For my book report I will be analyzing Paul Hollander’s From Benito Mussolini To Hugo Chavez: Intellectuals And A Century Of Political Hero Worship. This book evaluates how political dictators were not only popular within their own countries ,but also how they were admired by highly educated Western intellectuals. Hero worship of dictator examples that the book includes but is not limited to include: Benito Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez. The overall goal of this book seeks to understand the sources of the political misjudgments and misperceptions of intellectuals to idealize dictators. It also discusses their affinity for wishful thinking and how they were influenced by the charisma of the dictators. It helps us better understand the political disposition of western intellectuals and also the personality of those political leaders who encouraged or helped design the cult surrounding their rise to dictatorship. Another goal of the book is to understand the relationship between the personal and political realms as well as the spirituality associated with modernity.
An overarching theme that the book tackles is the “cult of personality.” It claims that we are more likely to have positive sentiments about the political system if the person that represents it has a charismatic personality. It then talks about how this admiration can turn into hero worship. He also clarifies that the intellectual class are not the only ones that have admired dictators, they were popular among ordinary people as well. Believe in a utopian social system of the future.
A contradiction that the book tackles is: how could intellectuals that are people who value free expression admire dictators that limited free expression? Questions that the book seeks to answer: Is the admiration of dictators by intellectuals similar or different from the admiration by ordinary ppl (non-intellectuals)? Do intellectuals admire dictators because of their personality, ideas, or the political system they symbolize and represent? What particular attributes of the dictators do intellectuals find the most appealing? How do we justify the admiration of dictators in light of dissonance between their supposed commitment to free expression and the policies they pursued? How can we explain these conflicting attitudes? Do larger cultural political trends account for them or are they rooted in the nature or personality of intellectuals in their shared attributes that include ambivalence about their social role, identity problems, and an unease about being thinkers and talkers rather than doers? What is it in the nature of many intellectuals, especially the public or political intellectuals, that makes them susceptible to the appeal of dictators and the political systems they represent?
To answer these questions one needs to recognize that they are chronically dissatisfied with their own society. Gouldner also discusses this sense of alienation in a broader social historical context. He claims that this isolation is not a recent event and has directly blocked intellectuals’ ability for upward mobility. Therefore, many Western intellectuals believed in idealized totalitarian dictatorships because they thought it would solve their identity issues and they would be more integrated into society. They yearned for guaranteed authenticity and integration and thought that these systems would achieve this. They were also influenced by their hatred of capitalism so this resulted in hero worshiping the perceived enemies of capitalism.
A common thread among dictators was their proclaimed commitment to secular-religious beliefs. Many of their speeches had religious undertones and religion was often a source of motivation for their agendas. Crimes committed in socialism were forgiven and not punished because that would be an example of “bad faith.” In many cases ints and socialism fused together with religious hope. Another theme was the disillusionment with or questioning of modernity. In an attempt to rebel against modernity intellectuals sought refuge in radical alternatives that challenged modernity.
Hollander then goes on to note the similarities among facsism and communism. Both had the goal of creating a utopian society. Also much of their support came from economic difficulties and low morale after WWI. After losing the war there was a decline in social cohesion which made life seem meaningless. Another appeal was their adversity for modernity, yet there was a contradiction here.Dictators often flaunted their technological accomplishments as sources of legitimacy. Both fascist italy and nazi germany introduced economic policies that were more efficient than former policies.
The personalities of the leaders themselves was a major reason for their success in rising to power. Charismatic leaders typically arise in times of severe political and economic crises when people are longing for a quick solution. Intellectuals were wishful thinkers who thought that these dictators were capable of producing this change. They viewed dictators as sacred and put them on a pedestal to worship them. Collins also talks about the affinity for intellectuals to view certain objects or people as sacred. He claims that intellectuals produce sacred objects in the attempt to enhance their own status in the intellectual community. I think this directly relates to how intellectuals sacralized dictators in an attempt to guarantee their own social status.
In regards to specific dictators a lot of Hitler’s following from Western intellectuals came from the fact that he was an artist. The new position of the artist under National Socialism resonated with the longings of alienated intellectuals who dreamed of becoming integrated into a communitarian socialist society. He was also very charismatic and was able to connect to the masses and was viewed as a selfless individual trying to bring salvation to Germany. The admiration of Stalin came from his “success” with the rapid industrialization of an underdeveloped country. Unlike Hitler, he was not charismatic and rarely spoke to crowds. He resembled a father-figure and had a remarkable ability to deceive those that he met. Westerners admired Stalin because they admired a political leader with accomplishments and personal qualities that were better than leaders in their own country. Castro appealed to the New Left because he was a young, handsome, powerful speaker, a genuine revolutionary and guerilla fighter who overthrew an oppressive government. There was a strong appeal for Castro from westerners because they considered him a victim of American imperialism. He also gained popularity in the U.S. from his famous interview with the New York Times. There was also a historical trend associated with his rise to power. By the time he rose to power the soviet system was largely discredited.
In more recent times there have been many notable new dictators that have risen to fame and performed progressive communism. North Korea specifically is developed and institutionalized with modifications of extreme quasi religious cults of its leaders. Western intellectuals have sympathy for North Korea because of the “unfriendliness” of the U.S. They also praise the alleged accomplishments of the regime such as “free education and health care to everyone.” Hugo Chavez of Venezuela became popular partly because of his close relations with Castro. He thought like other dictators that he was carrying out an earthly mission guided by a superhuman force. Westerners admire that he provided substantial economic assistance to Cuba. Yet westerners are unaware that ~1.3 million venezuelans left the country after his rise to power. They also were unaware of serious deterioration of public safety and high crime levels.
Overall an overarching theme of this book was the lack and resistance of knowledge of the true policies that these dictators represented. Intellectuals were not anxious to gain access to information that would have undermined their own beliefs. They also were influenced by their alienation from society and tendency for wishful thinking. This allowed for the persisting and predisposition to misjudge both the character and policies of these dictators throughout history.