I saw Steven Pinker make this argument on Bloggingheads, and seeing as how I was simultaneously reading Better Angels and The Third Reich at War, it stuck with me.
To boil down Pinker's argument, both Nazism and Communism have roots in post/anti-Enlightenment German vaguely "idealist" philosophies. Obviously there's a big difference in my mind between the Left Hegelians and, say, Nietzsche, but I still think it's an interesting argument.
Nazism's relationship with science seems not so much complex as haphazard and poorly thought out. The ideal semi-agrarian state that was common in Nazi propaganda would have had no real chance in the proposed continental struggle with the United States, and Hitler always made a point the "scientific" nature of Nazism. There's a central conflict here that never got resolved because, frankly, most of the ideological Nazis were idiots.
Leninism is a lot more complicated. Lenin's total rejection of Eduard Bernstein and SPD incrementalism was the move of a fanatic, but I think Pinker's pretty obviously going "No True Scotsman" in this case.
Is Pinker that evopsy guy? I think Nazism was anti-enlightment, as much as it had any coherent philosophy. It was such a mishmash of nonsense. If it had anything to do with German idealism it was from dime novels and pure luck. I thought that Marxism was influence by guys like Hegel, but rejected the idealism for strict materialism.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2013, 01:37:39 AM
I saw Steven Pinker make this argument on Bloggingheads, and seeing as how I was simultaneously reading Better Angels and The Third Reich at War, it stuck with me.
To boil down Pinker's argument, both Nazism and Communism have roots in post/anti-Enlightenment German vaguely "idealist" philosophies. Obviously there's a big difference in my mind between the Left Hegelians and, say, Nietzsche, but I still think it's an interesting argument.
Nazism's relationship with science seems not so much complex as haphazard and poorly thought out. The ideal semi-agrarian state that was common in Nazi propaganda would have had no real chance in the proposed continental struggle with the United States, and Hitler always made a point the "scientific" nature of Nazism. There's a central conflict here that never got resolved because, frankly, most of the ideological Nazis were idiots.
Leninism is a lot more complicated. Lenin's total rejection of Eduard Bernstein and SPD incrementalism was the move of a fanatic, but I think Pinker's pretty obviously going "No True Scotsman" in this case.
Pinker is right here. Not because murdering jews and kulaks is "unenlightened" in the colloquial sense but that there was a romantic anti-enlightenment and it was a philosophical movement. He is supported here by serious thinkers from Bertrand Russel to Hannah Arend.
The semi agrarian state or the workers paradise represented an ideal to strive to. Neither of these ideals ever existed of course but both were posited as real in the epistemology (how can you know stuff) presented by the regimes. They are anti-enlightenment in this regard since the enlightenment ideal wasn't a destination but rather a process "we will use science to build a better world"
Both Marxism and Nazism claimed to be scientific. The credibility of science remains undented to this day. Even the most radical anti-science luddites of today claim to have scientific backing when they sell their snake oil or massage therapies as scientific. Marxism claimed it's origin in a science of history and nazism claimed it's origin in a science of anthropology. Neither was scientific, Karl Poppers life work was to demonstrate not only that but how they were unscientific. Both were normative (as opposed to descriptive) and unfalsifiable. Both the idea that history is moving towards an ideal state and we should hurry it along and the idea that nature is too incompetent at evolution and we should hurry it along are not scientific if only because the "we should hurry it along" is tagged at the end (for many other reasons as well).
Additionaly both marxism and nazism managed to abolish the rights of the individual. The person was now part of a race or a class and had oblications and duties to that race and class and his or her rights (if any) were dependent on membership in said race or class.
Leninism is more complicated. The complication goes away if you replace leninism with stalinism. Lenin did had that "oh shit" moment when the economy collapsed and he started the NEP. Lenin did have his roots in the anti-enlightenment but he like most people was still burdened by the enlightenment goodies of freedom and knowledge. If he had lived longer maybe it would have turned out differently. The case with lenin remains; he did use the anti-enlightenment but he seems to have been one of those strange remarkable people that are capable of learning from their mistakes. Unfortunately for russia "how to get over having a stroke" was not one of those lessons.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 15, 2013, 01:37:39 AM
I saw Steven Pinker make this argument on Bloggingheads, and seeing as how I was simultaneously reading Better Angels and The Third Reich at War, it stuck with me.
You remind me of those Chinese acrobats who keep 3 dinner plates spinning while explaining antidisestablishmentarianism through interpretive dance.
btw, link to pinkers argument? I inferred from what I know about pinker and the anti-enlightenment.