Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
One of the key new trends in Western society during the 20th century involved changes
in the role of the state. Government powers expanded and contacts between state and
ordinary citizens increased. Whether the form of government was democratic or not, vot
ing was used to link individual and the state. New ideologies and technologies alike
expanded state activities. The growth of the Western state built on earlier trends, such as
absolutism, and on the needs and capacities of industrial society. Nevertheless, it was a
new creature.
The growth of this state power could take vitally different forms, however. Tensions
in the Western political tradition, visible in the 17th and 18th centuries, emerged anew,
focusing on the extent of government power as well as constitutional structure. Between
the world wars, the most striking political development in the West was the rise of fascist
or Nazi totalitarianism. The totalitarian state did not emerge everywhere in the West, but
rather in nations where liberal traditions were relatively weak and the shocks of World
War I particularly great. Hitler, the Nazi leader, defines the fascist worship of the state in
his tract Mein Kampf, written in 1924.
The second main version of governmental growth was the welfare state, which
became the common Western form after World War II. Britain, converting from liberal
suspicion of government to a desire for new social responsibility, clearly illustrated
welfare-state principles. The British welfare-state concept was sketched in a vital wartime
planning document, the Beveridge Report, which was put into practice after 1945.
Both the Mein Kampf and the Beveridge Report selections require some interpreta
tion, for neither Hitler nor the Beveridge Commission spelled out a full definition of state
functions in a tidy way. Hitler's writings were vague in most respects, featuring strong
emotions more than careful programs. The Beveridge Report was a pragmatic planning
exercise, not a statement of basic theory. A first task, then, is to figure out how state goals
are defined and justified in each case-what Hitler means by state reliance on "person
ality"; what the welfare planners mean by state responsibility.
Nazi and welfare-state definitions obviously invite comparison. How did they dif
fer in political ideals? How did each relate to earlier Western political standards? Why
did the different state forms arise amid the crises conditions of world wars and economic
depression in the West, and how would each affect ordinary citizens? But also, in what
ways did Nazi and welfare states reflect some similar trends and principles?
Selection I from Mein Kampfby Adolf Hitler, translated by Ralph Manheim, pp. 443, 449-451.
Copyright 1943 and copyright © renewed 1971 by Houghton Mifflin Company of Boston. Reprinted by
permission of Houghton Mifflin Company. Selection II from "Report by Sir William Beveridge," Social
Insurance and Allied Services (Cmd 6404), London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1942, pp. 6-8, 13,
158-159. British Crown copyright. Reproduced by the permission of the Controller of Her Britannic
Majesty's Stationery Office.
243
244 Section Three I The 20th and Early 21 st Centuries
The Nazi version of the state seems to have been confined, in the West, to the spe
cial conditions of the 19205 and 1930s. Might these reemerge? Is the welfare state a
more durable Western form? If so, why? Compared with contemporary political struc
tures elsewhere in the world, has the 20th-century Western state remained particularly
distinctive?
TWO INNOVATIONS:
There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the
word "council" Plust be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have
advisers by his side, but the decision will be made IJy one man.
The principle which made the Prussian army in its.time into the most won
derful instrument of the German people must some day, in a transferred sense,
become the principle of the construction of our whole state conception: authority of
every leader downward and responsibility upward.
Even then it will "Ilot be possible to dispellse with those corporations which
today we designate as parliaments. But their councillors will then actually give
counsel; responsibility, however, can and may be borne only by one man, and there
fore only he alone may possess the authority and right to command.
Parliaments as such are necessary, because in them, above all, personalities to
which special responsible tasks can later be entrusted have an opportunity gradu
ally to rise up.
This gives the following picture:
The folkish state, from the township up to the Reich leadership, has no repre
sentative body which decides anything by the majority, but only advisory bodies wbich
stand at the side of the elected leader, receiving their share of work from him, and
in turn if necessary assuming unlimited responsibility in certain fields, just as on a
larger scale the leader or chairman of the various corporations himself possesses.
As a matter of principle, the folkish state does not tolerate asking advice or
opinions in special matters--say, of an economic nature-,.of men who, on the basis
of their education and activity, can understand nothing of the subject. It, therefore,
divides its representative bodies from the start into political and professional chambers.
In order to guarantee a profitable cooperation between the two, a special
senate of the elite always stands above them.
In no chamber and in no senate does a vote ever take place. They are work
ing institutions and not voting machines. The individual member has an advisory,
but never a determining, voice. The latter is the exclusive privilege of the responsi
ble chairman.
This principle-absolute responsibility unconditionally combined with
absolute authority-will gradually breed an elite ofleaders such as today, in this era
of irresponsible parliamentarianism, is utterly inconceivable.
Thus, the political form of the nation will be brought into agreement with
that law to which it owes its greatness in the cultural and economic field.
As regards the possibility of putting these ideas into practice, I beg you not to
forget that the parliamentary principle of democratic majority rule has by no
means always dominated mankind, but on the contrary is to be found only in brief
periods of history, which are always epochs of the decay of peoples and states.
But it should not be believed that such a transformation can be accomplished
by purely theoretical measures from above, since logically it may not even stop at
the state constitution, but must permeate all other legislation, and indeed all civil
life. Such a fundamental change can and will only take place through a movement
which is itself constructed in the spirit of these ideas and hence bears the future
state within itself.
246 Section Three I The 20th and Early 21st Centuries
Hence the National Socialist movement should today adapt itself entirely to
these ideas and carry them to practical fruition within its own organization, so that
some day it may not only show the state these same guiding principles, but can also
place the completed body of its own state at its disposal.
STUDY QUESTIONS
1. What did Hitler mean by the personality principle?
2. Why might Hitler's ideas appeal to Germans who had experienced World War I?
3. What kind of state, with what purposes, did the Nazis seek?
4. What changes in state functions did the Beveridge Report advocate?
5. What were the main differences between Nazi and welfare-state political
defini ti ons?
6. Why did the 20th century see a growth in state claims, albeit under various sys
tems, in Western society?