There can be no mention, no allusion, no subtle reference, no innuendo of anything “good” that is NAZI—or fascist, for that matter, like under Mussolini. It is the most powerful of totalitarian societies because it uses the leverage of capitalist industry (such as it did with Krupp, Daimler and Siemens) rather than the pursuit of communist society. Nothing was “good” involving Hitler. The Treaty of Versailles was harsh, but Hitler was harsher. He was so harsh that he murdered his best friend in the Night of the Long Knives, Ernst Röhm, who “believed” in national socialism and wanted to see it through. Hitler stopped all that when the Enabling Act was signed allowing him supreme power and allegiance to him rather than the constitution. For Hitler that pursuit never was. It was about him. Nowhere along the line is there unselfish motive by the man in every decision. That it’s is even spoken about today with allusion of it being “positive” is appalling like saying the Black Death was good for the world.
Professor: The biggest problem i have with the Core Principles of Stoicism as it relates to being a Citizen of any nation ~ the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, China, Taiwan, and any and every place else on this Planet ~ concerns the Dichotomy of Control: ie, that there is what the individual Human Being does and does not have control over, and that it is most Stoic-like for individuals to not concern themselves with and about those matters over which they do not have control, and to simply accept and go along with whatever their government and its leaders determine and decide to do.
Which raises the following Question: Given that the average individual Citizen of virtually every nation on this Planet has literally virtually absolutely no control whatsoever over what the government of their nation and its leaders, owners, operators, and controllers do about anything ~ particularly when it comes to foreign policy and War, or national economic, fiscal, and financial policy and action ~ does the Dichotomy of Control counsel then that the individual Stoic Citizen should not even think about challenging and attempting to change those policies and actions?
If that is the case, then does that mean that even thinking about changing that government ~ up to and including a revolution and the overthrow and replacement of that government and the system of governance that enables it to exist, thrive, and survive ~ is, from the perspective of Stoicism, wrong?
jg, absolutely not. Stoicism is not a passive philosophy, politically or otherwise. The dichotomy of control does not say that we shouldn't care about things we don't control. It simply reminds us that only our intentions are fully up to us, outcomes depend on a number of other factors.
If one determines that a revolution is needed, one ought to start a revolution. But always with the "reserve clause" in mind: it may not work.
Cato the Younger started a war against Caesar, after all.
I do have a question applicable to Nazifascism and also other ideologies and thoughts… What should a stoic do regarding what he believes to be harmful speech? Meaning, speech the stoic believes that, unimpeded, may lead to harm and violence?
I'm of two minds here… On the one hand one should educate sick people after making sure that they don't harm others.
But is harm strictly physical and immediate? What about these others:
- psychological violence eg when Nazifascists chant for the control, exile or even extermination of what they deem inferior races, causing fear and terror in their “members” (even though races aren't real);
- intentional spread of their sickness ie through media and marketing and visibility, spreading Nazifascism to others by taking advantage of our sad human tendency to scapegoat minorities when we're despondent;
- stating clearly that at some point, if they grow enough, they WILL harm eg institute a race-based tyranny once they're in power, while for now they're just aggregating support to get to power (think Hitler before his election)
If they're also forms of violence, even if non-physical and/or non-immediate, should a stoic combat to “nip them in the bud” and thus encourage what these Nazifascists will call “persecution” and “censorship”?
My other perspective is that objective judgment is basically impossible until we see facts actually happening… Once a tyranny is instituted, once violence happens, a stoic must oppose it. Before it - what if it never happens? Censoring those who want to institute it - what if we're censoring valid viewpoints, or if we kickstart a censorship slippery slope?
So I'm really split here! If a stoic time travelled to 1920s maybe his moral obligation would be to educate Hitler or, failing that, kill him, since they KNOW what is going to happen.
But what if a 1920s stoic found a history book from the 2020s? At which point, after seeing that history is indeed following the book’s outline, is it their moral obligation to fight Nazifascism - knowing that every day they wait their uncertainty of violence and harm decreases, but the sickness and potential harm keeps increasing?
Sorry for rambling… Started on censorship and ended on time-travel and killing Hitler! In the end, what I struggle with is how much uncertainty a stoic should accept within their lives and principles. Knowing that uncertainty is not under their control, yet it is in their duty to face it. But when?
Felipe, these are all very good questions! And I hear your about being of two minds. However, I believe the Stoic response is very clear, though it may be unpalatable.
Consider the example of Cato the Younger and his fight against Caesar: Cato did not pick up arms until Caesar did, which implies to me that until and if Nazifascists actually engage in violent acts they are to be met with Marcus Aurelius's famous "teach them or bear with them."
As for non-physical harm, for the Stoics there simply is no such thing, as tough as it is to hear. Insults cannot harm us unless we let them, so it is up to us to simply ignore them. That's a fundamental implication of Epictetus's rule: what harms us are not people's words, but what we think of people's words.
I do agree with you btw on “psychological violence” and the need to “bear them” ie not censor… I'm trying to follow the stoic path myself.
I think a lot about how the human mind is quite “bugged”, however, being a byproduct of evolution. So what's the duty of a scientific-minded stoic in face of that?
It's amazing we’re capable of reason, but that's not something automatic, we have to fight for it… Which is why it's hard to see harmful memeviruses being crafted to take hold of our collective minds.
We can innoculate ourselves individually, but what about the collective? And we don't even need to get as far as Nazifascism… Even cigarette media manipulation, or addictive phones, might fall under this lens.
Once more, thanks for your answer, and all the great books as well!
Felipe, the Stoics argue that we are actually naturally capable of reason and that it is society that corrupts that ability. I think they have a point, at least in part. Kids, for instance, are naturally curious, until formal education and society squashes their curiosity and creativity.
The question of how we inoculate society is a great one. For the Stoics this is done from the bottom up, so to speak: one person at a time. I do think, though, that Aristotle was right when he said that we also need structural changes, that is, working toward a society where education is easily accessible, there are checkpoints against fake news and propaganda, and so forth.
Thank You, Professor Pigliucci, for Your insightful and thought-provoking examination of 21st century “Nazifascism,” and exploration of appropriate reactions and responses to it by Stoics.
Having said that, i would like to suggest another form of Fascism that is a far greater danger to the United States ~ an indeed the entire Planet ~ than Neo-Nazis; and is in fact already operational in this nation and around the world at the highest levels.
And that is Corporatist Fascism: a form of Fascism in which economic and financial, organizations and institution [primarily corporations] own, operate, command and control this nation’s elected politicians, entrenched civilian and military bureaucrats, and anointed political appointees.
And by doing that, Corporate Fascist are able to access this government’s legal power, administrative authority, and particularly, its spending capacity and capability in order to advance the agenda, objectives, and goals of those economic and financial organizations and institutions.
The original “Nazifascism” was, of course, Hitler’s Germany; which was very open and honest about its agenda, objectives, and goals as a POLITICAL phenomenon. But there was also a very vibrant and powerful Corporatist Fascism in Germany which played a very active and effective role in bringing Hitler and his Nazis to political power, in the first place.
After the failed “Beer Hall Putsch” in 1923 ~ an attempted coup d’etat against the Weimar Republic and the same year that Germany’s post-World War I “hyperinflation” hit its peak ~ many, if not most Germans probably thought they’d heard the last of Hitler and his Gang; if only because they had far more immediate survival problems to deal with because of that hyperinflation. But obviously, some other Germans had other ideas. According to Wikipedia:
“The Putsch brought Hitler to the attention of the German nation for the first time and generated front-page headlines in newspapers around the world. His arrest was followed by a 24-day trial, which was widely publicised and gave him a platform to express his nationalist sentiments to the nation. Hitler was found guilty of treason and sentenced to five years in Landsberg Prison,[note 2] where he dictated Mein Kampf to fellow prisoners Emil Maurice and Rudolf Hess. On 20 December 1924, having served only nine months, Hitler was released.[5][6] Once released, Hitler redirected his focus towards obtaining power through legal means rather than by revolution or force, and accordingly changed his tactics, further developing Nazi propaganda.[7]” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch]
You began Your piece, Professor, by defining the two “philosophies” of Nazism and Fascism and noting four characteristics that they share in common: autocratic government, nationalism, racial supremacy, and suppression and censorship.
For a more extended examination of what Nazism and Fascism have in common, see Laurence Brittby’s 2003 article, “Fascism Anyone???", in which he lists and explains fourteen common features of World War II Fascism exhibited by Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Tojo's Japan; and then the post-WWII/Cold War I Fascisms of Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos 's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia [https://secularhumanism.org/2003/03/fascism-anyone/]:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
Take a look at this list and Brittby’s elaboration on it, and then ask Yourself: How many of those characteristics apply to 21st century America? It might be simpler and easier to list those characteristics that DON’T apply, eh?
For example, given what some folks claim happened in 2020, and that 2024 is a Presidential election that some folks are already claiming is fixed, Item 14 is particularly relevant. But then, so are Items 13, 9, 6, 4, 3, and 2.
jg, I'm in complete agreement. One of the most dystopian sci-fi writers, Philip K. Dick, described a future were we are squeezed by two antagonistic forces: fascist government and fascist multinational corporations.
Thank you for sharing the article by Umberto Eco. what a sweet and heart felt piece. ❤️ I've been a big fan of him since I read the name of the rose.
I agree that coorporate fascism is a big issue, but it's not just for America, it's for the whole world! I'm so sick of private equity firms taking over retirement villages and hurting the most vulnerable people!
Thank You, Professor. i will definitely read that.
It should be noted that Americans have been being warned about a "Fascist equivalent" in the United States since even before the Fascist realities of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo had been destroyed, with three books published in 1944: Ludwig von Mises’ OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT: THE RISE OF THE TOTAL STATE AND TOTAL WAR; THE ROAD TO SERFDOM by Friedrich A Hayek [dedicated "To the socialists of all parties"]; and AS WE GO MARCHING by John T Flynn.
The Warnings continued in 1975 with Charlotte Twight's AMERICA'S EMERGING FASCIST ECONOMY; in 1980 with FRIENDLY FASCISM: THE NEW FACE OF POWER IN AMERICA by Bertram Gross; in 2008 with DEMOCRACY INCORPORATED: MANAGED DEMOCRACY AND THE SPECTER OF INVERTED TOTALITARIANISM by Sheldon Wolin, and in 2013 with FASCISM VERSUS CAPITALISM by Lew Rockwell.
And most recently, Jeffrey Tucker's RIGHT-WING COLLECTIVISM: The Other Threat to Liberty [2017] and Carl Boggs' FASCISM OLD AND NEW: AMERICAN POLITICS AT THE CROSSROADS [2018] have brought all those older works up to date and right into the 21st century, at least thru Trump.
It's time for somebody to write a book that takes American Fascism beyond Trump and up to and including Biden.
I'm probably C1,2 and 3 when it comes to the Nazis. I think all of us have a little bit of "Nazism" in ourselves. A strong love for one's country can blur into blind nationalism and when one's wallet and family are on the line, it's easy to cave into a strong man, especially if he's not one's direct enemy.
However, saying that does not mean I can excuse the wrongs done by the Nazis. In fact, not only I agree with C3, I believe that when all things fail, the Nazis must be completely destroyed if necessary.
Victoria, agreed. I have tried to work on reducing my own nationalism as much as possible. It is ultimately incompatible with the Stoic notion of cosmopolitanism.
I think it's very hard to think nationalism is not a good thing, because most children are educated at a young age to love one's nation. True enough that many nations have accomplished great things together, but often with losses of other nations.
At the same time, I'm not completely opposed to the idea of nation - after all, what's stopping one from killing their neighbours and occupying their property?
One thing for sure is that "loving one's nation wisely" is better than "blind loyalty to one's nation".
Victoria, yes, definitely loving one's nation wisely rather than blindly is a step forward! But I still see no redeeming value at all for nationalism. It is based on the notion that someone a random group of people is better or more important than another random group of people, an idea that has no foundation in reality.
Moreover, we tend to forget that the whole concept of nation-state is actually very recent. It seems inevitable today, but it certainly wasn't historically. Maybe it won't be again in the future.
One of the best essays Ive read in awhile. Thank you Massimo. It brought up so many memories of my childhood (I’ve mentioned my Dad was a great admirer of the ancient Stoics, and lived his life accordingly.) anyway, I agree with the commenter here who said “everyone” should read this. Thank you. 🙏🏼
This is well written thoughtful view of how Stoics should react to political regimes they oppose and disagree with On a separate point I personaly disagree with the premise the countries of the West including the US have a wide spread Nazi problem However i live in Asia and am not close to the problem so i accept i could be mistaken
Nicholas, I don't think western countries have a widespread Nazi problem. But they do have a widespread problem with right-wing populism, which historically has paved the way to Nazifascism. So, if you've learned anything from history...
Way back in the 1930s there was a German American Bund which promoted Hitler, anti-semitism, white nationalism, etc. The Bund held the infamous MSG rally which was attended by some 25,000 adherents. The group’s leader was found guilty of embezzlement and, in 1941, the group was outlawed. Not a Stoic approach to problem-solving, but worth knowing about.
Nothing un-Stoic about prosecuting someone for embezzlement. Yeah, the banning part is a bit problematic, depending on exactly what the group was advocating.
Right. The group was advocating for exactly what Hitler was: a white, gentile, nation that saluted its leader. Way back then, when something was declared unlawful it had teeth, not that laws can stop hideous ideas from reinfecting a population. Witness today in the US.
The devil, as they say, is in the detail. Take the example of Cato's opposition to Caesar. So long as Caesar advocated political reform, as unpalatable as it was to Cato, on the Senate floor, it was a discussion. When Caesar took up arms and crossed the Rubicon, it was war.
Thank you for this timely and important article. I am ambivalent about C3. On the one hand, I think of Socrates saying that it is better to suffer an injustice than to commit one. On the other hand, I remember a conversation with Denis Goldberg, one of the defendants together with Nelson Mandela at the Rivonia trial, who justified the ANC armed struggle by saying, if you don't fight and oppose the apartheid regime, then it is the same as being complicit with it.
I am thankful that I have never myself actually been confronted with the problem of whether or not to take up arms, (although my father's experience has marked me. He was a refugee from Germany in 1939 & fought with the British army. His grandmother, left behind, was murdered by the Nazis).
All I can say at this point is that if, or when the time comes, I will be be able to call on my Stoic training to make the honourable decision
Patricia, indeed, your Stoic training will suggest to you what the virtuous thing to do is, depending on the specifics of the situation, including your own character and personal history.
I guess I am with Goldberg in suspecting that, in extreme cases, fighting is a must. I'm not sure it amounts to committing an injustice, though, vis-a-vis your reference to Socrates.
What is problematic is that people can fight for the right reason and then go overboard because of anger or other motives, and undermine their own otherwise justified engagement. The Allied carpet bombing of Dresden so memorably described by Kurt Vonnegut (who was there) comes to mind.
And then there was the fire-bombing of Tokyo and, ultimately, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
"As many as 100,000 Japanese people were killed and another million injured, most of them civilians, when more than 300 American B-29 bombers dropped 1,500 tons of firebombs on the Japanese capital that night.
"The inferno the bombs created reduced an area of 15.8 square miles to ash. And, by some estimates, a million people were left homeless.
"The human toll that night exceeded that of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that year, where the initial blasts killed about 70,000 people and 46,000 people respectively, according to the US Department of Energy."
Massimo, great essay. More learning! The Rubicon! 😊 At least the Stoics take a level deeper instead of the “black and white” labeling of good and evil as fascists and Nazis do. Epictetus is being inquisitive to find the deeper root to the causes. This is to be respected. Nazi fascists would never do such analysis. As a matter of fact, they’d do the opposite. Let’s send the disabled, for instance, into the new furnaces for testing first. I’m sure the paperwork on that was finished by lunchtime. I still get shivers when this photo circulates being from New York City. https://untappedcities.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/featured-nazi-town-pbs-documentary-untapped-new-york1.jpg
Great writing Massimo! Very helpful. However, I fall away in C3. I am a Stoic pacifist, a carry over from my Mennonite/Brethren days and the solid streak of pacifism in the Early Church before Constantine declared the known world Christian! I see that declaration as one of the worst in history. I see no clear way for violence to produce a good outcome. This is very personal and I am not poking at you. Just wonder about your dinner conversations with Jennifer on this topic. Her Mennonite DNA must give you a little “fight”. Thanks for your ongoing, relentless work for Stoicism and the common good.
Roger, I hear you. And yes, we have interesting dinner conversations with Jennifer about that topic. But I stick with the Stoics: when the Nazi start rolling in with tanks the only possible response is to kick them back out. Hopefully, however, our work before that point will actually preclude the appearance of the tanks...
Massimo, thanks for this article, it's great to have the Stoic point of view summed up in a single place.
I feel like C2, in particular the "teach them" aspect, contains many layers that we as a society have not really figured out yet. It feels like we've been watching populist and fascist movements on the rise for many years, but yet we seem to lack the ability to stifle those sentiments in a way that addresses their causes and doesn't just fall into the trap of "let's ban this party".
Daniel, right. It takes time and effort to figure out why so many people feel like supporting Nazifascism. But it's work that needs to be done. Constantly.
I have to admit that the Stoic notion that purely "evil" people do not exist but only a distorted sense of right and wrong is one of the hardest for me to accept.
I agree Luca. Ever since I read Socrates’ claim that no one does wrong/evil knowingly, it’s been a tough concept to accept to wade through. I think it’s a conflation between what is considered moral good vs good for me. Otherwise, it seems absurd. Folks often say, “Well, I know I probably shouldn’t do this, but...”. Perhaps Socrates is “correct” if we view it as no one does what they believe is bad for them (as an individual), whether they act for selfish gratification of passions (be it hate, fear or lust) or to avoid damage to their character or everlasting soul through self sacrifice.
Jesse, that's right: no one does what they believe is bad for them. And for the Stoics what's good for us is to act reasonably and prosocially. if one doesn't, that's bad for them.
Hi Massimo! This article was very helpful in understanding this concept of : “the only good is knowledge and the only evil ignorance” per Diogenes Laertius quote of Socrates. Wouldn’t the profound ignorance of what is good (virtue) by the Fascists therefore mean the Fascists truly ARE evil (or at least making evil choices)?
Jesse, it would mean that the fascists are truly ignorant. Or, to be specific, truly unwise. Wisdom is a type of knowledge, and they lack it. They literally don't know what is good for them. Which is to be rational and prosocial.
Certainly no one is “born evil”. I never met a child I could not love, and by loving them they grew to be kind and caring. Even the “horrible” ones. (I was a preschool teacher for a few years)
That said, some people “feed the bad wolf”. And it appears to me (anecdotally) that when we choose over and over to harm others, it eats away at our “goodness” until the light goes out. tRump and Putin are examples of that. Theyve gone over to the dark side so often, it appears to have eclipsed the light of their humanity.
I fear we may have to fight a guerilla style civil war soon. Although I hope Im wrong.
DD, I think your anecdotal evidence is borne out by systematic research. The only people who may be born "evil" are psychopaths with serious mental deficiencies.
I certainly share your hope about avoiding a civil war! I'm still optimistic it won't come near that. But we'll see.
There can be no mention, no allusion, no subtle reference, no innuendo of anything “good” that is NAZI—or fascist, for that matter, like under Mussolini. It is the most powerful of totalitarian societies because it uses the leverage of capitalist industry (such as it did with Krupp, Daimler and Siemens) rather than the pursuit of communist society. Nothing was “good” involving Hitler. The Treaty of Versailles was harsh, but Hitler was harsher. He was so harsh that he murdered his best friend in the Night of the Long Knives, Ernst Röhm, who “believed” in national socialism and wanted to see it through. Hitler stopped all that when the Enabling Act was signed allowing him supreme power and allegiance to him rather than the constitution. For Hitler that pursuit never was. It was about him. Nowhere along the line is there unselfish motive by the man in every decision. That it’s is even spoken about today with allusion of it being “positive” is appalling like saying the Black Death was good for the world.
Mike, and, incredibly, lots of people engage in at least partial apologetics of both nazism and fascism. We have a long way to go…
Professor: The biggest problem i have with the Core Principles of Stoicism as it relates to being a Citizen of any nation ~ the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, China, Taiwan, and any and every place else on this Planet ~ concerns the Dichotomy of Control: ie, that there is what the individual Human Being does and does not have control over, and that it is most Stoic-like for individuals to not concern themselves with and about those matters over which they do not have control, and to simply accept and go along with whatever their government and its leaders determine and decide to do.
Which raises the following Question: Given that the average individual Citizen of virtually every nation on this Planet has literally virtually absolutely no control whatsoever over what the government of their nation and its leaders, owners, operators, and controllers do about anything ~ particularly when it comes to foreign policy and War, or national economic, fiscal, and financial policy and action ~ does the Dichotomy of Control counsel then that the individual Stoic Citizen should not even think about challenging and attempting to change those policies and actions?
If that is the case, then does that mean that even thinking about changing that government ~ up to and including a revolution and the overthrow and replacement of that government and the system of governance that enables it to exist, thrive, and survive ~ is, from the perspective of Stoicism, wrong?
jg, absolutely not. Stoicism is not a passive philosophy, politically or otherwise. The dichotomy of control does not say that we shouldn't care about things we don't control. It simply reminds us that only our intentions are fully up to us, outcomes depend on a number of other factors.
If one determines that a revolution is needed, one ought to start a revolution. But always with the "reserve clause" in mind: it may not work.
Cato the Younger started a war against Caesar, after all.
Ahhh. Thank You, Sir, for clarifying that. i neglected to include the Reserve Clause as a critical part of the Dichotomy of Control.
That’s a tremendous article, thank you Massimo!
I do have a question applicable to Nazifascism and also other ideologies and thoughts… What should a stoic do regarding what he believes to be harmful speech? Meaning, speech the stoic believes that, unimpeded, may lead to harm and violence?
I'm of two minds here… On the one hand one should educate sick people after making sure that they don't harm others.
But is harm strictly physical and immediate? What about these others:
- psychological violence eg when Nazifascists chant for the control, exile or even extermination of what they deem inferior races, causing fear and terror in their “members” (even though races aren't real);
- intentional spread of their sickness ie through media and marketing and visibility, spreading Nazifascism to others by taking advantage of our sad human tendency to scapegoat minorities when we're despondent;
- stating clearly that at some point, if they grow enough, they WILL harm eg institute a race-based tyranny once they're in power, while for now they're just aggregating support to get to power (think Hitler before his election)
If they're also forms of violence, even if non-physical and/or non-immediate, should a stoic combat to “nip them in the bud” and thus encourage what these Nazifascists will call “persecution” and “censorship”?
My other perspective is that objective judgment is basically impossible until we see facts actually happening… Once a tyranny is instituted, once violence happens, a stoic must oppose it. Before it - what if it never happens? Censoring those who want to institute it - what if we're censoring valid viewpoints, or if we kickstart a censorship slippery slope?
So I'm really split here! If a stoic time travelled to 1920s maybe his moral obligation would be to educate Hitler or, failing that, kill him, since they KNOW what is going to happen.
But what if a 1920s stoic found a history book from the 2020s? At which point, after seeing that history is indeed following the book’s outline, is it their moral obligation to fight Nazifascism - knowing that every day they wait their uncertainty of violence and harm decreases, but the sickness and potential harm keeps increasing?
Sorry for rambling… Started on censorship and ended on time-travel and killing Hitler! In the end, what I struggle with is how much uncertainty a stoic should accept within their lives and principles. Knowing that uncertainty is not under their control, yet it is in their duty to face it. But when?
Felipe, these are all very good questions! And I hear your about being of two minds. However, I believe the Stoic response is very clear, though it may be unpalatable.
Consider the example of Cato the Younger and his fight against Caesar: Cato did not pick up arms until Caesar did, which implies to me that until and if Nazifascists actually engage in violent acts they are to be met with Marcus Aurelius's famous "teach them or bear with them."
As for non-physical harm, for the Stoics there simply is no such thing, as tough as it is to hear. Insults cannot harm us unless we let them, so it is up to us to simply ignore them. That's a fundamental implication of Epictetus's rule: what harms us are not people's words, but what we think of people's words.
Finally, the issue of time travel and killing Hitler pre-emptively. I believe, but I could be wrong, that the answer is yes, a Stoic would do it, because he would know, at that point, what is going to happen otherwise. But the whole issue of tyrannicide is very complicated. I have written about it here: https://medium.com/@philosophyasawayoflife/brutus-cassius-and-the-philosophy-of-tyrannicide-dec3dc7f8928?sk=a08a13f1eed99289b598c969b3bc7aee
Thank you so much for your response!
I do agree with you btw on “psychological violence” and the need to “bear them” ie not censor… I'm trying to follow the stoic path myself.
I think a lot about how the human mind is quite “bugged”, however, being a byproduct of evolution. So what's the duty of a scientific-minded stoic in face of that?
It's amazing we’re capable of reason, but that's not something automatic, we have to fight for it… Which is why it's hard to see harmful memeviruses being crafted to take hold of our collective minds.
We can innoculate ourselves individually, but what about the collective? And we don't even need to get as far as Nazifascism… Even cigarette media manipulation, or addictive phones, might fall under this lens.
Once more, thanks for your answer, and all the great books as well!
Felipe, the Stoics argue that we are actually naturally capable of reason and that it is society that corrupts that ability. I think they have a point, at least in part. Kids, for instance, are naturally curious, until formal education and society squashes their curiosity and creativity.
The question of how we inoculate society is a great one. For the Stoics this is done from the bottom up, so to speak: one person at a time. I do think, though, that Aristotle was right when he said that we also need structural changes, that is, working toward a society where education is easily accessible, there are checkpoints against fake news and propaganda, and so forth.
Thank You, Professor Pigliucci, for Your insightful and thought-provoking examination of 21st century “Nazifascism,” and exploration of appropriate reactions and responses to it by Stoics.
Having said that, i would like to suggest another form of Fascism that is a far greater danger to the United States ~ an indeed the entire Planet ~ than Neo-Nazis; and is in fact already operational in this nation and around the world at the highest levels.
And that is Corporatist Fascism: a form of Fascism in which economic and financial, organizations and institution [primarily corporations] own, operate, command and control this nation’s elected politicians, entrenched civilian and military bureaucrats, and anointed political appointees.
And by doing that, Corporate Fascist are able to access this government’s legal power, administrative authority, and particularly, its spending capacity and capability in order to advance the agenda, objectives, and goals of those economic and financial organizations and institutions.
The original “Nazifascism” was, of course, Hitler’s Germany; which was very open and honest about its agenda, objectives, and goals as a POLITICAL phenomenon. But there was also a very vibrant and powerful Corporatist Fascism in Germany which played a very active and effective role in bringing Hitler and his Nazis to political power, in the first place.
After the failed “Beer Hall Putsch” in 1923 ~ an attempted coup d’etat against the Weimar Republic and the same year that Germany’s post-World War I “hyperinflation” hit its peak ~ many, if not most Germans probably thought they’d heard the last of Hitler and his Gang; if only because they had far more immediate survival problems to deal with because of that hyperinflation. But obviously, some other Germans had other ideas. According to Wikipedia:
“The Putsch brought Hitler to the attention of the German nation for the first time and generated front-page headlines in newspapers around the world. His arrest was followed by a 24-day trial, which was widely publicised and gave him a platform to express his nationalist sentiments to the nation. Hitler was found guilty of treason and sentenced to five years in Landsberg Prison,[note 2] where he dictated Mein Kampf to fellow prisoners Emil Maurice and Rudolf Hess. On 20 December 1924, having served only nine months, Hitler was released.[5][6] Once released, Hitler redirected his focus towards obtaining power through legal means rather than by revolution or force, and accordingly changed his tactics, further developing Nazi propaganda.[7]” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch]
And the rest, as they say, is History.
Also..... :
You began Your piece, Professor, by defining the two “philosophies” of Nazism and Fascism and noting four characteristics that they share in common: autocratic government, nationalism, racial supremacy, and suppression and censorship.
For a more extended examination of what Nazism and Fascism have in common, see Laurence Brittby’s 2003 article, “Fascism Anyone???", in which he lists and explains fourteen common features of World War II Fascism exhibited by Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Tojo's Japan; and then the post-WWII/Cold War I Fascisms of Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos 's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia [https://secularhumanism.org/2003/03/fascism-anyone/]:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
Take a look at this list and Brittby’s elaboration on it, and then ask Yourself: How many of those characteristics apply to 21st century America? It might be simpler and easier to list those characteristics that DON’T apply, eh?
For example, given what some folks claim happened in 2020, and that 2024 is a Presidential election that some folks are already claiming is fixed, Item 14 is particularly relevant. But then, so are Items 13, 9, 6, 4, 3, and 2.
jg, I'm in complete agreement. One of the most dystopian sci-fi writers, Philip K. Dick, described a future were we are squeezed by two antagonistic forces: fascist government and fascist multinational corporations.
On fascism and how to recognize it, I highly recommend this article by Umberto Eco: https://web.archive.org/web/20170131155837/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
Thank you for sharing the article by Umberto Eco. what a sweet and heart felt piece. ❤️ I've been a big fan of him since I read the name of the rose.
I agree that coorporate fascism is a big issue, but it's not just for America, it's for the whole world! I'm so sick of private equity firms taking over retirement villages and hurting the most vulnerable people!
Eco has been a favorite of mine for a long time. Did you see the recent documentary about him? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26242614/
I haven't seen that one! But will check it now!
Thank You, Professor. i will definitely read that.
It should be noted that Americans have been being warned about a "Fascist equivalent" in the United States since even before the Fascist realities of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo had been destroyed, with three books published in 1944: Ludwig von Mises’ OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT: THE RISE OF THE TOTAL STATE AND TOTAL WAR; THE ROAD TO SERFDOM by Friedrich A Hayek [dedicated "To the socialists of all parties"]; and AS WE GO MARCHING by John T Flynn.
The Warnings continued in 1975 with Charlotte Twight's AMERICA'S EMERGING FASCIST ECONOMY; in 1980 with FRIENDLY FASCISM: THE NEW FACE OF POWER IN AMERICA by Bertram Gross; in 2008 with DEMOCRACY INCORPORATED: MANAGED DEMOCRACY AND THE SPECTER OF INVERTED TOTALITARIANISM by Sheldon Wolin, and in 2013 with FASCISM VERSUS CAPITALISM by Lew Rockwell.
And most recently, Jeffrey Tucker's RIGHT-WING COLLECTIVISM: The Other Threat to Liberty [2017] and Carl Boggs' FASCISM OLD AND NEW: AMERICAN POLITICS AT THE CROSSROADS [2018] have brought all those older works up to date and right into the 21st century, at least thru Trump.
It's time for somebody to write a book that takes American Fascism beyond Trump and up to and including Biden.
A very good essay Massimo!
I'm probably C1,2 and 3 when it comes to the Nazis. I think all of us have a little bit of "Nazism" in ourselves. A strong love for one's country can blur into blind nationalism and when one's wallet and family are on the line, it's easy to cave into a strong man, especially if he's not one's direct enemy.
However, saying that does not mean I can excuse the wrongs done by the Nazis. In fact, not only I agree with C3, I believe that when all things fail, the Nazis must be completely destroyed if necessary.
Victoria, agreed. I have tried to work on reducing my own nationalism as much as possible. It is ultimately incompatible with the Stoic notion of cosmopolitanism.
I think it's very hard to think nationalism is not a good thing, because most children are educated at a young age to love one's nation. True enough that many nations have accomplished great things together, but often with losses of other nations.
At the same time, I'm not completely opposed to the idea of nation - after all, what's stopping one from killing their neighbours and occupying their property?
One thing for sure is that "loving one's nation wisely" is better than "blind loyalty to one's nation".
Victoria, yes, definitely loving one's nation wisely rather than blindly is a step forward! But I still see no redeeming value at all for nationalism. It is based on the notion that someone a random group of people is better or more important than another random group of people, an idea that has no foundation in reality.
Moreover, we tend to forget that the whole concept of nation-state is actually very recent. It seems inevitable today, but it certainly wasn't historically. Maybe it won't be again in the future.
Ok I'm glad we are on the same wavelength for this subject then. 😂
I think the "love one's nation wisely" can be a stepping stone to move away from blind loyalty.
Great article!
🙏
Educating people might just work since millions of Germans used to be Nazis
It's the only long-term strategy.
One of the best essays Ive read in awhile. Thank you Massimo. It brought up so many memories of my childhood (I’ve mentioned my Dad was a great admirer of the ancient Stoics, and lived his life accordingly.) anyway, I agree with the commenter here who said “everyone” should read this. Thank you. 🙏🏼
DD, so glad to hear it! Thank you!
This is well written thoughtful view of how Stoics should react to political regimes they oppose and disagree with On a separate point I personaly disagree with the premise the countries of the West including the US have a wide spread Nazi problem However i live in Asia and am not close to the problem so i accept i could be mistaken
Nicholas, I don't think western countries have a widespread Nazi problem. But they do have a widespread problem with right-wing populism, which historically has paved the way to Nazifascism. So, if you've learned anything from history...
Way back in the 1930s there was a German American Bund which promoted Hitler, anti-semitism, white nationalism, etc. The Bund held the infamous MSG rally which was attended by some 25,000 adherents. The group’s leader was found guilty of embezzlement and, in 1941, the group was outlawed. Not a Stoic approach to problem-solving, but worth knowing about.
Nothing un-Stoic about prosecuting someone for embezzlement. Yeah, the banning part is a bit problematic, depending on exactly what the group was advocating.
Right. The group was advocating for exactly what Hitler was: a white, gentile, nation that saluted its leader. Way back then, when something was declared unlawful it had teeth, not that laws can stop hideous ideas from reinfecting a population. Witness today in the US.
The devil, as they say, is in the detail. Take the example of Cato's opposition to Caesar. So long as Caesar advocated political reform, as unpalatable as it was to Cato, on the Senate floor, it was a discussion. When Caesar took up arms and crossed the Rubicon, it was war.
Thank you for this timely and important article. I am ambivalent about C3. On the one hand, I think of Socrates saying that it is better to suffer an injustice than to commit one. On the other hand, I remember a conversation with Denis Goldberg, one of the defendants together with Nelson Mandela at the Rivonia trial, who justified the ANC armed struggle by saying, if you don't fight and oppose the apartheid regime, then it is the same as being complicit with it.
I am thankful that I have never myself actually been confronted with the problem of whether or not to take up arms, (although my father's experience has marked me. He was a refugee from Germany in 1939 & fought with the British army. His grandmother, left behind, was murdered by the Nazis).
All I can say at this point is that if, or when the time comes, I will be be able to call on my Stoic training to make the honourable decision
Patricia, indeed, your Stoic training will suggest to you what the virtuous thing to do is, depending on the specifics of the situation, including your own character and personal history.
I guess I am with Goldberg in suspecting that, in extreme cases, fighting is a must. I'm not sure it amounts to committing an injustice, though, vis-a-vis your reference to Socrates.
What is problematic is that people can fight for the right reason and then go overboard because of anger or other motives, and undermine their own otherwise justified engagement. The Allied carpet bombing of Dresden so memorably described by Kurt Vonnegut (who was there) comes to mind.
And then there was the fire-bombing of Tokyo and, ultimately, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
"As many as 100,000 Japanese people were killed and another million injured, most of them civilians, when more than 300 American B-29 bombers dropped 1,500 tons of firebombs on the Japanese capital that night.
"The inferno the bombs created reduced an area of 15.8 square miles to ash. And, by some estimates, a million people were left homeless.
"The human toll that night exceeded that of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that year, where the initial blasts killed about 70,000 people and 46,000 people respectively, according to the US Department of Energy."
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/07/asia/japan-tokyo-fire-raids-operation-meetinghouse-intl-hnk/index.html .
And WE charged the Nazis with War Crimes at Nuremburg... .
Yup. those actions turned the Allies from "good guys" into "not-so-good-but-better-than-the-Nazis" guys.
Massimo, great essay. More learning! The Rubicon! 😊 At least the Stoics take a level deeper instead of the “black and white” labeling of good and evil as fascists and Nazis do. Epictetus is being inquisitive to find the deeper root to the causes. This is to be respected. Nazi fascists would never do such analysis. As a matter of fact, they’d do the opposite. Let’s send the disabled, for instance, into the new furnaces for testing first. I’m sure the paperwork on that was finished by lunchtime. I still get shivers when this photo circulates being from New York City. https://untappedcities.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/featured-nazi-town-pbs-documentary-untapped-new-york1.jpg
Mike, disturbing photo indeed. Just like the famous one of a Nazi rally at the Madison Square Garden.
Great writing Massimo! Very helpful. However, I fall away in C3. I am a Stoic pacifist, a carry over from my Mennonite/Brethren days and the solid streak of pacifism in the Early Church before Constantine declared the known world Christian! I see that declaration as one of the worst in history. I see no clear way for violence to produce a good outcome. This is very personal and I am not poking at you. Just wonder about your dinner conversations with Jennifer on this topic. Her Mennonite DNA must give you a little “fight”. Thanks for your ongoing, relentless work for Stoicism and the common good.
Roger, I hear you. And yes, we have interesting dinner conversations with Jennifer about that topic. But I stick with the Stoics: when the Nazi start rolling in with tanks the only possible response is to kick them back out. Hopefully, however, our work before that point will actually preclude the appearance of the tanks...
Stoic education can certainly be seen as a type of self and societal self-defense. Indeed, there is a whole book on critical thinking (not from a Stoic perspective) that uses that very metaphor in the title: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/947256.A_Short_Course_in_Intellectual_Self_Defense
Massimo, thanks for this article, it's great to have the Stoic point of view summed up in a single place.
I feel like C2, in particular the "teach them" aspect, contains many layers that we as a society have not really figured out yet. It feels like we've been watching populist and fascist movements on the rise for many years, but yet we seem to lack the ability to stifle those sentiments in a way that addresses their causes and doesn't just fall into the trap of "let's ban this party".
Daniel, right. It takes time and effort to figure out why so many people feel like supporting Nazifascism. But it's work that needs to be done. Constantly.
I have to admit that the Stoic notion that purely "evil" people do not exist but only a distorted sense of right and wrong is one of the hardest for me to accept.
I agree Luca. Ever since I read Socrates’ claim that no one does wrong/evil knowingly, it’s been a tough concept to accept to wade through. I think it’s a conflation between what is considered moral good vs good for me. Otherwise, it seems absurd. Folks often say, “Well, I know I probably shouldn’t do this, but...”. Perhaps Socrates is “correct” if we view it as no one does what they believe is bad for them (as an individual), whether they act for selfish gratification of passions (be it hate, fear or lust) or to avoid damage to their character or everlasting soul through self sacrifice.
Jesse, that's right: no one does what they believe is bad for them. And for the Stoics what's good for us is to act reasonably and prosocially. if one doesn't, that's bad for them.
Hi Massimo! This article was very helpful in understanding this concept of : “the only good is knowledge and the only evil ignorance” per Diogenes Laertius quote of Socrates. Wouldn’t the profound ignorance of what is good (virtue) by the Fascists therefore mean the Fascists truly ARE evil (or at least making evil choices)?
Jesse, it would mean that the fascists are truly ignorant. Or, to be specific, truly unwise. Wisdom is a type of knowledge, and they lack it. They literally don't know what is good for them. Which is to be rational and prosocial.
Yes, as I said on Notes, so do I. And yet I think it's one of the most powerful and liberating aspects of Stoic ethics.
Certainly no one is “born evil”. I never met a child I could not love, and by loving them they grew to be kind and caring. Even the “horrible” ones. (I was a preschool teacher for a few years)
That said, some people “feed the bad wolf”. And it appears to me (anecdotally) that when we choose over and over to harm others, it eats away at our “goodness” until the light goes out. tRump and Putin are examples of that. Theyve gone over to the dark side so often, it appears to have eclipsed the light of their humanity.
I fear we may have to fight a guerilla style civil war soon. Although I hope Im wrong.
DD, I think your anecdotal evidence is borne out by systematic research. The only people who may be born "evil" are psychopaths with serious mental deficiencies.
I certainly share your hope about avoiding a civil war! I'm still optimistic it won't come near that. But we'll see.
sorry for the double comment, i'm not very used to substack interface
No worries!
Thanks Mort, much appreciated!