140 Chapter 6
eugenicsor socialDarwinism.Yet,as EmmanuelFayepointsout,Tietjen’s defenseof
Heideggerfails.Heideggerindeedproclaimsthat thereare distincthumanraces,and that
eachraceholdsinborncharactertraits—thatsomeracesare congenitallysneakieror
greedierthanothers.Heidegger,observesFaye,employed“the termsRasse[race]and
Geschlecht[sex]veryexplicitly” in the verysamecoursewherehe professednot to believe
in “biology.” Not rejectingthe termsRasseandGeschlecht, Heideggerproclaimedthat race
shouldbe evaluated“no longeron the basisof whathe disdainfullyrefersto as ‘liberal
biology’ (liberalisticheBiologie).” GiventhatHeideggerproclaimedthathis ownracial
theoryshouldbe acceptedin lieuof “liberalbiology,” we shouldunderstandwhathe
meantbyliberalbiology. Byliberalbiology, he referredto whatHeideggerdeemedthe
laissez-fairepolitical“liberalunderstandingof manandhumansociety” thathadbeen
popularin GreatBritain.Thatis,liberalbiologyalludesto the schoolof philosophythat
HerbertSpencerled.Heideggeradvancedhis owneugenicismat the expenseof the
Spencerianinterpretationof socialsciencethathe hated.Then,throughouttheContribu-
tionsto Philosophylectureshe deliveredbetween 1936 and1937,Heideggeragainrailed
againstbiologischerLiberalismus—biologicalliberalism.Yes,Fayewritesthat whatHeideg-
ger “continuallycritiquesis Darwinism,becauseit is Anglo-Saxonand therefore‘liberal.’
But he is carefulto pointout laterin his courseon Nietzsche,” one of his ownexistentialist
philosophicinfluences,“that ‘Nietzsche’s biologismis not Darwinism.’”^69
In the faceof suchevidence,somemayreplythatNaziismstill musthavearisenfrom
private-enterpriseeconomics,as bothfree enterpriseand Naziismare right-winginstead
of left-wing.Whena politicallycorrectleft-wingeropinesthat laissez-faireideologuesand
totalitarianNazisare equally“right-wing,” the termdenotesnothingmorethan“every-
thingof whichpoliticallycorrectleft-wingersdisapprove.” Shouldthe phraseright-wing
be articulatedin sucha manner,thenthe rightwingcannotbe definedby any commit-
mentto laissezfaire,giventhat laissezfaireis preciselywhatwasmissingfromthe Third
Reich’s regime.As this partshalldemonstrate,the Nazismadegovernmentcontrolthe
mainaspectof life for everyone of theircitizens.The verywordNaziis shortforNational
Socialist. Moreimportantly—the defensivedenialsof left-wingcommentatorsnotwith-
standing—the ThirdReichshowedits determinationto implementthe “socialism” half of
the label.Thusthe Nazislivedup to theirparty’s full name—the NationalSocialistGer-
manWorkersParty(NSDAP,for short).Althoughit wasmostlyframedin a racialor
nationalistcontext,the termthattheNazisappliedto the Germans—volk, as in “folk”—
carriedsocioeconomicconnotationsas well.To somedegree,the Nazisusedvolkto refer
to non-capitalistproletarians,just as the communistsappliedproletariatto that sameclass
of people.Volk, writesthe historianRichardGrunberger,“denotedboth‘the people’ in the
radical[social]democraticsenseand ‘the folk’ in the racialsense.”^70
Despitethe tremendousphilosophicdifferencesbetweenAnglophonefree-marketers
and Germanvolkists,writesGeoffreyHodgson,“politicalsentiments,from... liberalfree
traderssuchas SpencerandSumner,to moremilitantnationalists,andracistssuchas
Haeckel,wereall conflatedunderthe single,misleadinglabelof SocialDarwinism.”^71
Fortunatelyfor U.S.progressives,though,suchAnglophonesocialistsas GeorgeBernard
ShawandsuchAnglophoneprogressivesas LouisD. Brandeis,whohadsupportedeu-
genicistandracistlegislation,wereconvenientlyforgottento be eugenicist,therebyex-
emptingthemfromthe socialDarwinismtag and,as a consequence,leavingthe legacyof
progressivismitselfuntaintedby the negativereputationof eugenicsand socialDarwin-
ism.