Review: The Mass Psychology Of Fascism

The Mass Psychology Of Fascism by Wilhelm Reich
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I was drawn to read this book as one of my efforts to understand the MAGA movement. I feel the focus should be on the supporting GOP and its electorate, more so on Trump the individual, to understand and react. Reich analyzed and documented the rise of Hitler, the Nazi party, and it's voting supporters and emphasizes a similar point of view. From the section heading "FUHRER AND MASS STRUCTURE":

If, at some future date, the history of social processes would allow the reactionary historian time to indulge in speculations on Germany’s past, he would be sure to perceive in Hitler’s success in the years between 1928 and 1933 the proof that a great man makes history only inasmuch as he inflames the masses with ‘his idea’. In fact, National Socialist propaganda was built upon this ‘fuhrer ideology’. To the same limited extent to which the propagandists of National Socialism understood the mechanics of their success, they were able to comprehend the historical basis of the National Socialist movement. This is very well illustrated by an article published at that time entitled ‘Christianity and National Socialism’, written by the National Socialist Wilhelm Stapel. He stated: ‘For the very reason that National Socialism i s an elementary movement, it cannot be gotten at with “arguments”. Arguments would be effective only if the movement had gained its power by argumentation.’

In keeping with this peculiarity the rally speeches of the National Socialists were very conspicuous for their skillfulness in operating upon the emotions of the individuals in the masses and of avoiding relevant arguments as much as possible. In various passages in his book Mein Kampf Hitler stresses that true mass psychological tactics dispense with argumentation and keep the masses’ attention fixed on the ‘great final goal’ at all times.

Since it seems like we have opted to go with an authoritarian, fascistic approach to governance, I have been reading relevant on the growth of fascism generally and specific trends in America. I just ignore Reich's orgone ideas as wacky, along with his Freud-like reduction of so much to a sexuality cause. However with the moral panic on the right about transgender and homosexual rights, I am not so sure. Certainly the binding to a traditional 'family values' model is something Reich saw as key to societal control in the rise of fascism:

More than the economic dependency of the wife and children on the husband and father is needed to preserve the institution of the authoritarian family. For the suppressed classes, this dependency is endurable only on condition that the consciousness of being a sexual being is suspended as completely as possible in women and in children. The wife must not figure as a sexual being, but solely as a child-bearer. Essentially, the idealization and deification of motherhood, which are so flagrantly at variance with the brutality with which the mothers of the toiling masses are actually treated, serve as means of preventing women from gaining a sexual consciousness, of preventing the imposed sexual repression from breaking through and of preventing sexual anxiety and sexual guilt- feelings from losing their hold. Sexually awakened women, affirmed and recognized as such, would mean the complete collapse of the authoritarian ideology. Conservative sexual reform has always made the mistake of merely making a slogan of "the right of woman to her own body," and not clearly and unmistakably regarding and defending woman as a sexual being, at least as much as it regards and defends her as a mother. Furthermore, conservative sexual re- form based its sexual policies predominantly on the function of procreation, instead of undermining the reactionary view that...

What even is "fascism"? Reich sees it as a mental disorder of society. Reich witnessed and analyzed from the inside the full arc of fascism's rise and fall.

It is generally clear today that "fascism" is not the act of a Hitler or a Mussolini, but that it is the expression of the irrational structure of mass man.

...

The structure of fascism is characterized by metaphysical thinking, unorthodox faith, obsession with abstract ethical ideals, and belief in the divine predestination of the führer. These basic features are linked with a deeper layer, which is characterized by a strong authoritarian tie to the führer-ideal or the nation. The belief in a "master race" became the principal mainspring of the tie to the "führer" on the part of the National Socialist masses, as well as the foundation of their voluntary acceptance of slavish submission. In addition to this, however, the intensive identification with the führer had a decisive effect, for it concealed one's real status as an insignificant member of the masses. Notwithstanding his vassalage, every National Socialist felt himself to be a "little Hitler." Now, however, we want to turn our attention to the characterological basis of these attitudes. We must seek out the dynamic functions that, while they themselves are determined by education and the social atmosphere as a whole, remold human structures to such an extent that tendencies of a reactionary-irrational nature are capable of taking shape in them; to such an extent that, completely enveloped in their identification with the "führer," the masses are immune to the insult heaped upon them by the label "inferior."

Reich saw the successful rise of fascism inside a democratic society as arising from the fears and concerns of the "Working class" and the appeal of natioanlism:

If an industrialist and large estate owner champions a rightist party, this is easily understood in terms of his immediate economic interests. In his case a leftist orientation would be at variance with his social situation and would, for that reason, point to irrational motives. If an industrial worker has a leftist orientation, this too is by all means rationally consistent-it derives from his economic and social position in industry. If, however, a worker, an employee, or an official has a rightest orientation, this must be ascribed to a lack of political clarity, i.e., he is ignorant of his social position. The more a man who belongs to the broad working masses is nonpolitical, the more susceptible he is to the ideology of political reaction. To be nonpolitical is not, as one might suppose, evidence of a passive psychic condition, but of a highly active attitude, a defense against the awareness of social responsibility. The analysis of this defense against consciousness of one's social responsibility yields clear in- sights into a number of dark questions concerning the behavior of the broad nonpolitical strata. In the case of the average intellectual "who wants nothing to do with politics," it can easily be shown that immediate economic interests and fears related to his social position, which is dependent upon public opinion, lie at the basis of his noninvolvement. These fears cause him to make the most grotesque sacrifices with respect to his knowledge and convictions. Those people who are engaged in the production process in one way or another and are nonetheless socially irresponsible can be divided into two major groups. In the case of the one group the concept of politics is unconsciously associated with the idea of violence and physical danger, i.e., with an intense fear, which prevents them from facing life realistically. In the case of the other group, which undoubtedly constitutes the majority, social irresponsibility is based on personal conflicts and anxieties, of which the sexual anxiety is the predominant one.

....

It was clear to a large number of scientists, journalists, and workers' functionaries that it was a regression to "nationalism." It was not clear whether it was nationalism patterned after fascism.

The word fascism is not a word of abuse any more than the word capitalism is. It is a concept denoting a very definite kind of mass leadership and mass influence: authoritarian, one-party system, hence totalitarian, a system in which power takes priority over objective interests, and facts are distorted for political purposes. Hence, there are "fascist Jews," just as there are "fascist Democrats."

Reich identifies a mystical, 'magical thinking' that must be identified and combatted.

Nationalistic and familial sentiments are intimately interlaced with religious feelings, which are vague and mystical to a lesser or greater extent. There is no end to the literature on this subject. A detailed academic critique of this field is out of the question-for the time being at least. We want to pick up the thread of our main problem. If fascism relies so successfully on the mystical thinking and sentiments of the masses, then a fight against it can be effective only if mysticism is comprehended and if the mystical contagion of the masses is tackled through education and hygiene. It is not enough that the scientific view of the world gains ground, for it moves much too slowly to keep pace with the rapid spread of mystical contagion. The reason for this can lie only in our incomplete comprehension of mysticism itself. Scientific enlightenment of the masses was mainly concerned with the exposing of the corrupt practices of church dignitaries and church officials. The overwhelming majority of the masses was left in the dark. Scientific elucidation appealed only to the intellect of the masses-not to their feelings. If, however, a man has mystical feelings, he is impervious to the unmasking of a church dignitary, no matter how artfully done. He is no more impressed by the detailed exposure of how the state uses the workers' pennies to support the church than he is by Marx's and Engels' historical analysis of religion...

...

Organized Mysticism

... Loyalty and responsibility toward the people and the father- land are most deeply anchored in Christian faith. For this reason it will always be my special duty to safeguard the right and free development of the Christian school and the Christian fundamentals of all education.

What is the source of this glorification of the strength of mystical belief? That is what we want to know now. Political reaction is absolutely correct in asserting that the teaching of "loyalty to the state" derives its strongest inner power from the "truths of Christianity." Before we give proof of this, however, we must briefly summarize the differences existing within the political reactionary camp regarding the conception of Christianity.

...let us briefly designate as scientific that man who performs some kind of vitally necessary work that requires the comprehension of facts. In this sense of the word a lathe operator in a factory is scientific, for his product is based on the fruits of his own work and research as well as the work and research of others. Now let us contrast this scientific man with the mystic, including the political ideologist.

As we see rise of 'techno-libertarian' technology billionaire elite and a general feeling of a return of the "Robber baron" successful industrialists and a new Gilded Age, it is interesting to see a similarity to Hitler's rise, and even Putin's oligarchs"

The powerful capitalists who emerged from the bourgeois revolution in Europe had a great deal of social power in their hands. They had the influence to determine who should govern. Basically, they acted in a short-sighted and self-damaging way. With the help of their power and their means, they could have spurred human society to unprecedented social achievements. I am not referring to the building of palaces, churches, museums, and theaters. I mean the practical realization of their concept of culture. Instead, they completely alienated themselves from those who had but one commodity to sell, their working power. In their hearts they held "the people" in contempt. They were petty, limited, cynical, contemptuous, avaricious, and very often unscrupulous. In Germany they helped Hitler to obtain power. They proved themselves to be completely unworthy of the role society had relegated to them. They abused their role, instead of using it to guide and educate the masses of people. They were not even capable of checking the dangers that threatened their own cultural system. As a social class they deteriorated more and more. Insofar as they themselves were familiar with the processes of work and achievement, they under- stood the democratic freedom movements. But they did nothing to help them. It was ostentation and not knowledge that they encouraged. The encouragement of the arts and sciences was once in the hands of the feudal lords, whom the bourgeoisie later dethroned. But the bourgeois capitalists had far less of an objective interest in art and science than the leading aristocracy had had. While in 1848 the sons of the bourgeois capitalists bled to death at the barricades, fighting for democratic ideals, the sons of the bourgeois capitalists between 1920 and 1930 used the university platforms to deride democratic demonstrations. Later, they were the elite troops of fascist chauvinism. To be sure, they had fulfilled their function of opening up the world economically, but they stifled their own accomplishment with the institution of tariffs and they had not the least notion of what to do with the internationalism that originated from their economic accomplishment. They aged rapidly, and as a social class they became senile.

This assessment of the so-called economic magnates does not derive from an ideology. I come from these circles and know them well. I am happy to have rid myself of their influence.

Fascism grew out of the conservatism of the Social Democrats on the one hand and the narrow-mindedness and senility of the capitalists on the other hand. It did not embody those ideals that had been advocated by its predecessors in a practical way, but solely in an ideological way (and this was the only thing that mattered to the masses of people whose psychic structures were ridden with illusions). It included the most brutal political reaction, the same political reaction that had devastated human life and property in the Middle Ages. It paid tribute to so-called native tradition in a mystical and brutal way, which had nothing to do with a genuine feeling for one's native country and attachment to the soil. By calling itself "socialist" and "revolutionary," it took over the unfulfilled functions of the socialists. By dominating industrial magnates, it took over capitalism. From now on, the achievement of "social- ism" was entrusted to an all-powerful führer who had been sent by God. The powerlessness and helplessness of the masses of people gave impetus to this führer ideology, which had been implanted in man's structure by the authoritarian school and nourished by the church and compulsive family. The "salvation of the nation" by an all-powerful führer who had been sent by God was in complete accord with the intense desire of the masses for salvation. Incapable of conceiving of themselves as having a different nature, their subservient structure eagerly imbibed the idea of man's immutability and of the "natural division of humanity into the few who lead and the many who are led." Now the responsibility rested in the hands of a strong man. In fascism or wherever else it is encountered, this fascist führer ideology rests upon the mystical hereditary idea..

...

After all his experiences, Reich seems hope through what he calls Work-democracy

It is ridiculous to conceive of freedom to mean that a lie has the same right as a truth before a court of law. A genuine work-democracy will not accord mystical irrationality the same right as truth; nor will it allow the suppression of children the same scope as it allows their freedom. It is ridiculous to argue with a murderer about his right to murder. But this ridiculous mistake is made again and again in dealing with fascists. Fascism is not comprehended as state- organized irrationality and meanness; it is regarded as a "state form" having equal rights. The reason for this is that everyone bears fascism in himself. Naturally, even fascism is right "sometimes." The same is true of the mental patient. The trouble is that he doesn't know when he is right.

Viewed in this way, freedom becomes a simple, easily comprehensible and easily manageable fact. Freedom does not have to be achieved-it is spontaneously present in every life function. It is the elimination of all obstacles to freedom that has to be achieved.

I don't fully understand this concept, but it seems to be like promoting the idea of Technocrats. That is, like Plato in The Republic, Reich sees a need for qualified leadership. This reminds me of how Sagan decried the danger of poorly trained therapists given free reign to monkey with pysches in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Reich elaborates:

The man who performs practical work in any field whatever, whether he comes from a rich or poor family, has to go through a definite schooling. He is not elected by "the people." Experienced workers whose skills have been tested over a long period must determine in a more or less thorough way whether the apprentice in their field is qualified to perform his or her job professionally. This is the demand, even if it often runs ahead of the facts. It gives the direction in any event. In America, this demand has been carried to such an extreme that a salesgirl in a department store has to have a university education. As exaggerated and as socially unjust as this demand may be, it shows clearly just how much social pressure is exerted on the simplest work. Every shoemaker, cabinet-maker, turner, mechanic, electrician, stone mason, construction worker, etc., has to fulfill strict requirements.

A politician, on the other hand, is free of any such demands. One need merely possess a good dose of cunning, neurotic ambition and will to power, coupled with brutality, in order to take over the highest positions of human society when suitable chaotic social conditions arise. In the past 25 years we have witnessed how a mediocre journalist was capable of brutalizing the fifty million strong Italian nation and finally reducing it to a state of misery. For twenty-two years there was a great fuss about nothing, coupled with much blood and thunder, until one day the hubbub faded out without a flourish. And one was overcome by the feeling: And all to no avail! What remained of this great tumult, which had made the world hold its breath and had torn many nations out of their accustomed life? Nothing-not a single, permanent thought; not a single useful institution; not even a fond memory. Facts such as this show more clearly than anything else the social irrationalism that periodically brings our life to the brink of the abyss.

View all my reviews