What do you think?
Rate this book
The Apprentice's Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism
20th-century European Fascism is conventionally described as a fierce assault on liberal politics, culture and economics. Departing from this analysis, Landa highlights the long overlooked critical affinities between the liberal tradition and fascism. Far from being the antithesis of liberalism, fascism, both in its ideology and its practice, was substantially, if dialectically, indebted to liberalism, particularly to its economic variant
368 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 2009
About the author
Ishay Landa
6 books18 followersIshay Landa Ph.D. (2004) in History, Ben-Gurion University, Israel, is Visiting Senior Lecturer in History at the Israeli Open University. His scholarly work as a historian of ideas focuses on reconstructing the intellectual genealogy of fascism and its complex relationship to the intellectual history of the West. He has also published on Nietzscheanism, Marxism, political theory and popular culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 10, 2013
Really great book. Read it. Definitely read it if you're at all interested in talking about fascism or liberalism from a left perspective. The rest is elaboration on why it's so great but yeah it's one of the best books I've read in a while.
The class character of fascism is essential to understand it and this has of course been a major feature of leftist thought - that fascism represents a force of reaction from the bourgeoisie saving capitalism against the workers. However, this connection has always bothered those supporting the capitalist system because obviously it implies that capitalism isn't always a beacon of freedom or that there's something about liberalism that leads to fascism. Especially with cold war politics and the rise of neoliberalism, something different was needed. There are ideas like "totalitarianism" which are hegemonic but they don't provide an account of where fascism came from. Here Landa suggests that Zeev Sternhell stepped in. In the introduction Landa talks about Sternhell's guiding motive, which is apparently "taking fascists at their word" and focusing on their ideology rather than "material" factors. This apparently reveals the socialist roots of fascism. He suggests that this has become the hegemonic way of talking about fascism. The rest of the book is a comprehensive and highly convincing attack on this idea, showing that even if you take fascists at their word, which is a poor idea, then what comes through is their absolute dedication to ideas of economic liberalism.
One of the early distinctions Landa makes is between political liberalism and economic liberalism - the first being a project for greater democracy, freedom of expression, civil liberties etc and the second for "free markets", property laws, capitalism etc. He suggests that the two were originally conjoined as part of a project to seize power for the bourgeoisie from the old ruling classes but when the bourgeoisie became dominant the political aspect became dangerous to the much more important economic part. Therefore, the defence of each split, with those on the left generally taking up the defence of political liberalism while the right took up the cause of economic liberalism, particularly over the last half of the 19th century. This isn't a perfect classification but it really helps to understand what "anti-liberalism" from the right actually means.
Short list of the figures who come under attack in this book: Locke, Hayek, Mises, Weber, Schmitt, Proudhon, Carlyle, Sorel (all 4 of which get in depth studies, showing Proudhon was very liberal and Sorel was absolutely not socialist in any sense at all), Tocqueville, Nietzsche, Malthus, Churchill and the entire pre-WW2 British establishment, Heidegger, Le Bon, Mill, van der Bruck, Pareto, Burke, as well as people who are explicitly regarded as fascist of course like Spengler. He really highlights the similarities between fascism and market liberalism, sometimes explicitly paralleling the words of a fascist and a liberal to show their similarities on key issues. It becomes clear how many liberals explicitly kept open the possibility of fascism by believing that property was sacrosanct and it was perfectly reasonable for a dictator to restore order, if only as a "temporary" measure. Landa highlights how ridiculous this idea is - how can it be a democracy if it's apparently perfectly justified for democracy to be suspended if it's even *perceived* as hurting property rights? This is why it's absurd to conceive people like Mises and Hayek as defenders of freedom - they're quoted as believing dictators are perfectly fine in these cases. He also highlights how people like Carlyle, Proudhon and Sorel who are perceived as "anti-liberal" actually accepted fully the core ideas of market liberalism - they simply had issues with the exact justification, how these ideas actually worked out in practise, or democracy itself.
The last 2 chapters are dedicated to attacking 4 liberal myths about fascism. 1) that it was "the tyranny of the majority" 2) that it was "collectivist" as compared to "individualist" liberalism 3) that the "big lie", the use of propaganda etc to cover the "truth", was unique to fascism/"totalitarianism" or started there 4) that fascism was an ultra-nationalist attack on liberal cosmopolitanism.
For 1, he focuses not so much on attacking the idea that fascists were a majority (he does do this, but the book isn't focused on this sort of thing which has been gone over before many times) but instead how many liberals believed in the tyranny of the majority *against property owners* and were perfectly willing to accept dictatorship to protect the elite minority from the dangers of a majority attacking their elite position - and that liberals were in fact key ideological supporters of the fascist dictatorship to protect the market against the attacks of socialism.
For 2, he points out first "it should be realized that terms such as “individualism” or “collectivism” are, in and of themselves, devoid of political meaning, whether radical or conservative, left or right, socialist or capitalist. It is only the historical content poured into such signifiers, that lends them their concrete ideological import." These terms aren't helpful or meaningful as ideals. Nevertheless, he points out how liberal defences of the individual actually often took place from the standpoint of a greater community or goal - he points out how Edmund Burke called society a "family" simply to defend that the elite patriarchs should be able to do whatever they want yet without any responsibility in return. The collective standpoint acts as a justification for inequalities - that allowing the elite to do what they want advances greater goals, like culture, the health of the race, the nation etc. Individualism was actually often a way of advancing socialist goals by pointing out that every human being deserves a certain quality of life and the elite don't deserve more.
For 3, he quotes liberal philosophers who believed in the dangers of democracy so talked about the need for elites to work behind the scenes so the masses believe they're in charge while really a small elite do everything. He quotes Leo Strauss extensively, which is kind of weird as he's "post-fascism", but it's valuable as a more developed example of exactly what other liberal philosophers wanted. It shows that "totalitarianism" isn't so obviously confined to non-liberal ideologies.
For 4, he points out how common ideas of the nation were for liberals - similar to 2 - as a justification for inequality, as a basis for wealth (Wealth of Nations for example), as a myth to rally the masses. Again, he's clear that nationalism isn't inherently "good" or "bad" - pointing to the way nowadays third world nationalism is a valuable force for liberation while liberal countries at capitalism's centre are stressing the opposite. He's saying that nationalism isn't a unique quality of fascism at all. He also quotes Hitler suggesting that if Germany isn't good enough to win its place at the forefront of countries, he doesn't care for it. He doesn't present it as if it counters the idea of nationalism in fascism but he points out that it suggests alternative priorities.
The epilogue focuses on one specific historian's (Michael Mann) ideas about how fascism wasn't able to take hold in north-west Europe because of their "strong liberal traditions". He points out first that there were serious differences in material conditions but also that British politicians, for example, were closely tied to fascism, regularly expressing admiration for it and supporting fascists abroad, while implementing "crypto-fascist" ideas at home. Fascism was also impossible without ideas from the UK and the US - eugenics ideas from there especially were very popular among fascists. The idea that it was "liberal traditions" that stopped it spreading is shown as, at best, incredibly naive.
I highly recommend this book. It's written in a very clear style that doesn't get bogged down in academic terms and was kind of a page turner, amazingly enough. All the ideas above are pretty thoroughly fleshed out with many quotes and a decent coverage of thinkers. I wished there was more coverage but he can only do so much and he does a good job of discussing a lot of figures of importance. He clearly shows the problems of a straight "fascism is very close to socialism" formulation and invites us to question seriously much accepted wisdom about liberalism. It's given me a lot to think about. Essential reading for leftists especially.
The class character of fascism is essential to understand it and this has of course been a major feature of leftist thought - that fascism represents a force of reaction from the bourgeoisie saving capitalism against the workers. However, this connection has always bothered those supporting the capitalist system because obviously it implies that capitalism isn't always a beacon of freedom or that there's something about liberalism that leads to fascism. Especially with cold war politics and the rise of neoliberalism, something different was needed. There are ideas like "totalitarianism" which are hegemonic but they don't provide an account of where fascism came from. Here Landa suggests that Zeev Sternhell stepped in. In the introduction Landa talks about Sternhell's guiding motive, which is apparently "taking fascists at their word" and focusing on their ideology rather than "material" factors. This apparently reveals the socialist roots of fascism. He suggests that this has become the hegemonic way of talking about fascism. The rest of the book is a comprehensive and highly convincing attack on this idea, showing that even if you take fascists at their word, which is a poor idea, then what comes through is their absolute dedication to ideas of economic liberalism.
One of the early distinctions Landa makes is between political liberalism and economic liberalism - the first being a project for greater democracy, freedom of expression, civil liberties etc and the second for "free markets", property laws, capitalism etc. He suggests that the two were originally conjoined as part of a project to seize power for the bourgeoisie from the old ruling classes but when the bourgeoisie became dominant the political aspect became dangerous to the much more important economic part. Therefore, the defence of each split, with those on the left generally taking up the defence of political liberalism while the right took up the cause of economic liberalism, particularly over the last half of the 19th century. This isn't a perfect classification but it really helps to understand what "anti-liberalism" from the right actually means.
Short list of the figures who come under attack in this book: Locke, Hayek, Mises, Weber, Schmitt, Proudhon, Carlyle, Sorel (all 4 of which get in depth studies, showing Proudhon was very liberal and Sorel was absolutely not socialist in any sense at all), Tocqueville, Nietzsche, Malthus, Churchill and the entire pre-WW2 British establishment, Heidegger, Le Bon, Mill, van der Bruck, Pareto, Burke, as well as people who are explicitly regarded as fascist of course like Spengler. He really highlights the similarities between fascism and market liberalism, sometimes explicitly paralleling the words of a fascist and a liberal to show their similarities on key issues. It becomes clear how many liberals explicitly kept open the possibility of fascism by believing that property was sacrosanct and it was perfectly reasonable for a dictator to restore order, if only as a "temporary" measure. Landa highlights how ridiculous this idea is - how can it be a democracy if it's apparently perfectly justified for democracy to be suspended if it's even *perceived* as hurting property rights? This is why it's absurd to conceive people like Mises and Hayek as defenders of freedom - they're quoted as believing dictators are perfectly fine in these cases. He also highlights how people like Carlyle, Proudhon and Sorel who are perceived as "anti-liberal" actually accepted fully the core ideas of market liberalism - they simply had issues with the exact justification, how these ideas actually worked out in practise, or democracy itself.
The last 2 chapters are dedicated to attacking 4 liberal myths about fascism. 1) that it was "the tyranny of the majority" 2) that it was "collectivist" as compared to "individualist" liberalism 3) that the "big lie", the use of propaganda etc to cover the "truth", was unique to fascism/"totalitarianism" or started there 4) that fascism was an ultra-nationalist attack on liberal cosmopolitanism.
For 1, he focuses not so much on attacking the idea that fascists were a majority (he does do this, but the book isn't focused on this sort of thing which has been gone over before many times) but instead how many liberals believed in the tyranny of the majority *against property owners* and were perfectly willing to accept dictatorship to protect the elite minority from the dangers of a majority attacking their elite position - and that liberals were in fact key ideological supporters of the fascist dictatorship to protect the market against the attacks of socialism.
For 2, he points out first "it should be realized that terms such as “individualism” or “collectivism” are, in and of themselves, devoid of political meaning, whether radical or conservative, left or right, socialist or capitalist. It is only the historical content poured into such signifiers, that lends them their concrete ideological import." These terms aren't helpful or meaningful as ideals. Nevertheless, he points out how liberal defences of the individual actually often took place from the standpoint of a greater community or goal - he points out how Edmund Burke called society a "family" simply to defend that the elite patriarchs should be able to do whatever they want yet without any responsibility in return. The collective standpoint acts as a justification for inequalities - that allowing the elite to do what they want advances greater goals, like culture, the health of the race, the nation etc. Individualism was actually often a way of advancing socialist goals by pointing out that every human being deserves a certain quality of life and the elite don't deserve more.
For 3, he quotes liberal philosophers who believed in the dangers of democracy so talked about the need for elites to work behind the scenes so the masses believe they're in charge while really a small elite do everything. He quotes Leo Strauss extensively, which is kind of weird as he's "post-fascism", but it's valuable as a more developed example of exactly what other liberal philosophers wanted. It shows that "totalitarianism" isn't so obviously confined to non-liberal ideologies.
For 4, he points out how common ideas of the nation were for liberals - similar to 2 - as a justification for inequality, as a basis for wealth (Wealth of Nations for example), as a myth to rally the masses. Again, he's clear that nationalism isn't inherently "good" or "bad" - pointing to the way nowadays third world nationalism is a valuable force for liberation while liberal countries at capitalism's centre are stressing the opposite. He's saying that nationalism isn't a unique quality of fascism at all. He also quotes Hitler suggesting that if Germany isn't good enough to win its place at the forefront of countries, he doesn't care for it. He doesn't present it as if it counters the idea of nationalism in fascism but he points out that it suggests alternative priorities.
The epilogue focuses on one specific historian's (Michael Mann) ideas about how fascism wasn't able to take hold in north-west Europe because of their "strong liberal traditions". He points out first that there were serious differences in material conditions but also that British politicians, for example, were closely tied to fascism, regularly expressing admiration for it and supporting fascists abroad, while implementing "crypto-fascist" ideas at home. Fascism was also impossible without ideas from the UK and the US - eugenics ideas from there especially were very popular among fascists. The idea that it was "liberal traditions" that stopped it spreading is shown as, at best, incredibly naive.
I highly recommend this book. It's written in a very clear style that doesn't get bogged down in academic terms and was kind of a page turner, amazingly enough. All the ideas above are pretty thoroughly fleshed out with many quotes and a decent coverage of thinkers. I wished there was more coverage but he can only do so much and he does a good job of discussing a lot of figures of importance. He clearly shows the problems of a straight "fascism is very close to socialism" formulation and invites us to question seriously much accepted wisdom about liberalism. It's given me a lot to think about. Essential reading for leftists especially.
March 31, 2024
Stop recommending people libshit like Paxton’s “Anatomy of Fascism” and start telling them to read this bad boy. Full review will come eventually
February 6, 2024
Das Manifest gegen die Hufeisentheorie.
Hoffe er hat bei den Zitaten jetzt kein cherry-picking betrieben, aber wird schon stimmen.
Hater sagen, er habe keine eigene Faschismusdefinition, aber juckt.
Ach ja und ganz wichtig: Die Libs werden geowned. 😎🍻
Hoffe er hat bei den Zitaten jetzt kein cherry-picking betrieben, aber wird schon stimmen.
Hater sagen, er habe keine eigene Faschismusdefinition, aber juckt.
Ach ja und ganz wichtig: Die Libs werden geowned. 😎🍻
August 1, 2015
an indispensable counterargument to idealist historiography that presents European fascism as a "non-Western" aberration, turns it into a cautionary tale about the dangers of too much democracy, or obscures its class character. Landa instead demonstrates the continuity between classical liberal thought and fascist practice -- their shared concern with the rule of the elite, protecting property and "free enterprise", imperialism, colonialism, and their similarly contradictory stances on "individualism" and "the State", often mistakenly thought to be diametrically opposed. an extremely useful study.
August 1, 2014
i highlighted a lot of things in the book that means its good
June 21, 2024
Good shit
August 28, 2023
Absolutely illuminating overview of the oft-overlooked connection between liberalism and fascism. Landa engages in nothing less than a systematic takedown of the lie that fascism was merely the twin brother of socialism. In the analogy which gives the title its name, liberalism (the apprentice) conjures democracy/socialism (the cleaning supplies), only to find itself in eminent danger until fascism (the sorcerer) arrives to save it. Other reviews cover this in greater depth. Highly recommended.
April 17, 2022
Essential reading for anti-fascists. Like Losurdo, Landa's close reading of classical liberal philosophers underscores the elective affinities of liberalism and fascism.
February 4, 2024
Very intelligently written and incisive book about the affinities between classical liberalism and fascism.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews