O t t o K i r c h h e i m e r a n d F r anz N e u m a n n , see W i l l i a m S c h e u e r m a n , B e t w e e n the N o r m a n d the Exception: T h e Frankfurt School a n d the Rule o f L a w (C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1994). Several b o o k s o n S c h m i t t h a v e a p p e a r e d ov e r t h e past t w o decades, includ­ i n g J o s e p h Bendersky, Carl Schmitt: Theorist for the Reich (Princeton, N.J.: Prince­ t o n University Press, 1983); a n d J o h n P. M c C o r m i c k , Carl Schmitt's Critique o f Lib­ eralism: Against Politics as Technology ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1997). M c C o r m i c k m a k e s n u m e r o u s references to K i r c h h e i m e r a n d N e u m a n n a n d asserts that S c h m i t t ’ s leftist students actually “h a v e d o n e as m u c h to obfuscate as to clarify”their t e a c h e r ’ s ideas t h r o u g h misinterpretations of his writings (125, n o t e 5). C h a p t e r 3 discusses s o m e of S c h m i t t ’ s ideas o n th e totalitarian state m o r e extensively. 37. A c o m p a c t a n d lucid s u rvey of this debate, w i t h references to t h e pertinent literature in b o t h English a n d G e r m a n , a p p e a r s in K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dictatorship, I7 - 3 4 - See also t h e representative collection of essays in M e n z e , ed., Totalitarian­ is m Reconsidered.

Notes to Pages 15-17

231

38. Bracher, Tur n i n g Points in M o d e r n Times, 151. T h e article’ s first, G e r m a n l a n g u a g e version is d a t e d 1987 in t h e “n o tes o n sources,”332. 39. For a detailed a c c o u n t of these events, see Gl e a s o n , Totalitarianism. S o m e of the m o s t influential b o o k s in t h e revival of th e c o n c e p t w e r e Jean-François Revel, L a tentation totalitaire (Paris: Éditions R o b e r t Laffont, 1976), translated b y D a v i d H a p g o o d as T h e Totalitarian Temptation ( N e w York: D o u b l e d a y , 1977); BernardH e n r i Lévy, L a barbarie a visage h u m a i n (Paris: Éditions Grasset a n d Fasquelle, 1977), translated b y G e o r g e H o l o c h as B a r b a r i s m with a H u m a n Face ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d R o w , 1979); B r a c h e r (see t h e b o o k s cited in n o t e s 4 a n d 36); a n d J e a n e Kirkpatrick, Dictatorships a n d D o u b l e Standards ( N e w York: S i m o n a n d Schuster, 1982). 40. Bracher, Turning Points in M o d e r n Times. See also K e r s h a w , “Totalitarianism Revisited”; a n d C h r i s t o p h e r Hitchens, “H o w N e o c o n s e r v a t i v e s Perish: G o o d - b y e to Totalitarianism' a n d All That,”Harper's 281 (July 1990): 65-70. H i t c h e n s ’ s article is reprinted in For the Sak e o f A r g u m e n t : Essays a n d Minority Reports ( L o n d o n : Verso, 1993), 1 4 0-48. H i t c h e n s offered a brief, incisive a c c o u n t of the t e r m ’ s uses a n d gave t h e h e g e m o n i c cold w a r version of t h e c o n c e p t a n d its a d m i r e r s a swift a n d glee­ ful political burial. H e rightly criticized th e attitude of political despair t h e c o n ­ cept h a s o f t e n legitimated, a n d h e particularly obje c t e d to J e a n e Kirkpatrick’ s R e a gan-era refashioning of the totalitarian n o t i o n as a h a n d y rationale for a n antiLeft foreign policy. Despite clear signs of w e a r a n d tear, th e c o n c e p t f u n c t i o n e d nicely d u r i n g t h e 1 9 8 0 s to p r o p u p a n anti-Left d o m e s t i c policy as well. Since the collapse of t h e Soviet U n i o n in 1991, t h e idea s e e m s to h a v e r e t u r n e d to the politi­ cal discourse in E u r o p e to s o m e extent, a n d its career in th e U n i t e d States m a y n o t yet b e over. B u t it is rather difficult to see h o w t h e d o m i n a n t a n t i - C o m m u n i s t to­ talitarian m o d e l — especially t h e version revived b y neoco n s e r v a t i v e s d u r i n g the 1970s a n d 1 9 8 0 s — c o u l d b e of m u c h further policy use w h e n it h a d n o t b e e n e s p e ­ cially helpful in e x p l a i n i n g h o w or w h y th e s u p p o s e d l y m o n o l i t h i c , implacable, totalitarian Soviet r e g i m e c o u l d collapse politically a n d t h e n officially d i s m a n t l e itself w i t h a m i n i m u m of b l o o d s h e d . See Kirkpatrick, Dictatorships a n d D o u b l e Stan­ dards, 23-52, 96-138. See also J e a n e Kirkpatrick, T h e Withering A w a y o f the Totali­ tarian State a n d Other Surprises ( N e w York: A m e r i c a n Enterprise Institute, 1991). 41. G l e a s o n , Totalitarianism, 9. 42. A representative collection of writings b y several of t h e Aust r i a n Left’ s i m p o r t a n t theoreticians, w h o w e r e so influential in G e r m a n socialist circles, a p ­ pears in T h o m a s B o t t o m o r e a n d Patrick G o o d e , eds., A u s t r o - M a r x i s m (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 1978). O n t h e M e n s h e v i k exiles, see Liebich's definitive study, F r o m the Other Shore. O n t h e possible c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n th e left-wing, theoretically critical o u t l o o k a n d t h e J e w i s h b a c k g r o u n d s c o m m o n to several of these thinkers, see Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 31-35. 43. See Liebich, “M a r x i s m a n d Totalitarianism,”2 2 3 - 4 0 . Liebich accurately points o u t that t h e adjective totalitarian (often set in q u o t a t i o n m a r k s , in w h a t e v e r

Notes to Pages 1 9 - 2 2

232

l a n g u a g e it a p p e a r e d ) p r e c e d e d t h e n o u n totalitarianism a n d that b o t h t e r m s w e r e at first u s e d b y leftists in a n imprecise w a y (232). 44. S u c h a p p e a r a n c e s w e r e to b e c o m e part of t h e l e g e n d of t h e Eisler family. R u t h Fischer's other brother, H a n n s Eisler, also a C o m m u n i s t , w a s a c o m p o s e r w h o w r o t e a variety of orchestral pieces, including the national a n t h e m of the G e r m a n D e m o c r a t i c Republic. H e faced a hostile H o u s e C o m m i t t e e o n U n - A m e r i c a n A c ­ tivities m o n t h s later. For a helpful capsule b i o g r a p h y of H a n n s Eisler, see A n t o n Kaes, M a r t i n Jay, a n d E d w a r d D i m e n d b e r g , eds., T h e W e i m a r Republic Sourcebook (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 746. 45. S a b i n e H e r i n g a n d K u r t Schilde, K a m p f n a m e R u t h Fischer: W a n d l u n g e n einer deutschen K o m m u n i s t i n (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Dipa, 1995), 276-78. For a c c o u n t s of t h e tribulations of t h e brothers Eisler before t h e H o u s e C o m m i t t e e o n U n - A m e r i ­ c a n Activities, see A n t h o n y Heilbut, Exiled in Paradise: G e r m a n Refugee Artists a n d Intellectuals in A m e r i c a f r o m the 1 9 3 0 ’ s to the Present ( N e w York: Viking, 1983), 3 7 0 74; a n d D a v i d Caute, T h e Great Fear: T h e A n t i - C o m m u n i s t Purge und e r T r u m a n a n d Eisenh o w e r ( N e w York: T o u c h s t o n e B o oks, 1979), 233-34, 4 9 5 - 9 6 .

Chapter 1: Strange Defeat 1. T h e following b o o k s constitute o n l y a s a m p l i n g of t h e m a s s i v e scholarship o n t h e subject of W e i m a r G e r m a n y : Bracher, D i e Auflösing der W e i m a r e r Republik; M a r t i n Broszat, Hitler a n d the Collapse of the W e i m a r Republic, trans. V. R. B e r g h a h n ( L e a m i n g t o n Spa: Berg, 1987); E b e r h a r d Kolb, T h e W e i m a r Republic, trans. P. S. Falla ( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1992); G o r d o n Craig, G e r m a n y , 1 8 6 6 - 1 9 4 5 ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1978); Detl e v Peukert, T h e W e i m a r Republic: T h e Crisis o f Classical Modernity, trans. R i c h a r d D e v e s o n ( N e w York: Hill a n d W a n g , 1992); a n d H e i n r i c h A u g u s t Wink l e r , W e i m a r : 1918-1933: D i e Geschichte der ersten deutschen D e m o k r a t i e ( M u n i c h : Beck, 1993). See also Kaes, Jay, a n d D i m e n d b e r g , eds., T h e W e i m a r R e p u b ­ lic Sourcebook. F o r a n excellent critical discussion of recent scholarship o n t h e W e i m a r period, see Peter Fritzsche, " D i d W e i m a r Fail?”Journal o f M o d e r n History 6 8 ( S e p t e m b e r 1996): 6 2 9 - 5 6 . Fritzsche h a s recently offered his o w n b o l d reinter­ pretation of this pe r i o d in G e r m a n s into Nazis ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r ­ sity Press, 1998). 2. F r a n z N e u m a n n , " T h e D e c a y of G e r m a n D e m o c r a c y , ”Political Quarterly 4, no. 4 (1933): 5 2 5 -433. T h e literature o n t h e S P D f r o m th e o u t b r e a k of W o r l d W a r I to early W e i m a r is v o l u m i n o u s . S o m e of t h e m o s t useful surveys a n d m o n o g r a p h s are R i c h a r d B r e i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r D e m o c r a c y ( C h a p e l Hill: University of N o r t h C a r o l i n a Press, 1981); W . L. G u t t s m a n , T h e G e r m a n Social Democratic Party, 1875-1933: F r o m Ghetto to G o v e r n m e n t ( L o n d o n : Allen a n d U n w i n , 1981); D o n n a Har s c h , G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y a n d the Rise o f N a z i s m ( C h a p e l Hill: University of N o r t h C a r o l i n a Press, 1993); S u s a n n e Miller, D i e B ü r d e der M a c h t : D i e deutsche Sozialdemokratie 1918-1920, Beiträge zur geschichte des Parlia m e n t a r i s m u s u n d der politischen Parteien, vol. 63 (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1978); D a v i d W . M o r g a n , T h e So-

Notes to Pages 2 3 - 2 4

233

cialist Left a n d the G e r m a n Revolution: A History o f the G e r m a n Indep e n d e n t Social Demo c r a t i c Party, 1 9 1 7 - 1 9 2 2 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1975); a n d A. J. Ryder, T h e G e r m a n Revolution o f 1918: A Study of G e r m a n Socialism in W a r a n d R e ­ volt ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1967). Essential b a c k g r o u n d o n t h e S P D of this p e r i o d c a n b e f o u n d in o n e older “classic”s t u d y a n d t w o m o r e recent ones: R o b e r t Michels, Political Parties, trans. E d e n a n d C e d a r Paul ( N e w York: D o ­ ver, 1959); Carl E. Schorske, G e r m a n Social Democracy, 1903-1917: T h e D e v e l o p m e n t o f the G r eat S c h i s m (1955; reprint, C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, 1983); a n d G u e n t h e r Roth, T h e Social D e m o c r a t s in Imperial G e r m a n y (T o t o w a , N.J.: Bed m i n s t e r , 1963). 4. Bracher, D i e A u f l ö s u n g der W e i m a r e r Republik, 578. O n t h e military's role in W e i m a r politics, see also G o r d o n Craig, T h e Politics o f the Prussian A r m y , 1 6 4 0 - 1 9 4 5 (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 1955). 5. O n t h e C o m m u n i s t s ' m u r k y role in this p a rliamentary m a n e u v e r i n g that led to t h e so-called R e d r e f e r e n d u m of 1931, see B e n F o w k e s , C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y u n d e r the W e i m a r Republic ( L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n , 1984); 163-71; a n d O s s i p K. F l e c h t h e i m , D i e K P D in der W e i m a r e r Republik (1948; reprint, H a m b u r g : Junius, 1986), 2 1 9 -20. O n th e Social D e m o c r a t i c Party's re s p o n s e a n d their ouster in 1932, see H a r s c h , G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y a n d the Rise o f N a z i s m , 127-31; a n d Breitman, G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r Democracy, 169-88. 6. O n L u x e m b u r g (1871-1919), see J. P. Nettl, R o s a L u x e m b u r g , 2 vols. ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1966); H a n n a h Arendt, M e n in D a r k T i m e s ( N e w York: Harcourt, Brace a n d W o r l d , 1968), 33-56; N o r m a n Geras, T h e Lega c y o f R o s a L u x ­ e m b u r g ( L o n d o n : N e w Left Books, 1976); Ossip K. F l e c h theim, R o s a L u x e m b u r g : Z u r E i n f ü h r u n g ( H a m b u r g : Junius, 1986); a n d S t e p h e n Eric B r onner, R o s a L u x e m b u r g : A Revolutionary for O u r T i m e s ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1987). Excel­ lent recent interpretations are B r o n n e r ’ s introductory essay, “Reflections o n Rosa,” in T h e Letters o f R o s a Luxemburg, ed. a n d trans. S t e p h e n Eric B r o n n e r (Atlantic H i g h ­ lands, N.J.: H u m a n i t i e s , 1993); a n d Eric D. Weitz, “'Rosa L u x e m b u r g B e l o n g s to Us!': G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m a n d t h e L u x e m b u r g Legacy,”Central E u r o p e a n History 27, no. i (1994): 27-64. Schorske's G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y discusses L u x e m b u r g ' s vital c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e radical critique of social d e m o c r a t i c t h e o r y a n d practice in t h e years of h e r greatest activity in G e r m a n y . 7. O n Zetk i n (1857-1933), see t h e biographical a c c o u n t s of K a r e n H o n e y c u t t , “Clara Zetkin a n d t h e W o m e n ' s Social D e m o c r a t i c M o v e m e n t in G e r m a n y ”(Ph.D. diss., C o l u m b i a University, 1976); a n d K a r e n H o n e y c u t t , “Clara Zetkin: A Social­ ist A p p r o a c h to t h e P r o b l e m of W o m e n ' s O p p r e s s i o n , ”Feminist Studies 3, nos. 3/4 (1976): 131-44. See also t h e n u m e r o u s references to Zetkin in J e a n Quataert, Reluc­ tant Feminists in G e r m a n Social Democracy, 1 8 8 5 - 1 9 1 7 (Princeton, N.J.: P r inceton University Press, 1979); Schorske, G e r m a n Social Dem o c r a c y ; R u t h Fischer, Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m : A Study in the Origins o f the State Party (1948; reprint, N e w B r u n s w i c k , N.J.: T r a n s action B o oks, 1982); F o wkes, C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y under the W e i m a r Republic; a n d Fl e c h t h e i m , D i e K P D in der W e i m a r e r Republik.

Notes to Pages 2 4 - 2 6

234

8. T h e congress m e t f r o m 3 0 D e c e m b e r 1918 to 1 J a n u a r y 1919 a n d declared the f o u n d i n g of t h e K P D o n th e last d a y of its deliberations. See H e r m a n n W e b e r , ed., D e r Gründungsparteitag der K P D : Protokoll u n d Materialien (Frankfurt a m M a i n : E u r o p ä i s c h e Verlagsanstalt, 1969); Eric D. Weitz, Creating G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , 1 8 9 0 - 1 9 9 0 : F r o m Popular Protests to Socialist State (Princeton, N.J.: Pri n c e t o n U n i ­ versity Press, 1997), 78-99; a n d F o wkes, C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y under the W e i m a r Republic, 19-23. O n the o p p o r t u n i s m a n d antirevolutionary actions of s o m e S P D leaders, s u c h as Philipp S c h e i d e m a n n a n d Friedrich Ebert, see Schorske, G e r m a n Social Democracy. 9. Clara Zetkin, “T h e Struggle against Fascism,”in Marxists in Face o f Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , T02-13. For a brief discussion of Z e t k i n ’ s analysis of fascism, see W i p p e r m a n n , Faschismustheorien, 14-16. 10. Zetkin, “ T h e Struggle against Fascism,”103-4. ir. S o m e scholars of fascist theory, m o s t n o t a b l y A. J a m e s Gregor, e m p h a s i z e Zetkin's a p p a r e n t b o r r o w i n g of k e y ideas a n d entire phrases f r o m t h e a r g u m e n t s of G y u l a Sas, w h o w r o t e u n d e r the p s e u d o n y m of Aquila. See Gregor, Interpretations o f F a s c i s m ( N e w B r u n s w i c k , N.J.: Transaction, 1997), 137-38. See also G y u l a Sas, “T h e N a t u r e a n d Historical Significance of Fascism,”in Marxists in Face of Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , ri3-2r. W h i l e Sas’ s originality n o d o u b t deserves m o r e attention t h a n it h a s received, Z e t k i n ’ s s p e e c h h a d the greater i m p a c t o n t h e leftist discussion of fascism. 12. O n t h e events of this volatile p o s t w a r period, see Francis C a r s t e n ’ s authori­ tative studies, Revolution in Central Europe, 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 1 9 (Berkeley: University of Cali­ fornia Press, 1972) a n d T h e Rise o f Fascism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1 9 8 2 ).

13. Q u o t e d in R u t h Fischer, Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , 271. T h e G e r m a n text of th e s p e e c h is reprinted in Dietrich Möller, Revolutionär, Intrigant, Diplomat: Karl R a d e k in D e u t s c h l a n d (Colo g n e : Verlag W i s s e n s c h a f t u n d Politik, 1976), 2 4 5 49, a n d translated in Kaes, Jay, D i m e n d b e r g , eds. T h e W e i m a r Republic Sourcebook, 3r2-i4. Fischer, t h e f o r m e r Elfriede Eisler (r895-i96r), w a s a m e m b e r of t h e G e r ­ m a n C o m m u n i s t Party at t h e time, a n d s h e w a s a b o u t to take over a leading role in t h e party. B y th e t i m e she described these events in T948, Fischer h a d b e c o m e a n e m b i t t e r e d o p p o n e n t of Stalinism. H e r history of t h e W e i m a r K P D deserves to b e consulted, b u t it m u s t b e u s e d w i t h caution, since m a n y sections consist of partial a n d self-serving recollections. For a t h o u g h t f u l a n d largely s y m p a t h e t i c discussion of R u t h Fischer’ s role in th e W e i m a r K P D a n d h e r s u b s e q u e n t activity in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of p o s t w a r Totalitarismustheorie, see K a r i n W i e l a n d , “Totalita­ r i s m u s ’als Rach e : R u t h Fischer u n d ihr B u c h 'Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , ”' in Totalitarismus, ed. Söllner, W a l k e n h a u s , a n d W i e l a n d , 117-38. r4. O n Fischer’ s a n t i p a t h y to R a d e k a n d his i m p o r t a n t role in b o t h t h e Schlageter c a m p a i g n a n d th e failed rising of O c t o b e r 1 9 2 3 — w h i c h R a d e k h a d initially o p p o s e d b u t w a s t h e n o r d e r e d b y t h e Politburo to g u i d e — see W a r r e n Lerner, Karl Radek: T h e Last Internationalist (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1970),

Notes to Pages 2 7 - 2 8

235

117-25. Fischer's anti-Semitic a n d i n f l a m m a t o r y s p e e c h is cited in W e r n e r T. Angress, Stillborn Revolution: T h e C o m m u n i s t B i d for P o w e r ; 1 9 2 1 - 1 9 2 3 (Princeton, N J.: P r i nceton University Press, 1963), 340. Fischer w a s a n ethnic Jew, t h o u g h w i t h M o s c o w ' s p r o d d i n g th e K P D w o u l d steadily divest itself of its J e w i s h leaders b y the e n d of t h e 1920s. Stefan H e y m ' s c o m p e l l i n g biographical novel, R a d e k ( M u n i c h : B e r t e l s m a n n , 1995), offers a n imaginative historical reconstruction of these events a n d personalities. See also F o w k e s , C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y u n d e r the W e i m a r R e ­ public, 91-99; Fl e c h t h e i m , D i e K P D in der W e i m a r e r Republik, 136-50; a n d Kolb, T h e W e i m a r Republic, 4 5 - 5 0 . 15. Lerner, Karl Radek, 126-34; F o w k e s , C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y u n der the W e i ­ m a r Republic, 107-41; G. L. U l m e n , T h e Science o f Society: T o w a r d a n Understanding o f the Life a n d W o r k o f Karl A u g u s t Wittfogel ( T h e H a g u e : M o u t o n , 1978), 143-44. A c c o r d i n g to J. P. Nettl, Fischer w o u l d characterize t h e influence of L u x e m b u r g ’ s politics, w h i c h i n c l u d e d a c o m m i t m e n t to d e m o c r a c y , as “syphilitic.”See Nettl, R o s a L u x e m b u r g , 751, 8 0 0 , 8 0 5 - 6 . O n Radek's decline a n d fate u n d e r Stalin, see Möller, Revolutionär, Intrigant, Diplomat, 48-51. Radek's official e x p l a n a t i o n of th e failed rising of 1923 a p pears in t h e s a m e v o l u m e (258-68). 16. O n t h e C o m m u n i s t ’ s debacle, see t h e different perspectives offered in Angress, Stillborn Revolution; F o w k e s , C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y u n d e r the W e i m a r Republic, 9 5 - 1 0 9 ; a n d R u t h Fischer, Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , 282-347. Influential a c c o u n t s of these events of 1923 set in b r o a d e r national a n d interna­ tional contexts are also f o u n d in Craig, G e r m a n y , 1 8 6 6 - 1 9 4 5 , 4 3 4 - 6 8 ; a n d Franz B o r k e n a u , T h e C o m m u n i s t International ( L o n d o n : Faber a n d Faber, 1938), 243-56. 17. Bracher, D i e A u f l ö s u n g der W e i m a r e r Republik, 624; D a v i d B e e t h a m , “B i o ­ graphical No t e s , ”in Marxists in Face o f Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , 365. Zetkin a u t h o r e d o n e m o r e b o o k in th e service of h e r n e w political allies: Trotzkis V e r b a n n u n g u n d die Sozialdemokratie (Berlin: Internationaler Arbeiter, 1928). 18. R o s a L u x e m b u r g , T h e Russian Revolution, a n d L e n i n i s m or M a r x i s m ? trans. a n d ed. B e r t r a m W o l f e ( A n n Arbor: University of M i c h i g a n Press, 1961), 25-80. O n t h e controversial publication of th e essay, see Nettl, R o s a L u x e m b u r g , 783,792-94. O n Levi's role as o p p o n e n t of R u s s i a n d o m i n a n c e in t h e policy a n d leadership disputes o f t h e G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party, see Albert S. L i n d e m a n n , T h e

Red

Years”: E u r o p e a n Socialism versus Bolshevism, 1 9 1 9 - 1 9 2 1 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974); a n d R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l ’ s detailed t r e a t m e n t of this period in “T h e Bolshevisation of the Spartacus L e a g u e , ”in International C o m m u n i s m , St. A n t o n y ' s Papers, no. 9, ed. D a v i d F o o t m a n ( L o n d o n : C h a t t o a n d W i n d u s , i960), 23-71. L ö w e n t h a l is particularly critical of Rade k , w h o m h e v i e w e d as negotiating a twisting, opportunistic course a m o n g various factions in t h e K P D as well as b e ­ t w e e n t h e C o m i n t e r n a n d t h e Soviet Politburo, g r o u p s that w e r e b y n o m e a n s in consistent a l i g n m e n t o n foreign policy issues. For a brief s u m m a r y of Levi's career a n d political affiliations, see J a n Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten: Z u r Politik, Organisa­ tion u n d Funktion linker politischer Kleinorganisationen i m Widerstand, 1933 bis 1 9 3 9 / 4 0 ( B o n n : Verlag N e u e Gesellschaft, 1986), 296.

Notes to Pages 2 8 - 3 2

236

19. O n this essential point, see Br o n n e r , R o s a L u x e m b u r g ; 62-67. 20. Q u o t e d in ibid., 65. 21. O n t h e c o m p l i c a t i o n s — a n d f r e q u e n t sloppiness— that atte n d u s i n g th e t e r m s bourgeois a n d liberal i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y to indicate a particular set of political a n d class relations, see G e o f f Eley a n d D a v i d B l a c k b o u r n , T h e Peculiarities o f Ger­ m a n History: Bourgeois Society a n d Politics in Nineteenth-Century G e r m a n y (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 1984). For instance, Eley offers this c a u t i o n a r y remark: " T h e r e is often a great deal of c o n c e p t u a l slippage f r o m ‘ bourgeois' to ‘ liberal' in t h e writings of G e r m a n historians, c o n f u s i n g t h e t w o terms' legitimate applica­ tion, w i t h a tendential reduc t i o n of politics to class”(56). 22. O n t h e origins of t h e S P D ' s split into various hostile factions prior to t h e w a r a n d to t h e abortive revolution of 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 ( w h i c h led to t h e f o u n d i n g of the K P D ) , see Schorske, G e r m a n Social Democracy. O n t h e short-lived b u t vitally i m p o r ­ tant U S P D , see M o r g a n , T h e Socialist Left a n d the G e r m a n Revolution. 23. B reit m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r Democracy. 24. F or general a c c o u n t s of t h e K P D d u r i n g W e i m a r , see V o l k e r B e r g h a h n , M o d e r n G e r m a n y : Society;E c o n o m y a n d Politics in the Twentieth Century ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1987), 82-128, passim; a n d Craig, G e r m a n y 1866-1945, 4 6 0 - 6 8 . M o r e detailed studies i n c l u d e F l e c h t h e i m , D i e K P D in der W e i m a r e r Republik; F o w k e s , C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y u n d e r the W e i m a r Republic; H e r m a n n W e b e r , D i e W a n d l u n g des deutschen K o m m u n i s m u s , 2 vols. (Frankfurt a m M a i n : E u r o p ä i s c h e Verlagsanstalt, 1969); a n d K l a u s - M i c h a e l M a l l m a n n , K o m m u n i s t e n in der W e i m a r e r Republik: Sozialgeschichte einer revolutionären B e w e g u n g ( D a r m stadt: W i s senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996). 25. B o r k e n a u , T h e C o m m u n i s t International, 147-48. 26. A r t h u r Rosenberg, Geschichte des B o l s c hewismus (1932; reprint, Frankfurt a m M a i n : A t h e n ä u m , 1987), 1 0 4 - 5 , 1 5 6 - 5 9 . In his ac c o u n t , first p u b l i s h e d in 1932, R o s e n b e r g (1889-1943) praised L u x e m b u r g ' s critique of L e n i n b u t also p o i n t e d o u t the r e s e m b l e n c e b e t w e e n Trotsky's a n d L u x e m b u r g ' s n o t i o n s of party centralism, nationalism, a n d t h e s p o n t a n e i t y of t h e workers' revolutionary efforts. Th i s m a y partly explain his clear distance f r o m e a c h of these leaders’ outlooks. For R o s e n b e r g a n d m a n y o t h e r G e r m a n Marxists, t h e m o r e d e m o c r a t i c a n d w o r k e r - d o m i n a t e d Räte (Councils) of 1 9 18-19 r e m a i n e d t h e best m o d e l for revolutionary practice. 27. See t h e discussions of Levi’ s p o s t w a r role as a bearer of L u x e m b u r g ' s ideas a b o u t p a rty o r g a n i z a t i o n in L i n d e m a n n , T h e “R e d Years,”123-25; a n d R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , " T h e Bolshevisation of th e Spartacus L e a g u e . ”B o t h of these writers are generally s y m p a t h e t i c to Levi, w h o m t h e y see as a principled, e v e n if ultimately unsuccessful, o p p o n e n t of party centralism. 28. R o s e n b e r g ’ s a s s e s s m e n t of L u x e m b u r g is m e n t i o n e d earlier a n d in n o t e 26. Fischer's later discussions of t h e K P D a n d h e r o w n role in it w o u l d play d o w n t h e de g r e e to w h i c h h e r o w n attitudes a n d policies of t h e 1 9 2 0 s h e l p e d generate the k i n d of party sh e later c o n d e m n e d in t h e 1940s. Fischer (see notes 13-15) led th e K P D briefly d u r i n g W e i m a r Republic, a n d s h e w o u l d also b e c o m e o n e of t h e i m -

Notes to Pages 3 2 - 3 3

23 7

p o r t a n t left-wing antitotalitarians of t h e early c o l d w a r period. H e r theoretical contributions to theories of fascism or totalitarianism prior to that t i m e h a d b u t little influence o n deb a t e s w i t h i n t h e Left, h o w e v e r . O n h e r political career a n d writings, see H e r i n g a n d Schilde, K a m p f n a m e R u t h Fischer; a n d R u t h Fischer a n d Arkadij M a slow, A b t r ü n n i g wider Willen: A u s Briefen u n d M a n u s k r i p t e n des Exils, ed. Peter L ü b b e ( M u n i c h : R. O l d e r n b o u r g , 1990). A s for Fischer's j u d g m e n t s o n L u x ­ e m b u r g , in Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , Fischer w o u l d p o r t r a y t h e “a t m o ­ s p h e r e ”o f t h e Spartacist C o n v e n t i o n as o n e “of c o n f u s i o n , of disintegration” o w i n g largely to L u x e m b u r g ' s interventions, a n d Fischer also asserted that Karl L i e b k n e c h t s a w L u x e m b u r g ' s perspective o n events in G e r m a n y as “d a n g e r o u s l y unrealistic”(76). Fischer herself w a s n o t in Berlin d u r i n g these events, a n d t h u s he r dismissal of t h e t h o u g h t s a n d actions of virtually all of t h o s e present o n t h e sce n e warrants a skeptical reading. J. P. Nettl notes the variety— a n d effectively challenges t h e veracity— of s o m e of Fischer's a n t i - L u x e m b u r g r e m a r k s a n d criticisms of S p a r t a k u s b u n d policies in his biography, R o s a L u x e m b u r g , 533,747, n o t e 2,751,767, n o t e 2. 29. Q u o t e d in D o u g l a s Kellner, ed., KarlKorsch: Revolutionary T h e o r y (Austin: University of T e x a s Press, 1977), 68, n o t e 70. See Kellner’ s discussion of K o r s c h ’ s shifting v i e w s o n L u x e m b u r g a n d translations of K o r s c h ’ s pertinent writings o n L u x e m b u r g in c h a p t e r 2, “K o r s c h a n d C o m m u n i s m , ”a n d c h a p t e r 6, “T h e Crisis of M a r x i s m . ”Nevertheless, as M a r t i n J a y maintains, K o r s c h generally distanced h i m s e l f f r o m L u x e m b u r g , despite his claims for h e r val u e as a “t o u c h s t o n e . ”See Jay, M a r x i s m a n d Totality: T h e Adventures o f a C o n c e p t f r o m L u k d c s to H a b e r m a s (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 142. 30. M a x H o r k h e i m e r , “V e r n u n f t u n d Selbsterhaltung'' ( R e a s o n a n d self-pres­ ervation), in G e s a m m e l t e Schriften, vol. 5, “ Dialektik der A u f k l ä r u n g ”u n d Schriften, 1 9 4 0 - 1 9 5 0 (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Fischer, 1987), 350. His w o r d s as translated f r o m t h e G e r m a n differed f r o m hers o n l y slightly: “ A t t h e e n d of t h e progress of reason's self-negation, n o t h i n g m o r e r e m a i n s b u t th e relapse into b a r b a r i s m or th e b e g i n ­ n i n g of history.” Hi s E n g l i s h - l a n g u a g e version of t h e essay e c h o e d precisely L u x e m b u r g ' s antitheses of “b a r b a r i s m or f r e e d o m . ”See H o r k h e i m e r , “T h e E n d of R e a s o n , ”Studies in Philosophy a n d Social Science 9, no. 3 (1941): 388. O t t o K i r c h ­ h e i m e r w a s yet a n o t h e r a d m i r i n g a n d self-conscious inheritor of t h e L u x e m b u r g legacy. See his “M a r x i s m u s , Diktatur, u n d O r g a n i s a t i o n s f o r m e n des Proletariats,” D i e Gesellschaft 1 0 (1933): 230-39. 31. O f t h e writers w h o are t h e focus of this study, Karl Korsch, A r t h u r R o s e n ­ berg, R u t h Fischer, F r a n z B o r k e n a u , H e n r y Pachter, a n d R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l all left or w e r e expelled f r o m t h e K P D f r o m 192 5 t h r o u g h 1929. 32. T h e electoral statistics are f r o m B r e i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r D e m ocracy, 198-99. 33. O n t h e W e i m a r S P D , see ibid.; Harsch, G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y a n d the Rise o f N a z i s m ; a n d W i l l i a m H . M a e h l , T h e G e r m a n Socialist Party: C h a m p i o n o f the First Republic, 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 3 3 (Philadelphia: A m e r i c a n Philosophical Society, 1986). O n the

Notes to Pages 3 3 - 3 4

238

K P D , see F o w k e s , C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y u n d e r the W e i m a r Republic; H e r m a n n W e b e r , D i e W a n d l u n g des deutschen K o m m u n i s m u s ; a n d Weitz, Creating G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , 10 0 - 2 7 9 . Weitz's extensive analysis of rank-and-file party culture of t h e W e i m a r p e r i o d ranks as o n e of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t recent contributions to the history o f t h e K P D . 34. F l e c h t h e i m , D i e K P D in der W e i m a r e r Republik, 151-95; Fowkes, C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y u n d e r the W e i m a r Republic, 110-37; B o r k e n a u , T h e C o m m u n i s t Interna­ tional, 265-68. O n th e “unit e d front”a n d “p o p u l a r front”tactics of the C o m i n t e r n , see t h e t h o u g h t f u l a n d innovative analysis of G e r d - R a i n e r H o r n , E u r o p e a n Social­ ists R e s p o n d to Fascism: Ideology, Activism a n d C o n t i n g e n c y in the 1 9 3 0 s (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 1996), 26-36. 35. B o r k e n a u , T h e C o m m u n i s t International, 2 6 8 - 7 0 ; F o w k e s , C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y u n d e r the W e i m a r Republic, 140-41; Weitz, Creating G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , 278-301. W e i t z points o u t that t h e C o m i n t e r n ’ s directives to t h e K P D w e r e s o m e ­ tim e s defied or b a d l y carried out. In short, th e relationship b e t w e e n the t w o g r o u p s w a s o f ten far f r o m h a r m o n i o u s . O n t h e a n ti-Semitism e v i dent in t h e K P D ’ s per­ s o n n e l c h a n g e s of t h e period, as well as tho s e of o t h e r parties, see Saul Friedländer, N a z i G e r m a n y a n d the Jews, vol. 1, T h e Years o f Persecution, 1 9 3 3 - 1 9 3 9 ( N e w York: H a r p e r Collins, 1997), 106. 36. T h e role of s u c h f o r m e r K P D insiders as F r a n z B o r k e n a u , R u t h Fischer, a n d R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l in generating a n d sustaining t h e “Stalinization thesis”regard­ in g t h e G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t Party— a n o t i o n that often s u p p o r t e d th e a c c e p t a n c e of t h e d o m i n a n t totalitarian t h e o r y of the cold w a r period— is e x a m i n e d in the clos­ in g chapter. I m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e s of th e revisionist scholarship o n the W e i m a r - e r a K P D that challenges or modifies this traditional v i e w includes Weitz, Creating Ger­ m a n C o m m u n i s m ; M a l l m a n n , K o m m u n i s t e n in der W e i m a r e r Republik; E v e Rosenhaft, Beating the Fascists? T h e G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s a n d Political Violence, 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 3 3 ( C a m ­ bridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1983); J a m e s W i c k h a m , “Social Fascism a n d the Division of t h e W o r k i n g - C l a s s M o v e m e n t , ”Capital a n d Class 7, no. 1 (1979): 1-65; E v a Corn e l i a S c h o c k , Arbeitslosigkeit u n d Rationalisierung: D i e L a g e der Arbeiter u n d die k o m m u n i s t i c h e Gewerkschaftspolitik, 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 2 8 (Frankfurt a m M a i n : C a m p u s , 1977); a n d A t i n a G r o s s m a n , “ A b o r t i o n a n d E c o n o m i c Crisis: T h e 1931 C a m p a i g n against §218 in G e r m a n y , ”N e w G e r m a n Critique 14 (Spring 1978): 119-38. 37. B r e i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r Democracy, 144-47. 38. Q u o t e d in ibid., 146-47. See also t h e excellent critical discussion of t h e SPD’ s inability to build o n the 19 2 8 election results that a p p ears in Harsch, G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y a n d the Rise o f Nazism, c h a p t e r 2. 39. T h e life a n d w o r k of R u d o l f Hilferding (1871-1941) w e r e m o s t l y neglected f r o m t h e m i d - 1 9 6 0 s to the m i d - 1 9 8 0 s , b u t this a p p e a r s to b e c h a n g i n g . W i l l i a m Smaldone’ s n e w biography, R u d o l f Hilferding: T h e Tragedy o f a G e r m a n Social D e m o ­ crat ( D e Kalb: N o r t h e r n Illinois University Press, 1998), offers a b r o a d l y c o n c e i v e d a n d t h o u g h t f u l reconsideration of the intellectual a n d political i m p o r t a n c e of this crucial figure. A n o t h e r notable recent s t u d y is F. Peter W a g n e r , R u d o l f Hilferding:

Notes to Pages 35-3 6

239

The o r y a n d Politics o f Democratic Socialism (Atlantic H i g h l a n d s , N J.: H u m a n i t i e s , 1996). Still valuable is W i l h e l m Gottschalch, Strukturveränderungen der Gesellschaft u n d politisches H a n d e l n in der Lehre von RudolfHilferding (Berlin: D u n c k e r u n d H u m blot, 1962). Brief a s s e s s m e n t s of Hilferding's W e i m a r years i n c l u d e W i l l i a m S m a l d o n e , “R u d o l f Hilferding a n d th e Theoretical F o u n d a t i o n s of G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y , 1 9 0 2 - 3 3 , ”Central E u r o p e a n History 21, no. 3 (1988): 2 6 7-99; a n d Breitm a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r Democracy, 116-30, passim. 40. O n t h e fracturing of political s u p p o r t for t h e W e i m a r Republic, see Peter Fritzsche, Rehearsals for Fascism: P o p u l i s m a n d Political Mobilization in W e i m a r Ger­ m a n y ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1990); Bracher, D i e Auflösung der W e i m a r ­ er Republik; T h o m a s Childers, T h e N a z i Voter: T h e Social Foundations o f Fascism in G e r m a n y , 1 9 1 9 - 1 9 3 3 ( C h a p e l Hill: University o f N o r t h C a r o l i n a Press, 1983); Peukert, T h e W e i m a r Republic, 2 2 2 - 4 6 ; a n d Craig, G e r m a n y , 1 8 6 6 - 1 9 4 5 , 534-68. O n Stresemann’ s i m p o r t a n t role, see H e n r y A. Turner, Strese m a n n a n d the Politics o f the W e i m a r Republic (Princeton, N.J.: P r i n c e t o n University Press, 1963). 41. Se e B r e i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r D e m o c r a c y , 1 4 4 - 4 5 ; a n d Har s c h , G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y a n d the Rise o f N a z i s m , 4 2 -43. 42. B r e i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r Democracy, c h a p t e r 8, offers a suc­ cinct analysis of t h e Prussian SPD's greater i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d political s a v v y c o m ­ p a r e d w i t h th e national party's. For a c c o u n t s of t h e M a y D a y violence in 1929, see T h o m a s Kurz, “ B l u t m a i ”: Sozialdemokraten u n d K o m m u n i s t e n i m B r e n n p u n k t der Berliner Ereignisse v o n 1 9 2 9 (Berlin: Dietz, 1988); F l e c h t h e i m , D i e K P D in der W e i m a r e r Republik, 201-3; a n d J o h n Willett, T h e N e w Sobriety: A r t a n d Politics in the W e i m a r Period, 1917-1933 (1978; reprint, L o n d o n : T h a m e s a n d H u d s o n , 1987), 17880. 43. S o urces o n K o r s c h (1886-1961) include H e d d a Korsch, “M e m o r i e s of Karl K o r s c h , ”N e w Left Review, no. 7 6 ( N o v e m b e r / D e c e m b e r 1972): 35 - 4 5 ; M i c h a e l Buckmiller, ed. Z u r Aktualität v o n Karl Korsch (Frankfurt a m M a i n : E u r o p ä i s c h e Verlagsanstalt, 1981); Patrick G o o d e , Karl Korsch: A Study in Western M a r x i s m ( L o n ­ d o n : M a c m i l l a n , 1979); G i a n E n rico Rusconi, “Korsch's Political D e v e l o p m e n t , ” Telos, no. 27 (Spring 1976): 6r-78; Russell Jacoby, Dialectic o f Defeat: Contours o f Western M a r x i s m ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1981), 92-99; Kellner, ed. Karl Korsch; H a n s - J ü r g e n Kornder, Konterrevolution u n d Faschismus: Z u r Analyse v o n Nationalsozialimus, F a s c h i s m u s u n d Totalitarismus in W e r k v o n Karl Korsch (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Peter Lang, 1987); Jay, M a r x i s m a n d Totality, 128-49; a n d Paul Breines, “Korsch's R o a d to M a r x , ”Telos, no. 2 6 ( W i n t e r 1975-76): 4 2 -56. See also Paul Breines, “Praxis a n d Its Theorists: T h e I m p a c t of L u k â c s a n d K o r s c h in the 1920s,”Telos, no. 11 (Spring 1972): 67-103; a n d Fred Halliday, “Karl Korsch: A n In­ troduction,”in Karl Korsch, M a r x i s m a n d Philosophy ( N e w York: M o n t h l y R e v i e w Press, 1970), 7-26. In 1924, G r e g o r y Zinoviev, director of t h e C o m i n t e r n , n a m e d Korsch, Lukâcs, a n d several others as special offenders in t h e m a t t e r of C o m m u n i s t u n o r t h o d o x y . See Jay, M a r x i s m a n d Totality, 129, n o t e 4. Subsequently, these thinkers g a i n e d at-

Notes to Pages 3 6 - 3 7

240

tention as s o m e of the m o s t i n n ovative M a r x i s t thinkers of this century. T h e origi­ nal G e r m a n - l a n g u a g e version of K o r s c h ’ s b o o k w a s entitled M a r x i s m u s u n d Philosophie (1923; reprint, Frankfurt a m M a i n : E u r o p ä i s c h e Verlagsanstalt, 1966). T h e b o o k w i t h w h i c h it is so often paired a n d c o m p a r e d , G e o r g L u k ä c s ’ s Geschichte u n d Klassenbewußtsein (Berlin: Malik, 1923)— t h e original edition of History a n d Class Consciousness— h a d a strong a n d i m m e d i a t e i m p a c t o n Mar x i s t intellectuals in t h e 1920s, despite its author's l o n g - t e r m a n d peculiar a t t e m p t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y to c l a i m at least parts of it a n d to distance h i m s e l f f r o m s o m e of t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of its “h i g h l y contradictory a m a l g a m of theories.”L u k ä c s ’ s collected w o r k s a n d various autobiographical writings (see t h e references in th e bibliography) offer the record of o n e of the m o s t influential a n d controversial M a r x i s t intellectuals of this century. See also L u k â c s ’ s 1 9 6 7 preface to History a n d Class Consciousness, trans. R o d n e y L i v i ngstone ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1971), x. A n t o n i o G r a m s c i ’ s Q u a d e r n i del carcere: Edizione critica, 4 vols., ed. V a l e n t i n o G e r r a t a n a (Turin: Giulio Ein a u d i Editore, 1975)— k n o w n in various English-language editions as Prison Note­ books — t h o u g h originally p u b l i s h e d p i e c e m e a l over t h e course of d e c a d e s h a s also h a d a far m o r e attentive a n d i m p o r t a n t reception t h a n Korsch's w o r k . M o r e re­ cently available in English are G r a m s c i ' s Prison Letters, ed. F r a n k R o s e n g a r t e n , trans. R a y m o n d R o s e n t h a l ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1994). Regardless of h o w o n e v i e w s its results, t h e recovery of th e tradition of H e g elian t h o u g h t in M a r x i s m stands as o n e of t h e s e m i n a l d e v e l o p m e n t s in W e s t E u r o p e a n intellectual life in this century. T h e s e c o n d a r y literature o n this general p h e n o m ­ e n o n — a n d o n t h e b o o k s a n d careers of Korsch, Lukâcs, a n d G r a m s c i , in particu­ lar— is b y n o w a n archive u n t o itself, t h o u g h its g r o w t h a p p e a r s to b e s l o w i n g over t h e past decade. I m p o r t a n t considerations o n t h e career a n d influence of L u k â c s are f o u n d in t h e b o o k s b y M i c h a e l L ö w y , H a r r y Liebers o h n , A g n e s Heller, L e e C o n g d o n , a n d G e o r g L i c h t h e i m that are listed in t h e bibliography. For a clearly p r e s e n t e d g u i d e to th e complexities a n d shifting t e r m s of this historical d e v e l o p ­ m e n t in philosophical M a r x i s m as well as t h e w o r k of its interested critics, n o t to m e n t i o n t h e i m m e n s e s e c o n d a r y literature o n t h e topic as of th e m i d - 1 9 8 0 s , see Jay, M a r x i s m a n d Totality. For a s t u d y of t h e c o u r s e a n d i m p a c t of t h e t u r n to H e g e l i a n t h o u g h t in France, o n e of t h e m o s t significant scenes of this d e v e l o p ­ m e n t , see M i c h a e l S. Roth, K n o w i n g a n d History: Appropriations o f Hegel in Twenti­ eth-Century France (Ithaca, N.Y.: C o r n e l l University Press, 1988). T h e k e y figure in Roth’ s s t u d y is A l e x a n d r e Kojève, t h e inno v a t i v e p h i l o s o p h e r a n d influential a u ­ t h o r of Introduction to the R e a d i n g o f Hegel, ed. Allan B l o o m , trans. J a m e s H. N i c h o l s (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1980). 44. Halliday, “Karl K o r s c h , ”7-9. See also Paul Breines, introduction to Three Essays o n M a r x i s m , b y Karl K o r s c h ( N e w York: M o n t h l y R e v i e w Press, 1971), 3-10. 45. Halliday, “Karl K o r s c h , ”7-26; Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 291. O n th e extent of K o r s c h ’ s influence o n Brecht, see E u g e n e L u n n , M a r x i s m a n d M o d e r n i s m : A n Historical Study o f Lukâcs, Brecht, Benja m i n , a n d A d o r n o (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 1 0 8 - 9 , 1 3 0 - 3 2 . Brecht, for instance, criticized t h e “social

Notes to Pages 3 7 - 4 0

241

fascism”line b u t n e v e r repu d i a t e d t h e Soviet U n i o n , as K o r s c h did unequivocally. O n th e 1923 m e e t i n g of t h e leading G e r m a n sp e a k i n g M a rxist theoreticians, w h i c h H e d d a K o r s c h (1890 - 1 9 8 2 ) also attended, see M i c h a e l Buckmiller, "Di e ‘ Mar x i s t ­ ische A r b e i t s w o c h e ' 1923 u n d die G r ü n d u n g des ‘ Instituts für Sozialforschung,'” in G r a n d Hotel A b g r u n d : Eine Photobiographie der Kritischen Theorie, ed. G u n z e l i n S c h m i d N o e r r a n d W i l l e m v a n Reijen ( H a m b u r g : Junius, 1988), 141-82. 46. Karl Korsch, ‘ ‘ Blutiger M a i in Berlin,”D i e Aktion 19, nos. 3/4 (1929): 92. 47. Ibid., 9 3 - 9 4 48. Se e W i c k h a m , ‘ ‘ Social F a s c i s m a n d t h e D i vision of t h e W o r k i n g - C l a s s M o v e m e n t , ”1-65. 49. T r otsky clearly despised t h e S P D leadership, inc l u d i n g R u d o l f Hilferding, b u t in 1931 h e u r g e d t h e K P D to seek practical alliances w i t h t h e S P D r a n k a n d file. See L e o n Trotsky, ‘ ‘ For a W o r k e r s ' U n i t e d Front against Fascism,”in Marxists in Face o f Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , 208-11. In 1937, h o w e v e r , Trotsky w o u l d still refer to ‘ ‘ th e historic c r i m e of r e f o r m i s m ”in a reference to t h e S P D ' s role in 1918-19. See L e o n Trotsky, T h e Revolution Betrayed, trans. M a x E a s t m a n (1932; reprint, N e w York: Pathfinder, 1972), 8-9. See also A u g u s t T h a l h e i m e r , “So-called Social-fascism,”in Marxists in Face o f Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , 195-97. 50. See, for e x a m p l e , Ernst T h ä l m a n n ' s s p e e c h to t h e K P D Central C o m m i t t e e of F e b r u a r y 1932 in Marxists in Fac e o f Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , 161-67. 51. Statistics f r o m Bre i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r Democracy, 198-99. 52. Felix Escher, Neukölln (Berlin: C o l l o q u i u m , 1988), 75. 53. Korsch's c h a n g i n g perspective o n L e n i n a n d t h e t i m i n g of his disillusion­ m e n t w i t h t h e f o u n d e r a n d leader of B o l s h e v i s m h a s b e c o m e a point of controversy a m o n g s o m e K o r s c h scholars. D o u g l a s Kellner claims that K o r s c h strongly a d m i r e d L e n i n until h e s a w t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of his policies after t h e m i d - i 9 2 0 s ( w h i c h places this m o m e n t after Lenin's death). O t h e r writers, inclu d i n g H e n r y Pachter, w h o studied w i t h K o r s c h d u r i n g this period, a n d Russell Jacoby, w h o h a s also writ­ t e n a b o u t Korsch, a r g u e that t h e W e i m a r M a r x i s t theoretician joined Lenin's crit­ ics m u c h sooner. See D o u g l a s Kellner, “Korsch's Revo l u t i o n a r y Historicism,”Telos, no. 2 6 ( W i n t e r 1975-76): 70-93; H e n r i Rabasseire [Pachter], “Kellner o n Kor s c h , ” Telos, no . 2 8 ( S u m m e r 1976): 1 9 5 -98. Russell Jacoby, Dialectic o f Defeat, n o t e s Korsch's critical r e m a r k s a b o u t L e n i n in 1 9 2 4 a n d argues that th e C o m i n t e r n ' s at­ tack o n K o r s c h w a s n o m i s t a k e b u t w a s consistent w i t h its a t t e m p t to control dis­ cussions of M a r x i s m (96,175-76, n o t e 71). Jay m e n t i o n s th e d e b a t e a b o u t K o r s c h a n d Lenin, w i t h references, in M a r x i s m a n d Totality, 131, n o t e 10. 54. Q u o t e d in Kellner, ed., Karl Korsch, 163-64. L é o n B l u m a n d C a m i l l e C h a u t e m p s w e r e political leaders of t h e m o d e r a t e Left in France. 55. S e e H o r k h e i m e r ' s i n a u g u r a l address as h e a d of t h e institute, in M a x H o r k h e i m e r , B e t w e e n Philosophy a n d Social Science: Selected Early Writings, trans. G. Frederick H u n t e r , M a t t h e w S. K r a m e r , a n d J o h n T o r p e y ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1993), 1-14. F or a brief s u m m a r y of H o r k h e i m e r ' s life a n d career, see J o h n M c C o l e , Seyla B e n h a b i b , a n d W o l f g a n g B o n ß , “Introduction, M a x H o r k h e i m e r :

Notes to Pages 4 0 - 4 2

24 2

B e t w e e n P h i l o s o p h y a n d Social Science,”in O n M a x Horkheimer: N e w Perspectives, ed. Seyla B e n h a b i b , W o l f g a n g B o n ß s , a n d J o h n M c C o l e ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1993), i-22. In addition to t h e essays collected in O n M a x Horkheimer, the m o s t i m p o r t a n t s e c o n d a r y sources o n H o r k h e i m e r (1895-1973) a n d his career w i t h th e Institute of Social R e s e a r c h are Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination; a n d Wi g g e r s hau s , D i e Frankfurter Schule. W i g g e r s h a u s e m p h a s i z e s that t h e institute's focus c h a n g e d e v e n before t h e N a z i takeover w h e n t h e leadership shifted f r o m Carl G r ü n b e r g to H o r k h e i m e r a n d social t h e o r y s u p e r s e d e d social history as a focus of research a n d writing (40). For divergent perspectives o n t h e role a n d significance of H o r k h e i m e r ’ s a n d th e institute’ s “critical t h e o r y ”in th e tradition of socialist t h o u g h t , see Scott W a r r e n , T h e E m e r g e n c e o f Dialectical Th e o r y (Chicago: U n i v e r ­ sity of C h i c a g o Press, 1984), 144-76; a n d Kolakowski, M a i n Currents of Ma r x i s m , vol. 3, 3 4 1 - 9 5 -W a r r e n praises critical t h e o r y ’ s insistence that M a r x i s m w a s a n “o p e n e n d e d critique”b u t l a m e n t s its ev e n t u a l s u n d e r i n g of t h e o r y f r o m practice. K o l a k o w s k i e m p h a t i c a l l y c o n d e m n s t h e various critical theorists in turn, object­ i n g to b o t h their politics a n d their philosophy. 56. T h e issue of th e Institute of Social R e s e a r c h a n d its distance f r o m M a rxist o r t h o d o x y h a s received a g o o d deal of attention. See Jay, M a r x i s m a n d Totality, 196219; Slater, Origin a n d Significance o f the Frankfurt School, 89,165; Tar, T h e Frankfurt School, 42 - 4 3 ; D o u g l a s Kellner, Herbert M a r c u s e a n d the Crisis o f M a r x i s m (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 416, n o t e 85; a n d Barry Katz, Herbert M a r c u s e a n d the A r t o f Liberation: A n Intellectual Biography ( L o n d o n : Verso, 1982), 160. Slater a n d Tar generally e m p h a s i z e t h e n o n - M a r x i s t character of critical t h e o r y — H o r k heimer’ s version of it in particular. All of these a u t h o r s see M a r c u s e as th e t h e o ­ rist of this g r o u p w h o r e m a i n e d closest to t h e M a r x i s t tradition, t h o u g h t h e y dis­ agree o n h o w close to that tradition h e w a s in his later w o r k . 57. M a x H o r k h e i m e r , “D i e O h n m a c h t der d e u t s c h e n Arbeiterklasse,”in G e s a m ­ melte Schriften, vol. 2, Philosophische Frühschriften, 1922-1932, ed. G u n z e l i n S c h m i d N o e r r (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Fischer, 1987), 375. 58. Ibid., 375-76.

59- Ibid., 376. 60. O n K o r s c h ’ s W e i m a r a n d exile career, including his clash w i t h the K P D a n d C o m i n t e r n leadership, see H e d d a Korsch, “M e m o r i e s of Karl K o r s c h ”;a n d Kellner, ed., Karl Korsch, 30-113. S ee also t h e s y m p a t h e t i c appraisal of K o r s c h in Russell Jacoby, Dialectic o f Defeat, 92-99. J a c o b y also e m p h a s i z e s K o r s c h ’ s isolation a n d l a m e n t s t h e scholarly neglect of his writings. 61. B r e i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r Democracy, 103-4. 62. For a su r v e y of t h e c o m p l i c a t e d a n d ultimately failed politics of leftist E u ­ r o p e a n antifascism, see Larry Ceplair, U n d e r the S h a d o w o f W a r : Fascism, AntiFascism, a n d Marxists, 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 3 9 ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1987). 63. A n exhaustive s t u d y of t h e Social D e m o c r a t ’ s o p p o s i t i o n to the Nazis d u r ­ i n g t h e W e i m a r p e riod b o t h s u m m a r i z e s a n d reinterprets the record of this period: W o l f r a m Pyta, G e g e n Hitler u n d ß r die Republik: D i e Auseinandersetzung der deutschen

Notes to Pages 4 3 - 4 4

243

Sozialdemokratie m i t der N S D A P in der W e i m a r e r Republik. (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1989). Pyta's c o n c l u s i o n e c h o e s t h e l o n g-standing analysis of t h e collapse of W e i m a r as t h e result of t h e forces of r i g h t-wing ( N S D A P ) a n d left-wing ( K P D ) e x t r e m i s m , w h i c h r u i n e d a n y h o p e for th e S P D ' s p a r l i a m e n t a r y efforts to save t h e W e i m a r Republic. U n l i k e s o m e o t h e r historians w h o d r a w this s a m e conclusion, h o w e v e r , P y t a also highlights th e role p l a y e d b y traditional conservatives in b r i n g i n g Hitler to p o w e r . Rejecting t h e f o r m u l a that W e i m a r G e r m a n y w a s a “republic w i t h o u t republicans,”h e argues that, in its p e riod of crisis, G e r m a n y w a s a “republic w i t h ­ o u t republicans in positions of p o w e r , ”a verbally small b u t politically decisive dis­ tinction (515). 64. J o s e p h Stalin, “T h e Period of B o u r g e o i s - D e m o c r a t i c Pacifism,”in Marxists in Face o f Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , 154. 65. F r a n k Adler, “T h a l h e i m e r , B o n a p a r t i s m a n d Fascism,”Telos, no. 4 0 ( S u m ­ m e r 1979): 101. Adler's biographical essay o n T h a l h e i m e r ( 1 8 8 4 - 1 9 4 8 ) provides useful b a c k g r o u n d for s t u d y of th e w o r k of this i m p o r t a n t figure of t h e G e r m a n Left. See also M a r t i n Kitchen, “ A u g u s t T h a l h e i m e r ' s T h e o r y of Fascism,”Journal o f the History o f Ideas 34, no. 1 (1973): 67-78; Jost Dülffer, “B o n a p a r t i s m , F a s c i s m a n d N a t i o n a l Socialism,”Journal of C o n t e m p o r a r y History 11, no. 4 (1976): 109-28; R u t h Fischer, Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , 1 9 8 , 2 0 7 - 1 0 , 2 1 6 , 2 7 8 - 8 2 ; Flech t h e i m , D i e K P D in der W e i m a r e r Republik, 1 2 5 - 3 8 , 1 5 4 - 6 2 , 1 7 4 , 2 0 0 - 2 0 1 ; a n d F o w k e s , C o m m u ­ n i s m in G e r m a n y under the W e i m a r Republic, 147-52. T h a l h e i m e r ' s later career h o lds little significance for this study. After th e N a z i victory in G e r m a n y , T h a l h e i m e r w e n t to Fran c e a n d eventually settled in C u b a , w h e r e h e d i e d in 1948. A m o r e re­ cen t a n d hig h l y controversial a s s e s s m e n t of W e i m a r , D a v i d A b r a h a m , T h e Collapse o f the W e i m a r Republic, 2 d ed. (Princeton, N.J.: P r i n c e t o n University Press, 1987), m a d e limited us e of B o n a p a r t i s m t h e o r y in its critical a n d i n n o v a t i v e M a r x i s t analysis of G e r m a n fascism. T h e scat h i n g professional a n d public attacks o n A b r a h a m ' s w o r k , w h i c h focused o n m e t h o d s , m e t h o d o l o g i e s , us e of evidence, a n d (not least) t h e politics of historical interpretation are abl y r e c o u n t e d in R o b e r t N o v i c k , T h a t N o b l e D r e a m : T h e “Objectivity Ques t i o n ”a n d the A m e r i c a n Historical Profession ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1988), 612-21. For t h e final m a j o r r o u n d of a r g u m e n t s f r o m t w o of the principals in t h e debate, D a v i d A b r a ­ h a m a n d G e r a l d D. F e l d m a n , see Central E u r o p e a n History 17, nos. 2/3 (1984)* 159293-

66. D a v i d B e e t h a m , introduction to Marxists in Face o f Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , 27. 67. A u g u s t T h a l h e i m e r , “U e b e r d e n F a s c h i s m u s , ”parts 1/2, G e g e n d e n Strom, 11 J a n u a r y 1930: 32. Translated b y J u d y J o s e p h as “O n Fascism,”Telos, no. 4 0 ( S u m ­ m e r 1979): 1 0 9 - 2 2 . 1 h a v e co n s u l t e d Joseph's translation b u t h a v e offered m y o w n translation here. 68. B e e t h a m , introduction to Marxists in Face o f Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , 25-39. B e e t h a m ' s discussion of t h e theoretical a p p r o a c h e s to f a scism g e n e r a t e d b y T h a l h e i m e r , L e o n Trotsky, a n d Ignazio Silone merits careful s t u d y in this context.

Notes to Pages 4 4 - 4 7

244

O n M a r x ' s n o t i o n of B o n a p a r t i s m a n d its influence o n t h e w o r k of theorists, see W o l f g a n g W i p p e r m a n n , D i e Bonapartismustheorie v o n M a r x u n d Engels (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1983). 69. T h a l h e i m e r , “U e b e r d e n F a s c h i m u s , " parts 1/2,32. 70. Ibid., 32. 71. T h a l h e i m e r , “U e b e r d e n F a s c h i s m u s , ”part 4, G e g e n d e n Strom, 25 J a n u a r y 1930: 66. 72. See W i p p e r m a n n , D i e Bonapartismustheorie v o n M a r x u n d Engels. 73. T h a l h e i m e r , “U e b e r d e n F a s c h i m u s , ”parts 1/2,33. 74. W i p p e r m a n n , D i e Bonapartismustheorie v o n M a r x u n d Engels, 205-15. W i p p e r m a n n notes t h e i n n o v a t i o n s of T h a l h e i m e r ' s theorizing e v e n as h e argues that it d i d n o t differentiate clearly e n o u g h b e t w e e n m o d e r n fascism a n d th e B o n a p a r t ­ i s m of the previous century. W i p p e r m a n n h a s a r g u e d elsew h e r e that B o n a p a r t i s m t h e o r y w a s th e crucial bridge t o w a r d t h e n o t i o n of t h e “p r i m a c y of t h e political” ( a n d a w a y f r o m putatively m o r e o r t h o d o x M a r x i s t n o t i o n s of t h e “p r i m a c y of the e c o n o m i c ”) for s u c h thinkers as R u d o l f Hilferding, O t t o Bauer, Arkadij G u r l a n d , a n d Fr a n z N e u m a n n . See W i p p e r m a n n , Z u r A n a l y s e des Faschismus, 4 4 - 5 0 . 75. T h a l h e i m e r , “U e b e r d e n F a s c h i s m u s , ”part 4, 66. 76. Statistics f r o m Bre i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d Democracy, 198-99. 77. Several excellent analyses of t h e N a z i electoral strategies are in T h o m a s Childers, ed. T h e Formation o f the N a z i Constituency, 1919- 1 9 3 3 (Totowa, N.J.: B a rnes a n d N o b l e Book s , 1986). 78. Statistics in B r e i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d D e m ocracy, 198-99. 79. See, for instance, A r t h u r Rosenb e r g , E n tstehung u n d Geschichte der W e i m a r e r Republik (Frankfurt a m M a i n : E u r o p ä i s c h e Verlagsanstalt, 1984), 210. This v o l u m e is a c o m b i n e d reprint edition of t w o b o o k s , D i e Ents t e h u n g der Deuts c h e n Republik (Berlin: R o w o h l t , 1928) a n d Geschichte der D e u t s c h e n Republik (Karlsbad: G r a p h i a ,

1935). 80. T h e m o s t c o m p l e t e biographical sketch of Pachter (1907-80) is S t e p h e n Eric Bronner's helpful introduction to H e n r y Pachter, Socialism in History: Political E s ­ says o f H e n r y Pachter, ed. S t e p h e n Eric B r o n n e r ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1984), xi-xxx. Pachter left his o w n a c c o u n t s in “O n B e i n g a n Exile,”in T h e Legacy o f the G e r m a n Refugee Intellectuals, ed. R o b e r t Boyers ( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1972), 12-51, a n d “E m p i r e a n d Republic: A u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l F r a g m e n t s , ”in W e i m a r Etudes, edited b y S t e p h e n Eric B r o n n e r ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1982), 3-92. See also M a r t i n Jay, “R e m e m b e r i n g H e n r y Pachter,”in P e r m a n e n t E x ­ iles: Essays o n the Intellectual Migration f r o m G e r m a n y to A m e r i c a ( N e w York: C o l u m ­ bia University Press, 1986), 257-61. O n Wittfogel (1896-1988), see especially U l m e n , T h e Science o f Society, plus th e n u m e r o u s references in Jay, T h e Dialectical I m a g i n a ­ tion, a n d W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e Frankfurter Schule. U l m e n ' s detailed a c c o u n t indicates that Wittfogel w a s also a friend of G e o r g L u k â c s d u r i n g t h e W e i m a r years. A brief discussion of Wittfogel's cold w a r a n t i - C o m m u n i s m a n d his contributions to leftist c o n c e p t i o n s of totalitarianism a p p e a r s in t h e final c h a p t e r of U l m e n ' s b o o k . See

Notes to Pages 47~49

245

also Karl A u g u s t Wittfogel, Oriental D e s p o t i s m ( N e w H a v e n , C o n n . : Yale University Press, 1957). 81. Pachter, " C o m m u n i s m a n d Class,”in Socialism a n d History, 89. 82. Q u o t e d in ibid., 90-91. 83. Ibid., 97. 84. O n t h e volatile late W e i m a r electorate, see Childers, T h e N a z i Voter, 192269, a n d R i c h a r d F. H a m i l t o n , W h o Voted for Hitler? (Princeton, N.J.: P r i n c e t o n University Press, 1982). See also T h o m a s Childers, " T h e Limits of Na t i o n a l Social­ ist Mobilisation,”in T h e F o r m a t i o n o f the N a z i Constituency, ed. Childers, 238-41; a n d J ü r g e n Falter, " T h e T w o H i n d e n b u r g Elections of 1925 a n d 1932: A Total Rever­ sal of V o t e r Coalitions,”Central E u r o p e a n History 23, nos. 2/3 (1990): 225-41. 85. Pachter, " C o m m u n i s m a n d Class,”97. 86. Ibid., 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 . In 1932, t h e P a p e n g o v e r n m e n t s u c c e e d e d in ousting t h e S P D f r o m p o w e r in Prussia u n d e r t h e provisions of t h e n o torious Article 4 8 of the W e i m a r Constitution, w h i c h g r a n t e d t h e national g o v e r n m e n t b r o a d e m e r g e n c y p o w ers. O t t o Braun's S P D g o v e r n m e n t in Prussia, t h e party's last s t r o n g h o l d of effective p o w e r , s u b m i t t e d w e a k l y to w h a t a m o u n t e d to a cou p . O n these events a n d their disastrous c o n s e q u e n c e s , see B r e i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r Democracy, 178-88; a n d Broszat, Hitler a n d the Collapse o f W e i m a r G e r m a n y , 120-22. H a r s c h discusses t h e c o u p , th e ineffective S P D a n d working-class response to it, a n d its i m p o r t a n t place in t h e historiography of t h e p e r i o d in G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y a n d the Rise o f Naz i s m , 193-202. 87. Pachter, " C o m m u n i s m a n d Class,”109. 88. Ibid., 9 2 - 9 3 , 1 0 4 . 89. O n R o s e n b e r g (1889-1943), see H e l m u t Berding, " A r t h u r R o s e n b e r g , ”in D e utsche Historiker, vol. 4, ed. H a n s - U l r i c h W e h l e r (Göttingen: V o n d e n h o e c k a n d R u p r e c h t , 1972), 81-96; a n d R u d o l f W o l f g a n g M ü l l e r a n d G e r t Schäfer, editors' i n troduction to A r thur Rosenberg zwischen Alter Geschichte u n d Zeitgeschichte, Politk u n d politischer Bildung, ed. R u d o l f W o l f g a n g M ü l l e r a n d G e r t Schäfer (Göttingen: M u s t e r - S c h m i d t , 1986), 7-33; Francis Carsten, " A r t h u r Rosenberg: A n c i e n t Histo­ rian into L e a d i n g C o m m u n i s t , ”Journal o f C o n t e m p o r a r y History 8, no. 1 (1973): 6375; H a n s - U l r i c h W e h l e r , introduction to D e m o k r a t i e u n d Klassenkampf: Ausgewählte Studien, b y A r t h u r R o s e n b e r g , ed. H a n s - U l r i c h W e h l e r (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Verlag Ullstein, 1974), 5-15; M i c h a e l Kater, " R e f u g e e Historians in A m e rica: Preemigration G e r m a n y to 1939,”in A n Interrupted Past: G e r m a n - S p e a k i n g Refugee Historians in the United States after 1933, ed. H a r t m u t L e h m a n n a n d J a m e s J. S h e e h a n ( W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., a n d C a m b r i d g e : G e r m a n Historical Institute a n d C a m b r i d g e U niversity Press, 1991), 8 9 - 9 0 ; a n d W o l f g a n g J. M o m m s e n , " G e r m a n H i storiography d u r i n g t h e W e i m a r R e p u b l i c a n d t h e É m i g r é Historians,” in A n Interrupted Past, ed. L e h m a n n a n d S h e e h a n , 47-48. 90. T h e titles are D i e E n t s t e h u n g der D e u t s c h e n Republik (1928), Geschichte des B o l s c h e w i s m u s (1932), D e r F a s c h i s m u s als M a s s e n b e w e g u n g (1934), Geschichte der D e u t s c h e n Republik (1935), a n d D e m o k r a t i e u n d Sozialismus (1938). For a discussion

Notes to Pages 4 9 - 5 3

246

of these b o o k s in relation to Rosen b e r g ' s career, see G e r t Schäfer, " G e s c h i c h t s ­ s c h r e i b u n g u n d politische E r f a h r u n g bei A r t h u r R o s e n b e r g , ”in Arthur Rosenberg zwischen Alter Geschichte u n d Zeitgeschichte, ed. M ü l l e r a n d Schäfer, 115-34. 91. R o s e n b e r g , Geschichte des Bolschewismus, 252. 92. Q u o t e d in ibid., 182-84. 93. Ibid., 184. 94. Ibid., 2 5 4 - 5 5 . 95. B o r k e n a u , T h e C o m m u n i s t International, 430-31, 433. 96. See, for e x a m p l e , H a n s Speier, G e r m a n White-Collar Workers a n d the Rise o f Hitler ( N e w H a v e n , C o n n . : Yale University Press, 1 9 8 6 [ m a n u s c r i p t w r itten in 1932]). Speier's m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y inno v a t i v e a n d politically prescient b o o k w a s nearly c o m p l e t e d before Hitler's a s c ension to t h e chancellorship. O n e final section o n t h e fate of t h e trade u n i o n s u n d e r N a z i rule w a s a d d e d in 1933. Speier w a s a stu­ d e n t a n d associate of E m i l Lederer, th e p r o m i n e n t Social D e m o c r a t i c antifascist. B o t h m e n i m m i g r a t e d to t h e U n i t e d States, w h e r e Lederer b e c a m e a n i m p o r t a n t figure at t h e N e w S c h o o l for Social R e s e a r c h in N e w York. See Lederer's c o n t r i b u ­ tion to t h e literature of antitotalitarianism, State o f the Masses: T h e Threat o f the Classless Society ( N e w York: N o r t o n , 1940). 97. Fow k e s , C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y u n d e r the W e i m a r Republic, 205. 98. Biographical sources o n B o r k e n a u (1900-1957) include R i chard L ö w e n t h a l , editor's i n troduction to E n d a n d Beginning: O n the Generations o f Cultures a n d the Origins o f the West, b y Franz B o r k e n a u ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1981), 1-29; Valeria E. Russo, "Profilo di Franz B o r k e n a u , ”Revista di filosofia 2 0 (June 1981): 2 9 3 - 9 4 ; a n d J o h n E. Tashjean, " B o r k e n a u : T h e Rediscovery of a Thinker,”Partisan R e v i e w 55, no. 2 (1984): 2 8 9 - 3 0 0 . 99. M i h â l y Vajda, Fascism as a M a s s M o v e m e n t ( N e w York: St. Martin's, 1976), 63, credited B o r k e n a u as b e i n g o n e of t h e first (along w i t h A n t o n i o G r a m s c i ) to a d v a n c e this point. B e r n t H a g t v e t a n d R e i n h a r d K ü h n l g o e v e n further, declaring s i m p l y that "the first writer to a p p l y the m o d e r n i z a t i o n thesis to fascism w a s surely F r anz B o r k e n a u . ”See H a g t v e t a n d K ü h n l , " C o n t e m p o r a r y A p p r o a c h e s to Fascism: A S u r v e y of P a r a d i g m s , ”in W h o W e r e the Fascists? Social Roots o f E u r o p e a n Fascism, ed. Stein U g e l v i k Larsen, B e r n t Hagtvet, a n d J a n Petter M y k l e b u s t (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1980), 50, n o t e 82. T h i s is n o t necessarily a p o i n t of praise, h o w e v e r , for the so-called m o d e r n i z a t i o n thesis h a s received a great deal of criticism f r o m th e Left as well as f r o m other analytical perspectives. See also t h e discussion of this e l e m e n t of Borkenau's analysis of fascism in Gregor, Interpretations of Fascism, 1 6 0 62,167,172. 100. F r anz B o r k e n a u , “Z u r Soziologie des F a s c h i s m u s , ”Archiv für Sozialwissen­ schaft u n d Sozialpolitik 68, no. 5 (1933): 513. 101. Ibid., 515-16. See also Gregor, Interpretations o f Fascism, 159-60. 102. B o r k e n a u , " Z u r Soziologie des F a s c h i s m u s , ”540. 103. For a n e x a m p l e of the “a g e n t ”or " i n s t r u m e n t ”theories of th e C o m i n t e r n ,

Notes to Pages 5 4 - 5 6

247

see Dmitrii Manuilski, " O n Fascism,”in Marxists in Face o f Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , 157-61. M a n u i l s k i w a s th e chief Soviet delegate to t h e C o m i n t e r n . 104. Sources o n F r anz N e u m a n n ( 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 5 4 ) include Rainer Erd, ed., R e f o r m u n d Resignation: Gespräche über F r a n z L. N e u m a n n (Frankfurt a m M a i n : S u h r k a m p , 1985)

; Al f o n s Söllner, "Franz L. N e u m a n n — Skizzen z u einer intellektuellen u n d

politischen Biographie,”in Wirtschaft, Staat, Demokratie: Aufsätze, 1950-1954, b y Franz L. N e u m a n n (Frankfurt a m M a i n : S u h r k a m p , 1978), 7-56; J o a c h i m Pereis, ed., Recht, D e m o k r a t i e u n d Kapitalismus: Aktualität u n d P r o b l e m e der Theorie F r a n z L. N e u m a n n s ( B a d e n - B a d e n : N o m o s , 1984); Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 1 44-48, 161-65; a n d W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e Frankfurter Schule, 251-58. For p e r s o n a l r e m i n i s ­ c e n c e s as well as asses s m e n t s of N e u m a n n ' s w o r k , see O t t o K i r c h h e i m e r , "Franz N e u m a n n : A n Appreciation,”Dissent 4 (Fall 1957): 382-86; H e r b e r t M a r c u s e , pref­ ace to T h e D e m o cratic a n d the Authoritarian State: Essays in Political a n d Legal Theory, b y F r a n z N e u m a n n , ed. Herbert M a r c u s e (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1957), vii-x; a n d H e l g e Pross, i n t r o d u c t i o n to Demokratischer u n d autoritärer Staat, b y F r a n z N e u ­ m a n n (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Fischer, T986), 9-27. A m o n g N e u m a n n ’ s circle of friends a n d colleagues, Heller, K a h n - F r e u n d , a n d Fraenkel also v o i c e d antifascist political opinions. See H e r m a n n Heller, E u r o p a u n d der Faschi s m u s (Berlin: W . d e Gruyter, 1931); a n d O t t o K a h n - F r e u n d , L a b o u r L a w a n d Politics in the W e i m a r Republic, ed. R o y L e w i s a n d J o n Clark (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981). A m o r e e x t e n d e d discussion of Ernst Fraenkel ap p e a r s in th e following chapter. For a general a c c o u n t of these thinkers a n d their a p p r o a c h to legal theory, see W o l f g a n g Luthardt, Sozialdemo­ kratische Verfassungstheorie in der W e i m a r e r Republik ( O p l a d e n : W e s t d e u t s c h e r , 1986) . 105. T h e r e are, of course, several o t h e r figures w h o c o u l d b e m e n t i o n e d here as C o m m u n i s t s or e x - C o m m u n i s t s w h o h a d m o r e or less close c o n n e c t i o n s to t h e Institute of Social R e s earch d u r i n g W e i m a r a n d t h e early exile years, including Karl K o r s c h , Karl A u g u s t Wittfogel, a n d H e n r y k G r o s s m a n n . See Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 5-20. 106. M a r c u s e , preface to T h e Demo c r a t i c a n d the Authoritarian State, b y Franz N e u m a n n , vii; Pross, introduction to Demokratischer u n d autoritärer Staat, b y Franz N e u m a n n , 11. 107. F r a n z N e u m a n n , " T h e D e c a y of G e r m a n D e m o c r a c y , ”524 - 4 3 . ro8. Ibid., 526. 109. Ibid., 528. rro. Ibid., 529. h i

. B r e i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r Democracy, 198-99.

112.

Fra n z N e u m a n n , " T h e D e c a y of G e r m a n D e m o c r a c y , ”536. O n the general

topic of t h e fate of t h e w o r k i n g class u n d e r N a z i s m , see T i m M a s o n , Social Policy in the Third Reich: T h e W o r k i n g Class a n d the National C o m m u n i t y (Providence, R.I.: Berg, 1993); Alf Lüdtke, " W h a t H a p p e n e d to t h e 'Fiery R e d G l o w ? ”in T h e History o f Everyday Life, ed. Alf Lüdtke, trans. W i l l i a m T e m p l e r (Princeton, N.J.: Princ e t o n

Notes to Page g6

2 48

University Press, 1995), 198-251; a n d Francis Carsten, T h e G e r m a n Workers a n d the Nazis (Aldershot, E n g l a n d : Scolar, 1995). 113. Franz N e u m a n n , " T h e D e c a y of G e r m a n D e m o c r a c y , ”538. 114. O n t h e distinctive a n d precise character of N e u m a n n ' s u s e of totalitarian­ ism, see H. Stuart H u g h e s , T h e Sea C h a n g e : T h e Migration o f Social Thought, 1 9 3 0 1 9 6 5 ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d R o w , 1975), 120-21. 115. A recently p u b l i s h e d collection indicates a r e n e w e d interest in K i r c h ­ h e i m e r a n d N e u m a n n . See F r a n z N e u m a n n a n d O t t o K i r c hheimer, T h e Rule o f L a w u n d e r Siege: Selected Essays o f F r a n z L. N e u m a n n a n d Otto Kirchheimer, ed. W i l l i a m E. S c h e u e r m a n (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). See also th e n u m e r ­ o u s biographical references to K i r c h h e i m e r (19 0 5 - 6 5 ) in Jay, T h e Dialectical I m a g i ­ nation; a n d W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e Frankfurter Schule. A brief biographical sketch of K i r c h h e i m e r a n d N e u m a n n also a p p e a r s in S c h e u e r m a n , B e t w e e n the N o r m a n d the Exception, 3-6. I n b o t h b o o k s m e n t i o n e d here, S c h e u e r m a n a t t e m p t s to restore s o m e e l e m e n t s of K i r c h h e i m e r ’ s and N e u m a n n ’ s w o r k to t h e current deb a t e s a m o n g political a n d legal theorists. S c h e u e r m a n also takes u p t h e prickly subject of K i r c h h e i m e r ’ s association w i t h Carl Schmitt. T h i s issue h a d r e e m e r g e d d u r i n g debates in t h e 1 9 8 0 s a b o u t t h e d e g r e e of S c h m i t t ’ s influence o n s o m e of th e t h i n k ­ ers associated w i t h t h e Institute of Social Research, or Frankfurt School. S c h m i t t w a s a conservative legal scholar, political theorist, a n d critic of W e i m a r w h o later b e c a m e a N a z i Party m e m b e r . See Telos, no. 71 (Spring 1987) a n d no. 72 ( S u m m e r 1987). T h e inspiration for t h e e x c h a n g e o n S c h m i t t a n d th e Frankfurt S c h o o l w a s Ellen K e n n e d y ’ s insistence that M a r c u s e , K i r c h h e i m e r , a n d F r a n z N e u m a n n h a d b r o u g h t a crucial reliance o n S c h m i t t i a n c o n c e p t s w i t h t h e m w h e n t h e y joined the Institute of Social Research. T h e responses of M a r t i n Jay, Alfons Söllner, a n d Ulrich K. Preuss persuasively a n d severely limited t h e force a n d s c o p e of K e n n e d y ’ s argu­ m e n t . See Ellen K e n n e d y , "Carl S c h m i t t a n d t h e Frankfurt Sch o o l , ”Telos, no. 71 (Spring 1987): 37-66; M a r t i n Jay, " R e c o n c i l i n g t h e Irreconcilable? Re j o i n d e r to K e n n e d y , ”Telos, no. 71 (Spring 1987): 67-80; Alfons Söllner, " B e y o n d Carl Schmitt: Political T h e o r y in t h e Frankfurt Sch o o l , ”Telos, no. 71 (Spring 1987): 81-96; Ulrich K. Preuss, " T h e Critique of G e r m a n Liberalism: R e p l y to K e n n e d y , ”Telos, no. 71 (Spring 1987): 97-109; a n d Ellen K e n n e d y , "Carl S c h m i t t a n d t h e Frankfurt School: A Rejoinder,”Telos, no. 73 (Fall 1987): 101-16. For a t h o r o u g h general a c c o u n t of Schmitt’ s career, see J o s e p h W . Bendersky, Carl Schmitt: Theorist for the Reich (Prince­ ton, N.J.: Princ e t o n University Press, 1983). Bendersky's effort to prov i d e a biogra­ p h y that avoids th e e x t r e m e s of a p o l o g y a n d attack is largely successful, t h o u g h h e s o m e t i m e s strains to d e e m p h a s i z e t h e exte n t of Schmitt's c o mplicity w i t h th e N a z i Party. O t h e r scholars offer a far m o r e critical analysis of S c h m i t t ’ s legal a n d theoretical s u p p o r t for t h e antirepublican W e i m a r conservatives a n d later for th e Nazis. See, for e x a m p l e , W i l l i a m E. S c h e u e r m a n , "Legal I n d e t e r m i n a c y a n d t h e O r i g i n s of N a z i Legal T h o u g h t : T h e C a s e of Carl S c h m i t t , ”History o f Political T h o u g h t 17, no. 4 (1996): 571-90; R i c h a r d W o l i n , "Carl Schmitt, Political Existen-

Notes to Pages 5 7 - 5 8

249

tialism, a n d the Total State,”T h eory a n d Society 19, no. 4 (1990): 389-416; a n d R i c h ­ ard W o l i n , Labyrinths:Explorations in the Critical History o f Ideas (Amhe r s t : U n i v e r ­ sity of M a s s a c h u s e t t s Press, 1995), 103-22. S chmitt's i m p o r t a n c e to twentiethc e n t u r y political t h e o r y is indisputable, b u t g i v e n th e s p o n s o r s a n d causes S c h m i t t served w i t h his f o r m i d a b l e intellectual p o w e r s d u r i n g a n d after W e i m a r , his career a n d his ideas will rightly r e m a i n e n m e s h e d in controversies similar in their in t e n ­ sity a n d i m p o r t a n c e to t h ose invol v i n g M a r t i n H e i d e g g e r a n d his writings. 116. O t t o Kirchh e i m e r , " Z u r Staatslehre des Sozialismus u n d B o l s c h e w i s m u s , ” Zeitschrift ß r Politik 17 (1928): 593-611. See also Frederic S. B u r i n a n d Kur t L. Shell, preface to Politics, L a w , a n d Social C h a n g e : Selected Essays o f Otto Kirchheimer, b y O t t o K i r c h h e i m e r , ed. Frederic S. B u r i n a n d K u r t L. Shell ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a U n i v e r ­ sity Press, 1969), x-xi; Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 148-50; a n d W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e F r ankßrter Schule, 258-61. 117. O t t o K i rchheimer, "Legalität u n d Legitimität,”D i e Gesellschaft g (1932): 820; " D i e Verfassungslehre des Preußenkonfliktes,”D i e Gesellschaft 9 (1932): 1 9 4 209 ; "Verfassungsreaktion 1932,”D i e Gesellschaft 9 (1932): 415-27; "Verfassungs­ r e f o r m u n d S ozialde m o k r a t i e , ”D i e Gesellschaft 1 0 (1933): 2 0 - 3 5 ; “M a r x i s m u s , Diktatur, u n d O r g a n i s a t i o n s f o r m e n des Proletariats.” 118. See Carl Schmitt, Political Theology, trans. G e o r g e S c h w a b ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1985). C h a p t e r 1, " T h e Definition of Sovereignty,”begins w i t h the w e l l - k n o w n sentence: " S o v e r e i g n is h e w h o d e cides o n t h e exception.”K i r c h ­ h e i m e r w o u l d a l w a y s b e skeptical of liberal constitutionalism's claims to h a v e lib­ erated individuals a n d to h a v e protected t h e m f r o m t h e state, b u t h e did n o t l a u n c h his later criticism f r o m a consistently S c h m i t t i a n perspective. 119. K irchheimer, " T h e Socialist a n d B o lshevik T h e o r y of t h e State,”in Politics, L a w , a n d Social C h ange, 15. 120. Ibid., 21. B y t h e t e r m twofold progress, K i r c h h e i m e r m e a n t th e reformist socialist n o t i o n that progress in capitalist d e v e l o p m e n t takes place alongside progress in th e d e v e l o p m e n t of h u m a n i t y . 121. K i r c h h e i m e r , " W e i m a r — a n d W h a t T h e n ? ”in Politics, L a w , a n d Social Cha n g e , 74. 122. T h e extent to w h i c h K i r c h h e i m e r w a s " n a i v e ”in his c o n c l usions of 1 9 3 0 a n d t h e S P D m o d e r a t e s m o r e "realistic”h a s b e e n a p o i n t of s o m e debate. A s M a r ­ tin Ja y c o n t e n d e d years a g o in a r e v i e w of Istvan Deak's W e i m a r ' s Left- W i n g Intel­ lectuals, th e radicalism of positions s u c h as Kirchheimer's w a s quite defensible. For t h e text of t h e review, see C o m m e n t a r y 48, no. 4 (1969): 94-9 8 . Ja y repeated this j u d g m e n t in T h e Dialectical Imagination (327, n o t e 23), disagreeing w i t h J o h n H e r z a n d Erich Hula's verdict that K i r c h h e i m e r " u n d e r e s t i m a t e d t h e a d v a n t a g e s w h i c h e v e n a n authoritarian r u l e ... entailed as contrasted w i t h w h a t w a s to c o m e : N a z i totalitarianism”( H erz a n d Hula, “O t t o K i r c h h e i m e r : A n I n t r o duction to His Life a n d W o r k , ”in Politics, L a w , a n d Social C h ange, xvi). I share Jay's v i e w that " w h a t w a s to c o m e ”— t h o u g h n o t necessarily inevitable— w a s b o u n d u p inextricably

Notes to Pages 5 8 - 6 2

250

w i t h th e “authoritarian rule”of t h e B r ü n i n g , P a p e n , a n d Schleicher cabinets a n d that attempts to see t h e m as separate d e v e l o p m e n t s f r o m a m o n g w h i c h o n e m i g h t h a v e selected t h e “lesser evil”is ( a n d was, tragically) mistaken. 123. Franz N e u m a n n , “D i e soziale B e d e u t u n g der G r u n d r e c h t e in der W e i m a r e r Verfassung,”in Wirtschaft, Staat, Demokratie, 56. 124. Bre i t m a n , G e r m a n Socialism a n d W e i m a r Democracy, 161-73. O n t h e shift­ ing political allegiances of th e period, see Falter, “T h e T w o H i n d e n b u r g Elections of 192 5 a n d 1932,”225-41. 125. Kir c h h e i m e r , “M a r x i s m , Dictatorship, a n d the O r g a n i z a t i o n of th e P r o ­ letariat,”in Politics, L a w , a n d Social C h a nge, 22-32. 126. Ibid., 30-31. Kirchhe i m e r ' s attention to t h e M e n s h e v i k political leaders a n d th e theorists Yulii (Yuri) M a r t o v a n d F y o d o r ( T h e o d o r e ) D a n reflected t h e strong i n v o l v e m e n t of these R u s s i a n exiles a n d their c o m r a d e s w i t h the G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a t i c Party. O n this topic, see Liebich, F r o m the Other Shore. 127. Kirchh e i m e r , “M a r x i s m , Dictatorship, a n d t h e O r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e Prole­ tariat,”32. 128. Ibid., 26,30. 129. Ibid., 27-28. 130. Liebich, “M a r x i s m a n d Totalitarianism.” 131. R u d o l f Hilferding, “Z w i s c h e n d e n E n t s c h e i d u n g e n , ”D i e Gesellschaft 10, no. i (1933): 1-9. In t h e s a m e issue of D i e Gesellschaft, see A l e x a n d e r Schifrin, “W e g e aus der Spaltung,”10-19; a n d W a l t e r B i e h a h n , “Z u r G e s c h i c h t e des B o l s c h e w i s ­ m u s , ”36-52. 132. T h e r e are n u m e r o u s references to this strike in the literature o n late W e i ­ m a r . T h e Berlin transport (Berliner Verkehrsgesellschaft— B V G ) strike of N o v e m ­ ber 1932 h a s l o n g served s o m e historians as e v i d e n c e for t h e thesis that a c o m b i ­ n a t i o n of right- a n d left-wing antiparliamentarism killed the W e i m a r Republic. For a small s a m p l i n g of these hostile a c c o u n t s of t h e B V G strike, see F l e chtheim, D i e K P D in der W e i m a r e r Republik, 2 2 5-26; B o r k e n a u , T h e C o m m u n i s t International, 376; a n d Craig, G e r m a n y , 1866-1 9 4 5 , 564. 133. Childers, “T h e Limits of N a t i o n a l Socialist Mobilisation.”O n t h e decline of t h e liberal parties, see Larry E u g e n e Jones, G e r m a n Liberalism a n d the Dissolution o f the W e i m a r Party System, 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 3 3 ( C h a p e l Hill: University of N o r t h Carolina, 1988). 134. R u d o l f Hilferding to Karl Kautsky, 1 D e c e m b e r 1932, N a c h l a ß Karl Kautsky, D, XII, 658,1-2, Internationaal Instituutvoor Sociale G e s c h iedenis (hereafter IISH), Amsterdam. 135. Broszat, Hitler a n d the Collapse o f W e i m a r G e r m a n y , 133-49. 136. O n t h e ideological predisposition of the S P D to inertia in just s u c h a cri­ sis, see t h e concise analysis in Har s c h , G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y a n d the Rise o f N a ­ zism, 2 3 9 - 4 0 . See also R o b e r t A. Gates, “G e r m a n Socialism a n d th e Crisis of 1 9 2 9 33,”Central E u r o p e a n History 7, no. 4 (1974): 332-59; a n d H e i n r i c h A u g u s t W i nkler, “C h o o s i n g t h e Lesser Evil: T h e G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a t s a n d th e Fall of th e W e i -

Notes to Pages 6 3 - 6 4

251

m a r Republic,”Journal o f C o n t e m p o r a r y History 25, nos. 2-3 (1990): 2 0 5-25. For a brief a c c o u n t i n g of t h e h i g h cost of K P D resistance, i n c l u d i n g t h e devastating n u m b e r of arrests a n d e x e c u t i o n s of K P D m e m b e r s u n d e r t h e Nazis, see Weitz, Creating G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , 280-81. Weitz's source for th e n u m b e r of victims is H o r s t D u h n k e , D i e K P D v o n 19 3 3 bis 1 9 4 s ( C o l o g n e : K i e p e n h e u e r u n d W i t s c h , 1972). 137.

A similar a r g u m e n t a b o u t the destruction of t h e W e i m a r Republic appears

in H a n s M o m m s e n , F r o m W e i m a r to Auschwitz, trans. Philip O ' C o n n o r (Princeton, N.J.: Pri n c e t o n University Press, 1991), 60-61. For a n innovative a n d painstaking reappraisal of this p e r i o d in t h e history of t h e E u r o p e a n Left, see H o r n , E u r o p e a n Socialists R e s p o n d to Fascism. I m p o r t a n t analytical perspectives o n this era are also in H e i n r i c h A u g u s t W i n k l e r , ed., D i e Krise des europäischen Sozialismus in der Zwischenkriegszeit (Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k u n d Ruprecht, 1991); Ceplair, U n d e r the S h a d o w o f W a r ; a n d G r e g o r y Luebbert, Liberalism, Fascism, or Social D e m o c r a c y ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1991). For a b r o a d e r perspective o n th e inter­ w a r Left, see Albert S. L i n d e m a n n , A History o f E u r o p e a n Socialism ( N e w H a v e n , C o n n . : Yale University Press, 1983).

Chapter 2: Socialists in D a r k Times i.

T h e q u estion of w h i c h r e g i m e s m e r i t t h e label fascist a n d w h i c h d o n o t h a s

l o n g e n g a g e d historians a n d political scientists in a deba t e that often intersects the o n e over totalitarianism. T h e c o n c e p t of fascism r e m a i n s in m a n y w a y s a n e v e n m o r e vital a n d useful a p p r o a c h to t h e study of dictatorships past a n d present t h a n th e idea of totalitarianism, t h o u g h I reject the various a r g u m e n t s that the e m b r a c e of o n e of these t w o t e r m s necessitates absolute a n d hostile a b a n d o n m e n t of the other. I agree w i t h t h o s e w h o are willing to a p p l y th e fascist label to the later in­ terwar a n d w a r t i m e states in G e r m a n y a n d Austria as well as Italy. Spain's dicta­ torship presents a m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d case, b u t fascism w a s a n i m p o r t a n t ideologi­ cal a n d social c o m p o n e n t of Franco's m o v e m e n t a n d the r e g i m e it established, a n d a p p l y i n g th e fascist label to S p a i n is far f r o m b e i n g t h e m o s t questionable use of t h e term. B u t th o s e w h o a r g u e that N a z i G e r m a n y represented in m a n y respects a u n i q u e r e g i m e w h o s e extraordinarily m u r d e r o u s a n d racist character at t i m e s eludes generalized a n d c o m p a r a t i v e n o t i o n s of fascism raise a p o i n t that merits attention. O n this issue, see K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dictatorship, 17-39; N e o c leous, F a s ­ cism, ix-xii, 22-30, 38-58; a n d M a s o n , “W h a t e v e r H a p p e n e d to 'Fascism?'”32 3 31. S ee also M i c h a e l Burleigh a n d W o l f g a n g W i p p e r m a n n , T h e Racial State: Ger­ m a n y , 1 9 3 3 - 1 9 4 5 ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1991), 7-22, 304-7. Burleigh a n d W i p p e r m a n n finally distance t h e m s e l v e s f r o m the inherited t h e o ­ retical m o d e l s of m o d e r n i z a t i o n , fascism, a n d totalitarianism, c o n c l u d i n g that N a z i G e r m a n y “w a s a singular r e g i m e w i t h o u t p r e c e d e n t or parallel”(307) that c o n s e q u e n t l y m u s t b e studied as a u n i q u e historical entity. K e r s h a w agrees w i t h s o m e of Burleigh a n d W i p p e r m a n n ' s c o n c l usions a b o u t the crucial i m p o r t a n c e of racialism to the N a z i regime, b u t h e w i s h e s to retain s o m e e l e m e n t s of t h e c o m -

Notes to Pages 6 5 - 6 6

252

parative perspectives t h e y reject. See K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dictatorship, 39, n o t e 63, 148, n o t e 61. O n fascism, see t h e recent b o o k s b y P a y n e , N e o c l e o u s , Griffin, Eatwell, a n d Sternhell m e n t i o n e d in t h e introduction. O t h e r essential surveys a n d national studies include R e n z o D e Felice, Interpretations o f Fascism, trans. B r e n d a H u f f Everett ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, 1977); E m i l i o Gentile, L e origini dell'ideologia fascista ( C r e m o n a : C r e m o n a N u o v a , 1975); Em i l i o Gentile, " F a scism in Italian Historiography,”Journal o f C o n t e m p o r a r y History 21, no. 2 (1986): 179-208; A. J a m e s Gregor, T h e Ideology o f Fascism: T h e Rationale o f Totalitarianism ( N e w York: Free Press, 1969); A. J a m e s Gregor, Italian F a scism a n d De v e l o p m e n t a l Dictatorship (Princeton, N.J.: P r i n c e t o n University Press, 1979); D a n t e G e r m i n o , T h e Italian Fascist Party in P o w e r (Minneapolis: University of M i n n e s o t a Press, 1959); M a r t i n Kitchen, Fascism ( L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n , 1975); M a r t i n Kitchen, T h e C o m i n g o f A u s ­ trian Fascism ( L o n d o n : C r o o m H e l m , 1980); R e i n h a r d K ü h n l , F o r m e n bürgerlichen Herrschaft: Liberalismus-Faschismus (Reinbek: R o w o h l t , 1974); Stanley G . Pay n e , Falange: A History o f Spanish F a s cism (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1961) ; E u g e n W e b e r , Action Française (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1962)

; E u g e n W e b e r , Varieties o f Fascism: Doctrines o f Revolution in the Twentieth

Century (N e w York: V a n N o s t r a n d , 1964); R o b e r t o Vivarelli, "Interpretations of the Origins of Fascism,”Journal o f M o d e r n History 63 ( M a r c h 1991): 29-43; a n d H a n s Rogger, " W a s T h e r e a R u ssian F a s c i s m ? ”Journal o f M o d e r n History 3 6 ( D e c e m b e r 1964)

:398-415. Valuable c o m p a r a t i v e perspectives o n Italian a n d G e r m a n fascism

are in W o l f g a n g Schieder, Fasc h i s m u s als soziale B e w e g u n g : D e u t s c h l a n d u n d Italien i m Vergleich (Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k u n d R u p recht, 1983); a n d Bessel, ed., F a s ­ cist Italy a n d N a z i G e r m a n y . T h e c o m p l e x a n d crucial relationship b e t w e e n fascism a n d traditional c o n s e r v a t i s m is e x p l o r e d in H a n s R o g g e r a n d E u g e n W e b e r , eds., T h e E u r o p e a n Right: A Historical Profile (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965)

; a n d M a r t i n B l i n k h o r n , ed., Fascists a n d Conservatives ( L o n d o n : U n w i n

H y m a n , 1990). 2. H o r n ' s E u r o p e a n Socialists R e s p o n d to F a s c i s m a t t e m p t s to b r e a k o u t of t h e g l o o m y , “a l w a y s already u n d e r s t o o d ”narrative pattern that these events o f ten receive. 3. See, for e x a m p l e , L e o n Trotsky, " W h y T h e y C o n f e s s e d C r i m e s T h e y H a d N o t C o m m i t t e d , ”in Writings o f L e o n Trotsky (1936-37), ed. N a o m i Allen a n d G e o r g e B r e i t m a n ( N e w York: Pathfinder, 1978), 56-63. In a c o m m e n t o n t h e s h o w trials orchestrated b y Stalin, Trotsky wrote, “ T h e first capitulation [of the accused] w a s to b e o n l y t h e beginning. T h e r e g i m e b e c a m e increasingly totalitarian, the struggle against th e O p p o s i t i o n fiercer, t h e accusations increasingly m o n s t r o u s ”(58). In 1937, Trotsky also c o m p a r e d Stalin's r e g i m e w i t h fascism: "Stalinism a n d fascism, in spite of a d e e p difference in social foundations, are s y m m e t r i c a l p h e n o m e n a . In m a n y of their features t h e y s h o w a d e a d l y similarity. A victorious revolution­ ary m o v e m e n t in E u r o p e w o u l d i m m e d i a t e l y s h a k e n o t o n l y fascism, b u t Soviet B o n a p a r t i s m ”(Trotsky, T h e Revolution Betrayed, 278-79). For a critique of T r o t s k y ’ s

Notes to Pages 6 6 - 6 7

253

v i e w s o n fascist political m o v e m e n t s , see R o b e r t S. Wistrich, " L e o n Trotsky's T h e o r y of Fascism,”Journal o f C o n t e m p o r a r y History 11, no. 4 (1976): 157-84. O t h e r i m p o r t a n t leftist critics of the Soviet U n i o n — as well as Italian Fascism a n d National Socialism— i n c l u d e d at this t i m e O t t o Bauer, G a e t a n o Salvemini, C. L. R. J a m e s , Pietro N e n n i , Ignazio Silone, Victor Serge, a n d a large c o n t i n g e n t of exiled M e n ­ sheviks. T h eir b o o k s a n d articles are a m o n g t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t d o c u m e n t s of the tradition of radical socialist dissent against b o t h Stalinism a n d fascism in this p e ­ riod. 4. A f e w e x a m p l e s will suffice here: R u t h Fischer a n d Arkakij M a s l o w e s c a p e d Berlin o n a motorcycle, fled to Prague, t h e n l a n d e d in Paris for a time. T h e r e Fischer c a m e into c o n t a c t w i t h Trot s k y a n d his son, L e o n Sedov, w h o w e r e b o t h later m u r d e r e d b y Stalinists. Fischer e n d e d u p in N e w York. M a s l o w d i e d u n d e r m u r k y c i r c u m s t a n c e s in C u b a . M e a n w h i l e , B o r k e n a u m o v e d f r o m V i e n n a to A m s t e r d a m , t h e n to Paris, t h e n L o n d o n , w i t h a year's s o j o u r n in P a n a m a . T h e core m e m b e r s of t h e Institute of Social R e s e a r c h a n d their families i m m i g r a t e d to t h e U n i t e d States. S o di d Karl a n d H e d d a Korsch. O t t o R ü h l e a n d his wife, Alice Gerstel-Rühle, e n d e d u p in M e x i c o a n d b e c a m e n e i g h b o r s of L e o n Trotsky a n d N a t a l y a Sedova, w h o h a d b e e n c o m p e l l e d to leave Paris. M i n d f u l of t h e constantly disrupted w o r k ­ ing conditions of intellectuals like these, A y ç o b e r r y r e m a r k s that t h e authors of the various writings o n fascism that bea r so m a n y similarities m a y h a v e b e e n largely i g n o r a n t of o n e another's w o r k . See Ayçoberry, T h e N a z i Question, 86-87. 5. W i p p e r m a n n h a s also traced m a n y of t h e a p p e a r a n c e s of t h e "totalitarian a n a l o g y ”in t h e writings of Social D e m o c r a t s in Z u r Ana l y s e des F a s chismus , 24-25, 32-33, 4 2 - 4 5 , 5 4 - 5 8 . 6. G e n e r a l sources o n th e life a n d w o r k of M a r c u s e (1898-1975) include Kellner, Herbert M a r c u s e a n d the Crisis o f M a r x i s m ; Katz, Herbert M a r c u s e a n d the Art o f Lib­ eration; L u d e n G o l d m a n n , D a s D e n k e n Herbert Marcuses: Kritik u n d Interpretation der kritischen Theorie ( M u n i c h : T W A Reprints, 1970); a n d Alasdair M a c I n t y r e , Herbert Marcuse: A n Exposition a n d a Polemic ( N e w York: Viking, 1970). See also the e x t e n ­ sive discussions of M a r c u s e in jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination; Jay, M a r x i s m a n d Totality; a n d W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e Frankfurter Schule. 7. Katz, Herbert M a r c u s e a n d the A r t o f Liberation, 15-31. 8. T h e n e c e s s a r y n o t e h e r e regar d i n g M a r c u s e ' s relationship w i t h M a r t i n H e i d e g g e r a n d t h e h i g h l y c h a r g e d issue of Heidegger's role in N a t i o n a l Socialism c o u l d r u n to extraordinary length, b u t I will try to b e brief. A useful introductory text for t h o s e unfamiliar w i t h t h e discussions of H e i d e g g e r ’ s c o mplicity w i t h N a ­ z i s m is R i c h a r d W o l i n , ed., T h e Heidegger Controversy :A Critical Reader (C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1993). W o l i n ’ s b o o k offers a selection of texts b y Heidegger, t h e responses of s o m e of his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s — including M a r c u s e — to his i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h t h e Nazis, a n d t h e j u d g m e n t s of m o r e recent c o m m e n t a t o r s . It also includes a selected b i b l i o g r a p h y d r a w n f r o m t h e m a s s i v e s e c o n d a r y literature. M a r cuse's relationship w i t h his f o r m e r m e n t o r is also discussed in t h e b o o k s b y Jay, Katz, Kellner, a n d M a c I n t y r e cited in n o t e 6.

Notes to Pages 6 7 - 6 9

254

9. M a r t i n Heidegger, “Schlageter,”reprinted in W o l i n , ed., T h e Heidegger C o n ­ troversy, 42. Heidegger's public s t a t e m e n t s as rector of Freiburg University are col­ lected in G u i d o Schneeberger, Nachlese z u Heidegger: D o k u m e n t e n z u se i n e m L e b e n u n d D e n k e n (Bern: Suhr, 1962). See t h e discussion of th e K P D ' s “Schlageter line”in t h e previous chapter. 10. Katz, Herbert M a r c u s e a n d the Art o f Liberation, 37-87. See Herb e r t M a r c u s e , Hegel's O ntology a n d the T h e o r y o f Historicity, trans. Seyla B e n h a b i b ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1987). 11. M a r t i n J a y stresses t h e essay's i m p o r t a n c e as a f o r e s h a d o w i n g of th e w o r k that t h e institute w o u l d u n d e r t a k e in t h e following years. H e also sees the limita­ tions of a perspective that i g n o r e d t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s of p a r l i a m e n t a r y liberalism in its traditions a n d practices— h o w e v e r i m p e r f e c t — of civil rights. See Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 121-24. 12. Marcu s e ' s later a t t e m p t s to a r g u e that t h e repression in t h e W e s t a n d the East h a d similar effects— t h o u g h h e did n o t a r g u e that t h e y w e r e identical— exas­ perated n o t o n l y A m e r i c a n liberals a n d conservatives b u t also s o m e of his g e n e r a ­ tional peers w i t h roots o n t h e G e r m a n left. O n e of these, H e n r y Pachter, also m o c k e d the universality of M a r c u s e ' s revolutionary prescriptions as a b a n d o n i n g M a r x i s m for r o m a n t i c i s m a n d h a v i n g substituted h i m s e l f for Hegel's “W o r l d Spirit”insofar as M a r c u s e m a r k e d o u t t h e w a n t s a n d n e e d s of a socialist w i t h o u t a p p a r e n t desire for a p o p u l a r d e b a t e o n t h e matter. See Pachter, “T h e Idea of Progress in M a r x i s m , ”in Socialism in History, 83-84. R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l offered a similarly critical v i e w of M a r c u s e ' s political c o n c l u s i o n s w h i l e indicating a n inter­ est in his philosophical writings (Richard L ö w e n t h a l , interview w i t h author, Ber­ lin, 3 A u g u s t 1987). P e r h a p s t h e m o s t s c athing a n d systematic attack o n Marcu s e ' s later writings app e a r s in Kolak o w s k i , M a i n Currents o f M a r x i s m , vol. 3 , 3 9 6 - 4 2 0 . A clearly stated r e n e w a l of the typical liberal a n d conservative criticisms of Marcuse's v i e w s o n totalitarianism a p p e a r s in S i m o n T o r m e y , M a k i n g Sense o f Tyranny: Inter­ pretations o f Totalitarianism (M a n c h e s t e r , E n g l a n d : M a n c h e s t e r University Press, 1995), 100-132. 13. H e r b e r t M a r c u s e , “D e r K a m p f g e g e n d e n Liberalismus in der totalitären Staatsauffassung,”Zeitschrift ß r Sozialforschung 3, no. 2 (1934): 167. T h e article is translated as “T h e Struggle against Liberalism in t h e Totalitarian V i e w of the State,” in H e r b e r t M a r c u s e , Negations: Essays in Critical Theory, trans. J e r e m y J. S h a p i r o (Boston: B e a c o n , 1968), 3-42. 14. Ayçoberry, T h e N a z i Question, 63. Ayçoberry's c o m m e n t s o n “D e r K a m p f g e g e n d e n Liberalismus in der totalitären Staatsauffassung'' rightly stress t h e origi­ nality of M a rcuse's essay as well as t h e p r e d o m i n a n c e of its philosophical (as o p ­ p o s e d to political) a g e n d a . Ayçoberry's dismissal of M a rcuse's discussions of class as differing little f r o m “vulg a r ”M a r x i s m is off t h e m a r k , h o w e v e r . A n o t h e r histo­ rian, A b b o t t Gl e a s o n , refers to t h e “thi n a n d abstract quality”of Marcuse's discus­ sion in th e article and , rather like Ayçoberry, sees it as primarily derived f r o m t h e antifascist critiques f o r m u l a t e d b y o t h e r Marxists d u r i n g th e 1920s. See G l eason,

Notes to Pages 6 9 - 7 1

255

Totalitarianism, 3 4 . 1 find M a r t i n J a y ’ s j u d g m e n t s o n " T h e Struggle against Liber­ a l i s m ”(explained in n o t e 11) m o r e persuasive. 15. M a r c u s e , " D e r K a m p f g e g e n d e n Liberalismus in der totalitären Staatsauf­ fassung,”165-68. 16. Ibid., 169-70. 17. Ibid., 185. 18. Q u o t e d in ibid., 194. 19. M a r c u s e stated years later that t h e article t o o k its inspiration f r o m "a s p e e c h b y Hitler, a s p e e c h at th e industrial club in Düss e l d o r f ”( q u o t e d in Kellner, Herbert M a r c u s e a n d the Crisis o f M a r x i s m , 96). 20. Detailed discussion of th e theoretical writings o n fascism a n d dictatorship that institute thinkers p r o d u c e d d u r i n g t h e 1 9 30s a p pears in th e previously cited b o o k s a n d articles of M a r t i n Jay, Rolf W i g g e r s h a u s , D o u g l a s Kellner, Alfons Söllner, H e l m u t Dubiel, Russell Jacoby, a n d Ba r r y Katz. See also L e o L o w e n t h a l , A n U n ­ mastered Past: T h e Autobiographical Reflections o f L e o L o w e n t h a l , ed. M a r t i n Ja y (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987); a n d M i c h a e l W i l s o n , D a s Institut für Sozialforschung u n d seine F a s c h i s m u s a n a l y s e n (Frankfurt a m M a i n : C a m p u s , 1982). 21. A l fons Söllner rightly e m p h a s i z e s t h e u s e M a r c u s e a n d t h e other central thinkers of t h e Institute of Social R e s e a r c h m a d e of "a sociohistorical a n d ulti­ m a t e l y e c o n o m i c f r a m e w o r k , ”b u t this f r a m e w o r k w a s often so d e e p l y i m b e d d e d (or a s s u m e d ) in t h e discussion of cultural a n d ideological d e v e l o p m e n t s that its outlines are s o m e t i m e s h a r d to discern. Nevertheless, I agree w i t h th e p o int that Söllner m a k e s in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h these remarks, n a m e l y , that M a r c u s e ’ s v i e w of liberalism w a s m o r e n u a n c e d t h a n at least o n e of his critics, Ellen K e n n e d y , c o n ­ tends. See Söllner, " B e y o n d Carl Schmitt: Political T h e o r y in the Frankfurt School,” Telos, no. 71 (Spring 1987): 88-89. 22. T h e s e v e r y c o n n e c t i o n s w o u l d , h o w e v e r , find a central place in M a r c u s e ’ s w a r t i m e s t u d y of t h e history of social p h i l o s o p h y since Hegel, R e a s o n a n d Revolu­ tion: Hegel a n d the Rise o f Social T h e o r y (1941; reprint, Boston: B e a c o n , i960). M a r c u s e offered t h e following f o r m u l a t i o n in t h e course of a discussion of H o b h o u s e a n d Hegel: “T h e principles of liberalism are valid, the c o m m o n interest c a n ­ n o t b e o t her in t h e last analysis t h a n t h e p r o d u c t of t h e m u l t i t u d e of freely devel­ o p i n g individual selves in society. B u t t h e c o n c r e t e f o r m s of society that h a v e d e v e l o p e d since t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y h a v e increasingly frustrated the f r e e d o m to w h i c h liberalism counsels allegiance”(397). 23. In his s u p e r b a c c o u n t of t h e f o r m a t i o n of t h e racial policies of the N a z i regime, Saul Friedländer m e n t i o n s that H e i d e g g e r a n d S c h m i t t b o t h joined the N a z i Party o n t h e s a m e day: M a y 1,1933. It is conceivable that the s y m b o l i c signifi­ c a n c e of t h e date w a s n o t lost o n t w o s u c h brilliant thinkers. See Friedländer, N a z i G e r m a n y a n d the Jews, vol. 1,54-55. 24. Weh l e r , introduction to D e m o k r a t i e u n d Klassenkampf: Ausgewählte Studien, b y A r t h u r Rose n b e r g , 9-10.

Notes to Pages 7 2 - 7 5

256

25. A r t h u r R o s e n b e r g [Historicus], D e r Faschismus als M a s s e n b e w e g u n g ; in ibid., 223. 26. Ibid., 236-37. 27. Ibid., 258. 28. E a c h of these questi o n a b l e p r o c e d u r e s w a s in e v i d e n c e d u r i n g t h e revival of Faschismustheorien in t h e 1960s. S o m e Marxists w e r e guilty of a d v o c a t i n g a re­ ductive class analysis, w h i l e abler historians, s u c h as T i m M a s o n , p u t c o n c e p t s of class to u s e in a m o r e differentiated a n d illuminating fashion. See M a s o n , " T h e P r i m a c y of Politics: Politics a n d E c o n o m i c s in Nati o n a l Socialist G e r m a n y , ”in N a ­ zism, Fascism, a n d the W o r k i n g Class, 53-76. M a s o n ' s essay first a p p e a r e d in t h e left­ ist G e r m a n journal D a s A r g u m e n t in 1966. T h e other t e n d e n c y of this revival p e ­ riod, t h e discussions of fascist ideology, t h o u g h quite revealing in particular points, s o m e t i m e s attributed great intellectual d e p t h a n d philosophical significance to the violent a n d opportunistic p r o n o u n c e m e n t s of fascist leaders that h a d m u c h m o r e to d o w i t h i m m e d i a t e issues of politics a n d p o w e r t h a n t h e y d i d w i t h "transcen­ d e n c e . ”Ernst N o l t e ’ s D e r F a s c h i s m u s in seinen E p o c h e offers a n e x a m p l e of this a p ­ proach. 29. R o s e n b e r g [Historicus], D e r F a s c h i s m u s als M a s s e n b e w e g u n g , in D e m o k r a t i e u n d Klassenkampf, 2 6 2 - 6 4 , 2 6 6 - 6 8 , 2 8 0 - 8 9 . See in particular his use of th e v o t i n g statistics of various representative Berlin districts f r o m th e Reichstag election of M a r c h 1933. 30. See also A r t h u r R o s e n b e r g , "Treitschke u n d die J u d e n : Z u r Soziologie der d e u t s c h e n a k a d e m i s c h e n Reaktion,”D i e Gesellschaß 2 (1930): 78-83. O n e of t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t b o o k s of t h e p e r i o d written b y a leftist a n d focusing o n th e his­ tory of G e r m a n a n t i - Semitism w a s Paul M a s s i n g , Rehearsal for Destruction: A Study o f Political Anti-Semitism in Imperial G e r m a n y ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d Brothers, 1949)- T h e b o o k w a s p r o d u c e d as part of a series s p o n s o r e d b y t h e Institute of S o ­ cial Research. For excellent e x a m p l e s of scholarship o n late Imperial a n d W e i m a r ­ ern a n t i - Semitism in t h e a c a d e m y , see R u d y Koshar, Social Life, Local Politics, a n d N a z i s m : Marbu r g , 1 8 8 0 - 1 9 3 5 ( C h a p e l Hill: University of N o r t h C a r o l i n a Press, 1986); a n d K o n r a d Jarausch, Students, Society, a n d Politics in Imperial G e r m a n y : T h e Rise o f A c a d e m i c Illiberalism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982). See also Peter Pulzer's d u rable general study, T h e Rise o f Political Anti-Semitism in Ge r ­ m a n y a n d Austria ( N e w York: J o h n W i l e y a n d Sons, 1964). 31. R o s e n b e r g [Historicus], D e r F a s c h i s m u s als M a s s e n b e w e g u n g , in D e m o k r a t i e u n d Klassenkampf, 273-74. 32. Ibid., 277-78. O n this point, see also Fritzsche, G e r m a n s into Nazis, ^ 5 - 2 1 4 . Fritzsche sees t h e N a z i ap p e a l to a b r o a d s p e c t r u m of voters in late W e i m a r arising m o r e f r o m their radically anti-status q u o a n d antileftist politics t h a n f r o m their e x t r e m e expressions of anti-Semitism. 33. R o s e n b e r g [Historicus], D e r F a s c h i s m u s als M a s s e n b e w e g u n g , in D e m o k r a t i e u n d Klassenkampf, 289. 34. Ibid., 299.

Notes to Pages 7 5 - 7 6

257

35. T h e so-called N i g h t of t h e L o n g K n i v e s w a s part of Hitler's b i d to seal the loyalty of th e G e r m a n a r m y b y m e a n s of a swift terrorist c a m p a i g n against the lead­ ership of t h e SA, his o w n paramilitary force, w h o s e leader Ernst R o h m c h erished plans of a b s o r b i n g t h e traditional military into th e S A u n d e r his authority. T h e a r m y a n d th e SS (Schutzstaffel— Hitler’ s elite b o d y g u a r d o r g a nized u n d e r Hein r i c h Himmler, w h o was R ö h m ’ s bitterest rival in t h e N a z i Party) c o o p e r a t e d in carry­ ing o u t these m u r d e r s . A m o n g t h o s e killed in t h e course of this b l o o d y p u r g e w e r e R o h m , m a n y of his officers, a substantial n u m b e r of l o w - r a n k i n g S A m e n , a n d a f e w leftover rivals f r o m t h e W e i m a r years, including conservative f o r m e r c h a n c e l ­ lor K u r t v o n Schleicher. For a n excellent narrative a c c o u n t of t h e events of t h e purge, see D a v i d C l a y Large, “T h e N i g h t of t h e L o n g Knives: N a z i G e r m a n y a n d the B l o o d Purge,”in B e t w e e n T w o Fires: Europe's Pat h in the 1 9 50s ( N e w York: N o r t o n , 1990), 101-37. O n t h e causes a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s of this event, see Dietrich Orl o w , T h e History o f the N a z i Party: 1 9 3 3 - 1 9 4 5 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1969), 56-192. 36. R o s e n b e r g [Historicus], D e r F a s c h i s m u s als M a s s e n b e w e g u n g , in D e m o k r a t i e u n d Klassenkampf, 303. 37. Ibid. 38. For biographical i n f o r m a t i o n o n R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l (1908-91), see his pref­ ace to E n d a n d Beginning, b y B o r k e n a u , vii-ix. Additional biographical i n f o r m a t i o n o n L ö w e n t h a l is t a k e n f r o m a n interview w i t h th e author, Berlin, 3 A u g u s t 1987. See also Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 298. 39. Until quite recently, t h e best source in English o n this g r o u p — t h o u g h it w a s o p e n l y skeptical a b o u t s o m e of N e u B e g i n n e n ' s policies a n d theoretical posi­ tions— w a s L e w i s J. Edinger, G e r m a n Exile Politics: T h e Social Democratic Executive C o m m i t t e e in the N a z i Era (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1956). A r g u a b l y Edinger's s t u d y o n t h e exile G e r m a n socialists h a s n o t b e e n altogether surpassed b u t rather usefully s u p p l e m e n t e d or d i s p u t e d b y m o r e recent w o r k , s u c h as J o h a n n e s Klotz, D a s “k o m m e n d e D e u t s c h l a n d ”: Vorstellungen u n d Konzeptionen des sozialistischen Parteivorstandes i m Exil 1 9 3 3 - 1 9 4 5 z u Staat u n d Wirtschaft ( C ologne: Pahl Rugenstein, 1983). T w o of t h e best English-language b o o k s o n G e r m a n resis­ t a n c e to Hitler are typical of t h e relative neglect of O R G / N e u B e g i n n e n . T h e a u ­ thors of t h e excellent g r o u p of essays in D a v i d C l a y Large, ed., C o n t e n d i n g with Hitler: Varieties o f G e r m a n Resistance in the Third Reich ( N e w York: G e r m a n Histori­ cal Institute a n d C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1991), m a k e n o m e n t i o n of N e u B e g i n n e n . K l e m e n s v o n Klemperer's G e r m a n Resistance against Hitler: T h e Search for Allies Abroad, 1 9 3 8 - 1 9 4 5 ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1992) contains a f e w scattered references to N e u B e g i n n e n b u t m o s t l y limits these to t h e overseas o r g a ­ nizational activities of R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l a n d Karl F r a n k that t o o k place after t h e N a z i takeover. R e c e n t e x a m p l e s of G e r m a n scholarship o n N e u B e g i n n e n are Hartmut Mehringer’ s e x haustive b i o g r a p h y of o n e of t h e group's k e y m e m b e r s , W a l d e m a r v o n Knoeringen: D e r W e g v o m revolutionären Sozialismus zur sozialen D e m o k r a t i e ( M u n i c h : Saur, 1989); a n d H a r t m u t M e h r i n g e r , “N e w B e g i n n i n g , ”in

Notes to P a g e 7 7

258

Encyclopedia o f G e r m a n Resistance to the N a z i M o v e m e n t , ed. W o l f g a n g B e n z a n d W a l t e r H. Pehle, trans. L a n c e W . G a r m e r ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m , 1997), 213-16. T h e recently p u b l i s h e d Encyclopedia o f G e r m a n Resistance to the N a z i M o v e m e n t offers m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n a n y ot h e r recent English-language source o n t h e history of th e group, a n d it also includes brief biographical sketches of several individual m e m b e r s of O R G / N e u B e g i n n e n . 40. M u c h of the i n f o r m a t i o n in this section is, except as oth e r w i s e cited, f r o m R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , D i e Widerstandsgruppe “ N e u B e g i n n e n ,”Beiträge z u m T h e m a W i d e r s t a n d , 2 0 (Berlin: I n f o r m a t i o n s z e n t r u m Berlin, 1982); a n d M e h r i n g e r , “N e w Beginning.” 41. Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n de n Fronten, 78-80; Edinger, G e r m a n Exile Politics, 163-68. W a l t e r L ö w e n h e i m (1896-1977) w r o t e a history of t h e O R G that h a s o n l y recently b e e n m a d e available: Geschichte der O r g ( N e u Beginnen), 1 9 29-1935' Pine zeitgenös­ sische Analyse, ed. J a n Foitzik (Berlin: Edition Hentrich, 1995). Foitzik's i n t r o d u c ­ tion is t h e best brief a c c o u n t of t h e O R G ' s f o r m a t i o n a n d early activity. T h e pri­ vately p u b l i s h e d m e m o i r of G e r h a r d Bry, Resistance: Recollections from the N a z i Years ( W e s t O r a n g e , N.J., 1979), also offers a vivid story of th e g r o u p as well as a n alter­ native e x p l a n a t i o n of the reasons for t h e split a n d its e n a c t i o n f r o m th e p e r s p e c ­ tive of a m e m b e r of the Frank-Löwenthal-Erler faction. Professor B r y g e n e r o u s l y sent m e a c o p y of his b o o k . 42. A n s o n R a b i n b a c h , T h e Crisis o f Austrian Socialism: F r o m R e d V i e n n a to Civil War, 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 3 4 (Chicago: University of C h i c a g o Press, 1983), 115-16. 43. A capsule b i o g r a p h y of Karl F r a n k (1893-1969) a p p ears in Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 270-71. Foitzik c o n t e n d s that it h a d b e e n F r a n k w h o w a s largely re­ sponsible for t h e slogan “n e u b e g i n n e n ”in t h e first place. For m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n o n th e group, see Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 7 0 - 8 5 , 1 3 0 - 4 0 , 2 0 2 , 3 4 1 . Foitzik's study is th e best readily available su r v e y source o n t h e history a n d structure of O R G / N e u B e g i n n e n , as well as other small o p p o sition groups. Kurt Kliem's “D e r sozialistische W i d e r s t a n d g e g e n das Dritte Reich, dargestellt a n der G r u p p e ‘ N e u Beginnen'” (Ph.D. diss., M a r b u r g , 1957) is also excellent, a n d it is richer in detail t h a n Foitzik's necessarily briefer t r e a t m e n t of t h e grou p , w h i c h is o n l y part of a larger s t u d y of m a n y organizations. S o m e of W a l t e r L ö w e n h e i m 's defenders take issue w i t h p o r ­ tions of Kliem's w o r k as favoring t h e Frank-led N e u B e g i n n e n group. In m y research into t h e history of t h e group, I received helpful assistance f r o m discussion or cor­ r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h f o r m e r m e m b e r s of or d e s c e n d e n t s of m e m b e r s of e a c h of the old O R G / N B factions, inclu d i n g G e r h a r d Bry, Os s i p Fle c h t h e i m , R i c h a r d L ö w e n ­ thal, Peter L o w e , Julia R a h m e r , a n d H e n r y S c h m i d t . 44. Wa l t e r L ö w e n h e i m ' s n e p h e w , Peter L o w e , also m a d e available to m e s o m e excerpts f r o m th e writings of his father, Ernst L ö w e n h e i m (1898-1984), also a k e y m e m b e r of th e O R G . T h e s e indicate clearly that a theoretically g r o u n d e d critique of t h e Soviet U n i o n as a n e x a m p l e of totalitarian dictatorship w a s o n e c o m m o n feature of b o t h th e O R G a n d N e u B e g i n n e n factions. O n Gur l a n d ' s role w i t h t h e O R G , see Bry, Resistance, 131.

Notes to Pages 7 8 - 8 2

259

45. A t N e u m a n n ’ s suggestion, F l e c h t h e i m w r o t e his s p l endid history of W e i ­ m a r C o m m u n i s m , D i e K P D in der W e i m a r e r Republik. O n P a x m a n n , see Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 308. T h e g r o u p ’ s m o r e directly political influence w a s car­ ried f o r w a r d by, a m o n g others, Fritz Erler (1913-67), a n activist w h o served as a lead­ ing m e m b e r of th e g r o u p for years a n d t h e n p l a y e d a k e y role in t h e resurgence of th e Social D e m o c r a t s in t h e early p o s t w a r period. T h e g r o u p ’ s list of actual or p o ­ tential supporters is t h e “Schlüsselliste,”N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 2, [1937], IISH, A m s t e r d a m . See Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 2 6 8 , 2 7 0 , 3 0 9 . O n th e i m p o r t a n t role of w o m e n in the group, see M e h r i n g e r , “N e w B e g i n n i n g . ”Further i n f o r m a t i o n o n N e u B e g i n n e n w a s p r o v i d e d b y O s s i p K. F l e c h t h e i m in a n interview w i t h t h e a u ­ thor, Berlin, 18 July 1989. 46. Miles [Walter L ö w e n h e i m ] , N e u Beginnen: Faschi s m u s oder Sozialismus Als Diskussionsgrundlage der Sozialisten Deutschlands (Karlsbad: Grap h i a , 1933). 47. Karl Kautsky, “Eine Diskussion s g r u n d l a g e , ”Zeitschrift für Sozialismus 1, no. 2 (1 9 3 3 ): 50-58. 48. Ibid., 58. 49. L u d w i g N e u r e i t h e r [Franz Borkenau], “K l a s s e n b e w u ß t s e i n , ”Zeitschrift für Sozialismus 1, no. 5 (1934): 152-59. B o r k e n a u followed u p this discussion w i t h t w o m o r e articles p u b l i s h e d u n d e r t h e n a m e L u d w i g Neureither: “Staat u n d R e v o l u ­ tion,”Zeitschrift für Sozialismus 1, no. 6 (1934): 181-85; a n d “N o c h e i n m a l ‘ Klassen­ bew u ß t s e i n , ' ”Zeitschrift für Sozialismus 1, no. 1 0 (1934): 325-29. 50. R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , interview w i t h author, Berlin, 3 A u g u s t 1987. 51. E d i n g e r h a s also called attention to this generational e l e m e n t of N e u Beginnen’ s quarrel w i t h th e S O P A D E leadership. See Edinger, G e r m a n Exile Politics, 96-98. 52. S O P A D E leader O t t o W e i s c l a i m e d that t h e exile leadership w a s in n o p o ­ sition to aid th e Miles G r o u p a n d d e n i e d it financial s u p p o r t in 1935 o n a c c o u n t of “disloyalty.”See O t t o W e i s to Karl Frank, 3 0 J a n u a r y 1935, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 6, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . See also Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 137. 53. R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , interview w i t h author, Berlin, 3 A u g u s t 1987. See also t h e N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 59/2, IISH, A m s t e r d a m , w h i c h co n t a i n s s o m e partial records of the N o v e m b e r arrests. 54. R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , interview w i t h author, Berlin, 3 A u g u s t 1987. 55. Paul Sering [Richard L ö w e n t h a l ] , “D i e W a n d l u n g e n d e s Kapitalismus,” Zeitschrift für Sozialismus 2, nos. 22/23 (1935): 704-25; “D e r F a s c h i s m u s , ”Zeitschrift für Sozialismus 2, nos. 24/25 (1935): 765-87; a n d “D e r F a s c h i s m u s , ”Zeitschrift ß r Sozialismus 2, nos. 26/27 (1935): 839-56. 56. Sering [Richard Löwe n t h a l ] , “D i e W a n d l u n g e n des Kapitalismus,”713. 57. Ibid., 724. 58. Sering [Richard Löwen t h a l ] , “D e r F a s c h i s m u s , ”777-78. 59. Ibid., 780. 60. Ibid., 781. 61. Ibid., 787. O n e of t h e m o r e interesting interpretations of N a z i s m that tries

Notes to Pages 8 3 - 8 4

260

to explain its c o m p l e x d y n a m i c of traditionalist a n d t e c h n o p h i l e e l e m e n t s is Jef­ frey H e r f ’ s Reactionary M o d e r n i s m : Technology, Culture, a n d Politics in W e i m a r a n d the Third Reich ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1984). 62. F r anz N e u m a n n ’ s a r g u m e n t , stated in his w a r t i m e b o o k , B e h e m o t h : T h e Structure a n d Practice o f N a t ional Socialism ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1942), 220-361, is not, to say t h e least, w i t h o u t its critics. In recent decades, a far m o r e n u a n c e d picture of t h e relations b e t w e e n t h e N a z i state a n d big industry h a s e m e r g e d — o n e that c o n f i r m s s o m e of t h e b r o a d outlines of N e u m a n n ’ sargument b u t qualifies it in case-by-case studies of various industrial sectors. See, for e x a m p l e , J o h n R. G i l l i n g h a m , Industry a n d Politics in the Third Reich: R u h r Coal, Hitler a n d Europe ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1985). I h a v e cited the first edition (1942) of B e h e m o t h in s u b s e q u e n t n o t e s unless t h e s e c o n d edition (1944) is specifically m e n t i o n e d . 63. T h e complexities a n d i n n o v a t i o n s of M a r x ’ s historical, political, a n d philo­ sophical essays, as well as his e c o n o m i c writings— w h a t e v e r their limitations a n d w e a k n e s s e s — r e n d e r c r u d e assertions a b o u t t h e inescapable " d e t e r m i n i s m ”of M a r x i s m unpersuasive, h o w e v e r . See, for e x a m p l e , K o l a k o w s k i ’ s discussions of this issue in his descriptions of t h e M a r x i s m of A n t o n i o G r a m s c i a n d th e p o s t w a r East E u r o p e a n “revisionists”(a g r o u p that o n c e i n c l u d e d K o l a k owski) in M a i n Currents o f M a r x i s m , vol. 3, 231-36, 4 6 2 - 6 6 . A d mittedly, t h e w o r k of s o m e publicists a n d theorists of t h e S e c o n d International a n d th e T h i r d International h a s frequently served to give a d u b i o u s legitimacy to s u c h v i e w s of M a r x ’ s outlook. S o m e of t h e w a r t i m e discussions of t h e controversial issue of the " p r i m a c y of politics”in m o d e r n capitalist societies are e x a m i n e d in greater detail in th e follow­ in g chapter. W i p p e r m a n n h a s a n a l y z e d t h e cour s e of this d e b a t e a m o n g Social D e m o c r a t s of th e 1 9 3 0 s in Faschismustheorien, 39-42. F r a n z N e u m a n n t o o k u p t h e issue in B e h e m o t h ( 1 942 a n d 1 9 4 4 ) a n d in s o m e of his later writings. See also t h e revival of this issue o n t h e left in t h e late 1 9 6 0 s a n d early 1970s, especially M a s o n , " T h e P r i m a c y of Politics,”53-76. See also N i c o s Poulantzas, Political P o w e r a n d S o ­ cial Classes ( L o n d o n : N e w Left B o o k s , 1973); J a n e C a p l a n , "Theories of Fascism: N i c o s Poulantzas as Historian,”History W o r k s h o p Journal, no. 3 (Spring 1977): 83 100; a n d K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dictatorship, 4 0 - 5 8 . 64. Sering [Richard L ö w e n t h a l ] , " D e r F a s c h i s m u s , ”843. 65. Ibid., 848. A n a r g u m e n t that w a s in s o m e respects quite similar to L ö w e n t h a l 's— n a m e l y , t h e c o n t e n t i o n that internal e c o n o m i c factors a n d crises significantly influe n c e d N a z i foreign policy, inclu d i n g th e t i m i n g of t h e invasion of P o l a n d — w o u l d a p p e a r years later in t h e w o r k of s o m e M a r x i s t scholars. See, for e x a m p l e , M a s o n , “Internal Crisis a n d W a r s of Aggression, 1938-39,”in N a z i s m , Fascism a n d the W o r k i n g Class, 1 0 4 - 3 0 ; a n d T i m M a s o n , " T h e D o m e s t i c D y n a m i c s of N a z i C o n q u e s t s : A R e s p o n s e to Critics,”in Reevaluating the Third Reich, ed. Childers a n d C a p l a n , 161-89. 66. R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , i n t e r v i e w w i t h author, Berlin, 3 A u g u s t 1987; Paul

Notes to Pages 8 4 - 8 8

26 1

Sering [Richard L ö w e n t h a l ] , Jenseits des Kapitalismus: Ein Beitrag zur sozialistischen Neuorientierung ( N u r e m b u r g : Nest, 1946). 67. See t h e fol l o w i n g articles in t h e Zeitschrift für Sozialismus b y Paul Sering [Richard L ö w enthal], “Historische V o r a u s s e t z u n g e n des d e u t s c h e n Nationalsozia­ lismus,”3, no. 3 0 (1936): 959-75; “D i e A u f g a b e n der d e u t s c h e n Revolution,”3, no. 3 3 (1936): r o 4 r - 4 9 ; “W a s ist d e r V o l k s s o z i a l i s m u s ? ”3, no. 3 6 (r936): iro5-36.

Sering's [ L ö w e n t h a P s ] l o n g essay o n folk socialism t o o k u p the entire final issue (no. 36) of Zeitschrift für Sozialismus. 68. Sering [Richard L ö w e n t h a l ] , “D e r F a s c h i s m u s , ”843. 69. T h e first n u m b e r , p u b l i s h e d in O c t o b e r r933, b o r e t h e title Sozialistische Revolution: Monatsschrift für die P r o b l e m e des Sozialismus. Thereafter, t h e journal b o r e t h e simpler a n d s o m e w h a t less provocative n a m e Zeitschrift ß r Sozialismus. T h e C z e c h g o v e r n m e n t censors h a d b l o c k e d further use of t h e “Socialist R e v o l u ­ t i o n ”title for t h e journal. S ee W a g n e r , R u d o l f Hilferding, 166, r8r, n o t e 46; a n d Edinger, G e r m a n Exile Politics, 101. 70. Liebich, “M a r x i s m a n d Totalitarianism.”R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l m a i n t a i n e d that Hilferding h a d little to d o w i t h t h e h a n d s - o n w o r k of editing t h e journal (in­ t e r v i e w w i t h author, Berlin, 3 A u g u s t 1987). W i l l i a m S m a l d o n e ' s b i o g r a p h y of Hilferding offers a detailed portrait of Hilferding's c o n t i n u i n g role as editor. See S m a l d o n e , R u d o l f Hilferding, 179-92. 71. R u d o l f Hilferding, “D i e Zeit u n d die Au f g a b e , ”Sozialistische Revolution r, no. i (1 9 3 3 ): 1-11. 72. Ibid., 6. 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid., ro. 75. M a x Klinger [Curt Geyer], “D e r Rückfall in d e n M a c h t staat,”Sozialistische Revolution r, no. 1 (r933): r6. 76. O n the life a n d career of G e y e r (1891-1967), see C u r t Geyer, D i e revolutionäre Illusion: Z u r Geschichte des linken Flügels der U S P D ; Erinnerungen v o n Cur t Geyer, ed. W o l f g a n g B e n z a n d H e r m a n n G r a m l (Stuttgart: D e u t s c h e Verlagsanstalt, r976); C u r t Geyer, D i e Partei der Freiheit (Paris: Gr a p h i a , 1939); a n d n u m e r o u s references to G e y e r in M o r g a n , T h e Socialist Left a n d the G e r m a n Revolution. 77. F r a n z W e g n e r , “Koporativstaat,”Zeitschrift ß r Sozialismus 1, no. 2 (1933): 105. 78. T h e structuralists (also called functionalists) are those historians w h o g e n ­ erally e m p h a s i z e t h e c o n t i n g e n t a n d i m p r o v i s e d character of t h e N a z i a p paratus of rule. T h e i r interpretive o p p o n e n t s , labeled t h e intentionalists, see the role of Hitler as central to t h e character a n d actions of a responsive N a z i hierarchy. O n e k e y focus of this intense d e b a t e is t h e analysis of th e Holocaust. H a n s M o m m s e n a n d M a r t i n Broszat h a v e b e e n t h e m o s t articulate a n d insistent structuralists, t h o u g h Karl A. S c h l e u n e s w a s o n e of t h e position's i m p o r t a n t early advocates. See Schleunes, T h e Twisted R o a d to Auschwitz: N a z i Policy toward G e r m a n Jews, 1 9 33-1939

Notes to P a g e 8 8

262

(1970; reprint, U r b a n a : University of Illinois Press, 1990). L e a d i n g intentionalists include Karl Dietrich Bracher, E b e r h a r d Jäckel, a n d Klaus Hildebrand. O n c e again, readers are directed to t h e discussion a n d references in K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dicta­ torship, 59-79. For defenses of the structuralist a n d intentionalist positions, respec­ tively, see M a s o n , “Intention a n d Explanation: A C u r r e n t C o n t r o v e r s y a b o u t the Interpretation of N a t i o n a l Socialism,”in N a z i s m , Fascism a n d the W o r k i n g Class, 212-30; a n d L u c y S. D a w i d o w i c z , T h e W a r against the Jews, 1 9 3 3 - 1 9 4 5 (1976; reprint, N e w York: B a n t a m , 1986), xix-xxxiii. For a m o r e recent response to this debate, see C h r i s t o p h e r B r o w n i n g , “B e y o n d T n t e n t i onalism' a n d ‘ Functionalism’ :T h e D e c i ­ sion for th e Final Solution Reconsidered,”in T h e Path to Genocide: Essays o n L a u n c h ­ ing the Final Solution ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1992), 86-121. 79. M a x Seydewitz, “D i e U e b e r w i n d u n g de r faschistischen Diktatur,”Zeit­ schrift für Sozialismus 1, no. 6 (1934): 198. 80. S e y d e w i t z (1892-1987) h a d b e e n a Social D e m o c r a t until 1931, b u t h e b r o k e w i t h the party over its “toleration”of the B r ü n i n g cabinet. H e t h e n b e c a m e a joint f o u n d e r a n d leader of t h e Socialist W o r k e r s ' Party (Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei— S A P ) d u r i n g late W e i m a r . H e w a s a m e m b e r of the Revolutionary Socialists (Arbeits­ kreis revolutionärer Sozialisten) d u r i n g t h e w a r a n d eventually joined forces w i t h t h e C o m m u n i s t s . A l o n g w i t h his wife, R u t h L e w y S e y d e w i t z ( b o r n 1905), h e b e ­ c a m e a p o s t w a r stalwart of t h e Socialist U n i t y Party of G e r m a n y (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, the official n a m e of th e “coalition”d o m i n a t e d b y the C o m m u n i s t Party in t h e G e r m a n D e m o c r a t i c Re p u b l i c — SED). H e served o n the executive c o m m i t t e e of t h e S E D a n d also as p r i m e minister of S a x o n y f r o m 1 9 4 7 to 1952. See M a x Seydewitz, Es h a t sich gelohnt z u leben: Lebenserinnerungen eines alten Arbeiterfunktionärs, 2 vols. (Berlin: Dietz, 1976-78). For references to his career, see Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 323-24; Edinger, G e r m a n Exile Politics, 144,155, 163,284, n o t e 5; M o r g a n , T h e Socialist Left a n d the G e r m a n Revolution, 4 4 1 - 4 2 ; a n d B e n z a n d Pehle, eds., Encyclopedia o f G e r m a n Resistance to the N a z i M o v e m e n t , 320. 81. T h e historian Allan M e r s o n h a s also n o t e d t h e b r o a d e x culpatory potential of t h e totalitarianism thesis, for w h i c h h e chides R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l ( w h o m h e labels “the Social-Democratic ideologist”), a n d w h i c h h e surely m e a n s to discredit. Merson’ s b o o k , w i t h its claims for t h e K P D ' s “m o r a l heritage”a n d “great c o n s t r u c ­ tive a c h i e v e m e n t , ”strikes m e as n o less “ideological”t h a n L ö w e n t h a l ’ s writings o n n o n - C o m m u n i s t resistance, h o w e v e r . Nevertheless, M e r s o n ' s w o r k in recalling t h e c o u r a g e o u s a n d s p o n t a n e o u s grassroots working-class resistance of G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s to th e Na t i o n a l Socialist state goes far to rescue this significant legacy f r o m neglect. See Allan M e r s o n , C o m m u n i s t Resistance in N a z i G e r m a n y ( L o n d o n : L a w r e n c e a n d W i s h a r t , 1985), 5. O n t h e K P D ’ s resistance to N a z i s m , see also D u h n k e , D i e K P D v o n 19 3 3 bis 1945; D e t l e v Peukert, D i e K P D i m Widerstand: Verfolgung u n d Untergrundarbeit a n R h e i n u n d Ruhr, 1933 bis 1 9 4 5 ( W u p p e r t a l : Peter H a m m e r , 1980); a n d M a r t i n Broszat, “ A Social a n d Historical T y p o l o g y of t h e G e r ­ m a n O p p o s i t i o n to Hitler,” in C o n t e n d i n g with Hitler, ed. Large, 25-33. Peter Hoffman’ s G e r m a n Resistance to Hitler (C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press,

Notes to Pages 8 8 - 9 0

263

1988) r e m a i n s a useful brief survey. See also Peter H o f f m a n ,

The History of the Ger­

m a n Resistance, 1933-1945, trans. R i c h a r d B a rry (Montreal: M c G i l l - Q u e e n ' s U n i ­ versity Press, 1996). 82. Seydewitz's drift into th e c a m p of th e K P D a n d S E D also points to t h e e x ­ istence, rarely discussed, of a C o m m u n i s t version of t h e intentionalist a r g u m e n t . See t h e extensive discussions of these issues, w i t h references to t h e pertinent lit­ erature, in K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dictatorship, 59-79. 83. See Liebich, " M a r x i s m a n d Totalitarianism." For a l o o k at t h e cold w a r c a ­ reer of M e n s h e v i s m in exile, see also A n d r é Liebich, “M e n s h e v i k s W a g e t h e C o l d W a r /'Journal o f C o n t e m p o r a r y History 30, no. 2 (1995): 247 - 6 4 ; a n d Liebich, F r o m the Other Shore. 84. W i p p e r m a n n h a s discovered a n u m b e r of these, a n d h e discusses t h e m in his Faschismustheorien, 32, 96-101. See also W i p p e r m a n n , Z u r A n a lyse des Faschis­ mus, 44-50. 85. Ceplair, U n d e r the S h a d o w o f War, 123-42. 86. “Protokoll v o m 4.5.36," 4 M a y 1936, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 13, IISH, Amsterdam. 87. See “Protokoll,”5 A u g u s t 1936, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 13, IISH, A m s t e r d a m ; a n d “Z u r Beurteilung der E r s c h i e s s u n g e n der 16 A n g e k l a g t e n des M o s k . Proz.,”3 O c t o b e r 1936, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 33, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . 88. See untitled essay o n t h e Soviet U n i o n , 2 6 J a n u a r y 1937, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 33, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . M a x Blatt ( b o r n 190 5 ) w a s a typical m e m b e r of O R G / N e u B e g i n n e n in t e r m s of his a g e a n d p r e v i o u s political i n v o l v e m e n t , h a v i n g joined th e K P D in his teens a n d left it b y 1928. H e joined the O R G in 1932 a n d u s e d t h e n a m e s M a x i m a n d L a n d a u . H e m o v e d to Australia at t h e e n d of th e war. See Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 253. 89. A n d e r s o n (1909-77), originally L e o n o r e S e l i g m a n n , left th e K P D in 1929, as h a d L ö w e n t h a l . H a v i n g e a r n e d h e r doctoral d e g r e e in e c o n o m i c s a n d sociology in 1932, sh e joined t h e O R G in 1933 (code n a m e M a r y ) a n d b e c a m e a leading m e m ­ ber of t h e N e u B e g i n n e n faction in L o n d o n , a l o n g w i t h h e r h u s b a n d , Paul A n d e r ­ s o n (1908-72). D u r i n g t h e war, b o t h A n d e r s o n s b e g a n successful careers in n e w s ­ p a p e r a n d broadcast journalism. T h e d y n a m i c British journalist, L a b o u r activist, a n d politician A n e u r i n B e v a n a p p o i n t e d E v e l y n A n d e r s o n to a n i m p o r t a n t edito­ rial position at t h e Tribune in L o n d o n . O n e of th e writers s h e w o r k e d w i t h at the Tribune w a s G e o r g e Orwell, w h o b e c a m e a g o o d p e r s o n a l friend. See Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 248; M i c h a e l Foot, A n e u r i n Bevan: A Biography, vol. 1 ( N e w York: A t h e n e u m , 1963), 302; a n d G e o r g e Orwell, T h e Collected Essays, Journalism, a n d Letters, ed. S o n i a O r w e l l a n d Ian A n g u s , vol. 4, In Front o f Your Nose, 1 9 4 5 - 1 9 5 0 ( N e w York: H a r c o u r t Brace J o v a n o v i c h , 1968), 5 0 9 n o t e 1. 90. For this e x c h a n g e , see t h e d o c u m e n t s of 2 6 J a n u a r y 1937,21 April 1937, a n d L a n d a u [Blatt] to Ernst [Richard L ö w e n t h a l ] a n d M a r y [Evelyn Anders o n ] , n.d., N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 33, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . 91. A n e x a m p l e of t h e k i n d of criticism of t h e C o m i n t e r n ' s role in the S p a n i s h

Notes to Pages 9 1 - 9 3

264

civil w a r that N e u B e g i n n e n routinely articulated is c o n t a i n e d in “P r o b l e m e u n d Perspektiven d e r s p a n i s c h e n R e v o l u t i o n , ”1937, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 18, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . T h e a u t h o r m e n t i o n s t h e “great a c h i e v e m e n t ”of t h e C o m i n t e r n a n d t h e Soviet U n i o n in intensifying their “par t y dictatorship.”“It is n o w clear,”c o n ­ tinues the d o c u m e n t , “that t h e socialist forces c a n n o t win. T h e y h a v e p r o v e n their incapacity. T h e y are already defeated.” 92. O t t o B a u e r (1881-1938) w a s a n i m p o r t a n t leader a n d theoretician in t h e Austrian Social D e m o c r a t i c Party f r o m t h e early 1 9 0 0 s t h r o u g h t h e interwar years. A m o n g his m o s t i m p o r t a n t writings of this p e r i o d are Z w i s c h e n zwei Weltkriegen? D i e Krise der Weltwirtschaft; der D e m o k r a t i e u n d des Sozialismus (Bratislava: E u g e n Prager, 1936); a n d t h e p o s t h u m o u s l y p u b l i s h e d D i e illegale Partei (Paris: Éditions d e la lutte socialiste, 1939). 93. T h e b o o k o n philo s o p h y , c o m p l e t e d in 1932 b u t d e l a y e d in print b e c a u s e of t h e N a z i takeover, w a s F r a n z B o r k e n a u , D e r Ü b e r g a n g v o m feudalen z u m bürger­ lichen Weltbild (Paris: Alcan, 1934). O n B o r k e n a u ' s c o n t i n u i n g contacts w i t h A u s ­ trian socialists just before t h e F e b r u a r y 1 9 3 4 action, see R a b i n b a c h , T h e Crisis o f Austrian Socialism, 116. T h e articles B o r k e n a u p u b l i s h e d in r e s p o n s e to current political crises i n c l u d e d “Z u r Soziologie des F a s c h i s m u s , ”Archiv für Sozialwissen­ schaft u n d Sozialpolitik 68, no. 5 (1933): 513-43; “F a scisme et syndicalisme,”A n n a l e s d'histoire é c o n o m i q u e et sociale 6 (1934): 337-50; a n d “L a crise des parties socialistes d a n s P E u r o p e c o n t e m p o r a i n e , ”A n n a l e s d'histoire é c o n o m i q u e et sociale 7 (1935): 33752.

94. F or a succinct a n d deftly a r g u e d s t u d y of t h e i m p o r t a n c e of Pareto a n d ot h e r a n t i d e m o c r a t i c theorists to t h e political debates of this century, see R o b e r t A. N y e , T h e Anti-Democratic Sources o f Elite Theory: Pareto, Mosca, Michels ( L o n d o n : S a g e Publications, 1977). A n o t h e r possible factor that m i g h t e x plain B o r kenau's interest in Pareto w a s that Pareto's M i n d a n d Society h a d just b e e n translated into English in 1935, a n d t h e incre a s e d access to his ideas m i g h t h a v e infl u e n c e d B o r k e n a u or his editors to select Pareto as a w o r t h y subject to include in t h e series o n sociologists. Karl Korsch's Karl M a r x ( L o n d o n : C h a p m a n a n d Hall, 1938) w a s a later v o l u m e in this s a m e series. 95. F r anz B o r k e n a u , Pareto ( L o n d o n : C h a p m a n a n d Hall, 1936), 72-77,88-90. 96. Ibid., 127-29,161-63. 97. Ibid., 168. 98. Ibid., 151-56,171-73; Vilfredo Pareto, T h e M i n d a n d Society, trans. A n d r e w B o n g i o r n o a n d A r t h u r L i v ingstone (1935; reprint, N e w York: Dover, 1963), vol. 3, 9 7 3 - 7 6 ; vol. 4 , 1 5 1 5 - 4 L 1912.

99. T h e sociologist T. H. Marshall's r e v i e w of Pareto rightly p o i n t e d o u t that B o r k e n a u a p p e a r e d less interested in a presentation of Pareto's m o d e l t h a n in th e appropriation of parts of it in t h e service of his o w n critical pursuits. See Marshall's re v i e w in Political Quarterly 7, no. 3 (1936): 459-61. 100. B o r k e n a u , Pareto, 198. 101. Ibid., 202-3.

Notes to Pages

93-97

265

102. Ibid., 203. 103. Ibid., 176. 104. Ibid., 181-82. 105. Ibid., 180. 106. Ibid., 209. 107. Ibid., 115,179-89. 108. Ibid., 193-94. In this passage, B o r k e n a u set Lenin's circle a n d m e t h o d s of leadership at a clear distance f r o m Stalin’ s style of personal, autocratic rule. 109. Ibid., 211. n o . Ibid., 1 8 4 - 9 5 , 2 0 3 - 1 0 , passim. i n . Ibid., 196. 112. T h e literature o n t h e S p a n i s h civil w a r is v o l u m i n o u s . T h e stan d a r d E n ­ glish-language s t u d y of t h e w a r r e m a i n s H u g h T h o m a s , T h e Spanish Civil W a r ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , E n g l a n d : P e n g u i n B o o k s , 1986). S ee also Gabriel Ja c k s o n , A Concise History o f the Spanish Civil W a r ( L o n d o n : T h a m e s a n d H u d s o n , 1980); Paul Preston, T h e C o m i n g o f the Spanish Civil W a r : Reform, Reaction, a n d Revolution in the Se c o n d Republic, 1 9 3 1 - 1 9 3 6 ( N e w York: B a r n e s a n d N o b l e Book s , 1978); R a y m o n d Carr, ed., T h e Republic a n d the Civil W a r in Spain ( L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n , 1971); a n d Gabriel Jackson, ed. T h e Spanish Civil W a r ( N e w York: Q u a d r a n g l e Bo o k s , 1972). T h e best a n d m o s t c o m p r e h e n s i v e s t u d y of th e subject of th e G e r m a n Left’ s i n v o l v e m e n t in t h e w a r is Patrik v o n zur M ü h l e n , Spanien w a r ihre Hoffnung: D i e deutsche Linke i m Spanischen Bürgerkrieg, 1 9 3 6 bis 1 9 3 9 (Berlin: Dietz, 1985). For a vivid m e m o i r a n d p h o t o g r a p h i c a c c o u n t of t h e first d a y s of th e w a r as s e e n b y t w o y o u n g left-wing G e r m a n exiles, see H a n s N a m u t h a n d G e o r g Reisner, Spanisches Tagebuch, 1936: Fotografien u n d Texte aus d e n ersten M o n a t e n des Bürgerkriegs (Berlin: Dirk N i s h e n , 1986). In their travels across the countryside, Reisner a n d N a m u t h , socialist activists a n d p h o t o journalists, w e r e for a t i m e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a schol­ arly writer: Franz B o r k e n a u . N a m u t h p u r s u e d a high l y successful career in p h o t o g ­ r a p h y in t h e U n i t e d States a n d later c o m p l e t e d a w e l l - k n o w n film of t h e A m e r i c a n artist J a c k s o n Pollock at w o r k . 113. O n t h e effort to create a b r o a d leftist alliance in Spain, see Gabriel Jackson, “ T h e S p a n i s h P o p u l a r Front, 1934-7,”Journal o f C o n t e m p o r a r y History 5, no. 3 (1970): 21-35. G e r d - R a i n e r H o r n s h o w s clearly that, in this coalition as in ot h e r p o p u l a r front alliances, t h e socialists q u i c k l y b e c a m e t h e political captives of t h e m o r e m o d e r a t e S p a n i s h republicans, giving g r o u n d o n issue after issue. See H o r n , E u r o ­ p e a n Socialists R e s p o n d to Fascism, 105-6. 114. H e n r i Rabasseire [ H e n r y Pachter], Espagne: Creuset politique (Paris: Éditions Fustier, 1938), 5 4 - 5 5 , 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 1 8 5 . In a n introduction to a 19 6 5 S p a n i s h translation of t h e b o o k , E s p a n a crisolpolitico, Pac h t e r a c k n o w l e d g e d s o m e c h a n g e s in his v i e w of t h e international significance a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s of the w a r b u t did n o t retreat f r o m his earlier position that t h e t w i n goals of w a r a n d revolution w e r e b o t h es­ sential. For t h e English translation of this introduction, see Pachter, “Reflections o n t h e S p a n i s h Civil W a r , ”in Socialism in History, 147-57.

Notes to Pages 9 7 - 9 9

266

115. K o r s c h h a d a n i n f o r m a n t o n the scene, his friend a n d student Paul Partos, w h o participated o n th e republican side as part of the p r o p a g a n d a section of the C N T ( C o n f e d e r a c i e s N a c i o n a l del Trabajo). See Kellner, ed., Karl Korsch, 196; a n d v o n zur M ü h l e n , Spanien w a r ihre Hoffnung, 9iff., iooff., 110, 238. 116. Kellner, ed., Karl Korsch, 196. T h e articles, s o m e w h a t d e l a y e d in publica­ tion, w e r e “E c o n o m i c s a n d Politics in Revol u t i o n a r y Spain,”Living M a r x i s m 4, no. 3 (1938): 76-82; a n d “Collectivisation in Spain,”Living M a r x i s m 4, no. 6 (1939): 17882. K o r s c h did, h o w e v e r , publish a b o o k review o n collectivization in S p a i n in the institute's journal: re v i e w of Collectivisations: L'oeuvre constructive de la Révolution Espagnole; Receuil de documents, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 7, no. 3 (1938): 4 6 9 74. O n t h e issue of collectivization in Catalonia, see M i c h a e l S e i d m a n , “W o r k a n d Revolution: W o r k e r s ' C o n t r o l in B a r c e l o n a in t h e S p a n i s h Civil W a r , 1 9 3 6 - 3 8 , ” Journal o f C o n t e m p o r a r y History 17, no. 3 (1982): 4 0 9 -33. 117. Q u o t e d in Kellner, ed., Karl Korsch, 242. 118. In t h e editorial intr o d u c t i o n s a n d s u m m a r i e s that a p p e a r in his Karl Korsch, Kellner ably discusses th e tensions in t h e political a n d theoretical o u t l o o k of Korsch's various projects in t h e late 1930s. See especially 73-113,270-74. 119. Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 113-218, passim. 120. H e r b e r t M a r c u s e , Kultur u n d Gesellschaft (Frankfurt a m M a i n : S u h r k a m p , 1965), n . 121. H e l m u t D u b i e l asserts that “the literary a n d theoretical reconsiderations of t h e S h o w Trials a n d t h e Pact in th e é m i g r é circles b e g a n for th e m o s t part first in t h e 1940s.”See Dubiel, Wissenschaftsorganisation u n d politische Erfahrung: Studien zur frühen Kritischen Theorie (Frankfurt a m M a i n : S u h r k a m p , 1978), 91. Th i s State­ m e n t is partly inaccurate, as e v i d e n c e f r o m th e writings of Korsch, N e u B e g i n n e n , a n d B o r k e n a u d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d 1 9 3 6 - 3 9 demonstrates. T h e error is repeated a n d w o r s e n e d s o m e w h a t b y t h e o m i s s i o n of t h e p h r a s e “for t h e m o s t part”in t h e E n ­ glish translation of t h e b o o k . See Dubiel, Theory a n d Politics: Studies in the D e v e l o p ­ m e n t o f Critical Theory, trans. B e n j a m i n G r e g g ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: M I T Press, 1985), 73. Du b i e l supp o r t s his c l a i m b y stating that, for e x a m p l e , “Borken a u ' s T h e S p a n ­ ish C o c k p i t ... a p p e a r e d at t h e e n d of 1939" (73)— indicating that t h e b o o k w a s p u b l i s h e d after th e Hitler-Stalin Pact a n d th e invasion of Poland. This s t a t e m e n t is also incorrect. T h e b o o k w a s p u b l i s h e d in mid-1937. T h e t i m i n g of t h e left-wing émigrés' criticism of t h e Soviet U n i o n a n d t h e C o m i n t e r n is certainly far m o r e i m p o r t a n t for m y a r g u m e n t t h a n it is for Dubiel's, so th e correct dates of pub l i c a ­ tion for these writings deserve m e n t i o n here. T h e s e m i n o r errors d o not, h o w e v e r , d i m i n i s h t h e val u e of Dubiel's b o o k . For a discussion of intellectuals' responses to the w a r that includes a section o n B o r k e n a u , see J a m e s W i l k i n s o n , “ T r u t h a n d Delusion,”S a l m a g u n d i 76/77 (198788): 3-52. S ee also W i l k i n s o n ' s T h e Intellectual Resistance in Eu r o p e ( C a m b r i d g e , M a s s : H a r v a r d University Press, 1981); a n d L e w i s Coser, “R e m e m b e r i n g t h e S p a n ­ ish Revolution,”D i s s e n t 33 ( W i n t e r 1986): 53-58.

Notes to Pages 9 9 - 1 0 1

267

122. F r a n z B o r k e n a u , T h e Spanish Cockpit: A n Eye-Witness A c c o u n t o f the Politi­ cal a n d Social Conflicts o f the Spanish Civil W a r ( L o n d o n : Faber a n d Faber, 1937), 254. 123. T h e N K V D b e c a m e t h e successor organization to t h e G P U in 1934, b u t m o s t writers discussed here c o n t i n u e d to use t h e earlier a c r o n y m . O n th e c h a n g e s in th e n a m e s atta c h e d to th e Soviet secret political police, see N i c h o l a s Riasanovsky, A History o f Russia ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1993), 503. For discus­ sions generally s y m p a t h e t i c to t h e P O U M a n d anarchist perspectives o n t h e civil w a r a n d h i g h l y critical of t h e role of t h e P C E a n d th e N K V D , see Victor A l b a a n d S t e p h e n S c h w a r t z , S p anish M a r x i s m versus Soviet C o m m u n i s m : A History o f the P.O.U.M. ( N e w B r u n s w i c k , N.J.: Transaction Bo o k s , 1988), 212-18; E. H. Carr, T h e C o m i n t e r n a n d the Spanish Civil W a r ( N e w York: P a n t h e o n , 1984), 25,30-32; a n d t w o b o o k s b y Burnett Bolloten, T h e G r a n d Camouflage: T h e C o m m u n i s t Conspiracy in the Spanish Civil W a r ( N e w York: Praeger, 1961) a n d T h e Spanish Revolution: T h e Left a n d the Struggle for P o w e r during the Civil W a r ( C h a p e l Hill: University of N o r t h C a r o ­ lina Press, 1978). A classic s t u d y of t h e war's b a c k g r o u n d written b y s o m e o n e w h o h a d a g o o d deal of contact w i t h B o r k e n a u is G e r a l d B r e n a n , T h e Spanish Labyrinth: A n A c c o u n t o f the Social a n d Political B a c k g r o u n d o f the Civil W a r ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m ­ bridge University Press, 1943). B r e n a n ’ s acerbic a u t o b i o g r a p h y includes several vignettes of B o r k e n a u that offer his m i x e d v i e w of t h e A u s t r i a n - G e r m a n intellec­ tual. See B r e n a n , Personal Record, 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 7 2 ( N e w York: K n o p f , 1975). 124. B o r k e n a u , T h e Spanish Cockpit, 289. 125. T w o k e y anarchist g r o u p s w e r e th e C N T a n d t h e FAI: C o n f e d e r a t i o n N a c i o n a l del Trabajo (a trade u n i o n g r o u p ) a n d Fede r a t i o n A n a r q u i s t a Ibérica (a collective of anarchist groups). For perspectives of t h e m e m b e r s of these a n d a variety of other organizations, see R o n a l d Fraser’ s s u p e r b B l o o d o f Spain: A n Oral History o f the Spanish Civil W a r ( N e w York: P a n t h e o n , 1979). 126. Orwell, T h e Collected Essays, Journalism, a n d Letters, vol. 1, A n A g e Like This, 276-82, 297, 299. For a n alternative perspective, see M i c h a e l S e i d m a n , “T h e U n orwellian Barcelona,”E u r o p e a n History Quarterly 2 0 (April 1990): 163-80. 127. F r a n z B o r k e n a u to G e o r g e Orwell, 6 A u g u s t 1937, G e o r g e O r w e l l Archive, University College, L o n d o n . See also G e o r g e Orwell, H o m a g e to Catalonia (1938; reprint, N e w York: H a r c o u r t Brace J o v a n o v i c h , 1952). 128. F r a n z B o r k e n a u to G e o r g e Orwell, 11 J u n e 1938, G e o r g e O r w e l l Archive, University College, L o n d o n . 129. B e r n a r d Crick, George Orwell: A Life ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , E n g l a n d : P e n g u i n B o oks, 1980), 3 4 0 - 4 1 , 446. C r i c k m e n t i o n s that Eileen Blair also h e l p e d t h e N e u B e g i n n e n activist E v e l y n A n d e r s o n edit h e r w a r t i m e s t u d y of th e G e r m a n Left, H a m m e r or Anvil: T h e Story o f the G e r m a n Working-class M o v e m e n t ( L o n d o n : Gollancz, 1945). A n d e r s o n a n d B o r k e n a u h a d b e e n friends o n the G e r m a n left d u r i n g th e W e i m a r years. 130. N o netheless, at t h e t i m e B o r k e n a u f o u n d th e s p e e c h e s a n d p e r s o n a of L a Pasionaria (Dolores Ibarruri), t h e C o m m u n i s t s ’m o s t i m p o r t a n t public figure,

Notes to Pages 1 0 1 - 5

268

m o v i n g a n d a u t hentic expressions of t h e traditional S p a n i s h revolutionary spirit. See B o r k e n a u , T h e Spanish Cockpit, 1. H e repeated his praise for h e r in T h e C o m m u ­ nist International, 405. After h e learned of h e r self-serving b e h a v i o r d u r i n g t h e years of M o s c o w exile, h o w e v e r , h e w o u l d "explicitly r e v o k e ”his positive discussions of h e r in his later E u r o p e a n C o m m u n i s m ( L o n d o n : Faber a n d Faber, 1953), 164, n o t e 1. 131. B o r k e n a u , T h e Spanish Cockpit, 2 5 9 , 2 6 8 . 132. Ibid., 278. 133. Franz B o r k e n a u , "State a n d R e volution in t h e Paris C o m m u n e , t h e Russian Revolution, a n d th e S p a n i s h Civil W a r , ”Sociological R e v i e w 29, no. 1 (1937): 41-75. W i t h o u t reference to B o r k e n a u ' s article, Karl K o r s c h w o u l d m a k e a similar a r g u ­ m e n t th e following year in his article o n " E c o n o m i c s a n d Politics in R e v o l u t i o n ­ ary Spain.”Korsch, h o w e v e r , s a w S p a i n as o n e m o r e lesson for t h e revolutionary w o r k i n g class, w h i l e B o r k e n a u c o n c l u d e d that t h e w a r s h o u l d e n d all M a r x i s t illu­ sions a b o u t t h e inherently revolutionary character of working-class politics. 134. F r a n z B o r k e n a u , " A P r o g r a m for C o u n t e r - R e v o l u t i o n , ”in After Peace, W h a t ? ( N o r m a n , Okla.: C o o p e r a t i v e B o oks, 1941), 1-10. 135. See M e m o o n th e C a s e of t h e D i s a p p e a r a n c e of M a r k Rein, 12 N o v e m b e r 1937, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 14,1-14, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . See also "Willi M ü l l e r ”[Karl Frank] to O t t o Bauer, 18 D e c e m b e r 1937, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 16, IISH, A m s t e r ­ d a m . T h e letter lists W i l l y B r a n d t as a friend of Rein. B r a n d t h i m s e l f described m e e t i n g w i t h R e i n in B a r c e l o n a a n d his s u b s e q u e n t a n g e r a n d d i s m a y at Rein's d i s a p p e a r a n c e in M y Life in Politics ( N e w York: Viking, 1992), 104-5. 136. " W a l t e r ”[Walter Ulbricht] to N e u B e g i n n e n , 2 4 S e p t e m b e r 1937, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 14, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . 137. H e i n r i c h Brandler, a friend of A u g u s t T h a l h e i m e r a n d a f o r m e r leader of the K P D , b e c a m e involved w i t h t h e a t t e m p t to discover Rein's fate. H e w r o t e to N e u B e g i n n e n that likely " i h n [Rein] die G P U u m die E c k e g e b r a c h t h a b e ”( T h e G P U t o o k h i m a r o u n d t h e c o r n e r — that is, killed h i m). See H e i n r i c h Brandler to "Karl” [Frank], 13 July 1937, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 17, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . For a m o r e e x ­ t e n d e d a c c o u n t of t h e M a r k R e i n episode, see v o n zur M ü h l e n , Spanien w a r ihre Hoffnung, 192-99; a n d Liebich, F r o m the Other Shore, 261-63. V o n zur M ü h l e n m e n ­ tions t h e scenario D e u t s c h offered. W i l l y B r a n d t e c h o e d Deutsch's hy p o t h e s i s in M y Life in Politics, 105. Liebich's a c c o u n t e m p h a s i z e s th e sadly desperate a n d per­ sistent efforts b y A b r a m o v i t s c h to learn t h e details of his son's death. 138. R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , interview w i t h author, Berlin, 3 A u g u s t 1987. 139. " D i e Sozialisten u n d der deutsche-russische Pakt,”late A u g u s t 1939, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 34, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . For a n authoritative a c c o u n t of t h e k e y military events leading u p to a n d i m m e d i a t e l y following t h e G e r m a n a n d Soviet invasions of Poland, see G e r h a r d W e i n b e r g , A W o r l d at A r m s : A Global History o f W o r l d W a r II (C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1994), 54-62. 140. S o m e historians h a v e a r g u e d persuasively that, despite th e official posi­ tion of leading C o m m u n i s t s , m a n y rank-and-file G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s c o n t i n u e d to agitate against th e Nazis e v e n d u r i n g t h e m o n t h s w h e n t h e Hitler-Stalin Pact

Notes to Pages 1 0 5 - 8

269

w a s in force. Allan M e r s o n a d m i t s that G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t s w e r e unsettled a n d disoriented, b u t his e v i d e n c e s h o w s that t h e y w e r e n o t w i t h o u t their o w n o r g a ­ n i z e d efforts at resistance in 1939-41. See M e r s o n , C o m m u n i s t Resistance in N a z i Germany, 211-32,309-10. 141. Sering [Richard L ö w e n t h a l ] , " Z u r E i n s c h ä t z u n g der deutsch-russischen Z u s a m m e n a r b e i t , ”1 O c t o b e r 1939, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 41, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . 142. Ibid., 4,8. 143. Karl Frank, " W a r A i m s of t h e G e r m a n O p p o s i t i o n , ”15 O c t o b e r 1939, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 27, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . See also R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , D i e W i d e r ­ standsgruppe “ N e u B e g i n n e n ," 13-14. 144. R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , interview w i t h author, Berlin, 3 A u g u s t 1987; R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , D i e Widerstandsgruppe “ N e u Beginnen, " 14; Foitzik, Zw i s c h e n den Fronten, 130-40,270-71. 145. R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , D i e Widerstandsgruppe “ N e u Beginnen/' 15-17. 146. O n e of t h o s e w h o r e m a i n e d a radical a n d a consistent cold w a r o p p o n e n t w a s W o l f g a n g A b e n d r o t h (1906-85), th e M a r b u r g political scientist. H e h a d always b e e n o n t h e group's left d u r i n g his t i m e w i t h N e u B e g i n n e n . See his iconoclastic a n d valu a b l e p e r s o n a l r e miniscences, W o l f g a n g A b e n d r o t h , Ein L e b e n in der Arbeiterbewegung: Gespräche, aufgezeichnet u n d herausgegeben v o n Barbara Dietrich u n d J o a c h i m Pereis (Frankfurt a m M a i n : S u h r k a m p , 1981). For a brief s u m m a r y of Abendroth’ s career o n t h e left, see Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 246. 147. T h e m o s t recent m a j o r s t u d y of G e r m a n resistance that focuses o n t h e m o v e m e n t b e h i n d t h e failed July 1 9 4 4 a t t e m p t to assassinate Hitler is T h e o d o r e Hamerow’ s detailed a n d though t f u l l y critical O n T h e R o a d to the Wolf's Lair: Ger­ m a n Resistance to Hitler ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, 1997). T h e Rot e Kapelle ( R e d Orchestra), w h o s e m e m b e r s h i p i n c l u d e d a n u m b e r of C o m m u ­ nists, w a s a n o t h e r of t h e larger a n d relatively diverse g r o u p s of t h e anti-Nazi resis­ tan c e a n d therefore also merits a reference here. For recent a c c o u n t s that include source listings o n b o t h groups, see H a n s M o m m s e n , "Bourgeois (National-Conser­ vative) Resistance,”a n d H a n s C o p p i , " R e d Orchestra,”in Encyclopedia o f G e r m a n Resisance, ed. Belz a n d Pehle, 3 5 - 4 4 , 2 2 3 - 2 6 .

C h a p t e r s : Varieties o f Antitotalitarianism i.

H e l m u t D u b i e l h a s m a d e a similar p o i n t a b o u t th e diversity of c o n c e p t i o n s

of state-party dictatorship o n t h e left, b u t h e focuses o n separating the writings of t h e Frankfurt Circle, H o r k h e i m e r , A d o r n o , a n d Pollock, f r o m t h o s e that explicitly f o r m u l a t e d th e k i n d of c o m p a r i s o n or e q u a t i o n of t h e Soviet U n i o n a n d N a z i G e r ­ m a n y that w o u l d b e a h a l l m a r k of t h e cold w a r versions of the totalitarianism t h e ­ sis, s u c h as A m e r i c a n political scientist Carl J. Friedrich’ s. I d o n o t dispute D u b i e l ’ s c o n c l u s i o n that t h e Frankfurt theorists’ writings o n dictatorship stand apart f r o m m o s t others. I s i m p l y w a n t to f r a m e t h e issue differently: Friedrich’ s m o d e l is n o t th e o n l y totalitarianism concept, so I a m e x p l o r i n g w h a t directions other writers t o o k in gene r a t i n g s u c h c o n c e p t s before t h e cold war. See Dubiel, Wissenschafts­ organisation u n d politische Erfahrung, 93-94.

Notes to Pages 109-14

270

2. T h e best s i n g l e - v o l u m e a c c o u n t s of W o r l d W a r II in English are G o r d o n W r i g h t , T h e Ordeal o f Total War,

1939-1945 ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d R o w , 1969); J o h n

K e e g a n , T h e S e c o n d W o r l d W a r ( N e w York: Viking, 1990); a n d W e i n b e r g , A W o r l d at A r m s . 3. R u t h Fischer, Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , 7. 4. O n R ü h l e (1874-1943), see H e n r y J a c o b y a n d Ingrid Herbst, Otto R ü h l e zur E i n f ü h r u n g ( H a m b u r g : Junius, 1984); Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 315-16; G o t t ­ fried M e r g n e r , “Z u m V e r s t ä n d n i s der Texte,”in O t t o Rühle, Schriften: Perspektiven einer Revolution in hochindustrialisierten Ländern, ed. Gottfried M e r g n e r (Reinbek: R o w o h l t T a s c h e n b u c h , 1971), 206-13; R u t h Fischer, Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , 7,13,77; a n d F o w k e s , C o m m u n i s m in G e r m a n y under the W e i m a r Republic, 51.

10-12,46,

A discussion of Rühle's role in S P D e d u c a t i o n policy d u r i n g th e late Imperial

p e r i o d a p pears in Stanley Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals a n d the Working-Class M e n ­ tality in G e r m a n y ,

1887-1912 ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, r993),

193- 2 0 4 . R eferences to Rühle's activities in t h e left-wing party u p h e a v a l s of th e W o r l d W a r I p e r i o d a n d its a f t e r m a t h are in M o r g a n , T h e Socialist Left a n d the Ge r ­ m a n Revolution, 44,170, r77,208, n o t e 98. Rühle's “B r a u n e r u n d Roter F a s c h i s m u s ” w a s written in 19 3 9 b u t n o t p u b l i s h e d until 1971. See Rühle, “B r a u n e r u n d Roter F a s c h i s m u s , ”in Schriften, 7-71,190. 5. M e r g n e r , “Z u m Ver s t ä n d n i s der Texte,”214-15; H e n r y J a c o b y a n d Herbst, Rü h l e zur Einführung, passim; Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 315-16. 6. Rühle, “B r a u n e r u n d Roter F a s c h i m u s , ”7. 7. Ibid., 8. R ü h l e w a s yet a n o t h e r a d v o c a t e of th e t e r m state capitalism to d e ­ scribe t h e Soviet e c o n o m y . 8. Ibid., 11. 9. Ibid., 17. 10. Ibid., 18. 11. B o r k e n a u , T h e C o m m u n i s t International, 134-60; Rosenberg, Entstehung u n d Geschichte der W e i m a r e r Republik, 241-42. 12. Rühle, “B r a u n e r u n d Roter F a s c h i s m u s , ”23. 13. Ibid., 25. 14. Ibid., 2 7 , 3 4 , 3 9 - 4 1 . 15. Ibid., 35. 16. Ibid., 63.

17. Ibid., 68. 18. Ibid., 71. Rühle's hostile pairing of N a z i s m a n d Soviet C o m m u n i s m w o u l d later h a v e a n a u d i e n c e v e r y different f r o m t h e o n e h e a p p a r e n t l y w a n t e d . T h e gradual e m e r g e n c e of th e “red fascism”a r g u m e n t in th e U n i t e d States is e x a m i n e d in Les K. Adler a n d T h o m a s G. Paterson, “R e d Fascism: T h e M e r g e r of N a z i G e r ­ m a n y a n d Soviet Russia in t h e A m e r i c a n I m a g e of Totalitarianism, 1930S-1950S,” A m e r i c a n Historical R e v i e w 75, no. 4 (1970): 1046-64. 19. See J o h n D a y C o . to C a r m e n H a i d e r Phillips, 11 D e c e m b e r 1939, a n d M a x E a s t m a n to O t t o Rühle, 25 M a y 1940, N a c h l a ß O t t o Rühle, 79,82, IISH, A m s t e r d a m .

Notes to Pages 114-2o

271

Phillips a n d E a s t m a n h a d m a d e inquiries to publishers in Riihle’ s behalf. Mattick, w h o w a s b o r n in G e r m a n y , w a s o n e of Korsch's close friends a n d intellectual col­ laborators in t h e U n i t e d States. H e established a strong reputation in his o w n right as a n i n d e p e n d e n t Marxist. For pertinent e x a m p l e s of his p o s t w a r theoretical a n d historical writings, see Paul Mattick, M a r x a n d Keynes: T h e Limits o f the M i x e d E c o n o m y (Boston: E x t e n d i n g H o r i z o n s Books, 1969); a n d “ Anti-Bolshevist C o m m u ­ n i s m in G e r m a n y , ”Telos, no. 2 6 ( W i n t e r 1975-76): 57-69. 20. Karl K o r s c h to Paul Mattick, 25 J u n e 1940, N a c h l a ß Karl Korsch, 32/96, IISH, Amsterdam. 21. Sering [R ichard L ö w e n t h a l ] , “Z u r E i n s c h ä t z u n g der d e u t s c h - r u s s i s c h e n Z u s a m m e n a r b e i t , ”1 O c t o b e r 1939, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 41,1-2, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . 22. Ibid., 4. 23. Ibid., 9. 24. “R u s s l a n d u n d die d e u t s c h e Revolution,”n.d., N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 41, 1-9, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . N o a u t h o r is p r o v i d e d o n th e d o c u m e n t , b u t its style a n d t h e various specific a r g u m e n t s indicate that R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l w a s a l m o s t cer­ tainly t h e a u t h o r or coauthor. T h e date is also impossible to state w i t h precision. It is n o t clear w h e t h e r t h e p a p e r w a s written before or after t h e b e g i n n i n g of O p ­ eration Barbarossa— t h e G e r m a n invasion of t h e Soviet U n i o n o n 2 2 J u n e 1941. 25. Ibid., i. 26. Ibid. 27. See, for instance, R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , “Letter to t h e Editor of t h e Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,”2 9 N o v e m b e r 1986, in Forever in the S h a d o w o f Hitler? 199-201. 28. “R u s s l a n d u n d die d e u t s c h e Revolution,”2-5. 29. Ibid., 6-7. 30. Paul

Sering,

[Richard

Löwenthal],

“U n s e r e

Taktik g e g e n ü b e r

den

K o m m u n i s t e n , ”6 J u n e 1942, N e u B e g i n n e n Archiv, 40,1, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . 31. Ibid., 1. 32. Ibid., 2. 33. Franz B o r k e n a u , T h e Totalitarian E n e m y ( L o n d o n : Faber a n d Faber, 1940), 7. 34. Ibid., 13. 35. Ibid., 7. 36. Fra n z B o r k e n a u to G e o ffrey Faber, 3 O c t o b e r 1939, Faber a n d Faber Archive, London. 37. Th i s is at best a n a p p r o x i m a t i o n . O n e of B o r k e n a u ’ s acquaintances, G e r a l d B r e n a n , later c l a i m e d that B o r k e n a u n e v e r m a d e a v e r y g o o d liberal a n d instead labeled h i m a “N i e t z s c h e a n r o m a n t i c . ”See B r e n a n , f o r e w o r d to T h e Spanish C o c k ­ pit, b y F r a n z B o r k e n a u (reprint, L o n d o n : Pluto, 1986), viii. 38. B o r k e n a u , T h e Totalitarian E n e m y , 101. 39. Ibid., 30.

40. Ibid., 66. 41. Ibid., 8,67-68. T h e similarity b e t w e e n these v i e w s a n d t h o s e that R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l h a d e x pressed in his articles o n fascism a f e w years earlier in Zeitschrift

Notes to Pages 120-2s

272

für Sozialismus is n o coincidence. B o r k e n a u a c k n o w l e d g e d his d e b t to L ö w e n t h a r s essays in t h e preface. 42. B o r k e n a u , T h e Totalitarian E n e m y , 68. 43. Ibid., 69-74, 100. T h e r e are b r o a d a n d suggestive similarities b e t w e e n Borkenau’ s o u t l o o k in t h e w a r t i m e p e r i o d a n d that of a n o t h e r e x - C o m m u n i s t , J a m e s B u r n h a m , a u t h o r of T h e M a n a g e r i a l Revolution ( N e w York: J o h n Day, 1941). B o r k e n a u h a d n o t a n d w o u l d n o t m o v e quite so far to th e right as B u r n h a m w o u l d , b u t their parallel d e v e l o p m e n t deserves study. C h r i s t o p h e r H i t c h e n s offers a s h r e w d a c c o u n t of B u r n h a m ' s influence in t h e U n i t e d States in “H o w N e o - c o n s e r ­ vatives Perish,”in For the S a k e o f A r g u m e n t , 143-45. 44. B o r k e n a u , T h e Totalitarian E n e m y , 76,102. 45. Borkenau's j u d g m e n t followed in part th e response of a n “o r t h o d o x ”M a r x ­ ist that K o r s c h h a d sarcastically described in “T h e Fascist C o u n t e r - R e v o l u t i o n ”: “O u r o r t h o d o x M a r x i s t m i g h t n o t b e willing, for th e present, to g o so far as to ac­ k n o w l e d g e t h e fascist allies of Stalin as t h e g e n u i n e p r o m o t e r s of socialism in o u r time. H e w o u l d t h e n c o n t e n t h i m s e l f w i t h feeling that t h e victory of fascism, p l a n n e d e c o n o m y , state capitalism, a n d t h e w e e d i n g o u t of all ideas a n d institu­ tions of traditional 'bourgeois d e m o c r a c y ' will b r ing us to th e v e r y threshold of the g e n u i n e social revolution a n d proletarian dictatorship”( q u o t e d in Kellner, ed., Karl Korsch, 245). B o r k e n a u , h o w e v e r , fore s a w n o revolution, a n d h e certainly h e l d n o h o p e for a positive result e m e r g i n g f r o m t h e “victory of fascism.” 46. B o r k e n a u , T h e Totalitarian E n e m y , 78-79. 47. See, for e x a m p l e , Friedrich A. H a y e k , T h e R o a d to S e rfdom (Chicago: U n i v e r ­ sity of C h i c a g o Press, 1944). Interestingly, h o w e v e r , H a y e k cited favorably B o r k e ­ nau's Socialism: National or International (141, n o t e 1). 48. B o r k e n a u , T h e Totalitarian E n e m y , 146. 49. Ibid., 164. 50. Ibid., 161-63. 51. Ibid., 182-83. 52. Ibid., 229. 53. Ibid., 225. 54. Ibid., 2 2 5-26. 55. Ibid., 213-20. 56. Ibid., 2 2 7 - 3 4 , 2 4 6 - 4 7 . 57. Ibid., 254. 58. G e o r g e Orwell, “W a r - t i m e Diary: 1 9 4 0 , ”in T h e Collected Essays, Journalism, a n d Letters, vol. 2, M y C o u n t r y Right or Left, 3 4 1 , 3 4 4 - 4 5 . 59. J o h n E. Tashjean, “Franz B o r k e n a u : A S t u d y of His Social a n d Political Ideas” (Ph.D. diss., G e o r g e t o w n University, 1962), 15, n o t e 43; R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , inter­ v i e w w i t h author, Berlin, 3 A u g u s t 1987; Karl Korsch, r e v i e w of T h e N e w G e r m a n Empire, b y F r a n z B o r k e n a u , Living M a r x i s m 5, no. 2 (1940): 63. 60. Karl K o r s c h to M a x H o r k h e i m e r , 14 S e p t e m b e r 1939, M a x - H o r k h e i m e r -

Notes to Pages 125-3 o

273

Archiv, 1, 14, 74, Stadt- u n d Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt a m M a i n (hereafter SUBF ) , Frankfurt a m M a i n . 61. T h e s e articles w e r e originally p u b l i s h e d d u r i n g th e early w a r years: "State a n d C o u n t e r - R e v o l u t i o n , ”M o d e r n Quarterly 11, no. 2 (1939): 60-67, “T h e Fascist C o u n t e r - R e v o l u t i o n , ”Living M a r x i s m 5, no. 2 (1940): 29-37; a n d " T h e W o r k e r s ' Fight against Fascism,”Living M a r x i s m 5, no. 3 (1941): 36-49. 62. Q u o t e d in Keller, ed., Karl K o r s c h , 238. 63. Ibid., 238-39. A s Kellner c o n t e n d s , "Korsch's critique of t h e Soviet U n i o n takes its m o s t radical f o r m in this c o n t e x t ”(235). 64. Ibid., 240. 65. Ibid., 241-42. 66. Ibid., 4 4 - 4 5 , I4 I- 4 5 , 1 5 3 - 5 7 * 67. Ibid., 2 4 3 - 4 4 . 68. Q u o t e d in Kellner, ed., KarlKorsch, 248. 69. Thi s is M a r x ' s w e l l - k n o w n , brilliantly provocative, a n d m u c h c o n tested passage of T85 9 o n t h e co n d i t i o n s for a n d t h e process of socialist revolution: "At a certain stage of their d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e material p r oductive forces of society c o m e in conflict w i t h t h e existing relations of p r o d u c t i o n ____ F r o m f o r m s of d e v e l o p ­ m e n t of t h e prod u c t i v e forces these relations t u r n into their fetters. T h e n begins a n e p o c h of social revolution.”See Karl M a r x , “M a r x o n th e History of His O p i n ­ ions,”in T h e Marx-Engels Reader, ed. R o b e r t T u c k e r ( N e w York: N o r t o n , 1972), 4-5. 70. Q u o t e d in Kellner, ed., KarlKorsch, 249. 71. Ibid., 2 4 9 - 5 2 . 72. Ibid., 253. 73. Q u o t e d in Kellner, ed., Karl Korsch, 254. 74. Ibid. 75. Ibid., 255 - 5 6 . 76. Ibid., 258. K o r s c h m i g h t h a v e b e e n referring to th e title of a w e l l - k n o w n b o o k b y t h e Austrian é m i g r é a n d later U.S. business a n d m a n a g e r i a l theorist Peter Drucker, T h e E n d o f E c o n o m i c M a n : A Study o f the N e w Totalitarianism ( N e w York: J o h n Day, 1939), t h o u g h that is n o t necessarily t h e case. 77. Q u o t e d in Kellner, ed., KarlKorsch, 2 67. 78. G ö t z L a n g k a u of th e International Institute for Social History in A m s t e r d a m suggested t h e "Kondratieff W a v e ”a n a l o g y to m e a d e c a d e a g o in a conversation a b o u t t h e n a t u r e a n d political thrust of Korsch's antitotalitarian writings. 79. Karl K o r s c h to M a x H o r k h e i m e r , 2 6 M a y 1940, M a x - H o r k h e i m e r - A r c h i v , I, 14, 58, S U B F , Frankfurt a m M a i n . O n t h e dat e of t h e original version of t h e "Autoritärer Staat”essay, see H o r k h e i m e r , G e s a m m e l t e Schriften, vol. 5 , 4 6 0 . 80. T h e p u b l i s h e d writings of W a l t e r B e n j a m i n (1892-1940) a n d t h e s e c o n d a r y literature o n his life a n d w o r k constitute a large a n d g r o w i n g archive. T h e essays collected in W a l t e r B e n j a m i n , Illuminations, ed. H a n n a h Arendt, trans. H a r r y Z o h n ( N e w York: S c h o c k e n , 1969), are a reasonable starting point for readers unfamiliar

Notes to Pages 13 0- 3 6

274

w i t h B e n j a m i n . O n the m o v e of s o m e of the institute’ s operations to San t a M o n i c a , California— w h i c h w a s n o t c o m p l e t e d until 1 9 4 1 — a n d its c o n s e q u e n c e s , see W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e Frankfurter Schule, 327-38. O n the “ Autoritärer Staat”essay, see Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 156-58, 256, 259; Russell Jacoby, “Postscript to H o r k heimer’ s‘ T h e Authoritarian State,’ ”Telos, no. 15 (Spring 1973): 21-24; Russell Jacoby, Dialectic of Defeat, 113-14; a n d W i g g e r s h a u s , Di e Frankfurter Schule, 316. W i g g e r s h a u s rather uncharitably characterizes th e first a p p e a r a n c e of the essay as a n effort “m o r e to h i d e it t h a n to publish it.”Jay gives the essay m o r e t h o u ghtful attention a n d per­ ceives the latent L u x e m b u r g i s t c o m p o n e n t of H o r k h e i m e r ’ s t h o u g h t as well as the rationale for a retreat f r o m praxis to theory. In Dialectic of Defeat, J a c o b y writes of “t w o H o r k h e i m e r s ”— the scholarly organization m a n a n d the radical theorist— a n d uses t h e essay to w a r d off those critics w h o see H o r k h e i m e r in constant retreat f r o m politics a n d praxis a n d to insist that for H o r k h e i m e r to e m p h a s i z e t h e o r y over prac­ tice in his California exile of the early 1 9 4 0 s w a s to dispense w i t h illusions a b o u t the political possibilities of that t i m e a n d that place. 81. M a x H o r k h e i m e r , “ Autoritärer Staat,”in G e s a m m e l t e Schriften, vol. 5 , 3 0 0 . H e l m u t D u b i e l discusses t h e terminological distinctions briefly in Wissensschafts­ organisation u n d politische Erfahrung, 94. 82. H o r k h e i m e r , “ Autoritärer Staat,”2 9 4 . 1 h a v e also c o n s u l t e d the translation of “T h e Authoritarian State”that a p pears in T h e Essential Frankfurt School Reader, ed. A n d r e w A r a t o a n d Eike G e b h a r d t ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m , 1993), 95-117 . 1 h a v e m a d e a f e w c h a n g e s in terminology. 83. H o r k h e i m e r , “ Autoritärer Staat,”295-97. 84. Ibid., 297. 85. Ibid., 300 . 86. Ibid. 87. Ibid., 301. 88. Ibid. 89. Ibid., 304. 90. Ibid., 318. 91. Ibid., 319. 92. B e n j a m i n , Illuminations, 264. 93. Liebich, “M a r x i s m a n d Totalitarianism.”Liebich h a s c o n t i n u e d his e x p l o ­ ration of t h e crucial intellectual relationship b e t w e e n Hilferding a n d th e exiled M e n s h e v i k s in F r o m the Other Shore. 94. R u d o l f Hilferding, [“State C a p i t a l i s m or Totalitarian State E c o n o m y ? ”], Sotsialisticheskii Vestnik (April 1940): 118-20. Translated as “State Ca p i t a l i s m or Totalitarian State E c o n o m y , ”M o d e r n R e v i e w 1 (1947): 266-71. See also S m a l d o n e , R u d o l f Hilferding, 1 9 6 - 2 0 0 . 95. Q u o t e d in Liebich, “M a r x i s m a n d Totalitarianism,”239. 96. Ibid., 238. 97. Hilferding, “State C a p i t a l i s m or Totalitarian State E c o n o m y , ”266. See also Hilferding, q u o t e d in F r a n z N e u m a n n , B e h e m o t h , 223.

Notes to Pages 13 6-3 8

275

98. Q u o t e d in Liebich, " M a r x i s m a n d Totalitarianism,”239. 99. Ibid., 239. 100. R u d o l f Hilferding, " D a s historische P r o b l e m , ”Zeitschrift für Politik 1, no. 4 (1954): 2 9 3 - 3 2 4 . Interestingly, h o w e v e r , W i l l i a m S m a l d o n e ’ s b i o g r a p h y of Hilferding indicates that his n e w theoretical a n d practical positions g e n e r a t e d o t h e r controversies: o n e of Hilferding’ s colleagues, Paul He r t z (1888-1961), b r o k e w i t h Hilferding a n d S O P A D E in 1938. H e s o o n linked u p w i t h Karl F r a n k a n d N e u B e g i n n e n . See S m a l d o n e , Ru d o l f Hilferding, 191-200. O n Hertz, see Foitzik, Zw i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 280-81; a n d Ursula L a n g k a u - A l e x , "Paul Hertz,”in V o r d e m Vergessen bewahren: L e b e n s w e g e W e i m a r e r Sozialdemokraten, ed. Peter Lösche, M i c h a e l S c h o ling, a n d F r anz W a l t e r (Berlin: C o l l o q u i u m , 1988), 145-69. S m a l d o n e also argues persuasively that in his increasing w a r t i m e p e s s i m i s m , Hilferding often failed to see that t h e m e c h a n i s t i c e l e m e n t in his o w n theories, rather t h a n t h o s e in M a r x ' s w o r k , w a s a f u n d a m e n t a l sour c e of analytical w e a k n e s s e s . In Z u r A n a l y s e des Faschismus, W i p p e r m a n n argues that Hilferding’ s reliance o n B o n a p a r t i s m t h e o r y in his a s s e s s m e n t of t h e collapse of the W e i m a r R e public u n d e r l a y his assertion of t h e " p r i m a c y of t h e political”(44-45). 101. Liebich, " M a r x i s m a n d Totalitarianism,”2 3 9 - 4 0 . W i l l i a m S m a l d o n e ' s a c c o u n t indicates that Hilferding t o o k his o w n life. S m a l d o n e cites M a s a a k i Kurotake, " Z u r T o d e s u r s a c h e R u d o l f Hilferdings,” Beiträge der M i y a g i - G a k u i n F r a u e n h ochschule 61 ( D e c e m b e r 1984): 1-21. O n t h e subject of t h e p o s t h u m o u s publi c a t i o n in Eng l i s h of Hilferding’ s late writings, Liebich n o t e s that M o d e r n Review's oth e r editors w e r e Le w i s Coser, the sociologist later associated w i t h th e d e m o c r a t i c socialist journal Dissent, a n d Travers C l e m e n t . 102. See t h e discussion of t h e institute’ s o p p o s i t i o n to t h e Soviet U n i o n in Slater, Origin a n d Significance o f the Frankfurt School, 58-63; a n d Held, Introduction to Critical Theory, 45-52. 103. Dubiel, Wissenschaftsorganisation u n d politische Erfahrung, 96-97. 104. O n e of t h e best discussions of Friedrich Pollock’ s a n d Franz N e u m a n n ' s positions in this d e b a t e — a n d their relative strengths a n d w e a k n e s s e s — is in Kellner, Critical Theory, M a r x i s m , a n d Modernity, 55-63,77-80. See also Jay, T h e D i a ­ lectical Imagination, 143-72; Dubiel, Wissenschaftsorganisation u n d politische Erfahrung, 9 4 - 1 0 0 ; Erd, ed., R e f o r m u n d Resignation, 115-25; Alfons Söllner, Geschich­ te u n d Herrschaft: Studien zur materialistischen Sozialwissenschaft, 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 4 2 (Frank­ furt a m M a i n : S u h r k a m p , 1979), 156-62; Alfons Söllner, "Franz N e u m a n n , ”Telos, no. 5 0 ( W i n t e r 1981-82): 171-79; W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e Frankfurter Schule, 314-27; a n d Held, Introduction to Critical Theory, 52-65. 105. Pollock (1894-1970) pub l i s h e d ve r y little d u r i n g the institute’ s hectic exile years. For a chronological s u m m a r y of Pollock’ s career, see G u n z e l i n S c h m i d N o e r r a n d W i l l e m v a n Reijen, “Friedrich Pollock,”in G r a n d Hotel A b g r u n d , ed. S c h m i d N o e r r a n d v a n Reijen, 112-15. See also Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 6-8. 106. Friedrich Pollock, "State Capitalism: Its Possibilities a n d Limitations,” Studies in Philosophy a n d Social Science 9, no. 2 (1941): 201. See also Friedrich Pol-

Notes to Pages 13 8 - 4 2

276

lock, “Is N a t i o n a l Socialism a N e w O r d e r ? ”Studies in Philosophy a n d Social Science 9, no. 3 (1941): 4 4 0 - 5 5 . For a discussion of Pollock's analysis a n d its c o n s e q u e n c e s , see M o i s h e P o s t o n e a n d Bar b a r a Brick, “Critical T h e o r y a n d Political E c o n o m y , ” in O n M a x Horkheimer, ed. B e n h a b i b , B o n ß , a n d M c C o l e , 215-56. 107. Pollock h a d also p a i d close attention to Soviet e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t s for years. His D i e planwirtschaftlichen Versuche in der Sowjetunion, 19 1 7 - 1 9 2 7 (Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1929) w a s a s t u d y of t h e extent to w h i c h t h e Soviet state h a d b e e n able to institute socialism. J a y indicates that Pollock's earlier studies of t h e Soviet e c o n o m y h a d b e e n part of t h e basis for th e “state capitalism”article. See Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 152-53. T h a t Pollock's empirical research h a d f o c u s e d pri­ m a r i l y o n t h e Soviet U n i o n w h i l e N e u m a n n ' s focu s e d o n N a z i G e r m a n y m a y in part explain t h e incompatibility of their views. 108. Pollock, “State Capitalism,”202. 109. Ibid., 204-7. n o . Ibid., 208. i n . See Hilferding, “State C a p i t a l i s m or Totalitarian State E c o n o m y , ”266-67. H e l m u t D u b i e l states that Pollock's essay is s i m p l y “t h e application of t h e t h e o r y o f state capitalism to t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of N a t i o n a l S o c i a l i s m ” (Dubiel, Wissenschafts-Organisation u n d politische Erfahrung, 98). 112. F r a n z N e u m a n n to M a x H o r k h e i m e r , 23 July 1941, M a x - H o r k h e i m e r Archiv, VI, 30,54-57, S U B F , Frankfurt a m M a i n . In this letter, N e u m a n n also b r ack­ eted Pollock's o u t l o o k w i t h that of Karl M a n n h e i m , w h o h a d expressed a similar n o t i o n of t h e n e w role of t h e state in t h e e c o n o m y a n d arrived at Pollock's q u e s ­ tion: w h o plans t h e p l a n n e r ? N e u m a n n d i smissed b o t h f o r m u l a t i o n s of t h e state capitalist d i l e m m a as departures f r o m a class-based t h e o r y of contradiction a n d crisis. Since M a n n h e i m ' s v i e w s w e r e a n a t h e m a to H o r k h e i m e r a n d several other leading m e m b e r s of t h e institute, N e u m a n n ' s c o m p a r i s o n m u s t h a v e b e e n particu­ larly a n n o y i n g . See H o r k h e i m e r , “ A N e w C o n c e p t of I d e o l o g y ? ”in B e t w e e n Philoso­ p h y a n d Social Science, 129-49. O n t h e institute a n d Karl M a n n h e i m , see Jay, “T h e Frankfurt School's Critique of Karl M a n n h e i m a n d t h e So c i o l o g y of K n o w l e d g e , ” in P e r m a n e n t Exiles, 62-78; a n d D a v i d Frisby, T h e Alienated M i n d : T h e Sociology o f K n o w l e d g e in G e r m a n y , 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 3 3 ( L o n d o n : H e i n e m a n n , 1983), 217-27, passim. 113. Fra n z N e u m a n n , B e h e m o t h , 224. 114. Ibid., 223. T h e reference to Pollock (500, n o t e 1) l u m p e d his article o n state capitalism w i t h t h e writings of thinkers of t h e “e n d of e c o n o m i c m a n ”school, Peter D r u c k e r a n d J a m e s B u r n h a m , as well as w i t h t h o s e of t h e leftist D w i g h t Macdonald. 115. Ibid., 226. 116. Ibid., 2 2 8 -34. 117. Ibid., 240. 118. Ibid., 261. 119. Ibid., 467. 120. B o r k e n a u , T h e Totalitarian E n e m y , 6 9 -104.

Notes to Pages 142-49

277

121. Dubiel, Wissenschaftsorganisation u n d politische Erfahrung, 9 9 - 1 0 0 . 122. Fr a n z N e u m a n n , B e h e m o t h , 2 1 6 - 1 8 , 4 7 0 - 7 6 . 123. In addition to Söllner, "Franz N e u m a n n — Skizzen z u einer intellektuellen u n d politischen Biographie," 7-57, see t h e s y m p a t h e t i c portrait of N e u m a n n of­ fered in H. Stuart H u g h e s , “Fra n z N e u m a n n b e t w e e n M a r x i s m a n d Liberal D e m o c ­ racy,”in T h e Intellectual Migration: E u r o p e a n d America, 1 9 3 0 - 1 9 6 0 , ed. D o n a l d F l e m i n g a n d B e r n a r d Bailyn ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, B e l k n a p Press, 1969), 4 4 6 - 6 2 . 124. W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e Frankfurter Schule, 324. 125. F r a n z N e u m a n n to M a x H o r k h e i m e r , 13 A u g u s t 1941, M a x - H o r k h e i m e r Archiv, VI, 30, 38-39, S U B F , Frankfurt a m M a i n . See also W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e F r a n k ­ furter Schule, 286-87. 126. O t t o K i r chheimer, for instance, also offered his a s s e s s m e n t of t h e National Socialist legal s y s t e m in 1941, “T h e Legal O r d e r of N a t i o n a l Socialism,”Studies in Philosophy a n d Social Science 9, no. 3 (1941): 456-75. 127. Ernst Fraenkel, T h e D u a l State: A Contribution to the Th e o r y o f Dictatorship, trans. E. A. Shils et al. ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1941), xiii. 128. Ibid., 5 9 - 6 0 . 129. Ibid., 59. 130. Ibid., 60. 131. Q u o t e d in ibid., 61. 132. Ibid., 59-61. See also K e n n e d y , “Carl S c h m i t t a n d t h e Frankfurt School,” 37-38, n o t e 2. 133. Fraenkel, T h e D u a l State, 61, 97-101,184-87. 134. Ibid., 208. 135. See K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dictatorship, 63. 136. Fraenkel, T h e D u a l State, 3,57. For a helpful discussion of Fraenkel's use of this distinction, see G l e a s o n , Totalitarianism, 57. 137. Fraenkel, T h e D u a l State, 72-73. 138. For a b r o a d s a m p l i n g of these debates, see K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dictatorship, 40-58. 139. O t t o K i r c h h e i m e r , Political Justice: T h e U s e o f Legal Procedure for Political E n d s (Princeton, N.J.: Pr i n c e t o n University Press, 1961). 140. Ernst Fraenkel, “V o r w o r t zur d e u t s c h e n A u s g a b e (1974),”in D e r D o p p e l ­ staat: Recht u n d Justiz i m “ Dritten Reich”(1974; reprint, Frankfurt a m M a i n : Fischer T a s c h e n b u c h , 1984), 11-18. 141. A s W i l l i a m S c h e u e r m a n h a s noted, h o w e v e r , t h e relative level of interest in t h e t w o b o o k s w o u l d shift over t h e decades, w i t h H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o ' s Dialectic o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t n o w e n j o y i n g a b r o a d a n d interdisciplinary ( e v e n if rather q u a r r e l s o m e ) read e r s h i p — a n d N e u m a n n ' s B e h e m o t h n o w r e a c h i n g o n l y a c a d e m i c s a n d m o r e diligent students dealing w i t h N a t i o n a l Socialism. Likewise, M a r c u s e ' s R e a s o n a n d Revolution r e m a i n s p e r h a p s his least-visited m a j o r w o r k . See S c h e u e r m a n , B e t w e e n the N o r m a n d the Exception, 149-55. O n N e u m a n n ' s s o j o u r n

Notes to Pages 149-54

278

in E n g l a n d , w h e r e h e e a r n e d a doctorate in political science at t h e L o n d o n S c h o o l of E c o n o m i c s u n d e r Laski's direction, see Erd, ed., R e f o r m u n d Resignation, 58-70. N e u m a n n ' s dissertation, T h e G o v e r n a n c e o f the Rule of L a w , w a s c o m p l e t e d in 1936. It w a s p u b l i s h e d fifty years later as T h e Rule o f L a w : Political T h e o r y a n d the Legal S y stem in M o d e r n Society, w i t h a f o r e w o r d b y M a r t i n J a y a n d a n i n troduction b y M a t t h i a s R u e t e (Berg: L e a m i n g t o n Spa, 1986). 142. Friedrich k n e w N e u m a n n personally. In t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n to Bracher's magisterial study, D i e Auflö s u n g der W e i m a r e r Republik, yet a n o t h e r early p o s t w a r Berlin scholar, H a n s Herzfeld, testified to t h e insistence of t h e "unforgettable Franz N e u m a n n , so tragically to r n f r o m life,”o n t h e n e e d to c o n n e c t historical a n d p o ­ litical studies in t h e p o s t w a r Institut für politische W i s s e n s c h a f t in Berlin, w h e r e B r a c h e r t a u g h t for several years (xvii). 143. K ü h n l , " ‘ Linke' Totalitarismusversionen,'' 97-119; H e n n i g , Bürgerliche Gesellschaft u n d Fasc h i s m u s in Deutschland, 56. 144. Söllner, Geschichte u n d Herrschaft, 2 0 2 - 8 . For a n o t h e r e x a m p l e of s u c h analysis, see G l e a s o n , Totalitarianism, 35. 145. F r a n z N e u m a n n , B e h e m o t h , vii. 146. Ibid., 4 4 0 - 5 8 . N e u m a n n r e c o m m e n d e d Fraenkel's b o o k e v e n as h e dis­ p u t e d s o m e of its findings (516, n o t e 63). 147. Ibid., 11-12, 478, n o t e 19. 148. Ibid., 14. 149. Ibid., 47. 150. Ibid., 48. 151. Ibid., 49. 152. Thi s perspective o n th e uses of totalitarian i d e o l o g y a p p r o a c h e d s o m e of Bork e n a u ' s a r g u m e n t s in Pareto. 153. F r a n z N e u m a n n , B e h e m o t h , 50-51. 154. Ibid., 53. 155. Ibid., 221-22. 156. Ibid., 82. 157. Ibid., 470. 158. A r t h u r Rose n b e r g , R e v i e w of B e h e m o t h , b y Fra n z N e u m a n n , Studies in Phi­ losophy a n d Social Science 9, no. 3 (1941): 526-27. 159. G e r t Schäfer's excellent a f t e r w o r d to t h e G e r m a n - l a n g u a g e edition of B e h e m o t h e m p h a s i z e s this p o int a b o u t the superiority of N e u m a n n ' s b o o k to those of his co n t e m p o r a r i e s . See Schäfer, after w o r d in B e h e m o t h : Struktur u n d Praxis des Nationalsozialismus 1933-1944, trans. H e d d a W a g n e r a n d G e r t Schäfer (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Fischer T a s c h e n b u c h , 1984), 665. A y ç o b e r r y also singles o u t B e h e m o t h for special praise, calling it "the first of t h e classics”o n t h e N a z i r e g i m e ( T h e N a z i Question, 92-97). 160. S i g m u n d N e u m a n n , P e r m a n e n t Revolution: T h e Total State in a W o r l d at W a r ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d Brothers, 1942). S i g m u n d N e u m a n n ( 1 9 0 4 - 6 2 ) w a s n o t related to F r a n z N e u m a n n , b u t their writings reveal similar interests. S i g m u n d

Notes to Pages 1 5 4 - 5 8

279

N e u m a n n h a d b e e n a W e i m a r - e r a liberal, w h o s e earlier study, D i e Parteien der W e i m a r e r Republik (Berlin: Verlag J u n k e r u n d D ü n n h a u p t , 1932), also ranks as a n essential text o n politics in G e r m a n y d u r i n g this period. For a recent discussion of S i g m u n d N e u m a n n ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e totalitarianism debate, see Alfo n s Söllner, “S i g m u n d N e u m a n n ' s ' P e r m a n e n t Revolution': Ein vergessener Klassiker der v e r g l e i c h e n d e n Diktaturforschung," in Totalitarismus, ed. Söllner, W a l k e n h a u s , a n d W i e l a n d , 53-76. 161. Karl Korsch, “ A Social D e m o c r a t L o o k s at Totalitarianism,”N a c h l a ß Karl Korsch, 96/4, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . 162. Ibid., 4-6. 163. Ibid., 7 - 8 . 1 h a v e c h a n g e d this passage to include several corrections h a n d ­ written b y K o r s c h o n t h e original t y p e d m a n u s c r i p t . 164. Ibid., 11-12. 165. Ibid., 12. 166. Karl K o r s c h to Paul Mattick, 2 0 O c t o b e r 1938, N a c h l a ß Karl Korsch, 32/3940, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . In this letter, K o r s c h offered his b l u n t a n d often negative appraisals of t h e various individual m e m b e r s of t h e institute. For t h e g r o u p as a w h o l e , K o r s c h che r i s h e d little regard: “T h e y talk a lot a n d w o r k little. T h e y call this 'collectivity."' Se e also Karl K o r s c h to Paul Mattick, 6 M a y 1941, N a c h l a ß Karl Korsch, 32/127, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . K o r s c h c o m p l a i n e d to M a t t i c k that the Institute of Social R e s e a r c h h a d a p p r o a c h e d h i m for a n article to b e p u b l i s h e d in their is­ sue o n state capitalism: “H o w e v e r , t h e y w i t h d r e w f r o m their proposition, a n d I h a v e o n l y w a s t e d m y t i m e a n d g i v e n a w a y s o m e i m p o r t a n t n e w ideas that h a d o c c u r r e d to m e d u r i n g t h e discussion of th e p r o b l e m that I w a s g o i n g to discuss in m y c o n t r i b u t i o n . ... T h e s e p e o p l e k e e p o n di s a p p o i n t i n g e v e n t h e m o s t m o d e s t h o p e s o n e m a y set o n t h e m ! ” 167. Karl Korsch, “T h e Structure a n d Practice of Totalitarianism,”N e w Essays

6 , no. 2 (1942): 43 - 4 9 168. Karl Ko r s c h , “G e r m a n y T o d a y , ”N a c h l a ß Karl Korsch, 101,10-15, IISH, Amsterdam. 169. Fr a n z N e u m a n n , B e h e m o t h , 382. 170. Karl Korsch, “G e r m a n y T o d a y , ”101,13. 171. Ibid., 15. 172. Ibid., 5-rr, 14. See Fritz Fischer, G e r m a n y ' s A i m s in the First W o r l d W a r (1961; reprint, N e w York: N o r t o n , 1967). 173. Lukâcs, 1 9 6 7 preface to History a n d Class Consciousness, xxx. 174. For a n exc e p t i o n to this neglect of Korsch's w a r t i m e writings, see Kornder, Konterrevolution u n d Faschismus. 175. Karl K o r s c h to H e r b e r t Levy, 2 9 O c t o b e r 1941, N a c h l a ß Karl Korsch, 26/3, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . Interestingly, these g r u d g i n g l y positive r e m a r k s w e r e inspired b y Korsch's reading of the Institute's issue o n N a tional Socialism, w h o s e pages w e r e d o m i n a t e d b y t h e articles of G u r l a n d , A d o r n o , H o r k h e i m e r , a n d K i r c h h e i m e r . K o r s c h singled o u t o n l y Pollock's article o n “state capitalism”for criticism.

Notes to Pages 1 5 9 - 6 1

280

176. See Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 5 , 2 3 5 , 2 8 4 - 8 5 , 3 6 3 - 6 4 ; a n d W i g g e r s haus, D i e Frankfurter Schule, 2 5 4 - 5 8 , 3 0 9 - 1 3 , 3 2 7 - 3 8 . M a s s i n g ’ s b o o k w a s published in N e w Y o r k in 1949. O n th e scholarly w o r k a n d t h e a n t i - C o m m u n i s m of b o t h the M a s s i n g s a n d Wittfogel, w h o b e c a m e professor of history at t h e University of W a s h i n g t o n in 1947, see U l m e n , T h e Science o f Society, 179, 2 1 1 , 2 4 0 - 4 1 , 2 4 3 , 2 6 5 94,513-17; a n d H e d e M a s s i n g , This Deception ( N e w York: Duell, S l o a n a n d Pearce, 1951). T h e institute’ s project o n a n t i - S e m i t i s m w a s a n n o u n c e d a n d o u t lined in Studies in Philosophy a n d Social Science 9, no. 1 (1941): 124-43. O n Pac h t e r ’ swartime years, see S t e p h e n Eric Bronner, introduction to Socialism in History, b y Pachter, xx. 177. A n e x c e p t i o n to this general rule in th e s e c o n d a r y literature o n totalitari­ a n i s m is A b b o t t G l e a s o n ’ s interesting discussion of H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o ' s d e ­ v e l o p m e n t of a critique of totalitarianism in Dialectic o f Enlightenment. See Gleason, Totalitarianism, 35-36. A d o r n o ’ s u s e of t h e philosophical c a t e g o r y of “totality,” h o w e v e r , h a s generally received m o r e attention. See Jay, M a r x i s m a n d Totality, 2 4 1 75; S u s a n B u c k - M o r s s , T h e Origin o f Negative Dialectics: T h e o d o r W . Adorno, Walter Benjamin, a n d the Frankfurt Institute ( N e w York: Free Press, 1977); a n d Christel Beier, Z u m Verhältnis v o n Gesellschaftstheorie u n d Erkenntnistheorie: Untersuchungen z u m Totalitätsbegriff in der kritischen Theorie A d o r n o s (Frankfurt a m M a i n : S u h r k a m p , 1 9 7 7 ).

178. Arendt, for instance, criticized A d o r n o for d r o p p i n g t h e n a m e of his J e w ­ ish father ( W i e s e n g r u n d ) as well as for his role in s l o w i n g t h e a c a d e m i c career of Arendt’ s first h u s b a n d , G ü n t e r Stern, in G e r m a n y d u r i n g t h e early 1930s. T h e y also diverged sharply in their interpretations of W a l t e r B e n j a m i n . See Carol B r i g h t m a n , ed.,B e t w e e n Friends: T h e Correspondence o f H a n n a h A rendt a n d M a r y M c C a r t h y ;1 9 4 9 -

1975 ( N e w York: Harcourt, Brace, 1995), 2 0 5 - 6 , n o t e 2. M a r t i n J a y gently disputes the idea that there w e r e ulterior political m o t i v e s in A d o r n o ’ s c h o i c e of n a m e s in his biography, A d o r n o ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, 1984), 34. 179. F or a brief, i n t r o ductory s u rvey of t h e life a n d writings of A d o r n o (190369), see M a r t i n J a y ’ s s y m p a t h e t i c b i ographical chapter, “ A D a m a g e d Life,”in Adorno, 24-55. See also the useful discussion of A d o r n o in W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e F r ank­ furter Schule, 82-113; a n d Rolf W i g g e r s h a u s , T h e o d o r W . A d o r n o ( M u n i c h : Beck, 1987). B o t h J a y ’ s and Wiggerhaus’ s biographies of A d o r n o offer substantial bibli­ o g r a p h i e s of writings b y a n d a b o u t A d o r n o . O n A d o r n o ’ s i n v o l v e m e n t in cultural m o d e r n i s m , see L u n n , M a r x i s m a n d M o d e r n i s m . For discussions of A d o r n o ’ s friend­ ship w i t h K r a c a u e r (1889-1966) a n d K r a c a u e r ’ s o w n intellectual contributions, see Jay, “T h e Extraterritorial Life of Siegfried K r a c a u e r ”a n d “ A d o r n o a n d Kracauer: N o t e s o n a T r o u b l e d Friendship,”in P e r m a n e n t Exiles, 152-97,217-36. 180. M a r c u s e , R e a s o n a n d Revolution, 403-19. Marcu s e ' s b o o k m a d e several ref­ erences to t h e e l e m e n t of totalitarianism in fascist appropriations a n d ( m i s i n t e r ­ pretations of Hegel, n o t a b l y in t h e w o r k of G i o v a n n i Gentile, Alfred R o s enberg, a n d Carl Schmitt. 181. M a x H o r k h e i m e r a n d T h e o d o r W . A d o r n o , Dialectic o f Enlightenment, trans. J o h n C u m m i n g ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m , 1986), 6. T h e original G e r m a n text

Notes to Pages 1 6 1 - 6 5

281

reads just as simply: “ A u f k l ä r u n g ist totalitär.”T h e definitive version of Dialektik der A u f k l ä r u n g d^ppeaxs in H o r k h e i m e r , G e s a m m e l t e Schriften, vol. 5,11-290. O n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e book's writing a n d eventual publication, see W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e Frankfurter Schule, 349 - 6 4 ; W i l l e m v a n Reijen a n d G u n z e l i n S c h m i d Noerr, eds., Vierzig fahre Flaschenpost: "Dialektik der Aufklärung,”1 9 4 7 bis 1 9 8 7 (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Fischer, 1987); C h r i s t o p h e r Rocco, “B e t w e e n M o d e r n i t y a n d Postmode r n i t y : R e a d i n g Dialectic o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t against t h e G r a i n , ”Political T h e o r y 22, no. 1 (1994): 71-97; a n d A n s o n R a b i n b a c h , “T h e C u n n i n g of U n r e a s o n : M i m e s i s a n d the C o n s t r u c t i o n of A n t i - S e m i t i s m in H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o ' s Dialectic o f Enlight­ enment, ”in In the S h a d o w ofCatastrophe: G e r m a n Intellectuals between Apocalypse a n d E n l i g h t e n m e n t (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 166-98. 182. Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 256. Offering a slightly different p e r s p e c ­ tive o n t h e Frankfurt S c h o o l a n d t h e w a n i n g of its M a r x i s m , S u s a n B u c k - M o r s s e m p h a s i z e s A d o r n o ' s focus o n t h e M a r x i a n n o t i o n s of labor— t h e h u m a n - N a t u r e relationship that w a s central to M a r x ' s E c o n o m i c a n d Philosophical Manuscripts o f 1 8 4 4 — rather t h a n t h e idea of class that M a r x elaborated m o r e fully in his later e c o n o m i c a n d political writings. Buck-Morss's appraisal of A d o r n o ' s us e of M a r x ­ ian c o n c e p t s d o e s not, h o w e v e r , s e e m to lessen th e ac c u r a c y of Jay's r e m a r k s a b o u t t h e group's increasing distance f r o m “o r t h o d o x M a r x i s m . ”See B u c k - M o r s s , Ori­ gin o f Negative Dialectics, 61-62. 183. O n H e g e l i a n “identity t h e o r y ”a n d A d o r n o a n d H o r k h e i m e r 's critical re­ s p o n s e to it, see Jay, M a r x i s m a n d Totality, 5 4 - 6 0 , 2 1 3 - 1 9 , 2 4 0 - 4 2 , 260-75. 184. Ibid., 219. 185. H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o , Dialectic o f Enlightenment, 224. 186. Ibid., 185. 187. Ibid., 186. In this section of t h e b o o k , H o r k h e i m e r a r g u e d that t h e proscrip­ tion of m i m e s i s in J e w i s h religious life o p e r a t e d as a t e m p t a t i o n to t h e k i n d s of perverse a n d violent pseudoreligious m i m e s i s that characterized N a z i public dis­ play. In his detailed a n d subtly a r g u e d essay “T h e C u n n i n g of U n r e a s o n , ”t h e his­ torian A n s o n R a b i n b a c h offers a c o m p e l l i n g interpretation of t h e w a y s H o r k h e i ­ m e r a n d A d o r n o reconsidered a n d a t t e n d e d to t h e p r o b l e m of N a z i anti-Semitism in Dialectic o f Enlightenment. 188. W i l h e l m Reich, T h e M a s s Psychology o f Fascism, trans. T h e o d o r P. W o l f e ( N e w York: O r g o n e Institute, 1946); Erich F r o m m , Fear o f F r e e d o m ( N e w York: Rinehart, 1941). F r o m m h a d o n c e b e e n H o r k h e i m e r ' s colleague at t h e Institute of Social Research, several of w h o s e m e m b e r s m a d e use of F r e u d i a n c o n c e p t s in a n a ­ lyzing society. O n F r o m m a n d his increasingly tr o u b l e d relationship w i t h th e institute's k e y figures, see Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 88-106; a n d B r onner, O f Critical T h e o r y a n d Its Theorists, 209 - 3 3 . 189. T h i s assertion of t h e persistent a n d essentially m u r d e r o u s character of G e r m a n an t i - S e m i t i s m app e a r s m o s t sharply in Dani e l J o n a h G o l d h a g e n , Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary G e r m a n s a n d the Holocaust ( N e w York: V i n t a g e B o o k s / R a n d o m H o u s e , 1997). For m o r e persuasive historical discussions of t h e origins a n d

Notes to Pages 1 6 5 - 6 6

282

d e v e l o p m e n t of N a z i policies of genocide, see Friedländer, N a z i G e r m a n y a n d the Jews, vol. i, passim; K e r s h a w , T h e N a z i Dictatorship, 90-107; Fritzsche, G e r m a n s into Nazis, 227-35; a n d B r o w n i n g , “B e y o n d 'Intentionalism' a n d 'Functionalism,'”8 6 121. 190. M a x H o r k h e i m e r , “D i e J u d e n u n d E u r o p a , ”Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 8, nos. 1/2 (1939): 115-37. M a r x ' s essay, “O n th e J e w i s h Q u e s t i o n , ”written in 1843, c o n t i n u e s to generate controversy. For reconsiderations of “M a r x ' s anti-Semitism,” see Pachter, “M a r x a n d t h e J e w s , ”in Socialism in History, 219-55; a n d Albert S. L i n d e m a n n , Esau's Tears: M o d e r n Anti-Semitism a n d the Rise o f the Jews ( C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1997), 162-66. For carefully a r g u e d a c c o u n t s of th e increasing s c o p e a n d intensity of t h e policy of g e n o c i d e against J e w s carried o u t b y t h e Nazis a n d their accomplices, see B r o w n i n g , T h e Pat h to Genocide; Christo­ p h e r R. B r o w n i n g , Ordinary M e n : Reserve Police Battalion 101 a n d the Final Solution in P o l a n d ( N e w York: H a r p e r Collins, 1992); a n d R i c h a r d B r e i t m a n , T h e Architect of Genocide: H i m m l e r a n d the Final Solution ( N e w York: K n o p f , 1991). See also Rau l Hilberg's influential study, T h e Destruction o f the E u r o p e a n Jews (Chicago: Q u a d ­ rangle Boo k s , 1961), as well as his m o r e recent b o o k , Perpetrators, Victims, B y s t a n d ­ ers: T h e Jewish Catastrophe, 1 9 3 3 - 1 9 4 5 ( N e w York: H a r p e r Collins, 1992). In a t t e m p t ­ ing to clarify t h e shifting e m p h a s i s of H o r k h e i m e r ' s critique of anti-Semitism, I h a v e relied o n D a n Diner's essay “R e a s o n a n d the 'Other': H o r k h e i m e r ' s Reflections o n A n t i - S e m i t i s m a n d M a s s Annihilation,”in O n M a x Horkheimer, ed. B e n h a b i b , B o n ß , a n d M c C o l e , 335-63. 191. This rather abstract a n d “objectively”dispassionate w a y of seeing antiS e m i t i s m s h o w s h o w m u c h a certain k i n d of Marxist-influenced m a c r o e c o n o m i c perspective c o u l d m i s s in sheer h u m a n t e r m s w h a t M a r x ' s o w n writings o n capi­ talism often d i d n o t neglect: a r e c o u n t i n g of t h e o u t r a g e o u s violence carried o u t against t h e victims of e c o n o m i c policies. A s t udy of N a z i policies f r o m 1933 to 1939 that g a v e attention to t h e perspective of G e r m a n J e w s w h o h a d b e e n driven f r o m their o w n businesses, jobs, a n d h o m e s , w h o h a d lost their p r o p e r t y t h r o u g h confiscations, w h o w e r e sent forcibly to conc e n t r a t i o n c a m p s , or w h o s e legal, e c o ­ n o m i c , a n d political rights h a d b e e n effectively a b olished w o u l d h a v e h a d quite a different focus a n d effect. This is precisely t h e project of Friedländer's c o m p e l l i n g recent b o o k , N a z i G e r m a n y a n d the Jews. For n u m e r o u s e x a m p l e s of M a r x ' s atten­ tion to t h e particular fates of t h o s e victimized b y th e processes of e c o n o m i c capi­ tal a c c u m u l a t i o n a n d technological innovation, see Karl M a r x , Capital, vol. 1, ed. Frederick Engels, ( N e w York: International, 1967), 612-712. 192. See Jay, “T h e J e w s a n d t h e Frankfurt School: Critical T h e o r y ' s Analysis of Anti-Semitism,”in P e r m a n e n t Exiles, 9 0 - 1 0 0 . A s Jay m e n t i o n s , Franz N e u m a n n also b e g a n to revise his o w n j u d g m e n t o n t h e significance of N a z i anti-Semitism in the s e c o n d edition of B e h e m o t h , p u b l i s h e d in 1944. B u t N e u m a n n still v i e w e d th e is­ sue largely in t e r m s of t h e Nazis' antiliberalism, terrorist m e t h o d s , a n d desire for accomplices. See F r a n z N e u m a n n , B e h e m o t h , 2 d ed. ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1944), 5 5 0 - 5 2 .

Notes to Pages 1 6 6 - 7 1

283

193. A s Jay notes, L e o L o w e n t h a l also co n t r i b u t e d to this section of the b o o k . See Jay, Adorno, 39. 194. H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o , Dialectic o f Enlightenment, 208. O n th e “rescue o p e r a t i o n ”discernible in this passage, see R a b i n b a c h , “T h e C u n n i n g of U n r e a s o n . ” 195. S o m e interpreters of t h e writings of H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o situate their w o r k in close p r o x i m i t y to existentialism. See, for instance, Tar, T h e Frankfurt School, 2 0 5 - 6 ; a n d Kolakowski, M a i n Currents o f M a r x i s m , vol. 3,369-72. T h e r e are certainly s o m e biographical a n d theoretical connec t i o n s , s u c h as th e N i e t z c h e a n e l e m e n t of a s h a r e d skepticism a b o u t t h e universally beneficial effects of rational­ ity a n d social m o d e r n i s m . S o m e m e m b e r s of t h e Frankfurt g r o u p w e r e for a t i m e personally close to i m p o r t a n t existentialist thinkers, H e i d e g g e r chief a m o n g t h e m . B u t o n e h a s to ignore t h e frequent a n d d e e p l y hostile criticism of existentialism p r o d u c e d b y th e Frankfurt critics, s u c h as A d o r n o ' s T h e Jargon o f Authenticity, trans. K u r t T a r n o w s k y a n d Frederic Will (Evanston, 111.: N o r t h w e s t e r n University Press, 1973), w h i c h is a sustained p o l e m i c against H e i d e g g e r i a n existentialism, to reach t h e c o n c l u s i o n that their w o r k fits neatly w i t h i n its boundaries. 196. A d o r n o , cited b y L e o L o w e n t h a l in A n U n m a s t e r e d Past, 148. B u t as L e o L o w e n t h a l joked, t h e later reception of the writings of H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o s h o w e d that t h e bottle w a s s o o n o p e n e d , w i t h a quite a p o p . 197. Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 297. 198. See t h e c o g e n t a n d yet g e n e r o u s discussions of H o w a r d , T h e M a r x i a n Legacy, 53-79; B r onner, O f Critical Theo r y a n d Its Theorists, 7 2 - 1 0 1 , 1 8 0 - 2 0 8 ; a n d Slater, Origin a n d Significance o f the Frankfurt School, 87-89. 199. Bron n e r , O f Critical Th e o r y a n d Its Theorists, 84. T h e i m a g e of a c o m p r e ­ h e n d e d (subjectively) a n d yet i m p l a c a b l e (objectively) social totality in Dialectic o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t offered a p r e v i e w of A d o r n o ’ s a r g u m e n t a n d i m a g e r y in his later b o o k Negative Dialectics, trans. E. B. A s h t o n ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m , 1973). 2 0 0 . H o r k h e i m e r a n d A d o r n o , Dialectic o f Enlightenment, 85. Again, n o t e the u n h e l p f u l conflation of “b o u r g e o i s ”a n d “liberal”that Eley a n d B l a c k b o u r n h a v e rightly criticized. 201. See J ü r g e n H a b e r m a s , “R e m a r k s o n t h e D e v e l o p m e n t of H o r k h e i m e r ' s W o r k , ”in O n M a x Horkheimer, ed. B e n h a b i b , B o n ß , a n d M c C o l e , 49-65. 202. Jay, Adorno, 4 4 - 4 5 . 203. Her b e r t M a r c u s e to M a x H o r k h e i m e r , 18 O c t o b e r 1946, M a x - H o r k h e i m e r Archiv, VI, 27A, 270-71, S U B F , Frankfurt a m M a i n . T h e letter indicates that R i c h ­ ard L ö w e n t h a l , Karl M a n n h e i m , a n d R a y m o n d A r o n w e r e a m o n g t h o s e w h o , d u r ­ in g e n c o u n t e r s in p o s t w a r L o n d o n a n d Paris, u r g e d M a r c u s e to r e n e w publication of th e Zeitschrift O n M a r c u s e ’ s early p o s t w a r years, see Katz, Herbert M a r c u s e a n d the A r t o f Liberation, 129-35; Kellner, Herbert M a r c u s e a n d the Crisis o f M a r x i s m , 14 9 53, r 9 9 - 2 o o ; a n d Al f o n s Söllner, “‘ T h e P h i l o s o p h e r N o t as K i n g ’ : L a théorie politique d e H e r b e r t M a r c u s e d a n s les a n n é e s q u a r a n t e et c i n q u a n t e , ”Archives de philosophie 52, no. 3 (1989): 427-42. 204. O n B o r k e n a u ’ s w o r k in p o s t w a r E u rope, see Fra n z B o r k e n a u to Geoffrey

Notes to Pages 1 7 4 - 7 6

284

Faber, 2 2 O c t o b e r 1945, Faber a n d Faber Archive, L o n d o n ; a n d R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , editor's introduction to E n d a n d Beginning, b y B o r k e n a u , 6. Fraenkel's b o o k w a s e n ­ titled Military Occupation a n d the Rule o f L a w : Occupation G o v e r n m e n t in the Rhineland, 1 9 1 8 - 1 9 2 3 ( L o n d o n : O x f o r d University Press, 1944). O n N e u m a n n , Kirchheimer, a n d M a r c u s e , see Barry Katz, " T h e Criticism of A r m s : T h e Frankfurt S c h o o l G o e s to W a r , ”Journal o f M o d e r n History 5 9 ( S e p t e m b e r 1987): 437-78; Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination; a n d W i g g e r s h a u s , D i e Frankfurter Schule. A n o t e w o r t h y collection of w a r t i m e a n d early p o s t w a r texts p r o d u c e d b y G e r m a n é m i g r é s — including several of t h e intellectuals discussed in this b o o k — w o r k i n g for t h e U.S. g o v e r n m e n t or s u p p l y i n g it w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n h a s b e e n edited b y Alfons Söllner: Z u r Archäologie der D e m o k r a t i e in Deutschland, 2 vols. (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Fischer, 1986).

C h a p t e r 4: Totalitarianism's T e m p t a t i o n s 1. Th i s cold w a r c o ntroversy b e t w e e n t h e t w o w a r t i m e friends— b o t h i m p o r ­ tant figures o n t h e F r e n c h intellectual left— w a s s p a r k e d b y differences in their attitudes t o w a r d C o m m u n i s m a n d t h e Soviet U n i o n . C a m u s h a d left the Algerian C o m m u n i s t Party after a f e w years of activism a n d r e m a i n e d hostile t o w a r d C o m ­ m u n i s m thereafter. Sartre w a s a quintessential “fellow traveler”for a n u m b e r of years, t h o u g h h e n e v e r joined t h e F r e n c h C o m m u n i s t Party. T h e sharply critical r e sponse of Sartre's journal, Les temps modernes, to th e publication of C a m u s ' b o o k , L ' h o m m e révolté (T h e Rebel), in 1951, b r o u g h t their differences into the o p e n . Brief a c c o u n t s of this epi s o d e a n d t h e intellectual s c ene of t h e p o s t w a r F r e n c h Left are in H. Stuart H u g h e s , T h e Obstructed Path: French Social T h o u g h t in the Years o f D e s ­ peration, 1 9 3 0 - 1 9 6 0 ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d R o w , 1969), 2 2 8 - 4 7 ; a n d H e r b e r t R. L o t t m a n , T h e Left B a n k : Writers, Artists, a n d Politics f r o m the Popular Front to the C o l d W a r (Boston: H o u g h t o n Mifflin, 1982), 256-88, passim. 2. O n the d e v e l o p i n g cold w a r a n d its i m p a c t o n t h e d e m o c r a t i c Left, see t h e c o g e n t analysis in S t e p h e n Eric Bronner, M o m e n t s o f Decision: Political History a n d the Crises o f Radicalism ( N e w York: Routledge, 1992), 77-100. See also Judt, M a r x ­ i s m a n d the French Left, 169-238. 3. O n G u r l a n d a n d M a s s i n g , see Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 150,170-71. O n G u r l a n d , see Dieter E m i g a n d R ü d i g e r Z i m m e r m a n n , “ Arkadij G u r l a n d ( 1 9 0 4 1 9 7 9 ),”in Vor d e m Vergessen bewahren, ed. L ö s che, Scholing, a n d Walter, 81-98.

Before his exile a n d i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h th e Institute of Social Research, G u r l a n d h a d b e e n t h e a u t h o r of a pair of b o o k s that plac e d h i m squarely in t h e tradition of left socialist radicalism: M a r x i s m u s u n d Diktatur (Leipzig: Leipziger B u c h d r u c k e r e i , 1930); a n d D a s H e u t e der proletarischen Aktion: H e m m n i s s e u n d W a n d l u n g e n i m K l a s s e n k a m p f (Berlin: L a u b s c h e V e r l a g s b u c h h a n d l u n g , 1931) 4. “D i scussion Re: G e r m a n L a b o r M o v e m e n t o n S e p t e m b e r 12,1947,”12 S e p ­ t e m b e r 1947, M a x - H o r k h e i m e r - A r c h i v , 23, 20, 305, Stadt- u n d Universitäts­ bibliothek, F r a n k f u r t - a m - M a i n . 5. Fr anz B o r k e n a u , Socialism: National or International ( L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e a n d Sons, 1942).

Notes toPages 176-80

285

6. Kurt Schumacher’ spersonal courage was beyond question, but his occa­ sional ideological and political inflexibility in the early postwar years, perhaps more than the moralism that Neumann criticized, was certainly helpful to the political cause of t h e Christian D e m o c r a t i c U n i o n a n d its leader, K o n r a d A d e n a u e r . See L e w i s Edinger, K u r t S c h u m a c h e r : A Study in Personality a n d Political Behavior (Stanford, Calif.: Stan f o r d University Press, 1965). 7. Kurotake, " Z u r T o d e s u r s a c h e R u d o l f Hilferdings,”1-21; D a v i d B e e t h a m , "Bio­ graphical N o t e s , ”in Marxists in Fa c e o f Fascism, ed. B e e t h a m , 3 5 9 - 6 0 ; Foitzik, Z w i s c h e n d e n Fronten, 314-16. 8. See Jay, " R e m e m b e r i n g H e n r y Pachter,”in P e r m a n e n t Exiles, 257-61; a n d Bron n e r , i n t r o d u c t i o n to Socialism in History, b y Pachter, xi-xxx. See also H e n r y Pachter, W e i m a r Études, ed. S t e p h e n Eric B r o n n e r ( N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press, 1982). Dissent, f o u n d e d in 1954, h a s p r o v i d e d a vital f o r u m for t h e leftist antitotalitarian o u t l o o k in t h e U n i t e d States. 9. Fr a n z N e u m a n n , " G e r m a n D e m o c r a c y 1950,”International Conciliation, no. 4 6 1 ( M a y 1950): 291. 10. See, for e x a m p l e , M a x H o r k h e i m e r ' s blistering attack o n "totalitarian b u ­ reaucracy”a n d t h e " p s e u d o r e v o l u t i o n a r y ”y o u t h of the N e w Left in Critical Theory: Selected Essays o f M a x Horkheimer, trans. M a t t h e w J. O ' C o n n e l l et al. ( N e w York: C o n t i n u u m , 1986), viii-ix. O n e of th e best critical c o m m e n t a r i e s o n H o r k h e i m e r ' s later career a p p e a r s in Bronner, O f Critical Theo r y a n d Its Theorists, 73-101. 11. O n N e u m a n n ' s a n d K i r c h h e i m e r 's i m p o r t a n t p o s t w a r contri b u t i o n s to political a n d legal theory, see S c h e u e r m a n , B e t w e e n the N o r m a n d the Exception. T h e d i l e m m a s s h a r e d b y s u c h f o r m e r C o m m u n i s t Party m e m b e r s as B o r k e n a u a n d L ö w e n t h a l are r e c o n s i d e r e d in Ignazio Silone, E m e r g e n c y Exit, ed. R u t h N a n d a A n s h e n ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d R o w , 1968). See, in particular, t h e essays " E m e r ­ g e n c y Exit”a n d " T h e Situation of th e ‘ Ex.'” 12. G u n z e l i n S c h m i d N o e r r a n d W i l l e m v a n Reijen, "Karl Ko r s c h , ”in G r a n d Hotel A b g r u n d , ed. S c h m i d N o e r r a n d v a n Reijen, 80. 13. See t h e Fischer-Korsch c o r r e s p o n d e n c e in N a c h l a ß Karl Korsch, 9, IISH, A m s t e r d a m . See especially R u t h Fischer to Karl Korsch, 2 M a y 1 9 4 9 , 9/1;Karl K o r s c h to R u t h Fischer, 1 0 M a y 1949, 9/2-3; Karl K o r s c h to R u t h Fischer, 27 M a y 1950, 9/5; Karl K o r s c h to R u t h Fischer, 10 Febru a r y 1952,9/18; Karl K o r s c h to R u t h Fischer, 5 N o v e m b e r 1952, 9/20-21; R u t h Fischer to Karl Korsch, 18 N o v e m b e r 1952, 9/24, a n d Karl K o r s c h to R u t h Fischer, 2 6 N o v e m b e r 1952, 9/26-28. In the letter d a t e d 27 M a y 1950, K o r s c h t h a n k e d Fischer for th e clippings she h a d sent of articles a b o u t h e r f r o m Life, Time, a n d Fortune m a g a z i n e s . O t h e r letters f r o m their c o r r e s p o n ­ d e n c e are g a t h e r e d in Fischer a n d M a s l o w , A b t r ü n n i g wider Willen, 318-21. See also M i l o v a n Djilas, T h e N e w Class: A n Analysis o f the C o m m u n i s t S y stem ( N e w York: Praeger, 1957); a n d M i l o v a n Djilas, T h e Unperfect Society: B e y o n d the N e w Class, trans. D o r i a n C o o k e ( N e w York: H a r c o u r t Brace J o v a n o v i c h , 1969). 14. Karl K o r s c h to H a y d e n C a rruth, 9 S e p t e m b e r 1952, N a c h l a ß Karl Korsch, 6/15-17, IISH, A m s t e r d a m .

Notes to Pages 1 8 0 - 8 5

286

15. Kellner, ed., KarlKorsch, 289ft. 16. Ibid., 281-83. T h e " T e n T h e s e s ”a p p e a r e d first in t h e F r e n c h journal A r g u ­ m e n t s in 1959. 17. Fischer a n d M a s l o w , A b t r ü n n i g wider Willen, 320-21. 18. See t h e discussions of this p o i n t b y E r d a n d others in R e f o r m u n d Resigna­ tion, 185-236, passim. 19. Fr anz N e u m a n n , “ W a n d l u n g e n des M a r x i s m u s , ”6-8, a n d “M a r x i s m u s u n d Intelligenz,”2-6, in “Vorträge der “R I A S Funk-Universität,”g e h a l t e n i m V. S e n ­ deabschnitt, “M e n s c h , Gesellschaft u n d Kultur,”2 0 a n d 2 8 N o v e m b e r 1950. Franz B o r k e n a u g a v e t h e inaugural lecture in this series, “M e n s c h u n d Gesellschaft bei Karl M a r x , ”6 N o v e m b e r 1950. R I A S stands for R a d i o in t h e A m e r i c a n Sector (of Berlin). O n t h e c o m p l e x role of t h e S P D a n d th e u n i o n s as agents of b o t h c h a n g e a n d c o n f o r m i s m , see the instructive discussion in R i c h a r d B r e i t m a n , “N e g a t i v e Integration a n d Pa r l i a m e n t a r y Politics: Literature o n G e r m a n Social D e m o c r a c y , 1 8 9 0 - 1 9 3 3 , ”Central E u r o p e a n History 13, no. 2 (1980): 175-97. 20. Fr a n z N e u m a n n , “E c o n o m i c s a n d Politics in t h e T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y , ”in T h e Dem o c r a t i c a n d the Authoritarian State, 266. 21. See t h e r e m a r k s of Alfons Söllner in Erd, ed., R e f o r m u n d Resignation, 21720. 22. J u d i t h Shklar, After Utopia: T h e Decline o f Political Faith (Princeton, N.J.: P r i n c e t o n University Press, 1957), 263. 23. M a s o n , “T h e P r i m a c y of Politics,”53-76. 24. O n t h e reception of N e u m a n n ’ s p o s t w a r w o r k , see H u g h e s , “F r a n z N e u ­ m a n n b e t w e e n M a r x i s m a n d Liberal D e m o c r a c y , ”4 4 6 - 6 2 . H u g h e s m a k e s th e point that N e u m a n n ' s scholarship exerted greater influence a m o n g historians t h a n a m o n g political scientists. S c h e u e r m a n ' s B e t w e e n the N o r m a n d the Exception c o n ­ stitutes a significant a t t e m p t to restore N e u m a n n ’ s a n d Kirchheimer’ s writings— inc l u d i n g their less influential p o s t w a r studies— as a radical, albeit non-Ma r x i s t , d e f ense of t h e rule of law, w h i c h S c h e u e r m a n fears is o n c e again u n d e r attack. 25. F r a n z N e u m a n n , “ A n x i e t y a n d Politics,”in T h e De m o c r a t i c a n d the Authori­ tarian State, 294. 26. F r a n z B o r k e n a u , “Praxis u n d U t o p i e , ”in Karl M a r x , ed. F r a n z B o r k e n a u (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Fischer Bücherei, 1956), 7-37. 27. F ra n z B o r k e n a u to Geoffrey Faber, 3 0 M a r c h 1946, Faber a n d Faber Archive, London. 28. R i c h a r d L ö w e n t h a l , editor's i n t r o d u c t i o n to E n d a n d Beginning, b y B o r k e n a u , 6-8. See also Tashjean, “F r a n z B o r k e n a u , ”17-18. B o r k e n a u t o o k t h e rather derisive t e r m Kreml-Astrologie as his o w n a n d p u b l i s h e d a n article exp l a i n ­ ing his interests in Soviet studies a n d his m e t h o d s : “W a s ist Kreml-Astrologie?”D e r M o n a t 7, no. 79 (1955): 32-39. See also L e o p o l d L a b e d z , T h e Use a n d A b u s e o f Sovietology ( N e w B r u n s w i c k , N.J.: Transaction, 1989). 29. T h e m o s t c o m p l e t e b i b l i o g r a p h y of B o r k e n a u ' s publications a p p e a r s in Jean-Pierre C h r é t i e n - G o n i , Iskender G o k a l p , D a n i è l e Guillerm, Christian Lazzeri,

Notes to Pages 185-87

287

and D o m inique Wolton, eds., L ’ ésprit du mécanisme: Science et société chez Franz Borkenau, Cahiers S.T.S., Science-Technologie-Société, no. 7 (Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1985), 12-20. Even this list,however, omits a few items. 30. For a brief a c c o u n t of t h e case (but o n e that d o e s n o t m e n t i o n Borkenau), see C a u t e , T h e Great Fear, 3 2 3 . 1 h a v e also e x a m i n e d copies of U.S. g o v e r n m e n t d o c u m e n t s regarding B o r k e n a u ’ s testimony. P e r m i s s i o n to s t u d y these d o c u m e n t s w a s g r a n t e d b y t h e late K a y B o yle a n d h e r lawyer, J e r o m e Garchik, w h o received t h e m u n d e r t h e provisions of th e F r e e d o m of I n f o r m a t i o n Act. 31. For a n a c c o u n t of this m e e t i n g a n d B o rkenau's role in it, see Peter C o l e m a n , T h e Liberal Conspiracy: T h e Congress for Cultural F r e e d o m a n d the Struggle for the M i n d o f P o s t w a r Eur o p e ( N e w York: Free Press, 1989), 15,21,29-31. See also H u g h TrevorRoper, " E x - C o m m u n i s t v. C o m m u n i s t , ”M a n c h e s t e r Guardian, July 10,1950. 32. T h e Stalinization thesis a r g u e d that d e v e l o p m e n t s in t h e K P D w e r e c o n ­ trolled a n d c o n d i t i o n e d b y decisions m a d e b y t h e Soviet leadership, particularly Stalin. S u c h a position is n o t w i t h o u t f o u n d ation, b u t as Eric D. W e i t z h a s argued, i n d i g e n o u s G e r m a n social, political, a n d e c o n o m i c factors often d r o p o u t of analy­ ses b a s e d o n t h e Stalinization thesis, a n d h e cites B o r k e n a u a n d Fischer as k e y fig­ ures in t h e p o s t w a r history of this a r g u m e n t . See Weitz, Creating G e r m a n C o m m u ­ nism, 12, n o t e r5. W e i t z d o e s n o t dispute th e fact that t h e Soviet U n i o n w a s a factor in G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t d e v e l o p m e n t s . Indeed, h e states elsewhere in his b o o k that “in t h e c o urse of t h e W e i m a r Republic, th e Soviet U n i o n c a m e to exert increasing a u t h o r i t y o v e r t h e K P D . M o s c o w set overall strategy a n d b r o k e a n d m a d e K P D leaderships. Paul Levi, Ernst Reuter, Ernst M e y e r , H e i n r i c h Brandler, a n d R u t h Fischer— party leaders b e t w e e n 1919 a n d 1 9 2 5 — all f o u n d e r e d w h e n , for various reasons, t h e y lost t h e b a c k i n g of t h e R u s sian C o m m u n i s t P a r t y ...”(234). W h a t W e i t z argues w i t h great effectiveness is that t h e course of t h e K P D a n d th e post­ w a r G e r m a n D e m o c r a t i c R e p ublic ( D D R ) s h o u l d n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d at every stage in t h e t e r m s of s u c h a deterministic m o d e l . T h e K P D ' s d e v e l o p m e n t as well as t h e history of t h e D D R e m e r g e d f r o m a m o r e c o m p l e x a n d v a r y i n g set of factors t h a n t h e Stalinization thesis a c k n o w l e d g e s . In short, W e i t z persuasively disputes t h e c l a i m that “t h e entire history of the D D R c a n really b e characterized as ‘ Stalinist’ ” (392). H e m a k e s a similarly clear objection to t h e us e of th e “totalitarian thesis”to explain t h e D D R , n o t i n g that e q u a t i n g th e C o m m u n i s t East G e r m a n g o v e r n m e n t w i t h N a z i G e r m a n y r e m a i n s primarily “political,”n o t “analytical”(392-93). 33. B o r k e n a u , E n d a n d Beginning. Borkenau's various historical writings are t h e subject of V o l k e r Reinecke, Kultur u n d Todesantinomie: D i e Geschichtsphilosophie F r a n z B o r k enaus (Vienna: Passagen, 1992). 34. R u t h Fischer, Stalin a n d G e r m a n C o m m u n i s m , 663. 35. Ibid., 6 4 4 - 4 5 . 36. H e i n r i c h B r a n d l e r to R u t h Fischer, 6 O c t o b e r 1948; C u r t G e y e r to R u t h Fischer, 2 4 O c t o b e r 1 9 4 8 a n d 2 N o v e m b e r 1948; G e o r g e O r w e l l to R u t h Fischer, 21 April 1949, all in Fischer a n d M a s l o w , A b t r ü n n i g wider Willen, 2 2 5 - 4 5 , 256-57.

Notes to Pages 1 8 8 - 9 1

288

37. O n t h e events s u r r o u n d i n g t h e publication of Oriental Despotism, see U l ­ m e n , T h e Science o f Society, 3 0 6 - 2 4 . Useful a n d divergent a c c o u n t s of Wittfo g e T s t e s t i m o n y before C o n g r e s s a n d its related c o n s e q u e n c e s a p p e a r in U l m e n , T h e Science o f Society, 275-94; Jay, T h e Dialectical Imagination, 284 - 8 5 ; a n d Heilbut, E x ­ iled in Paradise, 379-8T, 316-21, 415. 38. See especially D o n a l d Worster, Rivers o f Empire: Water, Aridity, a n d the G r o w t h o f the A m e r i c a n W e s t ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1985). W o r s t e r c a n n o t b e r e garded as a Wittfogel disciple, b u t h e argues that t h e " g r a n d t h e o r y ”n o t i o n s of Wittfogel— despite their occasionally distracting antitotalitarian p o l e m i c s — are still useful tools w i t h w h i c h to clarify historical issues a n d offer b e n c h m a r k m o d ­ els of c h a n g e in society a n d in state policy. W o r s t e r also m e n t i o n s th e influence of A d o r n o a n d H o r k h e i m e r ' s Dialectic o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t a n d H o r k h e i m e r ’ s Eclipse o f R e a s o n o n his interpretations of t h e h u m a n d o m i n a t i o n of n a ture in t h e A m e r i ­ c a n S o u t h w e s t . See Worster, U n d e r Western Skies: Nature a n d History in the A m e r i c a n W e s t ( N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1992), 55-56,71, 73-74,262, n o t e 7. 39. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism, 7. 40. See, for e x a m p l e , ibid., 1 3 7 - 6 0 , 3 6 9 - 4 1 2 . 4r. M a x H o r k h e i m e r , T h e Eclipse o f R e a s o n (194 7; reprint, N e w York: C o n ­ t i n u u m , 1974), 164. 42. See in particular H a n n a h Arendt, Essays in Understanding; 1 9 3 0 - 1 9S4, ed. J e r o m e K e r n ( N e w York: Harcourt, Brace, 1994); H a n n a h A r e ndt, T h e Life o f the M i n d , 2 vols. ( N e w York: H a r c o u r t Brace Jovanovich), 1978; L e o Strauss, Persecution a n d the Ar t o f Writing ( G lencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1952); L e o Strauss, Natural Right a n d History (Chicago: University of C h i c a g o , 1953); L e o Strauss, O n Tyranny, rev. ed., ed. Victor G o u r e v i t c h a n d M i c h a e l S. R o t h ( N e w York: Free Press, 1991); D a n t e G e r m i n o , B e y o n d Ideology: T h e Revival o f Political T h e o r y ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d R o w , 1967); D a n t e G e r m i n o , Political Philosophy a n d the O p e n Society ( B a t o n R o u g e : L o u i s i a n a State University Press, 1982); a n d M i c h a e l O a k e s h o t t , Rationalism in Politics a n d Ot h e r Essays (Indianapolis: Liberty, 1991); a n d M i c h a e l O a k e s h o t t , Morality a n d Politics in Europe: T h e H a r v a r d Lectures, ed. Shirley R o b i n L e t w i n ( N e w H a v e n , C o n n . : Yale University Press, 1993). See also Peter G r a f K i e l m a n s e g g et al., eds. H a n n a h A r e n d t a n d L e o Strauss: G e r m a n Émigrés a n d A m e r i c a n Political T h o u g h t after W o r l d W a r II ( C a m b r i d g e : G e r m a n Historical Institute a n d C a m b r i d g e U n i ­ versity Press, 1995). 43. See Slater, Origin a n d Significance o f the Frankfurt School; a n d Tar, T h e F r a n k ­ furt School 44. H o r k h e i m e r , Critical Theory, viii-ix. 45. For discussions of H o r k h e i m e r ' s later, m o r e o p e n l y a n t i - C o m m u n i s t politi­ cal stance, see D o u g l a s Kellner, “T h e Frankfurt S c h o o l Revisited,”N e w G e r m a n Critique 4 ( W i n t e r 1975): 131-52. 46. See R i c h a r d T. Bernstein, “H e r b e r t M a r c u s e : A n I m m a n e n t Critique,”S o ­ cial T h e o r y a n d Practice 1, no. 4 (1971): 9 7 - m . 47. I n t h e 1 9 6 1 preface to t h e p a p e r b a c k edition of Soviet M a r x i s m , M a r c u s e

Notes to Pages 191-95

289

maintained that he had been at least “ relatively objective”in his analysis because he had m a n a g e d toirritateboth American conservatives and orthodox Sovietcom­

mentators. See Herbert Marcuse, SovietMarxism: A CriticalAnalysis (1958; reprint, w i t h n e w preface, N e w York: K n o p f / V i n t a g e , 1961), v. See also th e instructive dis­ cussion of Soviet M a r x i s m in Kellner, Herbert M a r c u s e a n d the Crisis o f M a r x i s m , 197228. 48. M a r c u s e , Soviet M a r x i s m , 206. 49. Ibid., 1 0 5 - 2 0 , 2 3 3 - 5 2 . This a r g u m e n t c o u l d b e read as a m o r e h o p e f u l ver­ sion of B o r k e n a u ' s critique of Soviet irrationalism stated in Pareto t w e n t y years earlier. 50. H e r b e r t M a r c u s e , Eros a n d Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud (1955; reprint, w i t h n e w preface, Boston: B e a c o n , 1966), 93-94. 51. D u t s c h k e q u o t e d in H e r b e r t M a r c u s e , D a s E n d e der Utopie: Vorträge u n d Diskussionen in Berlin 1 9 6 7 (Frankfurt a m M a i n : Verlag N e u e Kritik, 1980), 100; K ü h n l , "‘ Linke' Totalitarismusversionen.'' 52. H e r b e r t M a r c u s e , O n e - D i m e n s i o n a l M a n : Studies in the Ideology of A d v a n c e d Industrial Society (Boston: B e a c o n , 1964), 225,257. 53. M a r c u s e m a n a g e d to o f f e n d a r e m a r k a b l e variety of thinkers. A m o n g the m o s t systematically hostile attacks against his position is Alasdair M a c I n t y r e , Herbert Ma r c u s e : A n Exposition a n d a P o lemic ( N e w York: Viking, 1970). See also Ko l a k o w s k i , M a i n Currents o f M a r x i s m , vol. 3 , 3 9 6 - 4 2 0 . A critical M a rxist p e r s p e c ­ tive a p p e a r s in Paul Mattick, Critique o f Marcuse: O n e - D i m e n s i o n a l M a n in Class Society ( N e w York: H e r d e r a n d Herder, 1972). Marcuse's p o s t w a r role receives a m o r e s y m p a t h e t i c appraisal in Bernstein, " H e r b e r t Marcuse.'' 54. For t h e e x a m p l e a m o n g his writings that is m o s t o f ten criticized for its al­ leged political v a n g u a r d i s m , see H e r b e r t M a r c u s e , "Repressive Tolerance,'' in A Critique o f Pure Tolerance, b y R o b e r t Paul Wolff, B a r r i n g t o n M o o r e Jr., a n d Her b e r t M a r c u s e (Boston: B e a c o n , 1969), 8r-i23. G i v e n t h e c o n t e x t of its a p p e a r a n c e in 1965, h o w e v e r , t h e e n r a g e d t o n e of Mar c u s e ' s article is n o t so surprising. In 1964, t h e D e m o c r a t i c Party elite h a d t o r p e d o e d t h e w o r k of t h e Mississippi F r e e d o m D e m o c r a t i c Party delegation at its presidential n o m i n a t i n g c o n v e n t i o n , precipi­ tating further splits in the civil rights m o v e m e n t . In 1965, the U.S. military b u i l d u p in V i e t n a m h a d increased swiftly, a n d it w a s clear b y t h e e n d of s u m m e r that— d e ­ spite t h e p a s s a g e of t h e V o t i n g Rights A c t that year— race relations h a d already shifted gears, as e v i d e n c e d b y th e violence in t h e W a t t s district of L o s Angeles. E v e n so, in a s o m e w h a t c h a s t e n e d "Postscript 1968,'' M a r c u s e c a u t i o n e d specifically against t h e e m e r g e n c e of a revolutionary, intellectual elite, inviting instead "the struggle f