New Right's Ideological Roots and Why They May Resemble Mein Kampf
What philosophy underlies the New-Right idea of 'Declining West' and how is it linked to Hitler's Nazism?
The notion of the "Declining West" has become a central theme among new-right and neofascist groups across the globe, gaining particular prominence since the onset of the migration crisis in 2015. A deeper dive into the far right inevitably involves unraveling the political philosophy that underpins it, tracing the ideological roots of hate.
While contemporary neofascists typically distance their beliefs from Nazism—likely to avoid legal repercussions—their foundational ideas often stem from philosophies formally distinct from Hitler's National Socialism. Moreorver, even the term “The Third Reich” was not invented by Nazis but by earlier conservative thinkers.1
So, what exactly is this all about?
The German Anti-Democratic Tradition?
As right-wing populism gains traction across Europe, particularly in Germany, there's renewed focus on the Weimar Republic (1918-1933), Germany’s first and failed democracy. Public and academic debates often revisit Weimar’s history through a lens that sees its eventual collapse as inevitable.2 This perspective drives a keen interest in examining anti-liberal, anti-parliamentarian, and right-nationalist movements, including the Nazis. While Joseph Goebbels proclaimed the victory of the "German Revolution,"3 a movement already taking root among intellectual circles in the 1920s, known since the 1950’s as the "Conservative Revolution," began shaping historical discourse.4
Within the Weimar Republic, right-wing political and intellectual circles voiced sharp criticism of the prevailing liberal and parliamentary system. A particularly influential work from this period is Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf," which outlines his political agenda. In parallel, authors of the Conservative Revolution, such as Oswald Spengler, penned works advocating for a path beyond both monarchy and liberal party democracy. These writings served as the philosophical and ideological bedrock for much of Germany's "revolutionary" right-wing conservatism in the 1920s and 1930s, significantly shaping its development.5
The connection between the ideas of the Nazis and those of the Conservative Revolution remains a hotly debated issue, one that has sparked intense scholarly controversy since the post-war period.6 This analysis, based on my research at the Friedrich-Meinecke-Institute, aims to decipher how closely the philosophical-political currents represented by Oswald Spengler’s "The Decline of the West" and Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" align.
Starting with an introduction to the pivotal terms, works, and authors, this article then critically evaluates the term "Conservative Revolution." The heart of the study is an analytical comparison aimed at unpacking the relationship between these influential ideologies, shedding light on their historical and ideological intersections.
Spengler’s “Decline of the West” (1918)
Oswald Spengler (1880–1936), a key philosopher of culture and history during the Weimar Republic and the Conservative Revolution, remains a significant figure in intellectual circles.7 His seminal work, "The Decline of the West," first published in September 1918 just before Germany's defeat in World War I, was one of the best sold books in the 1920’s Germany and continues to be a cornerstone text among Weimar conservatives. Historians note that Spengler's influence extended across various political spectrums, leaving a lasting legacy in the annals of German conservatism,8 still pertinent in today's discussions on the ideological foundations of the political right.9
In "The Decline of the West," Spengler explores the trajectory of "Western-European-American culture" by comparing it to seven other historical cultures. He argues from a cyclical perspective on history, suggesting that cultures do not progress linearly but undergo cycles of rise and decline, similar to natural organisms. This magnum opus, filled with profound anti-liberal and anti-democratic ideas, reflects his political views which were highly critical of the Weimar Republic.10
Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” (1925)
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) has been an unavoidable subject in historical research since the post-war period, particularly concerning his shift towards nationalism. Historian Thomas Weber suggests that Hitler, who served on the Western Front during World War I, appeared apolitical during the war,11 a claim supported by Hitler himself: "At that time, I wanted nothing to do with politics." However, his political views began to shift notably after the war. In "Mein Kampf," Hitler expresses his refusal to accept Germany's defeat during the November Revolution and cites the "stab-in-the-back" myth.
Following a failed coup attempt in November 1923, Hitler was imprisoned, during which he wrote most of "Mein Kampf," first published in July 1925. This manifesto details his personal and political evolution and articulates clear, critical demands on German domestic and foreign policy in its second volume. Widely read in right-conservative circles before his rise to power, "Mein Kampf" was far from a marginal work. Post-1933, it became increasingly significant as the central programmatic text of the National Socialist movement under Hitler’s leadership, making its analysis indispensable for any historical research into the ideology of Nazism.
German Conservatism and Nazism
Many historians view the Conservative Revolution as a precursor to Nazi ideology, a sort of “pre-fascism”, suggesting it facilitated their rise to power despite internal rivalries. Notable figures like Henry Huges and Kurt Sontheimer argue that even though conservative revolutionaries did not identify as Nazis, their anti-democratic ideologies laid the groundwork for a non-democratic Germany.12 Armin Mohler, once a proponent of differentiating these groups, later conceded significant ideological overlaps, noting that Hitler's regime might even be seen as an attempt to actualize the Conservative Revolution.13
But why?
To analyze the ideas in political-philosophical works, we use Weber's systematic model dividing political systems into "economy, society, politics." This widely-accepted framework helps explore various dimensions in detail, covering economic models, proposed political systems, and sociocultural aspects, including racial views. This approach provides a clear, structured analysis of each aspect's societal impact.14
1. Economy
"[The international world Jew] created the economic weapon [Ed.- labor unions] used by the international world Jewry to shatter the economic basis of free, independent nation-states, to destroy their national industry and commerce, and ultimately, to enslave free peoples in the service of supra-national world finance Jewry."
A. Hitler, Mein Kampf
In the tumultuous ideological landscape of the Weimar Republic, both Hitler and Spengler articulated a strong anti-liberal sentiment, which they viewed as counter to their nationalistic goals. Historian Stefan Breuer highlights that this opposition was particularly vehement among conservative circles. Hitler, in "Mein Kampf," minimally addressed economic issues but distinctly separated his views from Marxism, which he perceived as a Jewish conspiracy, associating socialism instead with a nationalist and interventionist state-controlled economy.
“German Socialism” is Aryan, the Marxism - Jewish
One of the central economic ideas of Mein Kampf
Oswald Spengler, on the other hand, embraced a form of socialism that aligned with political leadership rather than economic liberalism. He advocated for what he called "Prussian socialism," a model that opposed the individualistic Manchester Liberalism and promoted a state-managed market economy under a strong political hierarchy, akin to a leader-centric "Caesarism" that transcends class and partisan interests. Both thinkers rejected Marxist class struggle and envisioned an economy that, while market-driven, was tightly controlled by the state, mirroring aspects of the economic policies later adopted by the Nazis.
2. Political System
In their visions for Germany, both Hitler and Spengler shared a critical view on democracy and parliamentary systems, seeing them as merely instrumental to societal restructuring under political control.
In his work, Hitler outlines the political goals that the NSDAP actively pursued under his leadership after seizing power: eliminating the Weimar parliamentary system to establish a leader state with a racially based ideology and uniform public opinion. He envisions a future beyond monarchy and democracy as the end goal of the National Socialist movement: "Its mission lies in the creation of a Germanic state." He labels democracy a Jewish conspiracy leading to "dominance of parliamentarianism" and "decay," advocating for the abolition of the parliamentary system.
Democracy is majority of stupidity, incapacity, and cowardice.
A. Hitler, Mein Kampf
He suggests using active partisan-parliamentary work by the National Socialists as a means to dismantle the system from within. Hitler emphasizes the need to unify the "Volksdeutsche" under a single "leader" within a strictly hierarchical political framework, where "the highest people" rule instead of the majority. This involves both the concept of racial inequality and the political subordination of societal bodies like "political and professional chambers" to an authoritarian hierarchical system, replacing elections with appointments.
Spengler's aversion to the political order of the Weimar Republic is described as "hatred" towards its "politics as well as its institutions and parties." In "The Decline," he portrays parliamentarianism in a derogatory manner, likening it to outdated material remnants of a past epoch, like "houses and furniture." He views 20th century parliamentarianism as being in "complete decay," merely a continuation of the "bourgeois" French Revolution, which he critically sees as a movement of the "third estate," or the masses. The author justifies his attitude historically, in terms of the cyclical course of history: "By being achieved, it is already overcome." He views democratic elections negatively due to the heterogeneity of opinions within a nation and categorizes them as "civil war," led by party leaders—"bourgeois Napoleons."
Instead of parliamentarianism, which he refers to as "Napoleonism" in his writings, he posits that "Caesarism" should be established as the predominant form of political organization in Europe. In this regard, Spengler suggests that institutions should lose significance and instead be replaced by the personal power of a single "Caesar" or leader. This shows a clear similarity to Hitler's efforts toward a leader-state. He differentiates between the great personalities in politics, which should be "cultivated" as in the case of Hitler, and the apolitical masses, appearing in the form of parties. He also praised Italian Fascism, seeing in Mussolini's politics the realization of the "Prussian style."
Democracy is the dictatorship of money
O. Spengler, The Decline of the West
Despite Spengler's rejection of party politics, including the participation of the NSDAP in the democratic processes within the Weimar system, it must be emphasized that his political rhetoric contains essential parallels to National Socialist demands: Hitler sees the partisan path of his movement merely as a means to the end of a leader-state. Despite the possible discrepancy between Hitler's and Spengler's views regarding the acceptance of parties, party politics should only be considered a tool, with the ultimate goal of both being an authoritarian Führer-state.
3. Society
In their societal views, Adolf Hitler and Oswald Spengler diverge especially on racial ideology, a topic that continues to stir controversy in historical research.
Throughout these long years, only one fought with unwavering consistency, and that was the Jew. His Star of David rose just as our people’s will to self-preservation diminished
A. Hitler, Mein Kampf
In "Mein Kampf," Adolf Hitler outlines his political doctrine which remains infamous for its racial theories and deep-seated antisemitism. The manifesto is woven through with the theme of a social Darwinist "racial struggle" (instead of the Marxist class struggle) which Hitler interprets as a covert Jewish assault against the German people. He contends that Jewish influence is detrimental and pervasive, affecting all spheres of society including culture, the economy, and politics. Hitler claims this influence leads to the fragmentation and decay of German society, which he attributes to the process of "Judaization."
Hitler's proposed remedy is the creation of a monoethnic, unified national community that excludes those he deems "inferior" or non-Germanic, focusing particularly on ethnic origins. He also targets physically weak individuals, labeling them as "degenerated" and harmful to the community's cohesion.
Despite this exclusionary stance, Hitler paradoxically supports a form of social equality based on fulfilling individual roles rather than inherent capabilities - one slightly modernist aspect of Nazism.
If the talented farm boy had also grown up in such an environment from an early age, his intellectual capacity would be completely different
A. Hitler, Mein Kampf
Oswald Spengler's socio-political theories mark a significant departure from the racial doctrines espoused in National Socialism. Spengler rejected the biological and social Darwinist classifications of race, instead categorizing human groups by cultural and spiritual types. He argued for differentiating between cultures as carriers of social characteristics rather than focusing on biological race, offering a sociocultural perspective on ethnic differences, distancing himself from the core elements of völkisch movements.15
However, his cultural diversity premise does not prevent him from attributing certain negative traits to Jews, viewing them as outsiders in Europe.16 Spengler was also critical of the Enlightenment's ideals of humanism and equality, advocating instead for natural hierarchies. He envisioned society in a future era of Caesarism as a collective community or organic national body defined by a "Germanic race" with its own unique spirit, challenging the prevailing views of his time with a blend of cultural and historical determinism.
"Therefore, he [Ed. - Jew] is a democrat in Germany and in England - like the Parsi in India - imperialist."
O. Spengler, “The Decline of the West”
Different Names - Same Ideas?
In summary, significant ideological similarities emerge between the future visions of Spengler and Hitler. Both the National Socialists and the conservative revolutionaries shared a negative attitude towards liberalism, democracy, and their institutions. However, they also articulated concepts they explicitly supported.
Both Spengler and Hitler advocated for a partially autonomous private economy, yet one controllable by the state, which they termed as "German," "national," or "Prussian Socialism” with “race/culture struggle” istead of the Marxist class struggle.
Both endorsed an authoritarian and politically homogeneous leadership by a Führer.
Both ideologies, albeit with different justifications, involved racial categorization, viewing peoples as organisms with specific attributes attributed to them. Both include antisemitic elements.
Thus, I argue that Spengler's ideas, one of the most prominent thinkers of the conservative revolution, significantly align with the ideology of National Socialism, although this alignment is not absolute. The connections identified between these political-ideological currents provide only modest support for a causal relationship. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to suggest that the philosophy of the Conservative Revolution influenced aspects of the Nazi movement and, more critically, significant portions of Weimar society. This influence likely shaped their political behavior and played a role in the tragic undermining of Weimar democracy.
This hypothesis opens avenues for further research into the Weimar era. Furthermore, the ideological remnants of this period still echo today, energizing right-wing movements globally and laying the foundation for modern forms of xenophobia and anti-democratic sentiments.
The resurgence of such anti-democratic ideas, reminiscent of those that led to the collapse of the Weimar Republic, serves as a crucial lesson in today's climate of escalating right-wing populism within liberal democracies.
Thanks for reading!