>Wait a second here. Heidegger did in fact repudiate the Nazis, as I am
sure you
know, with the statement (paraphrasing from memory) that they had vulgarized and corrupted the essence of National Socialism, turning in into something bad.
Oh yeah, quite a lot of german followers of Hitler at some ore another point brooke out in such an elitarian criticism of vulgarization of "the essence (!!!) of National Socialism". Take for instance only Otto Ohlendorf, Commander of the Einsatzgruppe D in southern Ucraine, head of the interior branch of the Security Service of the SS (Amt III in the Reichs Main Security Office) and an outspoken critic of many branches of national socialist politics.
Ohlendorf had a doctor in economics. In the thread there was the question, why so many intellectuals took part in the fascist movement - as if somebody who studied something should have known better. Why? And why forget about the social background of the small, less then 2 percent group of german population, wich had the chance to get a higher education? By far most of them came out of good bourgeois ore even better of families. They have been trained in hate against all the "sick" and "unusefull" and rebellious elements of society long before Hitler became prominent. Their discourse on "conservative revolution" is the core of Heideggers philosophy - Bourdieu made this point in his book. The man producing this discourse were not at all outsiders in the academic community.
The other debate on National Socialism and religion is strange too. Large parts of the german protestant - not only lutheranian - Community long before 1933 have been voting in favour of the "Deutsche Christen". There was - excluded the official politics of SS-membership and ideological problems in smaller groups around Rosenberg - no opposition to the christian churches in the german fascist movement. The german soldiers took their belt the slogan: "The lord with us" to all the occupied areas.
This debate on Heidegger seems me no special debate on american philosophical discourse since the late 80s. It seems me a quite general debate on german - not only german - fascism and the politics against. The official Comintern missed the point for all the time: Obsessed with the stability of social democracy influence in the working class all over Europe they did not take fascism serious. The crazy use of the term "fascism" as a general invective was only a consequence.
Chris tries to make the difference between "normal" fascist groups and the genocide-politics of the Nazis, Heidegger beeing only an "normal" fascist. But reality is much more difficult: Take another example, take a man surely not a fascist, not a national socialist, take Eduard Wagner, head of the logistics of the german ground forces, who was responsible for the starving of hundreds of thousands soviet POWs: "Not working prisoners of war have to die by hunger." - 13. November 1941. Killing 2 Million POWs in one winter - this is surely genocide, up to spring 42 the biggest crime commited by Nazi Germany. And Wagner was a conservative, commiting suicide after the failed july bomb plot against Hitler in 1944.
Sebastian
________________________________________________________________________ AOL eMail auf Ihrem Handy! Ab sofort können Sie auch unterwegs Ihre AOL email abrufen. Registrieren Sie sich jetzt kostenlos.