WI/AHC: Spenglerism as a Major Ideology

[asnys]

So, Oswald Spengler. I recently read The Decline of the West, and that led me to read a brief bio of him (Prophet of Decline). Something I found very interesting is that he apparently tried to get into politics in the 1920's - evidently he was involved in discussions between right-wing financiers and military leaders about organizing a coup, with Spengler to be "Minister of Culture" or some equivalent in the new government. These discussions hadn't actually gone anywhere by the time Hitler took power, and despite Spengler's right-wing statist views he despised the Nazis, so he spent the last decade of his life writing more books rather then playing politician. And the Nazis and other fascists took up all the ideological space in the right-wing statist category, so "Spenglerism" never really became a political ideology as such.

The purpose of this thread is to examine what if it had: both what if "Spenglerism" emerged as a significant political ideology in the twentieth century, and, correspondingly, what if "Spenglerists" had taken power in Germany instead of the Nazis. In general, what if Spengler ends up as a right-wing version of Marx?

For those not familiar with Spengler's beliefs, here's a quick overview as of them as of Decline of the West. (We have some actual Spengler fans on this site, so you guys, let me know if I get any of this wrong.) His views did change later in life - becoming, actually, even more pessimistic - but I suspect a lot of that was due to his failure to break through politically, and he would stick more closely to his original beliefs if he had had more success. First, he was a cyclical macrohistorian: he divided societies up among various "cultures", each of which has a lifespan of about a thousand years or so, explicitly analogous to a biological organism. Western society - which he calls "Faustian" - emerged around 1,000 AD, and is now in terminal decline: our possibilities in art and philosophy and so on are largely exhausted, and there is no hope of rejuvenation. Faustian society has now left the "cultural" phase, which is active and growing, and entered the largely-stagnant "civilization" phase. In particular, we are approaching the point at which our civilization will finally petrify into a world-empire. ("World" in this case meaning the "world" of Faustian civilization, not necessarily the literal entire world - Rome was a "world-empire".) A world-empire may actually last much longer then a millennium, but history - in the sense of growth and meaningful change - will have ended. What is left to us is to face our destiny of decline and stagnation with boldness and heroism, even though we know that our end will be tragic. Spengler wanted to see Germany become the founder of that world-empire. He therefore emphasizes foreign policy as the real purpose of government; domestic policy's role is solely to keep society "in form" to serve foreign policy.

Now, I can't imagine Spengler ending up as the President or Kaiser or whatever of Germany, nor do I think he wanted that role. Even if successful, I think he would play more the role of party ideologue. However, there are a few things that make him unusual among right-wing statists: first, he was very smart, and while I disagree intensely with his beliefs, he had clearly put a lot of thought into them. This is very different from your typical fascists, who seem to have mostly been a bunch of gangsters and thugs for whom ideology was more of an excuse then a reason. Second, he was not particularly afraid of the communists, who he thought were serving the cause of right-wing statism even if they didn't realize it. In fact, he was a bit of a Russophile, and thought that Russia was a young, emerging culture that, in a few hundred years, would displace Faustian civilization. Russian communism he saw as a Faustian transplant to Russian soil that, as a foreign species, would inevitably wither and die of its own accord. Third, while he was a racist and anti-Semite by modern standards, by the standards of 1920's right-wingers he was positively tolerant: he thought "race" was a cultural rather then biological construct, and he didn't think there was anything wrong with other races, he just thought we could never really understand them, and any attempt to mix two races would therefore end in tears. This includes the Jews, who he saw a representatives of "Magian" (roughly, mid-eastern) culture - I suspect he would end up supporting Zionism as a way to get the Jews out of Europe.

All in all, while I disagree with Spengler intensely about almost everything, I find him just absolutely fascinating - The Decline of the West is one of the most interesting books I've read lately. So: what if Spengler actually makes some headway?

 

[Brundlefly]

So, Oswald Spengler. I recently read The Decline of the West, and that led me to read a brief bio of him (Prophet of Decline). Something I found very interesting is that he apparently tried to get into politics in the 1920's - evidently he was involved in discussions between right-wing financiers and military leaders about organizing a coup, with Spengler to be "Minister of Culture" or some equivalent in the new government. These discussions hadn't actually gone anywhere by the time Hitler took power, and despite Spengler's right-wing statist views he despised the Nazis, so he spent the last decade of his life writing more books rather then playing politician. And the Nazis and other fascists took up all the ideological space in the right-wing statist category, so "Spenglerism" never really became a political ideology as such.

I think Spengler's main problem with the Nazis was that, in his opinion, they focused too much on interior policy. I haven't got the exact quotation in front of me, but he wrote something along the lines of the Nazis being incapable of solving "the great questions of our times", which were of course the decline of European civilisation and the rise of Eastern Bolshevism. If he had still lived in 1941, he might even have revised his opinion and became an ardent supporter of Hitler. But if he had lived even longer, he might have changed his opinion again.

Like many contemporary writers of the German "Conservative Revolution", Spengler saw the Middle Ages as the Golden Age of Europe. There is a line ranging from the conservative nationalist intellectuals of the 1920s to certain oppositional circles (the "Kreisau Circle") and early conceptions of post-war F.R.G. politics: all of them saw Western parliamentarianism, especially political parties, as incompatible with German history and tradition. Their ideal states was mapped on the model of the Holy Roman Empire, with a strong state and divine regent, in which democracy is only practiced in very small local entities, and common bounds are not made by political interests, but historically grown entities like the church. I guess that this would be very close to something like "Spenglerism".

However, in recent political thinking there is another possibility: Samuel P. Huntingon's "The Clash of Civilizations" is very much Nietzsche/Spengler-influenced. Like Spengler, he saw civilisations having certain life circles. If you look at the writings of today's neoconservative thinkers, many regard the West as an old, "decadent" civilisation, which has difficulties with a "younger", more vitalist Islam. Their usual solution is a return to Christianity and an abandonment of Western permissive hedonism. One could argue that writers like Oriana Fallaci or Mark Steyn are, in fact, proponents of "Spenglerism". Fallaci even went so far to partially reject her former atheism at the end of her life.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

I think Spengler's main problem with the Nazis was that, in his opinion, they focused too much on interior policy. I haven't got the exact quotation in front of me, but he wrote something along the lines of the Nazis being incapable of solving "the great questions of our times", which were of course the decline of European civilisation and the rise of Eastern Bolshevism. If he had still lived in 1941, he might even have revised his opinion and became an ardent supporter of Hitler. But if he had lived even longer, he might have changed his opinion again.

Like many contemporary writers of the German "Conservative Revolution", Spengler saw the Middle Ages as the Golden Age of Europe. There is a line ranging from the conservative nationalist intellectuals of the 1920s to certain oppositional circles (the "Kreisau Circle") and early conceptions of post-war F.R.G. politics: all of them saw Western parliamentarianism, especially political parties, as incompatible with German history and tradition. Their ideal states was mapped on the model of the Holy Roman Empire, with a strong state and divine regent, in which democracy is only practiced in very small local entities, and common bounds are not made by political interests, but historically grown entities like the church. I guess that this would be very close to something like "Spenglerism".

However, in recent political thinking there is another possibility: Samuel P. Huntingon's "The Clash of Civilizations" is very much Nietzsche/Spengler-influenced. Like Spengler, he saw civilisations having certain life circles. If you look at the writings of today's neoconservative thinkers, many regard the West as an old, "decadent" civilisation, which has difficulties with a "younger", more vitalist Islam. Their usual solution is a return to Christianity and an abandonment of hedonism. One could argue that writers like Oriana Fallaci or Mark Steyn are, in fact, proponents of "Spenglerism". Fallaci even went so far in partially rejecting her former atheism at the end of her life.

So Spenglerism is BS then? Because that's fantasy.

 

[asnys]

I think Spengler's main problem with the Nazis was that, in his opinion, they focused too much on interior policy. I haven't got the exact quotation in front of me, but he wrote something along the lines of the Nazis being incapable of solving "the great questions of our times", which were of course the decline of European civilisation and the rise of Eastern Bolshevism. If he had still lived in 1941, he might even have revised his opinion and became an ardent supporter of Hitler. But if he had lived even longer, he might have changed his opinion again.

Perhaps. But - and this may just be fondness for the old goat overriding my good sense - I tend to think that, substantiative issues aside, Hitler's style would prove too incompatible with Spengler's scholarly nature for him to accept him.

Like many contemporary writers of the German "Conservative Revolution", Spengler saw the Middle Ages as the Golden Age of Europe. There is a line ranging from the conservative nationalist intellectuals of the 1920s to certain oppositional circles (the "Kreisau Circle") and early conceptions of post-war F.R.G. politics: all of them saw Western parliamentarianism, especially political parties, as incompatible with German history and tradition. Their ideal states was mapped on the model of the Holy Roman Empire, with a strong state and divine regent, in which democracy is only practiced in very small local entities, and common bounds are not made by political interests, but historically grown entities like the church. I guess that this would be very close to something like "Spenglerism".

I don't know, while he seems to pine for those old days, he also seems to think they were permanently lost. He seems to see the Empire of the Future as aristocratic and elitist, but more Ceasarist then medieval.

However, in recent political thinking there is another possibility: Samuel P. Huntingon's "The Clash of Civilizations" is very much Nietzsche/Spengler-influenced. Like Spengler, he saw civilisations having certain life circles. If you look at the writings of today's neoconservative thinkers, many regard the West as an old, "decadent" civilisation, which has difficulties with a "younger", more vitalist Islam. Their usual solution is a return to Christianity and an abandonment of Western permissive hedonism. One could argue that writers like Oriana Fallaci or Mark Steyn are, in fact, proponents of "Spenglerism". Fallaci even went so far to partially reject her former atheism at the end of her life.

That's not really "Spenglerism", though, that's just one historical philosopher influencing other historical philosophers.

So Spenglerism is BS then? Because that's fantasy.

Speaking as a Polakist, I think he's wrong - though, IIRC, his reasons for disdaining parliamentarianism were about plutocracy and elitism rather then because it was "incompatible with the German nation". But he's a very interesting wrong. And people can be very wrong but still have enormous influence on history.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

I admire Spengler's work, but there's nothing simplistic enough in his thinking to provide the framework for a mass ideology. And his theory of history certainly couldn't provide the basis for an anti-Semitic worldview. He locates the Jews historically within a larger "Magian" civilization that also includes the Byzantine world and the Arabs under Islam, and he argues that the development of the Magian civilization was distorted by the oppression of the Romans. Thus one could argue that Spenglerism is rather protective of the Jews in its own curious way (it doesn't single them out). Spengler briefly supported Hitler but soon became disillusioned. If he'd lived, he might have ended up in one of Hitler's concentration camps. Most people know Spengler from Decline of the West but his shorter Man and Technic is also well worth reading and is perhaps the closest thing to an ideology that he has to offer.

 

[Octosteel]

After reading all this, I'm definitely ordering a copy of Decline of the West. Sounds fascinating.

 

[asnys]

I admire Spengler's work, but there's nothing simplistic enough in his thinking to provide the framework for a mass ideology.

That is true. But I don't think Spengler wanted to create a "mass" ideology - I think his target audience was the elite, the aristocrats of his future world-empire.

Most people know Spengler from Decline of the West but his shorter Man and Technic is also well worth reading and is perhaps the closest thing to an ideology that he has to offer.

That's on my TBR list, but so far all I know about it is the summary in Prophet of Decline. Isn't that the one where he goes "mankind is doomed to extinction"?

After reading all this, I'm definitely ordering a copy of Decline of the West. Sounds fascinating.

It is. Like I said, I disagree with him intensely, but he's an extremely interesting thinker.

 

[GeographyDude]

Okay, so Spegler thought larger(?) cultures went from growth to stagnation in about a thousand years.

Even if this is true as a general rule of thumb, speaking as a poker player, the variation among individual cultures could easily, easily be from 200 to 3,000 years. That is, we tend to underestimate the amount of variation about a norm.

 

[mrmandias]

Spengler's main problem with the Nazis was that he thought they were all bombast and parades without a clear-eyed, ruthless, competent focus on national survival. His famous quote about Hitler was 'Germany needs a hero, not a heroic tenor.'

 

[asnys]

Okay, so Spegler thought larger(?) cultures went from growth to stagnation in about a thousand years.

Even if this is true as a general rule of thumb, speaking as a poker player, the variation among individual cultures could easily, easily be from 200 to 3,000 years. That is, we tend to underestimate the amount of variation about a norm.

You need to remember that Spengler thought cultures like the Chinese and the Indian were already in their petrified "post-historical" period. So the fact they're still around is not, in his view, a disproof of his thesis. Similarly, Spengler thought the West was already petrifying, not only based on his organismic analogy, but also because of contemporary empirical evidence - so, even if other cultures might hypothetically last longer, we won't. We might last as a post-historical civilization for an arbitrarily long time, until some new culture overthrows us, but meaningful historical growth and change will be over.

 

[Brundlefly]

I admire Spengler's work, but there's nothing simplistic enough in his thinking to provide the framework for a mass ideology. And his theory of history certainly couldn't provide the basis for an anti-Semitic worldview. He locates the Jews historically within a larger "Magian" civilization that also includes the Byzantine world and the Arabs under Islam, and he argues that the development of the Magian civilization was distorted by the oppression of the Romans. Thus one could argue that Spenglerism is rather protective of the Jews in its own curious way (it doesn't single them out). Spengler briefly supported Hitler but soon became disillusioned. If he'd lived, he might have ended up in one of Hitler's concentration camps. Most people know Spengler from Decline of the West but his shorter Man and Technic is also well worth reading and is perhaps the closest thing to an ideology that he has to offer.

It's hard to tell. Based on my knowledge, Spengler saw day-to-day politics as too profane. He didn't think in terms of an election period, let alone a year, but in terms of centuries.

Perhaps. But - and this may just be fondness for the old goat overriding my good sense - I tend to think that, substantiative issues aside, Hitler's style would prove too incompatible with Spengler's scholarly nature for him to accept him.

That seems likely. I guess, like other "young conservative" writers, there was a distrust of the petty bourgeois, square types that made up the original core of the Nazis. Many of the conservative intellectuals actually looked up to Mussolini more than the early forms of völkisch National-Socialism.

That's not really "Spenglerism", though, that's just one historical philosopher influencing other historical philosophers.

True, but that's how political ideologies often develop. One can see it in Marxism, which has developed into several, often conflicting strands over the decades with the sole similarity of vaguely referring to "Capital" or "The Manifesto of the Communist Party". Still, there are historians who wrote that actually Marx himself couldn't be labelled a Marxist. I could imagine the same thing happening to the works of Spengler, especially if a distinct political movement is formed on its basis.

The thing is that, like Marx' "dictatorship of the proletariat", the title "Decline of the West" has become such a catchphrase, almost a cliché in political and cultural debates, that it distorts Spengler's original viewpoint that the West wasn't in fact coming to an end, but entering a new historic phase. People who're into the Huntington idea of a "clash of civilisations" often argue that Western societies are too decadent and therefore going to fail soon - that's basically a Spenglerian idea distorted and projected into the political conflicts of today.

I think a "Spenglerist" ideology would probably also split on the question of the start of Western culture. By his definition, it begins roughly with the Frankonian empire in 1000, this making the 20th century its older stage. If another Spenglerist says that it started later, e.g. with the beginning of the "Gutenberg galaxy", the exploration of the world and humanism/Renaissance, one could argue that today's 'decadent' phase is actually not the end, but the high phase of the West.

But he's a very interesting wrong. And people can be very wrong but still have enormous influence on history.

From today's perspective, his ideas on the Russian culture, which he regarded as possibly the next dominating one, are particularly curious. To use Spengler's terms, was Stalinism/Bolshevism possibly the formation phase of the Russian culture, like the Frankonian was for the West? Many scholars say that Russian politics today lacks a certain ideology, but pretends to have one - this reminds me of Spengler's ideas on cultures "suppressing" their instincts while longing to adopt elements of other cultures, which inevitably leads to conflict and an aggressive nature.

 

[Deimos]

I think Spengler is a fascinating writer to read and I would really like to see a Spenglerian state philososphy - I think we do not experiment enough with ideologies, philosophies and religions on this site.

The problem I see is that Spengler's intellectual appeal is also his downfall in terms of mass appeal. The Decline of the West is a book that touches upon many topics such as the relationship between mathematics and music in a certain culture and his wide approach is more akin to the unorganised methoods of Renaissance scholars than his contemporaries.
Furthermore, it is hard to pin down what a political Spenglerism would actually look like. As it stands Spenglerism denotes a certain pessimistic cyclical view on history but not a political ideology. In the broadest terms that come to mind and judging from his works "Prussiandom and Socialism" and "The Hour of Decision", I would perhaps tentatively call it a conservative semi-aristocratic meritocracy that still desires mass appeal.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

To the OP, I think the archive of the late, great, John J. Reilly is worth perusing:

http://web.archive.org/web/20121005134227/http://www.johnreilly.info/

 

[Brundlefly]

Furthermore, it is hard to pin down what a political Spenglerism would actually look like. As it stands Spenglerism denotes a certain pessimistic cyclical view on history but not a political ideology. In the broadest terms that come to mind and judging from his works "Prussiandom and Socialism" and "The Hour of Decision", I would perhaps tentatively call it a conservative semi-aristocratic meritocracy that still desires mass appeal.

From "Prussiandom and Socialism" I'd say that the closest a present-day political regime comes to the political thinking of Spengler is probably post-Deng Xiaoping China: combining a non-"Western" (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) approach to capitalism with a strong, authoritarian state; embracing technological progress, but maintaining cultural conformity, while being not overtly ideological.

 

[Deimos]

From "Prussiandom and Socialism" I'd say that the closest a present-day political regime comes to the political thinking of Spengler is probably post-Deng Xiaoping China: combining a non-"Western" (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) approach to capitalism with a strong, authoritarian state; embracing technological progress, but maintaining cultural conformity, while being not overtly ideological.

That is actually a very neat analogy. I had not considered China in that way because of their lip-service to communism but I think you might be very close to what Spenglerism could look like in that example.

 

[asnys]

True, but that's how political ideologies often develop. One can see it in Marxism, which has developed into several, often conflicting strands over the decades with the sole similarity of vaguely referring to "Capital" or "The Manifesto of the Communist Party". Still, there are historians who wrote that actually Marx himself couldn't be labelled a Marxist. I could imagine the same thing happening to the works of Spengler, especially if a distinct political movement is formed on its basis.

Ah, I thought you were suggesting that a "Spenglerism" had formed in OTL. Sorry.

The problem I see is that Spengler's intellectual appeal is also his downfall in terms of mass appeal. The Decline of the West is a book that touches upon many topics such as the relationship between mathematics and music in a certain culture and his wide approach is more akin to the unorganised methoods of Renaissance scholars than his contemporaries.
Furthermore, it is hard to pin down what a political Spenglerism would actually look like. As it stands Spenglerism denotes a certain pessimistic cyclical view on history but not a political ideology. In the broadest terms that come to mind and judging from his works "Prussiandom and Socialism" and "The Hour of Decision", I would perhaps tentatively call it a conservative semi-aristocratic meritocracy that still desires mass appeal.

This is true. Like I said, I have a hard time seeing Spenglerism ever becoming a mass ideology, except in a very watered-down form. But I think Spengler was trying to influence the German political elites, rather then the masses.

To the OP, I think the archive of the late, great, John J. Reilly is worth perusing:

http://web.archive.org/web/20121005134227/http://www.johnreilly.info/

He's the guy who wrote a book predicting the next few centuries of history based on a BASIC program, isn't he? I did actually read that.

From "Prussiandom and Socialism" I'd say that the closest a present-day political regime comes to the political thinking of Spengler is probably post-Deng Xiaoping China: combining a non-"Western" (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) approach to capitalism with a strong, authoritarian state; embracing technological progress, but maintaining cultural conformity, while being not overtly ideological.

I think this makes sense. However, I think a Spenglerist Germany would probably also be more expansionist then China is at the moment: probably not recklessly so, the way the Nazis were, but if they believe that somebody is going to form a World Empire, and they want it to be them, well... The conclusion is obvious.