One of the major gripes this site has with liberals at the moment is the "Putin is a crazy man" mindset in which they give themselves to all sorts of "does Putin have autism?? Photographic caliper evidence says yes" and similarly inane takes. In the site's view this sort of conception of individuals as acting on history/anthropomorphizing a state is unhelpful and equivalent to Great Man Theory, which is an antiquated concept.

My question here is to what degree is this the case with the man to whom Putin is so commonly compared, Adolf Hitler? The Western liberal understanding seems to be at odds with itself, both accepting the "banality of evil" (through Arendt's analysis of Eichmann) and branding the Nazi regime as "crazy." To what degree did the Reich's actions flow from banal measured-and-genocidal political calculus, retroactively Putinified, and to what degree was the state and its actions (not asking about its propagandized citizens) actually given to wild irrational paranoia?

  • star_wraith [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    One thing absolutely critical to understanding Hitler and the Nazis is that the capitalist world has re-written the history of the rise of the Nazi party. The generally accepted narrative is that the Germans were sad about the Versailles treaty and inflation. Then Hitler came along and by the power of :zizek-preference: made them feel better by stoking populism.

    While there are some grains of truth here (the Nazis did have a lot of support), note how this narrative fits in neatly with the liberal notions that the people can't be trusted and are easily swayed by great men and their ideologies.

    As much as WW2 still dominates Americans' interest in history, there is a MAJOR part that just happens to be left out. The largest German corporations and nearly all of their capitalists were deeply tied in with the Nazi party. I would argue the story of the Nazis is the story of the German capitalist class finding a political movement that would preserve and expand their economic position. Admittedly, this is a topic I'm still learning about myself, but my understanding is that during the great depression there was rising class consciousness and the German capitalists felt they were under an existential threat. So they supported the Nazis and Hitler. Hitler wasn't "crazy" or "irrational" per se, he was simply the tool used by the German capitalists to retain power.

    So in one sense, Putin can be compared to Hitler. Putin serves at the behest of Russian billionaires (not calling them oligarchs until US media starts calling our billionaires oligarchs too) and works to further their interests. And Hitler was only able to do what he did because he had the support and served the interests of the German capitalists.

    Edit: this book is on my reading list and looks like it covers this topic well for folks who want to know more.

    • JamesGoblin [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Parenti talks extensively about the very interesting "assymetry" in western media and literature on fascism; namely they almost exclusively ask "Who is serving fascism" ("Who is a fascist") almost as if the phenomena is somehow ahistorical and/or can be attributed to personal characteristics.

      The reversed question they never ask - and the one Parenti insists on - is "Whom is fascism serving?". The reason for this media "blindness" is banal - even just basic reading on the topic is enough to see the inevitable and consistent links of fascism with capital and it's interests - including, in the case of Germany and WW2 - lots of ties to USA industry and millionaires.

    • The_Walkening [none/use name]
      ·
      3 years ago

      The largest German corporations and nearly all of their capitalists were deeply tied in with the Nazi party.

      The pretty common media trope of Nazi officers with facial scars is due to the fact that many of their officers went to elite colleges with elite fraternaties where they practiced mensur - a type of fighting where getting scars on the face were a mark of pride.

      Like seriously everyone likes to mention the fencing part of it but the elite fraternities part is always glossed over, never mind whose kids are in them.

      • AcidSmiley [she/her]
        ·
        3 years ago

        It's not so much elite colleges as elitist student fraternities. Mensur is practiced among the Burschenschaften, nationalist frats that worked (and still work, to this day) as good old boy networks for rich ghouls both in the public and private sector. You can find these at any German university to this day, even though their reputation has taken a steady nosedive since the end of the war. The culture at these frats is just as toxic, mysogynist and prone to severe alcoholism as among US fratboys, but a lot more bizarre and archaic even among those that aren't outright nazis.

      • catposter [comrade/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        this feels a bit too nice to the people who aided with the collapse of the USSR though

      • Leon_Grotsky [comrade/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        the idea that capitalist development may slide back to a more feudal relationship between the state and the owners of capital

        Could be Zizek or Varoufakis, I know they've both been on this line recently.