National Socialism as Radical Counter-Enlightenment - The Inner Logic of the Ideology
This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume I, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.
National Socialist ideology was no mere accumulation of resentments, no irrational aberration, no pathological outburst. It was a coherent worldview with its own inner logic—and precisely this made it so dangerous. To refute this ideology, we must first take it seriously in its own logic: understand its premises, reconstruct its argumentation, grasp its inner coherence. Only then can we show where this argumentation collapses—not through moral outrage from outside, but through immanent critique that uncovers the contradictions within the ideology itself.
28.4.1 The Fascist Diagnosis: Modernity as Corrosion
The central thesis of National Socialist ideology was: the modern world had fallen into an existential crisis—not through external enemies, not through historical accidents, but through an inner process of corrosion. This process was identified as the work of abstract, corrosive thinking.
This diagnosis was more radical than any other critique of modernity—more radical even than the Marxist one. For Marx criticized bourgeois society in the name of reason. “Scientific socialism” wanted to overcome modernity through rational analysis, through conscious organization of society, through sublation of alienation in a higher form of community. Marx remained part of the Enlightenment project.
National Socialism saw precisely this as the problem. Marxist critique is itself “corrosive thinking.” Marxism analyzes, criticizes, calls into question—and thereby corrodes community. It preaches class struggle (corroding the unity of the people), internationalism (corroding the nation), materialist analysis (corroding the myth). “Jewish Bolshevism” appeared to National Socialism as the most dangerous form of corrosion—because it is intellectually coherent, organized, and revolutionary.
The radical consequence of this position: if all thinking corrodes—not only the bourgeois, but also the Marxist—then the only remaining “solution” is the total rejection of thinking itself. Not critique of reason (as with Kant), not dialectical sublation of reason (as with Hegel), not materialist inversion of reason (as with Marx), but overcoming reason through instinct, feeling, myth, blood.
The Three “Corrosive” Manifestations of Thought
National Socialist ideology identified three domains in which “corrosive thinking” was destroying the modern world:
Capitalist money appeared as the first manifestation. Money is the purest form of abstraction—it makes all concrete goods commensurable, comparable, exchangeable. A house, a work of art, human labor power—all are brought to the same abstract denominator: exchange value. Money is “rootless”—it knows no homeland, no loyalty, no bond to soil or people. It calculates where one should believe. It computes where one should feel. The rule of “grasping” over “creative” capital destroys all concrete bonds—family, estate, nation, tradition.
The Marxist class struggle appeared as the second manifestation. Intellectual critique calls the existing order into question, analytically dismembers it, exposes its supposed contradictions. Marxism preaches class struggle (corroding the people’s community), internationalism (corroding the nation), materialist analysis (corroding the myth). It is thinking itself in its most corrosive form—critical, analytical, universal. That Marx himself was of Jewish origin became a “confirmation” of this construction.
Liberal Enlightenment appeared as the third manifestation. Critical thinking questions all authorities—the church, the state, tradition, the family. It demands justification where one should obey. It demands discussion where one should act. Human rights postulate the equality of all human beings—against “natural” hierarchy. The freedom of the individual stands against the unity of the people. Individual conscience stands against collective obedience.
The common core of all three manifestations: they are manifestations of thinking—of abstraction, critique, reflection, calculation. All three stem from modernity, from the project of the Enlightenment. All three destroy the immediate, the concrete, the organically grown.
This diagnosis was not entirely false—and this made it so dangerous. The atomization of modern society, the uprooting of individuals, the rule of instrumental rationality, the leveling of qualitative differences through money—all these were real phenomena that Marx, Weber, Tönnies, Simmel had analyzed. National Socialist ideology took up these diagnoses—but drew murderous consequences from them.
28.4.2 The Fascist “Solution” - Return to Immediacy
National Socialist ideology offered a radical “solution” to the diagnosed crisis: not the continuation of the Enlightenment through better justification, not dialectical sublation of modernity in a higher synthesis—but the return to premodern, “natural,” “original” orders. What the Enlightenment had destroyed was to be restored: myth instead of critique, community instead of society, instinct instead of reflection, Führer instead of discourse.
Myth Instead of History
The Enlightenment had developed the historical-critical method. It showed that myths are human constructions, that traditions arose historically and are changeable, that no institution is “natural” or “eternal.” National Socialist ideology rejected this historical enlightenment. In its place came myth as original, immediate truth.
The Germanic myth, the “Aryan” primal people, the eternal race—all this was not a historical construction but a natural given. It existed before all history; it grounded the people in its “essence.” Alfred Rosenberg’s “Myth of the Twentieth Century” (1930)—700 pages of pseudo-scientific speculation—attempted to reconstruct this myth. It could not be justified—it was to be experienced, grasped intuitively, believed unreflectively.
Community Instead of Society
Ferdinand Tönnies had coined the distinction between “community” (Gemeinschaft) and “society” (Gesellschaft) in 1887. Modernity had replaced traditional communities with abstract society—an aggregate of individuals connected by contracts, laws, interests. National Socialist ideology took up this distinction and radicalized it: the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community) was to overcome cold, atomized society.
This people’s community was not contract, but destiny. One was born into it, one belonged to it by blood, one could not escape it. It was not the result of individual decision, but a prior substance that constituted the individual. The individual was nothing without the people; the people was everything. “You are nothing, your people is everything”—this formula captured the extinction of the individual in a concept.
Blood and Soil Instead of Abstraction
Modernity had alienated the human being from his concrete place, his natural surroundings, his corporeal being. It had made him an abstract individual, a “person” who is everywhere and nowhere—interchangeable, uprooted, homeless. National Socialist ideology demanded the re-binding to blood and soil.
Blood meant: racial substance, biological inheritance, physical constitution. The human being was not primarily spirit, reason, consciousness—but body, race, biological being. His abilities, his character, his worth were racially determined. Not what someone did, but what he was—biologically, from birth—determined his worth.
Soil meant: rootedness in concrete space, in the land, in territory. The human being was not a cosmopolitan citizen of the world, but a peasant who lives from his land, who grows together with his land, who defends his land against strangers. The idealization of the peasantry (against the “decadent” city), the longing for “living space” in the East, Darré’s blood-and-soil rhetoric—all this expressed this re-binding.
Führer Instead of Discourse
Democracy rested on the assumption that political truth is found through discourse—through deliberation, argumentation, compromise-formation between different opinions. National Socialist ideology rejected this procedure as “chatter,” as endless reasoning, as parliamentarism leading nowhere except to paralysis and corrosion.
In place of discourse came the Führer principle: one man—the Führer—embodies the will of the people immediately. He thinks for the people, he decides for the people, he is the people in one person. The Führer needs no legitimation through election, through discourse, through rational justification. He is charismatic authority, self-authenticating through his mere existence. “The Führer is always right”—this was not an argumentative position, but an article of faith.
The Performative Contradiction - The “Natural” Values Are Constructed
Here the fundamental contradiction of the fascist worldview becomes apparent, confirming Hösle’s diagnosis of the failure of the counter-Enlightenment: these “natural” values are precisely not natural—they are constructed, invented, propagated. The attempt to restore immediacy is itself mediated—and thus immediacy is already lost.
The “Aryan race” is a construction—it does not exist scientifically. It must be defined, measured, certified. The “Nuremberg Race Laws” defined with juridical precision who counted as “Jewish”—counting grandparents, calculating percentages, checking family trees. The “Aryan certificate” required bureaucratic effort. The more “natural” the race was supposed to be, the more administrative mediation was necessary.
Myth did not grow—it is invented. Rosenberg had to write 700 pages to construct the “Myth of the Twentieth Century.” The myth had to be propagated—taught in schools, spread in newspapers, broadcast on radio, staged in film. The more original it was supposed to be, the more modern means (press, radio, film) it required.
The “natural” instinct had to be educated. The Hitler Youth, the SS schools, the Ordensburgen—all institutions designed to produce the “natural” instinct. Instinct is not immediate—it is the result of years of indoctrination. One had to learn systematically to “instinctively” hate.
The unity of Führer and people had to be staged—through mass rallies, cathedrals of light, propaganda films, radio broadcasts. Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” shows the technical perfection of this staging. Immediacy was mediated through the most modern technology.
The Volksgemeinschaft was manufactured—through terror against dissidents, through the coordination (Gleichschaltung) of all institutions, through permanent propaganda. The more organic it was supposed to be, the more violence was needed to enforce it.
National Socialism thus enacted the performative contradiction of the counter-Enlightenment in its purest form: it wanted, with the utmost exertion (propaganda, terror, indoctrination), to produce the immediate (instinct, feeling, myth). It wanted, through organization (party, SS, state), to enforce the organic (Volksgemeinschaft, blood, soil). It wanted, through technology (modern weapons, industrial production, mass media), to return to nature (race, instinct, life). It wanted, through reflection (race theory, historical myth, state philosophy), to overcome reflection.
The Paradox of Technology - Glorification and Rejection at Once
This paradox is particularly evident in the stance toward technology. On the one hand, National Socialism glorified the most modern technology—autobahns, the “Volkswagen,” airplanes, tanks, the notorious “wonder weapons.” Propaganda staged great technical projects as an expression of German genius. The industrial extermination machinery of the concentration camps was itself a triumph of perverted technical rationality.
On the other hand, the same ideology propagated romantic attachment to nature, rejection of “decadent” urbanity, return to blood and soil. The Nazis enacted progressive nature-protection laws, promoted biodynamic agriculture, practiced animal welfare—not despite, but because of their ideology. The “purity” of nature mirrored the desired “purity” of the body of the people.
The resolution of this paradox: technology was valued not for its own sake, but exclusively as a means to an end—war, annihilation, racial policy. The autobahns were roads for military deployment. The airplanes were bombers. The chemistry produced Zyklon B. National Socialism wanted to use modern means for anti-modern ends.
This did not work. Technology generates its own rationality—calculation, planning, organization, division of labor. The more National Socialism relied on technology, the more it had to calculate rationally. The Wehrmacht needed engineers, not heroes. Industry needed planning, not instinct. Extermination needed bureaucracy, not myth. One cannot fight modernity with technology—for technology is modernity.
28.4.3 Immanent Critique - Where the Argumentation Collapses
National Socialist ideology presented itself as an alternative to the Enlightenment. It wanted to solve the problems of modernity by rejecting modern rationality. But this rejection was itself a rational act. The National Socialist ideologues argued for their position, they analyzed modernity, they criticized the Enlightenment—with the means they claimed to reject.
We can systematically expose the incoherences of National Socialist ideology by measuring it against four basic requirements that constitute all reasonable thought and legitimate action: self-application, differentiation, mediation, and recognition. These requirements are not arbitrarily chosen external standards. They are performatively inescapable—whoever thinks, argues, acts necessarily presupposes them. One can deny them—but only through self-contradiction.
The Failure at Self-Application
National Socialist ideology immunized itself against critique. Myth, the Führer, race were absolute truths—not questionable, not correctable, not falsifiable. Whoever questioned the ideology was declared a “corrupter,” an enemy who had to be annihilated.
But this rejection of reflection was itself a reflexive act. The National Socialist ideologues reflected on the dangers of reflection. They analyzed how Enlightenment critique destroyed traditional orders. They argued for the position that one should not argue. Rosenberg wrote 700 pages to justify why myth needs no justification.
This contradiction is performative: whoever says “one should not think” is thinking. Whoever says “reflection is corrosive” is reflecting on the effect of reflection. Whoever says “myth is immediate truth” has already made myth an object of reflection—and thereby destroyed its immediacy.
National Socialist ideology could not resolve this contradiction. It used the means of the Enlightenment (analysis, argumentation, critique) to combat the Enlightenment. It deployed reason to reject reason. It was counter-Enlightenment Enlightenment—a contradiction in itself.
The political consequence of this contradiction: the system could not allow self-correction. A legitimate order needs institutions that can examine its own decisions—separation of powers, constitutional jurisdiction, free press, opposition. National Socialism eliminated all of this. The result was not stability, but rigidity—and finally collapse.
The Failure at Differentiation
National Socialist ideology reduced the complexity of the modern world to simple oppositions: Aryan vs. Jew. Healthy vs. sick. Valuable vs. life unworthy of life. Friend vs. foe. This reduction was supposed to create orientation in a confusing world. It made complex problems (economic crisis, social disintegration, cultural insecurity) tangible—by projecting them onto an identifiable enemy.
But this reduction was itself a highly complex intellectual act. To reduce the world to the opposition “Aryan vs. Jew,” one had to develop a race theory classifying biological differences. One had to design a philosophy of history interpreting all historical events as racial struggle. One had to construct an explanatory model tracing all problems of modernity back to a single cause. One had to create an ideology legitimating these constructions as “natural truth.”
All of this required the most differentiated analysis, the most complex argumentation, the most abstract thinking. National Socialist ideology used the means of abstraction to combat abstraction. It deployed complex theory to negate complexity.
The practical implementation of racial ideology required the highest administrative, bureaucratic, technical rationality. The “Nuremberg Race Laws” (1935) defined with juridical precision who counted as “Jewish”—by grandparents, by religious affiliation, by percentages. The deportations required logistical masterpieces—timetables, transport capacities, coordination between authorities. Mass extermination required industrial efficiency—gas chambers, crematoria, exploitation of corpses.
Hannah Arendt spoke of the “banality of evil”: Eichmann was no demonic villain, but a bureaucrat who efficiently fulfilled his task. Extermination was not irrational in the sense of chaotic—it was instrumentally rational to the point of excess. But it deployed this rationality for destructive purposes.
The Failure at Mediation
Modernity was full of contradictions: freedom vs. equality. Individual vs. community. Tradition vs. progress. Reason vs. feeling. A dialectical philosophy seeks the mediation of such contradictions: a higher synthesis that integrates both sides, overcomes their one-sidedness, preserves their partial truths.
National Socialist ideology offered no mediation. It offered the annihilation of one side. Not integration of opposites, but elimination. Not freedom and community, but community against freedom. Not tradition and progress, but myth against history. Not reason and feeling, but feeling against reason. Not different peoples together, but one people against all others.
This rejection of dialectic had practical consequences: conflicts were not mediated, but decided—through power, through violence, through annihilation. Opponents were not persuaded, but eliminated. Contradictions were not sublated, but suppressed. The result was an ideology that was self-destructive.
For a system that knows no mediation can maintain itself only through permanent expansion, permanent struggle, permanent annihilation. It had no goal, only a process: struggle itself. “Life is struggle”—this formula meant that peace itself became a threat. When the war was lost, only self-destruction remained—Hitler in the bunker, Goebbels’s call for “total war” to the last cartridge, the “Nero Decree” for the destruction of the country’s own infrastructure.
The Failure at Recognition
This is the deepest contradiction of National Socialist ideology. It claimed recognition for the German people, for the “Aryan race,” for its own worldview—but it denied recognition to everyone else.
The Führer claimed absolute authority—but legitimated this authority through the will of the people. He wanted to be recognized as the embodiment of the popular will—but this recognition was not mutual, but one-sided submission. The people were to acclaim the Führer, not deliberate with him.
The German people claimed the status of “master race”—but this status was not to be earned through achievement, culture, merit, but through mere belonging to the race. It demanded recognition—but without itself recognizing anything. Other peoples were to submit or disappear.
The “subhumans” (Jews, Slavs, Roma, people with disabilities) were declared objects—to be annihilated, enslaved, instrumentalized. They were denied all subjectivity, all rights, all dignity. They were biological pests, “parasites,” “vermin”—not human beings whom one would have to recognize.
But this total denial of recognition is performatively contradictory. For to fight someone, one must recognize them as an opponent. To subjugate someone, one must recognize them as capable of action. To annihilate someone, one must recognize them as existing.
National Socialist ideology constructed “the Jew” as an all-powerful threat—as the wire-puller of world revolution, as master of finance capital, as corrupter of culture. This construction implicitly recognized the power, the ability, the intelligence “of the Jews”—and simultaneously denied it by declaring Jews “subhumans.” “The Jew” was simultaneously despicably weak and threateningly strong—a contradiction pointing to the irrationality of the construction.
National Socialist ideology wanted to shape the world order according to its conceptions—but a world order based on the annihilation of recognition destroys itself. For no order can be stable if it systematically negates the subjectivity of the people over whom it rules. Domination without recognition is mere violence—and mere violence generates resistance, until it collapses.
Summary: The Fourfold Failure
National Socialist ideology failed at all four basic requirements of reasonable thought:
It failed at self-application, because it rejected reflection but reflected itself—and thereby allowed no self-correction.
It failed at differentiation, because it reduced complexity but itself required highly complex constructions—and falsified reality.
It failed at mediation, because it tried to solve contradictions through annihilation instead of integration—and thereby became self-destructive.
It failed at recognition, because it demanded recognition but denied it—and thereby undermined its own legitimacy.
This fourfold failure was not accidental. It followed from the basic structure of the counter-Enlightenment: the attempt to fight modernity with the means of modernity, to step reflectively out of reflection, to return mediately to immediacy. This attempt had to fail—and its failure cost millions of human lives.
28.4.4 The Systematic Coherence of Antisemitism - Personification of the Abstract
Antisemitism was not an irrational addition to National Socialist ideology, not mere resentment, not a chance projection. It was the logical consequence of the fascist basic structure—the element that held the ideology together and gave it a murderous dynamic. To understand this, we must reconstruct the inner logic of the argument—not to justify it, but to show why it appeared (from its own perspective) coherent and why it led to annihilation.
The Biologization of Thought
National Socialist ideology diagnosed modernity as corrosion through abstraction. This corrosion manifested itself in three domains: in capitalist money (economic abstraction), in Marxist class struggle (political abstraction), in liberal Enlightenment (cultural abstraction). All three were identified as manifestations of “corrosive thinking.”
Here National Socialism carried out its decisive ideological operation: it biologized thinking itself.
The thesis was not: “the Jews think wrongly”—that would still have been a position within the space of argument, which one could refute. The thesis was: “thinking is Jewish”—a biological essence, not an argument. Corrosive, abstract, critical thinking is not something people do—it is something people are, on account of their biological constitution.
This biologization amalgamated all three “corrosive” forces into a unified threat:
- Finance capital -> “Jewish” capital (Rothschilds, Warburgs)
- Marxism -> “Jewish” Bolshevism (Marx, Trotsky, Luxemburg)
- The Enlightenment -> “Jewish” intellectualism (Spinoza, Mendelssohn, Einstein, Freud)
The antisemitic synthesis made from three disparate phenomena a single “Jewish world conspiracy.” The contradiction that capitalism and communism are opposites did not disturb—for both were interpreted as manifestations of the same “Jewish spirit,” which wants to rule peoples either through money or through revolution.
The Personification of the Abstract
Moishe Postone has precisely analyzed the structure of this ideology: modern antisemitism is a personification of the abstract.[1] The abstract powers of modernity—money, critique, universalism, rationality—are invisible, intangible, hard to combat. One cannot shoot “capital,” cannot imprison “the Enlightenment,” cannot deport “abstraction.”
Antisemitism made the abstract concrete. It projected the abstract processes of modernity onto an identifiable group—“the Jews.” Suddenly the intangible had a face, a name, an address. One could combat it, imprison it, annihilate it.
This construction apparently “solved” the performative contradiction of the counter-Enlightenment. For the problem was: how does one argue against arguing? How does one justify not justifying? How does one think against thinking?
The National Socialist “solution”: one biologizes thinking. “Thinking is Jewish”—this is not an opinion one could criticize, but a “biological fact.” Thus National Socialist values could be claimed as “natural,” without rational justification. They are not thought (that would be “Jewish”), but felt, instinctive, “in the blood.” The “Aryan” does not think—he feels, he acts, he fights. Thinking he leaves to “the Jews”—in order then to annihilate it.
The Logic of Annihilation
Biologization explains the murderous consequence. If thinking is a biological essence, one cannot overcome it through argument—one must annihilate its biological bearers.
With a “wrong thought” one could re-educate, persuade, convert the person. But with a “biological essence,” re-education is impossible—the Jew can no more stop being a Jew than the leopard can change its spots. Assimilation, conversion, integration—all this is meaningless when “the Jewish” lies in the blood.
The “Final Solution” was therefore not excess, not derailment, not pathological escalation—it was the logical consequence of the worldview. If “the Jew” is the biological embodiment of corrosion, then the annihilation of “the Jews” is the only possibility of overcoming modernity. The Shoah was the “demonstration” of the evil—the proof that one was consistently against thinking, to the point of mass murder.
The Central Function of Antisemitism
Antisemitism was not one element among others, but the center of the National Socialist worldview. All other elements—Volksgemeinschaft, the Führer principle, blood and soil, racial hierarchy—derived their coherence from the antisemitic construction of the enemy.
The “Volksgemeinschaft” defined itself through the exclusion of “the Jews.” The “Führer principle” legitimated itself through the struggle against “Jewish corrosion.” “Blood and soil” were counter-concepts to “Jewish rootlessness.” The “Aryan race” existed only in opposition to the “Jewish race.”
Without the “Jewish enemy” National Socialist ideology would have lost its inner unity. It needed the enemy to define itself. Antisemitism was not an addendum, but a constitutive element.
This explains the obsession—the continuation of extermination when the war was long lost. In 1944/45, when the Wehrmacht was retreating on all fronts, when the cities lay in ruins, when defeat was inevitable, trains to Auschwitz were prioritized over military transports. From a “rational” viewpoint this was madness. From the logic of the ideology it was consistent: annihilation was more important than victory, for it was the actual purpose.
The Attractiveness for Various Groups
Antisemitism functioned as an integration ideology that appealed to various groups for various reasons:
For the masses it offered a simple explanation for complex crises. Not the world economy, not reparations, not the gold standard, not the structural problems of capitalism—but “the Jews” were to blame for unemployment, inflation, impoverishment. A tangible cause, an identifiable enemy, a simple solution.
For the middle classes it offered a projection screen for a double fear—of big capital above (“Jewish bankers”) and of the proletariat below (“Jewish Bolshevism”). The small self-employed businessman, the employee, the civil servant could see himself as a victim of both sides—and project both onto the same enemy.
For the ruling circles it offered a distraction from class conflicts. If rage is directed against “the Jews,” it is not directed against capital. Antisemitism channeled social discontent in a direction that did not threaten the property order.
The Systematic Point
The analysis shows: antisemitism was not irrational in the sense of arbitrary or accidental. It had an inner logic—a murderous logic, but a logic. It (apparently) “solved” the problem of the counter-Enlightenment, it integrated heterogeneous interests, it gave the ideology coherence and dynamic.
Precisely for this reason, mere moral condemnation of antisemitism is insufficient. One must understand its mode of functioning to grasp why it was attractive to millions—and to be able to combat it. Antisemitism is not “stupidity” or “malice,” but a certain processing of real problems of modernity—a false, destructive, murderous processing, but not one that can be removed through enlightenment alone.
The lesson for today: wherever abstract processes (globalization, digitalization, migration, financial crisis) are projected onto personified enemy images—onto “the elites,” “the foreigners,” “the others”—there the same structure is at work. To recognize it is the first step toward resisting it.
28.4.5 The Dynamic of Radicalization - Why Myth Drives Toward Totalization
Fascism did not begin as a totalitarian regime of annihilation. It began as a political movement that won votes in democratic elections, as a “legal revolution,” as an alliance with conservative elites. How did this movement become the most destructive regime of modernity? The answer lies in the inner logic of fascist ideology itself. Myth as the foundation of the worldview drives toward totalization, radicalization, violence. This is no contingent development, but systematic necessity.
Myth Knows No Boundary
A myth is not falsifiable. It cannot be refuted by arguments, because it does not rest on arguments. It is immediate certainty, intuitive truth, felt evidence. The Aryan “knows” instinctively that he is destined to rule—he need not justify it. The myth of the chosen people needs no proof.
This immunization against critique has a fatal consequence: myth knows no inner barrier.
A rational worldview can be compelled to self-correction through contradictions. If theory does not agree with empirical reality, theory must be revised. If the prognosis was wrong, the method must be examined. Karl Popper described this as “falsification”—the mark of scientific rationality.
Myth does not know this self-correction. Contradictions are not interpreted as falsification, but as proof of the power of the enemy. If the economy does not flourish, it is not the fault of National Socialist policy, but of “Jewish sabotage.” If the war is lost, it is not the fault of strategic errors, but of the “stab in the back” by “inner enemies.” If the “Volksgemeinschaft” is not harmonious, it is not the fault of terror, but of undiscovered “corrupters.”
Every failure becomes proof that one was not yet radical enough. Critics become enemies, doubters become traitors, those who warn become “defeatists.” The system cannot learn—it can only escalate.
The Stages of Radicalization
Robert Paxton identified in “The Anatomy of Fascism” (2004) five stages of fascist development: emergence, rooting, seizure of power, exercise of power, radicalization. This empirical observation—that fascist movements radicalize—is not accidental. It follows from the inner logic of myth.[2]
Stage 1: The enemy expands. Initially the enemy is concretely identified—“the Jews,” “the Bolsheviks,” “the liberals.” But the more one proceeds against them, the more “enemies” one discovers. For every critique, every doubt, every resistance is interpreted as “hostile.” Whoever criticizes the race laws is “related to Jews by marriage.” Whoever criticizes the war is a “defeatist.” Whoever criticizes the Führer is a “traitor.” The circle of enemies expands with every measure.
Stage 2: The purge becomes more radical. The first measures against the “enemy”—discrimination, disenfranchisement, boycott—do not solve the “problem.” For the problem is constructed—there is no “Jewish world conspiracy” one could eliminate. So more radical measures must follow. Discrimination becomes persecution, persecution becomes expulsion, expulsion becomes deportation, deportation becomes extermination. The logic: if the previous means have not worked, then they were not radical enough.
Stage 3: The outside world becomes hostile. Myth claims universal validity—the “Aryan race” is to rule the world. But the outside world does not recognize this claim—on the contrary, it criticizes, sanctions, resists. Myth cannot accept this non-recognition. So the outside world must be subjugated. Self-assertion becomes expansion, expansion becomes war, war becomes a war of annihilation.
Stage 4: Reality is denied. When the war is being lost, when resources are exhausted, when annihilation is obviously irrational—then reality is denied. Goebbels proclaims “total war” at the very moment the war is already lost. Hitler orders offensives with armies that no longer exist. The “Nero Decree” for the destruction of German infrastructure is justified thus: a people that loses the war has forfeited the right to exist.
This radicalization is not psychological derailment, not individual madness, not accidental escalation. It is the logical consequence of a worldview resting on myth rather than reason, on annihilation rather than mediation, on domination rather than recognition.
Cumulative Radicalization
The historian Hans Mommsen described National Socialist rule as “cumulative radicalization”—a process in which various actors outbid one another, without a central plan existing.[3] The Gauleiters competed for who was “most Jew-free.” The SS competed with the Wehrmacht for radicality. The bureaucracy outdid itself in efficient implementation.
This competition was not chance, but structurally built in. In a system that knows no rational criteria of success, radicality becomes the criterion of success. Whoever is most radical proves the greatest loyalty to the myth. Moderation becomes suspect—whoever is not radical could be “inwardly” an enemy.
The Führer principle reinforced this dynamic. Hitler often gave vague guidelines—“solve the Jewish problem”—and left the specifics to subordinates. These interpreted things “in the spirit of the Führer,” outbid one another in radicality, contributed to the escalation. The “Final Solution” arose not through an explicit order, but through cumulative radicalization—to the point of industrial extermination.
Self-Destruction
The logic of radicalization leads to self-destruction. A system that knows no limits ultimately destroys itself.
The extermination of the Jews bound resources needed for the war. The persecution of “inner enemies” weakened society. The attack on ever more countries overextended military forces. The refusal to recognize reality led to catastrophic decisions.
The National Socialist regime was not stable—it was in permanent motion, permanent radicalization, permanent expansion. It could not stop, for standstill would have been betrayal of the myth. It had to go ever further—to the point of total collapse.
The “thousand-year Reich” lasted twelve years. It ended in ruins, in millions of dead, in total defeat. Self-destruction was no accident—it was the logical consequence of a worldview that knew no self-limitation.
The Lesson
The dynamic of radicalization shows: fascism is not possible in “moderate” form. There is no “moderate” fascism that stops at a certain point. The inner logic drives toward totalization, escalation, annihilation.
Whoever accepts fascist elements—the “strong leader,” contempt for democracy, the construction of enemies, the myth of one’s own superiority—has no stable point at which he could stop. The logic of myth knows no boundary. What begins as “legitimate criticism of the elites” becomes a fantasy of annihilation. What begins as “national self-assertion” becomes a war of aggression. What begins as “us against them” becomes genocide.
The only possibility of stopping the radicalization is to reject its premises—to replace myth with reason, the construction of the enemy with recognition, annihilation with mediation. This is no guarantee against barbarism—but it is the only chance.
Moishe Postone: “Nationalsozialismus und Antisemitismus. Ein theoretischer Versuch,” in: Dan Diner (ed.): Zivilisationsbruch. Denken nach Auschwitz, Frankfurt/M.: Fischer, 1988, pp. 242-254. ↩︎
Robert O. Paxton: The Anatomy of Fascism, New York: Knopf, 2004; German: Anatomie des Faschismus, Munich: DVA, 2006. ↩︎
Hans Mommsen: “Die Realisierung des Utopischen: Die ‘Endlösung der Judenfrage’ im ‘Dritten Reich’,” in: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 9 (1983), pp. 381-420. ↩︎