Is Naziismthe FinalStageof Capitalism? 135and “the protectionof the workersagainst‘the anti-selectionisttendenciesof capitalism.’
He also believedin promotingthe workingclasspolitically.”^17
AlsoconsiderAlbertSchäffle, a politicalscienceprofessorfromthe Universityof Vien-
na. Schäffle, too, has beenfalselycharacterizedas a socialDarwinistapologistfor capital-
ismwhowouldsomehowsparkthe Nazis’ interestin eugenics.As Kellyparaphrases
Schäffle,“Unbridledcapitalism... wasbaseandmaterialisticanddid not bringout
man’s noblercharacteristics.” The Germanwentas far as writingan essayclarifyingthat
his ideologywasbasedon “DarwinismandSocialWelfare.” KellyevaluatesSchäffle’s
writingto be “a goodexampleof the limitationsof the commonviewthat SocialDarwin-
ism is merelyan apologyfor the worstaspectsof capitalism.”^18
Uponthe contest’s completion,the judgessummarizedthe consensusformedamong
the entrants:“... our timesdemanda policyof socialprogress,onlypossibleif there
existsa strongcentralpowerwhichis boldenoughto limitindividuallibertyin the name
of the commongoodand whichis ableto intervenein the mechanicsof economiclife.’”^19
To wit,Krupp,Schallmayer,andeveryoneelseconnectedto thiscompetitionvocally
opposedlaissezfaire.
Compoundingthe discreditingof left-wingmythology,the militaristintellectualsof
Germanyseldomderivedinspirationeitherin Spencerianfree-marketeconomicsor in
discoveriesaboutgeneticsand naturalselection.Kellytellsus thatmilitaristsin Deutsch-
landfrom 1860 to the Naziera “havebeentaggedwiththe label‘SocialDarwinist’ solely
by virtueof the factthattheirbellicoseutterancessucceededthe publication” ofThe
Originof the Species.HelmutvonMoltkeandHeinrichvonTreitschkeare one example.
The militarists’ “glorificationof warand the powerstateare onlyverysuperficiallyDar-
winian.WhenTreitschkeremarksin hisPoliticsthat‘Bravepeoplesalonehavean exis-
tence,an evolutionor a future;the weakand the cowardlyperish,and perishjustly,’ we
are mindedof Darwinby the choiceof words.But Treitschkedoesnot dependon or
elaborateon Darwinism;rather,he merelyrestatesthe ancient‘mightmakesright’ argu-
mentin contemporarylanguage.”^20 In factTreitschkeheldthe samerevulsiontoward
Semiticentrepreneursas did the restof the Germanswhowouldeventuallycometo
supportthe Nazis.GeorgeMossereports,“Treitschkeattackedthe eastEuropeanJewish
immigrationinto Germanyas the shocktroopsof a foreigninvasiondestinedto dominate
the stockexchangeand the newspapers.”^21 Thisextremeanti-capitalistattitude,so perva-
sive amongthe NaziParty’s supporters,will be exploredin the nextchapter.
The “ScientificRacists” WhoMostInfluencedHitler
OnemaywonderwhichparticularthinkershadoriginatedHitler’s governisteugeni-
cismif suchthinkersdid not includeHerbertSpencer,WilliamGrahamSumner,or any
otherconsensualist.OuranswerarrivesfromJonathanPeterSpiro,NicholasGoodrick-
Clarke,andbiographerWilliamL. Shirer.Spirocombedthroughthe chronologyof eu-
genicistideasin Europe.Researchingindependently,SpiroandGoodrick-Clarkeand
ShirereachdecipheredthatHitler’s ideasaboutgeneticsandracismoriginatedfrom
sourcesentirelydissimilarfromSpencerandSumner.Amongthe thinkersare Joseph
Arthurde Gobineau,GeorgesLapouge,andHoustonStewartChamberlain.GeorgeL.
Mosserepeatedlyrefersto theirscientific-soundingrationalizationsfor racismas “social
Darwinism,”^22 but not oncedoeshe mentionSpenceror Sumner.As it wasin the caseof
AlfredKelly,Mosse’s reasonis thatSpencerandSumnercommandedno morethana
minimalinfluenceoverGermany’s scientificracialists.Onephilosopherwhodid holda
majorinfluenceoverthem,though,wasImmanuelKant.“Philosophically,” Mossean-
nounces,“Volkishauthorsand racialtheorists...wereinspiredin partby certaintenetsin
Kant’s speculationson racewhichseemedto givethemlicenseto elaboratefurther.”^23