/lit/ - Literature

>>23426191
Wrong

>>23393191
And for good measure:
>In the Soviet Occupation Zone, many of his works were placed on the banned books list
>In the Federal Republic of Germany, Johst could no longer gain publication as a writer
They also banned poets from writing poetry. That's not even getting into what the CIA did post-war to suppress and ruin people they didn't like in foreign countries either, in many cases in countries that were their allies in WW2.

If you think the fascists were uniquely evil you're a retard. Every country had eugenics policies, every country had book bannings and even burnings, every country in the 20th century of any consequence is a totalitarian state. The fascists just had the misfortune of being the LEAST dystopian and most honest and open about what they are, of the three state types (communist, liberal-democratic, fascist). The commies were straight-up demonic, an empty husk and headless monster rampaging across Europe, and the "liberal" states were (and remain) just international finance cabals wearing 18th-19th century liberal ideology as a hand-puppet while using the other hand to slit the throat and smother the infants of any state that dared to break from their system of finance imperialism.

The fascists were the only one of the three that, mostly due to German autism, just tried to be honest about what they were: an organicist, demotic sublimation of the era of European democracies, and not some fanciful Hegelian communist utopia where everything is fine!! we swear!!, nor some fanciful liberal-democratic attempt to freeze time permanently in the early industrial revolution while actually raping and enslaving humanity.

>>22994000
(9)
Now imagine either of these movements has been in power for a few years, and the Great Depression hits. The western financial powers go straight down the shitter, but your nation recovers in record time, and there is even a general sense of optimism and solidarity everywhere - the kind of thing the USSR constantly proclaims on propaganda posters, but never actually succeeded in accomplishing. Whatever complaints you might have, it is almost exactly like the vaunted Volksgemeinschaft in WW1. Also, all those welfare state initiatives that were considered utopian half a generation ago are now implemented on a daily basis. Once again: your state actually does what the USSR merely proclaims it is doing. The closest left-wing analogue is "Red Vienna," on a smaller scale, the initiatives of which are comparable. So it is hard to deny that your state is socialist in a meaningful sense, in fact in many meaningful senses, again reflecting the polysemy the term, which now seems to be reflective of its positive synthesis with nationalism.

Then WW2 happens, and you manage to fight basically the entire planet, again because of that Volksgemeinschaft and the new natural aristocracy that has formed. The people you conquer (out of necessity, like the French) or bring into your sphere of influence (out of geopolitical inevitability, like the Hungarians) generally recognize the validity of the new bloc that you are forming, although plenty of mistakes are made and imperfections abound, as in any war. But most people generally acknowledge that the old binary, Kultur vs. Civilization, does reflect a genuine conflict between western capitalism and European whatever-this-is, right-wing socialism.

Now the eastern communists start to critique you for not being "true socialism," while their leader is busy murdering millions of people and having all his friends tortured to death or murdered gruesomely like some novel of Byzantine intrigue. And the western capitalists critique you for not respecting "freedom" - while their citizens live in squalor, crime is rampant, and they produce more and more filth by the day. The capitalists start to talk about "free enterprise," while at the same time their leading intellectuals like Walter Lippmann are writing openly about how democracy is a complete sham and the state needs to "manage" its citizens, who are basically mindless cattle. In response, your intellectuals, like Max Weber and Carl Schmitt, write perfectly cogently about how the combined economic and geopolitical realities of the 20th century reflect the total breakdown of laissez-faire economics (which has long been dead) and the end of the major phases of the industrial and financial revolutions and thus the end of "internal colonization" as a meaningful source of growth - with the result that the industrialized and financialized states will now turn outward to meet their needs, leading to emergent geopolitical tendencies.