Georges Sorel

Georges Eugène Sorel (born November 2, 1847 in Cherbourg , † August 29, 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine ) was a French social philosopher and pioneer of syndicalism .

Sorel was an opponent of liberal democracy . Not belonging to any specific political tendency himself, he had an influence on many anti-liberal political movements, in particular through his positive interpretation of political violence , which halted society's strong and moral decline.

Live and act

Georges Sorel was born in Cherbourg, France, in 1847. He grew up in a middle-class family and worked for many years as a civil servant in road and bridge construction in France. During these years his life was ambitious and unremarkable. He was awarded the Cross of the Legion of Honor and was appointed chief engineer. He began to write at the age of 42 and was able to resign from his office through savings and inheritances in order to devote himself fully to science. From here begins a time in which Sorel goes through several phases of philosophy and politics. It begins with a traditionally philosophical stage in which, among other things, he also represented monarchist positions.

In 1892 he published the three essays "The old and the new metaphysics" in which he turned away from traditional thinking and described himself as a progressive socialist. The years from 1893 to 1898 were marked by his work on various socialist magazines. He was strongly influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx. Sorel devoted numerous critical analyzes to them and adopted some terms from them, such as class struggle , for his own model of thought.

The theorist who ultimately made socialism attractive to Sorel, however, is likely to have been Pierre-Joseph Proudhon . Similar to Marx, Sorel is not interested in its implementation of socialism in the real world, but rather in the image of man shown. Sorel was thoroughly taken with the syndicalism of Proudhon and wrote some radically revolutionary works on it. However, his ideas did not have much influence on syndicalist unions. He continued to live a quiet and secluded life near Paris and kept a certain distance from political movements, even if he represented their positions himself.

The Dreyfus affair also shook Sorel deeply. In France it resulted in a sharp division between the state and the church. The background was that in 1898 the first doubts about Dreyfus's guilt arose and the “republican aristocracy ” (Sorel quoted from Freund 1972, 109) took the reins of justice in their hands. At first Sorel fought on the side of the Dreyfusans (mainly left-wing intellectuals) and viewed the affair as a fight for the law, more precisely for the pure legal order without political ideals. What fascinated him most was how the socialists were passionate about justice. But when the opponents (mainly nationalists and the church) of Dreyfus and thus the opponents of the political reforms formed a mass through a wave of anti-Semitic passion, Sorel changed his views. He now saw a mass uprising against the republican aristocracy. The church, which formed an alliance with this passion, aroused the masses to protest. For Sorel, anti-Semitism is the driving force behind the uprising of the “poor people” against a decadent intellectuality. In contrast to socialism, this anti-Semitism is instinctively present in people and does not have to be forced. For Sorel he is thus also a driving force in democracy and mobilizes the masses against a know-it-all and dominant upper class.

What shocked Sorel was the fact that the struggle for justice became a political struggle and the whole process became an opaque process of accusations and counter-accusations. In the end Dreyfus was released not by a court verdict, but by political amnesty. With this, Sorel diagnosed that there was no justice in France, but that a liberal democracy lived out its policies as it wanted. Dreyfus should have been acquitted by a court like any other person.

After this disappointment, Sorel's life fell briefly. With the considerations on violence, Sorel's thinking took on a new tone. France was on the verge of civil war during this period. People were afraid of an uncontrollable outbreak of violence. This prompted Sorel to write his theory on violence.

Another theorist had a major influence on Sorel during this period. Michael Freund wrote "what Hegel was for Marx, Bergson was to a large extent for Sorel". In Henri Bergson , Sorel found the philosophy of life that he needed for his myth about the general strike. He took over the idea of creative development, which gave him an explanation of how the life energy of the masses could be mobilized.

The book “On Violence” first appeared in 1906 in the form of articles in a socialist magazine and was only compiled and published as a book two years later. The considerations contained therein were explosive and, from today's perspective, can be related to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. Or to put it in the words of Michael Freund : "The generation that grew up in the ideals of the Dreyfus struggle, humanitarian-democratic ideas, had gambled away". The idealistic ideas of the liberals faded away and other ideologies took over the political leadership.

This book can be considered Sorel's major work as it essentially expresses his views on social life. In it, he decisively charges the social democrats and reformists in France. He accused them of "having given up the central idea of revolutionary Marxism, the class struggle, in favor of a state-sustaining social reform course" and now to rule at will. Sorel wrote:

"Experience has still shown us to this day that [sic!] Our revolutionaries, as soon as they have come to power, invoke the raison d'état, that [sic!] They then use police methods and see the judiciary as a weapon, which they can abuse against their enemies [sic!]. The parliamentary socialists do not at all evade this general rule; they cling to the old state cult; they are therefore well prepared to commit all the misdeeds of the Ancien Régime. "

-

So the government has changed, but the old state apparatus he hated has not been shaken by it, it has only changed face. Furthermore, an intellectual minority rules over the masses and suppresses their will. For Sorel, however, the state is basically a weak construct that is subordinate to a civil society. For him, values in a society emerge through healthy debate and a pluralistic public.

From around 1908 Sorel began to be more and more interested in nationalist and right-wing conservative political movements, especially the Action Francaise . Sorel hoped for a renewal of France through proletarian violence. That the good old French bourgeoisie would rise again. For him this was a prerequisite for a socialist future. After the sad disillusionment caused by the Dreyfus affair, nationalist movements got a new impetus and promised a renaissance of old France. Sorel saw this as an opportunity to implement his ideas and in part expressed solidarity with this movement.

In the book “On Violence” it was already possible to foresee what was to come in Europe in the coming years. The book had a great influence on Mussolini , who used it as a theoretical base literature for his fascist project. Sorel himself was taken with Mussolini, but always kept a certain distance. Quite the opposite of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The last edition of the book received a short hymn of praise to Lenin from Sorel , even if he had no influence on him as a theorist. So Sorel's life and views have constantly changed throughout his life. Many of his ideas are often only comprehensible from certain points of view. But he was and remained one thing from the start: He was a vehement opponent of parliamentary democracy .

Sorel died lonely and withdrawn in a small house in Boulogne in 1922.

Sorel's themes and viewpoints

Connection to Proudhon and Marx

Sorel tried to link the thoughts of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - an economist and an early proponent of anarchism - and those of Karl Marx .

From Marxism he adopted the idea of the class struggle . But he rejected Marx's economic criticism. For example, he does not see the theory of surplus value as a theft of the wages of the workers, which is given from the beginning in capitalism, but rather it arises “from the revolt against wealth”. Likewise, Sorel does not take his most important foundation, the concept of the class struggle, one-to-one from Marx's writings. For Sorel, the class struggle is not something historical that can be found in all forms of society. Rather, the class struggle only arises through the emergence of capitalism and describes the struggle of the proletariat for law, because the working class can only exist in law. Thus the class difference with Sorel is not given by the possession of the means of production , rather the class is social life in itself, which is formulated in law. The class struggle is a fundamental condition for Sorel to build up one's own class identity and to act independently. In a classless society, the masses are more inclined to chase after a leader than to act independently.

His engagement with Marxism can be seen as a search for a renewal of morality. He is not interested in its analysis of the capitalist system, but thinks that Marxism could have the potential to create a morally renewed society.

Sorel understands Proudhon's book “War and Peace” as proof that war is a creative force, a “mover of the human race”. The human existence happens on a warlike existence. People cannot imagine anything else. To understand the considerations on violence, they must be explained from the perspective of this book. It praises peace and declares work to be the heroism of the future. In the modern age, however, war has become reprehensible, a war of machines. Nonetheless, it remains holy and divine because it has enormous energy. The dignity of this war goes hand in hand with the struggle of the proletariat. Michael Freund wrote: "From the struggle comes the discipline that supports the new society". It is the morality of the working class, the producer morale.

On the meaning of myths

In his reflections on myths, Sorel emphasized not their content, but their ability to form communities and release energies. “Sorel understood the myth as the idea of a battle scene, which was supposed to arouse heroic feelings and instincts for a future decisive conflict in a way that mobilized the masses. Specifically, he addressed the myth of the general strike. ”The moralism of the working class , its fighting spirit and its strength should be developed through“ social myths ”rather than through belief in a change in living conditions. The Sorelian myth - z. B. that of the general strike - "creates legends that humans live instead of living history, allowing one to escape a miserable present, armed with an unshakable faith."

"A myth cannot be refuted because it is basically the same as the beliefs of a group, since it is the expression of beliefs in the language of movement, and consequently it is not acceptable to break it down into parts."

According to Kurt Lenk , Sorel's concept of myth is not an original myth - as in the ideas of many conservative revolutionaries the “promise of the return of a rejuvenated, healthy world” - but a myth of expectation. It is “the anticipation of a social catastrophe, a battle of annihilation [...] a fabricated myth which, by means of the general strike , is supposed to make the proletariat heroic and the bourgeoisie militant again. The point of such heroic use of force is less a victory for one side over the other than the mobilization of emotional forces. "

Hans Barth judged: “The ethos that corresponds to the revolutionary myth is bellicose . It is the soldiers' virtues that Sorel emphasizes: courage, bravery, self-control and self-renunciation, willingness to make sacrifices. "

About violence

For Sorel, violence is not a physical battle with a bloody end. Nor should it be understood as a means to achieve a political end. He wants to create a new perspective on violence. For him it is not something that is destructive, but rather something that sustains it: “an intrusion of something sublime into history”. So he wrote in his book:

“It takes a lot of effort to understand proletarian violence as long as one tries to think through the ideas that bourgeois philosophy has spread in the world; according to this philosophy violence would be a remnant of barbarism and destined to disappear under the influence of the advancement of insight ”.

Violence is not something that is reflected in the economic or legal world, but rather a phenomenon of the human being, "a fact of moral life". It need not be represented as good or bad by the ideal or right. It stands above these ascriptions, a higher right, so to speak, a divine right. Here Sorel separates violence from power, which strives for him to rule over people. The violence must be presented outside the ideas of the social world.

The myth of the general strike is supposed to ensure a strong and courageous proletariat, which is also ready to defend its rights by force. As a comparative example, Sorel cites the Catholic religion. This has existed for hundreds of years and its foundations have hardly been changed. In his opinion, she draws her strength from the countless battles she has fought with the belief that in the end she will be able to achieve final victory, in other words a myth of the kingdom of God .

Time diagnosis decadence

According to Lenk, a culturally pessimistic concept of decadence is hidden in Sorel's thoughts : "With the end of the producer morality of their early days, [according to Sorel] the bourgeoisie lost itself in the passivity of a consumerism from which the political general strike of the workers is now supposed to drive them away." Sorel saw this decadence and the criticism of the Enlightenment as threatening the communities and the order categories of religion , customs and law : “All traditions have been used up, all beliefs worn out (...). Everything unites to make the good person desolate (...). I cannot see the end of decadence, and it will not be less in a generation or two. That is our fate. "

He sees violence as a way out of this decadence towards proletarian society. For him, the struggle is the most important creator of morality and stands for a moral renewal. In this way the class of the proletariat can think and act for itself. He believes, without giving precise details about how society will function in the future, that this will result in strict work discipline and no more people over other people. Even if his idea of violence was unable to spread, his intellectual anti-intellectualism and deep contempt for parliamentary democracy have remained influential for the years to come and to this day.

Political positions, attitudes

Sorel represented various anti- liberal positions. In 1909 Sorel broke with socialism . In 1910 he was drawn to the right-wing Action Française for a short time . He later supported the Russian Revolution .

According to Lenk, Sorel's writings and life are determined by a “longing for faith without belief, the formal affirmation of activity as such, regardless of its direction and goals.” His heroism of “pure action” knows no compromises. Sorel embodies an anti- bourgeois and anti-intellectual way of life, which made him attractive both for revolutionary syndicalism and for many "game forms of modern anti-intellectualism".

“Sorel changed his mind on a number of issues. His opposition to democracy, however, always remained steadfast and determined; it remained the unchangeable center around which his thinking revolved ”. For Vogt, this is a sign that Sorel was less concerned with a political position than with a moral aversion.

reception

In syndicalism

Sorel worked on French and Italian revolutionary syndicalism . Sorel's syndicalist ideas can be found in his work “The Socialist Future of the Trade Unions”, which are particularly well received by the Italian syndicalists.

Sorel and fascism

Some syndicalists later converted to fascism , so Sorel's ideas found their way into the extreme right-wing political spectrum. After these theorists (above all Sorel's students Edouard Berth and Georges Valois) tried in vain to apply the myth of the general strike in reality, they saw no future in it and with it also gave up the concept of class (and thus also the class struggle). As an alternative, they turned to the nation. In order to be able to continue using the mobilization power, a new myth had to be found. Instead of the strike, which is not advantageous for one nation because it would weaken it against other nations, they now put the war between the nations. This myth has been called the Revolutionary War Myth. The myth of the general strike had failed, and many syndicalists thereby ceased to believe in the creative power of the proletariat, including Mussolini. The Italian dictator Benito Mussolini (1883–1945) named Georges Sorel when asked which of his teachers he owed the most.

According to Hans Barth, Sorel sees above all the moral quality of the fighting: "The fight as the result of the antagonistic structure of man [is] for Sorel in the last instance a fight for law and justice." enter the history of ideas of National Socialism or an unscrupulous, brutal and racist 'gentleman morality'. Barth states, however, that "although for Sorel violence should also serve the general moral renewal of the European peoples", the "effect of his teaching consisted in the unlimited use of power."

Fonts

Contribution à l'étude profane de la Bible. Paris 1889.
Le Procès de Socrate. Paris 1889.
L'ancienne et nouvelle métaphysique. 1894, published under the title D'Aristote à Marx. Paris 1935.
La ruine du monde antique. Paris 1898.
Saggi di critica del marxismo. Palermo 1903.
Le système historique de Renan. Paris 1906.
Insegnamenti sociali della economia contemporanea. Palermo 1907.
La décomposition du marxisme. Paris 1908, German: The dissolution of Marxism. Edition Nautilus, Hamburg 1978.
The illusions of progress . Paris 1908, engl. The illusions of progress. University of California Press, Berkeley 1969.
Reflections on violence. Paris 1908, German: About violence . University publishing house Wagner, Innsbruck 1928; Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 1969; AL.BE.CH.-Verlag, Lüneburg 2007. (See also: Klaus Große Kracht: Georges Sorel and the myth of violence. In: Zeithistorische Forschungen / Studies in Contemporary History. 5, 2008, pp. 166–171.)
La révolution dreyfusienne. Paris 1909.
Matériaux d'une théorie du Prolétariat. Paris 1919.
De l'utilité du pragmatisme. Paris 1921.

literature

Hans Barth : floods and dams . Fretz & Wasmuth , Zurich 1943. (On Sorel in particular pp. 223–230.)
Hans Barth: Mass and Myth. The ideological crisis at the turn of the 20th century and the theory of violence. Georges Sorel. Rowohlt Verlag , Hamburg 1959.
Helmut Berding: Rationalism and Myth. History and political theory with Georges Sorel. Oldenbourg, Munich / Vienna 1969.
Michael Freund : Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism. 2nd Edition. Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1972. (first edition 1932)
Richard Dale Humphrey : Georges Sorel. Prophet without honor. A Study in Anti-Intellectualism. Cambridge, Mass. 1951.
Walter Adolf Jöhr : Georges Sorel. A contribution to the intellectual history and social problems of our time. In: Ders .: The job of economics. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1990, pp. 416-447.
Kurt Lenk : The problem of decadence since Georges Sorel. In: Heiko Kauffmann, Helmut Kellershohn, Jobst Paul (eds.): Völkische Bande. Decadence and rebirth. Analysis of right-wing ideology . Unrast , Münster 2005, ISBN 3-89771-737-9 , pp. 49-63.
Zeev Sternhell , Mario Sznaijder, Maia Asheri: The Origin of Fascist Ideology. Hamburger Edition , Hamburg 1999, ISBN 3-930908-53-0 .
Zeev Sternhell: The Origin of Fascist Ideology. From Sorel to Mussolini. Hamburger Edition, Hamburg 1999.
Willy Gianinazzi : Naissance du mythe modern. Georges Sorel et la crise de la pensée savante. Ed. de la MSH, Paris 2006, ISBN 2-7351-1105-9 .
Jost Bauch : Myth and Disenchantment - Political Myths of Modernity . G. Hess Verlag, Bad Schussenried 2014, ISBN 978-3-87336-473-8 .
Leonore Bazinek: Georges Sorel. In: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL). Volume 23, Bautz, Nordhausen 2004, ISBN 3-88309-155-3 , Sp. 1400-1409. ( Article / beginning of article in Internet archive )

Web links

Wikiquote: Georges Sorel - Quotes

Individual evidence

↑ ^a ^b Gaetan Picon (ed.): Panorama of contemporary thinking. S. Fischer, 1961, p. 291.
↑ Michael Freund: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . Ed .: Vittorio Klostermann. 2nd Edition. Frankfurt am Main. 1972, p. 13 .
↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Georges Sorel and the Myth of Violence | Contemporary historical research. Retrieved October 31, 2017 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 50 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 43 f .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 13 f .
↑ ^a ^b friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 108 ff .
↑ Florian Ruttner: The myth of the radical. The betrayal of enlightenment, reason and the individual in Georges Sorel, Georges Bataille and Michel Foucault. In: A. Gruber, P. Lenhard (Ed.): Counter-Enlightenment. The postmodern contribution to the barbarization of society . ca-ira-Verlag, Freiburg 2011, p. 94 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 110 f .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 118 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 148 .
↑ Georges Sorel: About violence . 6th edition. Universitätsverlag Wagner, Innsbruck 1928, p. 124 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 220 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 194 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 272 .
↑ Wilfried Röhrich: The myth of violence. In: Rolf Fechner, Carsten Schlüter-Knauer (eds.): Existence and cooperation: Festschrift for Ingtraud Görland on his 60th birthday. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1993, 217
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 95 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 98 .
↑ Peter Vogt: Pragmatism and Fascism. Creativity and Contingency in the Modern Age . Velbrück Wissenschaft, Weilerswist 2002, p. 105 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 32 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 196 .
↑ Armin Pfahl-Traughber: Conservative Revolution and New Right, Opladen 2013, p. 125.
↑ Zeev Sternhell et al., Ibid.
↑ Quoted from Lenk 2005, p. 56.
↑ Lenk 2005, p. 56 f., All quotations from Lenk, s. literature
↑ Hans Barth: Mass and Myth. The ideological crisis at the turn of the 20th century and the theory of violence: Georges Sorel . Hamburg 1959, p. 90.
^ Sorel: About violence . S. 56 .
↑ Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 203 .
^ Sorel: About violence . S. 24 .
^ ^A ^b ^c Kurt Lenk: The problem of decadence since Georges Sorel. In: Heiko Kauffmann, Helmut Kellershohn, Jobst Paul (eds.): Völkische Bande. Decadence and Rebirth - Analyzes of Right Ideology . Münster 2005, p. 56.
↑ Quoted from Lenk 2005, p. 54.
↑ Pirou quoted from Vogt: Pragmatismus und Faschismus. Creativity and Contingency in the Modern Age . Velbrück Wissenschaft, Weilerswist 2002, p. 105 .
↑ Lenk 2005, p. 58.
↑ Zeev Sternhell: The emergence of the fascist ideology. From Sorel to Mussolini . Hamburger Edition HIS, Hamburg 1999, p. 203, 256 .
↑ Erwin von Beckerath: Essence and Becoming of the Fascist State ; Berlin 1927, ND Darmstadt 1979, p. 148.
↑ Barth 1959, p. 102.
↑ Hans Barth: Floods and dams. Zurich 1943, p. 230.

personal data
SURNAME	Sorel, Georges
ALTERNATIVE NAMES	Sorel, Georges Eugène (full name)
BRIEF DESCRIPTION	French engineer and social philosopher
DATE OF BIRTH	November 2, 1847
PLACE OF BIRTH	Cherbourg , Manche department , France
DATE OF DEATH	August 29, 1922
Place of death	Boulogne-sur-Seine , Seine department , France

[picon291-1] Gaetan Picon (ed.): Panorama of contemporary thinking. S. Fischer, 1961, p. 291.

[2] Michael Freund: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . Ed .: Vittorio Klostermann. 2nd Edition. Frankfurt am Main. 1972, p. 13 .

[:0-3] Georges Sorel and the Myth of Violence | Contemporary historical research. Retrieved October 31, 2017 .

[4] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 50 .

[5] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 43 f .

[6] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 13 f .

[:1-7] riend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 108 ff .

[8] Florian Ruttner: The myth of the radical. The betrayal of enlightenment, reason and the individual in Georges Sorel, Georges Bataille and Michel Foucault. In: A. Gruber, P. Lenhard (Ed.): Counter-Enlightenment. The postmodern contribution to the barbarization of society . ca-ira-Verlag, Freiburg 2011, p. 94 .

[9] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 110 f .

[10] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 118 .

[11] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 148 .

[12] Georges Sorel: About violence . 6th edition. Universitätsverlag Wagner, Innsbruck 1928, p. 124 .

[13] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 220 .

[14] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 194 .

[15] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 272 .

[16] Wilfried Röhrich: The myth of violence. In: Rolf Fechner, Carsten Schlüter-Knauer (eds.): Existence and cooperation: Festschrift for Ingtraud Görland on his 60th birthday. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1993, 217

[17] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 95 .

[18] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 98 .

[19] Peter Vogt: Pragmatism and Fascism. Creativity and Contingency in the Modern Age . Velbrück Wissenschaft, Weilerswist 2002, p. 105 .

[20] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 32 .

[21] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 196 .

[22] Armin Pfahl-Traughber: Conservative Revolution and New Right, Opladen 2013, p. 125.

[23] Zeev Sternhell et al., Ibid.

[24] Quoted from Lenk 2005, p. 56.

[25] Lenk 2005, p. 56 f., All quotations from Lenk, s. literature

[26] Hans Barth: Mass and Myth. The ideological crisis at the turn of the 20th century and the theory of violence: Georges Sorel . Hamburg 1959, p. 90.

[27] Sorel: About violence . S. 56 .

[28] Friend: Georges Sorel. Revolutionary conservatism . S. 203 .

[29] Sorel: About violence . S. 24 .

[lenk56-30] A ^b ^c Kurt Lenk: The problem of decadence since Georges Sorel. In: Heiko Kauffmann, Helmut Kellershohn, Jobst Paul (eds.): Völkische Bande. Decadence and Rebirth - Analyzes of Right Ideology . Münster 2005, p. 56.

[31] Quoted from Lenk 2005, p. 54.

[32] Pirou quoted from Vogt: Pragmatismus und Faschismus. Creativity and Contingency in the Modern Age . Velbrück Wissenschaft, Weilerswist 2002, p. 105 .

[33] Lenk 2005, p. 58.

[34] Zeev Sternhell: The emergence of the fascist ideology. From Sorel to Mussolini . Hamburger Edition HIS, Hamburg 1999, p. 203, 256 .

[35] Erwin von Beckerath: Essence and Becoming of the Fascist State ; Berlin 1927, ND Darmstadt 1979, p. 148.

[36] Barth 1959, p. 102.

[37] Hans Barth: Floods and dams. Zurich 1943, p. 230.