OT: Fascism didn't come from Protestant culture.


This film was interesting but full of subtext. Considering the opening sentences about the troubles that Germany would face in the years to come, it is always important to remember that these children are the very people who became the Nazis and their supporters.

However, I do disagree with the idea which some here hold that old school, strict Protestant culture spawned Naziism/Fascism. In the short era of Fascism, the large majority of Protestant countries remained monarchist or (for the time) relatively liberal democracies. The old Protestant nobility, especially those with ties to the German military hierarchy, remained largely monarchist throughout Hitler's reign.

Fascism actually came largely out of Catholic areas and countries, and it was created to preserve something of the existing social order by harnessing nationalist feeling in order to protect the country from Communist revolution. With the possible exception of France which had global interests and something of a democratic tradition, the Catholic countries generally lagged behind the Protestant ones in terms of industrialization, global trade, and political development. The economic and social structures (were not always but tended to be) much more rigid, resulting in a greater gap between rich and poor. This fueled the popular appeal of communism, which resulted in a strong movement against it. Austria had a large socialist movement after the First World War, then it got Dolfuss as a reaction against that movement. Hungary had a short experience with a particularly nasty communist government under Bela Kuhn, afterward it got the authoritarian (if not exactly fascist) Miklos Horthy and later Szalasi's very fascist Arrow Cross party. Spain teetered on the brink of radical socialist revolution, and in came Franco and the Falangists. Mussolini was created out of economic troubles resulting from a war that failed to gain much for Italy. He coopted the left and created a way for the aristocracy to join him in common cause with the suffering of the Italian people. Hitler fed on anti-communist resentment from the failed revolutions of Luxemburg, Liebknecht, and Eisner. His initial stomping ground was the very Catholic and nationalistic province of Bavaria, where Eisner had failed to firmly establish a communist state and where Archbishop Eugenio Paccioli was nearly assasinated by communist radicals. As Pope Pius XII during World War II, he would be reluctant to oppose fascism largely (it is widely speculated) for this experience. Don't forget Juan Peron and (initially) Getulio Vargas in South America as well.

There were movements in certain Protestant countries to support fascist parties, but they never got anywhere near the success that they had in the Catholic countries. Not a single Protestant nation became Fascist before German occupation save for Germany itself. In German lands, the Fascist movements all started in the Catholic regions.

Fascism would never have existed without Communism, and it's unthinkable to imagine otherwise. Again, this film shows where vindictive and resentful social attitudes existed before the wars in a society that had problems. I think that these feelings exist in a lot of societies for different reasons. However, the starving people of Weimar Germany, continuous Communist threats both foreign and domestic, the collapse of the German middle class, and the occupation of the Rhineland by French and Belgian forces in 1923 to enforce ruinous, impossible reparation payments did much to make people and angry, resentful, fearful, and vindictive.

I'm not excusing what became of Germany and the Fascist movement, but only explaining why it happened.

reply

Excellent post.

reply

I believe much of this especially about the monarchies. They saw the end that was coming and were desperate for any form of govt that would keep them in power. Henry VIII thought about converting to Islam if it would help him get what he wanted and that was over 350yrs earlier. Now we know Edward VIII was conspiring with the Nazi's to stay in power.
Didn't do them any good as the fascist took no time in disposing of them.

reply

Very good analysis, but I would say it shorter and simpler.

The history of capitalism throughout the 350 years it has existed has been a never ending cycle of the always same steps.
First there's the cooperation of religion and politics where religion suggests that an ultimate dictatorship of an unquestionable authority shall be heaven and corrupt politics builds an authoritarian government on that which takes from the poor and gives to the rich.
This keeps going up to the point where the whole workforce of the people isn't enough anymore to produce enough stuff to pay the interest the rich expect on their savings, mathematically at an average rate of once every 60-80 years.
At this point there develops increasing civil unrest among the poor that is answered by politics with ever harsher authoritarian patronizing of the people, where fascism simply is the top of the line of maximized authoritarian suppression of the peoples demands.

But the exponential growing greed of the rich doesn't stop and since the poor don't have anything anymore the rich go for gambling, in the stock market or wherever else they hope to make big money fast.
Sooner or later this comes to an end, where the only question is how that end looks, there's a wide variety of examples in history.
Options are revolution or world war or simply that a few of the big gamblers suffer a big loss which initiates a chain reaction that collapses the whole system, like in 1929.

In short, fascism is the last attempt of the rich to hold on to their wealth a little bit longer, before the next system crash.

reply

lol

reply

I agree with much of this however fascism wasn't actually realized until the 20th century so it was not an unavoidable consequence of capitalism for 350 years, though I recognize that you didn't make that claim expressly. I assume the church you refer to is the Catholic church, and IMO even the Council of Nicea was aimed at sustaining power. The rest is good insight IMO. It would behoove the PTB to keep a healthy middle class for them to steal from really, but yes the model is one designed to end in the destruction of the economy if not the nation. Considering this the US then presents an interesting example. In other nations this nefarious practice has to work against the tides of a nationalism that was bred through millennia often times. The US is a relatively recent country that is without that shared origin story that binds a people together. Also it's multicultural nature has proven to be easy to weaponize via divide and conquer.

reply

Thanks and yes, you're right, in the early stages of capitalism there was no fascism.
The measures the rich take to hold on to their wealth become harsher every time, where in the early times a "simple" revolution like in France or Russia was enough to overcome the authoritarian power of the rich, in the 20th century it has advanced to two consecutive word wars including fascism and I don't even want to guess what this might become in the 21st century.

Furthermore this time we're not only seeing the rich desperately trying to hold on to their wealth, we're also seeing religion, especially Christianity fighting for survival and these two in combination might lead to unprecedented turmoil.
The numbers of people dropping out of Christianity are increasing to a level that we can already predict Europe will have over 90% atheists by 2100.
The catholic church is so extremely desperate by now that they are trying to include almost all the groups of people that they used to call an abomination, just to keep their organisation alive a bit longer. If someone had told you maybe 50 years ago that the pope wants to allow for gay marriages in church, would you have believed it?

The US is about 35 years behind Europe and therefore not as desperate yet, they seem to still believe that maximized authoritarian patronizing could maintain the power of religion. The text of Project 2025 gives you an idea of where this is heading.

Aside of all of this there is still the ongoing exponentially increasing enrichment of the richest, which has long passed the point I mentioned above "where the whole workforce of the people isn't enough anymore to produce enough stuff to pay the interest the rich expect on their savings".
2008 would have been the next 1929 if it hadn't been for literally all governments in the world taking on insane amounts of national debt, pumping it into the pockets of the rich and thereby putting the crash on hold.
The real big problem with this is that they are not preventing the crash, they are just postponing it, maximizing the height of the crash when it finally happens.
I usually call the upcoming crash 1929² but given that by now there's literally millions of times as much value on stake as there was in 1929, "squared" might be an understatement.

reply