This blog entry is here completely by proxy. In the previous one I pondered German philosophy and its connections to German political ideas. Then I came across Dr Jari Leskinen's book "Towards socialism, The Marxist Pilot Project at Pirkkala Schools" that has raised some eyebrows in Finland.*
Dr Leskinen, a historian, explains that in the early 1970's the Finnish Social Democratic Party** had lots of representatives in the Ministry of Education and its Elementary School section. At the same time, Finnish universities had some active leftist social science researchers. With the funding of the said Elementary School Section, a group of researchers started a pilot project in the municipality of Pirkkala. New and obviously very Marxist material featured in the curriculum of Geography, History and Social Studies for 7..16 year old pupils. Additionally a visitor from the Finnish Soviet Union Friendship Association*** explained merits of socialism based on material produced in Moscow (in Finnish). All this is well documented.
Leskinen thinks that the eventual goal of the pilot could have been to integrate Marxist education in the elementary/secondary school curriculum and therefore encourage the pupils to vote socialists (after the pupils had turned adults of course). Thus Finland could undergo a peaceful revolution and became socialist. This sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory and it is not as well documented.
Back to philosophy. Most of the social scientists behind the pilot seemed very convinced about the so-called marxist-leninist theory and methodology in social sciences. As an example of this Leskinen mentions that the researchers wanted to expose how the capitalist hegemony and ideology is ingrained in institutions like the [Finnish Lutheran] church and army. ****
The fun and maybe dangerous part of the dogmatic marxist-leninist philosophy appears in the Moscow published material used by the visiting lecturer (please note that this was not a part of the curriculum). The book titled "Soviet Union, Your Questions Answered" was published by Finnish Soviet Union Friendship Association, of course. A citizen of a capitalist country visiting the Soviet Union will naturally have many questions. The answers given in the book are somewhat perfect application of reasoning though the premisses and the conclusions do not necessarily have a lot to do with reality. Here are some examples (translations are ad hoc and shortened, not literal).
Q: Why is there no youth culture like rock'n'roll in the Soviet Union? A: In capitalist countries there is antagonism and generation gap because the youth still sees though the corruption but the older generation is made cynical by capitalist exploitation. In the Soviet [you can imagine the rest].
Q: Why are there no fashionable clothes and accessories? A: The Soviet system efficiently produces things that meet people's needs. Fashion is rubbish and the enlightened Soviet citizens do not want it.*****
Q: Is there pollution and environmental damage in the Soviet Union? A: In the capitalist system, means of productions are owned by the rich who only care about their profits. For them, protecting people and the environment are just a cost. In the Soviet Union, the factories are owned by people. Special care is taken [you can imagine the rest].
* Just in case anyone reads this blog: Finland was never a socialist country.
** This party resembles Labour in the UK. It's not a communist party.
*** This was much more than a club. It was a semi-official meeting point for Soviet and Finnish politicians, received lots of grants from the government and had more than 100 000 members in the 1970's.
**** In France the philosopher Louis Althusser had similar ideas. In the UK Paul Willis' Learning to Labour is quite famous.
***** Coincidence: Niall Ferguson in Civilization mentions "consumer society" as one of the "killer applications" of the West.
Friday, November 25, 2016
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Was German philosophy really dangerous?
Again, quoting Watson's The German Genius:
As the German theologian Paul Tillich was to write later, “It is not without some justification that the names of Nietzsche and Heidegger are connected with the anti-moral movements of fascism and national socialism.” I would like to add Spengler in that list. His The Decline of the West is surprisingly social-darwinist. And there was even an "official" nazi philosopher/jurist Carl Schmitt.
Should we blame German philosophy for the rise of national socialism? Influential thinkers can put forward ideas that are readily adopted by others. These ideas may promote contempt to rationality (Nietzsche, according to some interpretations), or embrace Volk (German people) as sacred (some texts by Heidegger), or see violent conflicts between nations natural and desirable.
However, this sounds a bit too easy. There were radical social darwinists and nationalist philosophers/authors (de Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Lothrop Stoddard) in other countries. They may have become famous had their ideology won.
Moreover, German philosophy was/is in general well-known, as is nazism, so some people will want to make a connection between them.
But it is interesting how the German intelligentsia accepted the nazi ideology so readily. Though Watson has good comments about it, the heavyweight is prof Kunnas with his book The Allure of Fascism, 674 pages in small print. More about it later, I'm only on page 43.
An interesting analysis of Nazi economics can be found in Ferguson's Civilization. There he states "In 1938 the output of the American economy was still more than 6 per cent below the pre-crisis peak of 1929; German output was 23 per cent higher [and Soviet output even higher]". This, and full employment certainly made nazism appealing to middle and lower classes. But it came with a cost: "People worked and got paid, but because there was steadily less and less to buy in the shops, they had little option but to put the money in savings accounts, where it was recycled into funding the government. [..] As rearmament was stepped up from 1934, textile production stagnated and imports declined." Since raw materials could no longer be imported, there needed to be another way to obtain them -- war.
As the German theologian Paul Tillich was to write later, “It is not without some justification that the names of Nietzsche and Heidegger are connected with the anti-moral movements of fascism and national socialism.” I would like to add Spengler in that list. His The Decline of the West is surprisingly social-darwinist. And there was even an "official" nazi philosopher/jurist Carl Schmitt.
Should we blame German philosophy for the rise of national socialism? Influential thinkers can put forward ideas that are readily adopted by others. These ideas may promote contempt to rationality (Nietzsche, according to some interpretations), or embrace Volk (German people) as sacred (some texts by Heidegger), or see violent conflicts between nations natural and desirable.
However, this sounds a bit too easy. There were radical social darwinists and nationalist philosophers/authors (de Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Lothrop Stoddard) in other countries. They may have become famous had their ideology won.
Moreover, German philosophy was/is in general well-known, as is nazism, so some people will want to make a connection between them.
But it is interesting how the German intelligentsia accepted the nazi ideology so readily. Though Watson has good comments about it, the heavyweight is prof Kunnas with his book The Allure of Fascism, 674 pages in small print. More about it later, I'm only on page 43.
An interesting analysis of Nazi economics can be found in Ferguson's Civilization. There he states "In 1938 the output of the American economy was still more than 6 per cent below the pre-crisis peak of 1929; German output was 23 per cent higher [and Soviet output even higher]". This, and full employment certainly made nazism appealing to middle and lower classes. But it came with a cost: "People worked and got paid, but because there was steadily less and less to buy in the shops, they had little option but to put the money in savings accounts, where it was recycled into funding the government. [..] As rearmament was stepped up from 1934, textile production stagnated and imports declined." Since raw materials could no longer be imported, there needed to be another way to obtain them -- war.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Nietzsche was a wanker: Wagner
Sometimes you come across an odd piece of information .. as in the German Genius by Peter Watson. Wagner and Nietzsche were good friends until late 1870's. Wagner died 1883 and only after that Nietzsche wrote about his music being a "disease".
They certainly had artistic disagreements, but the actual reason of their breakup may have been that Wagner quite literally called Nietzsche a wanker. Here's the context:
Nietzsche was in bad health, losing his sight, and visited a doctor in Switzerland 1877. Nietzsche wrote to Wagner about this consultation and in his letter added an essay about Wagner's music written by his doctor. Wagner later thanked the doctor for the essay and mentioned (as was believed at the time) that blindness can be a result of masturbation. The doctor confirmed that this indeed was Nietzsche's habit.
"The details of this exchange circulated during the Bayreuth festival if 1882, coming to Nietzsche's own notice later that same year" writes Watson. Nietzsche was not pleased.
They certainly had artistic disagreements, but the actual reason of their breakup may have been that Wagner quite literally called Nietzsche a wanker. Here's the context:
Nietzsche was in bad health, losing his sight, and visited a doctor in Switzerland 1877. Nietzsche wrote to Wagner about this consultation and in his letter added an essay about Wagner's music written by his doctor. Wagner later thanked the doctor for the essay and mentioned (as was believed at the time) that blindness can be a result of masturbation. The doctor confirmed that this indeed was Nietzsche's habit.
"The details of this exchange circulated during the Bayreuth festival if 1882, coming to Nietzsche's own notice later that same year" writes Watson. Nietzsche was not pleased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
