What do you think?
Rate this book
Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933-1944
Franz Neumann's classic account of the governmental workings of Nazi Germany, first published in 1942, is reprinted in a new paperback edition with an introduction by the distinguished historian Peter Hayes. Neumann was one of the only early Frankfurt School thinkers to examine seriously the problem of political institutions. After the rise of the Nazis to power, his emphasis shifted to an analysis of economic power, and then after the war to political psychology. But his contributions in Behemoth were groundbreaking: that the Nazi organization of society involved the collapse of traditional ideas of the state, of ideology, of law, and even of any underlying rationality. The book must be "studied, not simply read," Raul Hilberg wrote.
680 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1942
35 people are currently reading
1557 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 25, 2016
Corollary to Lemkin’s Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Like Lemkin, Neumann is European attorney in exile in the United States during WW2, writing about German legal developments. Whereas Lemkin focused on the fascist periphery vis-à-vis occupation statutes, Neumann is intent on the imperial center of the Third Reich, which of necessity includes some items regarding periphery. It is overall very well accomplished. Lacks Lemkin’s rigor in presentation of actual statutes and decrees (Lemkin achieved this through a separate appendix to his argument, which renders the argument manifestly substantial), though features much legal commentary & constitutional analysis. Draws as much from journalist reports as from published legal texts.
Very much a text of the Frankfurt school. Broken into four parts (not counting lukewarm intro by scholar Peter Hayes, which attempts to throw the Marxist components of the text under the bus, and not counting Neumann‘s own introduction, which works up a tidy narrative of the ruin of the Weimar Republic): part one is ideological ingredients of the NSDAP; part two concerns “totalitarian monopolistic economy”; part three is a survey of the society that results; part four is an appendix that updates the other parts from 1942 to 1944.
A thick text, I’ll simply hit the highlights, as it’s packed full of specificities.
Polycracy is the rule, rather than the exception, in the era of interventionist monopoly capitalism, wherein polycracy is “the conjunct body of independent public agencies (social insurance institutions, control boards, publicly owned corporations, and so forth), subject to no parliamentary supervision” (44)--reminds one of the APA in the US, incidentally.
Notes that “the idea of the totalitarian state grew out of the demand that all power be concentrated in the hands of the president” (47). This was intentionally anti-liberal in the NSDAP lawyer’s arguments, because “an identity between the ruler and the ruled,” i.e., in democratic representation, “undermined the necessary authority of leadership” (48). The totalitarian state was not mere coercive absolutism, but rather “a form of life of the racial Volk” (id.). NSDAP lawyers flipped out over this stuff, but nevertheless totalitarian “glorification of the state was abandoned a short time later” (49). Contrary to post-war critics of totalitarianism (typically from the rightwing end of liberalism), Schmitt theorized Romanic v. Germanic totalitarian doctrine; the former “regimented all spheres of life,” whereas the latter “left economic activities unrestricted” (49). The enabling act of 24 March 1933 is the enthronement of this doctrine.
Though the reality is totalitarian, the ideology remained very much party-oriented: the NSDAP wanted “not the establishment of the state’s totality, but of the totality of the National Socialist movement” (63). The text has much discussion of parallel state and party organs, ultimately electing the view that the Third Reich is Hobbes’ eponymous behemoth, an anarchy, stateless, wherein the party, the army, the bureaucrats, and the cartels had overlapping and conflicting jurisdiction. One such parallel party organization is the SS (i.e., it is a private organization, though its head, Himmler, also has state appointments) (69).
Fuhrerprinzip is introduced with some discussion of Luther and Calvin (no shit), which is generally kickass (85-92). Long sections on race doctrine and the doctrine of greater German empire. We see in the latter the normal attack on liberalism from the right, i.e., a frontal assault on egalitarian doctrine.
Part II: disagrees that the Third Reich is state capitalism or bureaucratic collectivism (221-225). Text really shines in its presentation of the economic organizations, which is quickly bewildering, in its cartels (horizontal organization), trusts (vertical organizations), groups (am still not sure exactly what a group is), and combines (apparently mega-firms that span many industries, whereas cartels, trusts, and groups are local to the steel industry, or the coal industry, or the salt industry, or whatever). This type of organization is to be considered autonomous to industry, i.e., self- regulation--though of course there is plenty of public regulation, also, typically concerning procurement for the war.
Useful discussion of Germanic law of property & contract (255-261). Cartelization became compulsory by statute in July 1933 (265). So the inference to draw from this is: anti-liberalism (i.e., no competition of capitals under the aegis of antitrust law) but also anti-socialist (i.e., private property is maintained). Much like the economic statutes in Lemkin, the regulation on display here (very detailed minutiae!) involves the fixation of industry at its current state--an attempt to forestall the revolutionization of the means of production, to stay the invisible hand, and so on.
NSDAP “will not nationalize industry because National Socialism believes in a ‘spiritual’ and not a ‘materialistic’ nationalization of economy” (270). This means that Aryanization and Germanization of capital may involve expropriation, but not socialization, as properties taken from Jewish owners and enemies of the Reich were distributed to monopolists (or to the Party)--not the public or the state.
Despite the self-organization of capitalism in the Third Reich (a process that was proceeding pre-WWI, NB), there is also the command economy which handles: “1) direct economic activities of the state, 2) of the party, 3) the control of prices, 4) of investment and profits, 5) of foreign trade, and 6) of labor” (293). Neumann sets these areas of inquiry up as antitheses to his thesis regarding totalitarian monopoly capitalism, and then produces the synthesis, which involves tracking these command economy elements through four stages (initial power, the Schacht plan, the Four Year Plan, and the war planning). Much very specific analysis of capital accounts, joint stock holdings, and other indicators. As to state activity, it is small compared to the whole. Regarding party activity, it is presented as US gangsterism, wherein the criminal conspiracy attempts to become legitimate through investment of criminal proceeds into real industry (229 ff). Price controls is reeled in by noting that this by no means abolished the market, and acts as a means of destroying small firms to the benefit of the cartels (312 ff). Denies that profit control exists (316), noting that NSDAP likes “productive capital,” as opposed to “predatory” or “parasitical” capital. (“Whenever the outcry against the sovereignty of banking capital is injected into a popular movement, it is the surest sign that fascism is on its way” (322).) As for foreign trade, presents the nifty idea that NSDAP is not autarkic by doctrine, but merely as a preparation for war (329 ff). Great discussion of contract law historically regarding the control of labor (contract challenged as liberal, &c)--which makes for a return to corvee levies and chattel slavery (337 ff). In the end, “the profit motive holds the machinery together” (354).
Ends with the “contribution of the National Socialist party to the success of the war economy is nil. It has not furnished any man of outstanding merit, nor has it contributed any single ideology or organizational idea that was not fully developed under the Weimar Republic” (351).
Part III lays out NSDAP production of a ruling class, ruled classes, and the ultimate result. Contrary to the Lederer thesis that the Third Reich is classless (365), the goal is rather atomization: a social policy that “consists in the acceptance and strengthening of the prevailing class character of German society, in the attempted consolidation of its ruling class, in the atomization of the subordinate strata through the destruction of every autonomous group mediating between them and the state, in the creation of a system of autocratic bureaucracies interfering in all human relations” (366). The four competing groups (army, party, bureaucracy, industry) participate in this process. Clarifies: “Nothing could be more erroneous than to call National Socialism a feudal system, for the essence of feudalism, sociologically speaking, is the directness of human relations expressed without mediation by a market. Bureaucratization of the economy entails the complete depersonalization of all property relations. Even the traditional market economy leaves a large number of direct human relations in existence” (386). (This all brushes against the grain of Dimitrov and Dutt, incidentally--but that's to be expected, as this is Frankfurt marxism.)
NB: “By the Hereditary Estate Act, in force since 1 October 1933, the peasant (only if racially a pure Aryan, of course) was tied to the land” (394). (Perhaps a bit inconsistent with the commentary on feudalism, supra, though!). NB also: “the peasant elite is being created without de-feudalizing or even dividing the entailed Junker estates” (395). Nonetheless, many such estates, referenced as latifundia at times by author, were subject to some sort of sequestration, as described in detail by Lemkin for the occupied territories (396 ff).
Punchline of much of this is that the “various strata are not held together by a common loyalty. To whom could they give it, after all? Not to the state, for it has been abolished ideologically and even to a certain extent in reality” (397). (This thesis builds on the discussion of international law in the Third Reich, which argued against the Third Reich being a state proper (151 ff).) All four of the parallel ruling groups “is sovereign and authoritarian; each is equipped with legislative, administrative, and judicial power” (398).
Regarding the ruled classes, NSDAP objective is to “create a uniformly sado-masochistic character” (402)--cf. Adorno! Thorough presentation herein of the labor movement from Weimar to the Third Reich, all damned interesting. “Wage differentiation is the very essence of National Socialist wage policy” (433), i.e., performance bonuses and piece work compensation, rather than wages based on incremental time. Extremely strong section on the transformation of the legal system into a system of individualistic arbitrariness (440-58).
Concludes with a discussion of the hobbesian Behemoth. Denies that the Third Reich is a hobbesian Leviathan (459), but is rather “a non-state, a situation characterized by complete lawlessness” (id..) Denies that there is a coherent political ideology, but merely opportunistic pragmatism, cynical and nihilistic (463).
Denies that the Third Reich is a state: “We are not concerned with the sophistry of this new theory of transubstantiation implied by the identification of the Leader and the people” (469). Rather, “advanced National Socialist constitutional theory, although attacked by Carl Shmitt, clearly admits that it is not a state which unifies political power but that there are three (in our view, four) co-existent political powers, the unification of which is not institutionalized but only personalized” (id.).
Part IIII: updates all sections extremely concretely through 1944 (521-634).
Recommended!
Very much a text of the Frankfurt school. Broken into four parts (not counting lukewarm intro by scholar Peter Hayes, which attempts to throw the Marxist components of the text under the bus, and not counting Neumann‘s own introduction, which works up a tidy narrative of the ruin of the Weimar Republic): part one is ideological ingredients of the NSDAP; part two concerns “totalitarian monopolistic economy”; part three is a survey of the society that results; part four is an appendix that updates the other parts from 1942 to 1944.
A thick text, I’ll simply hit the highlights, as it’s packed full of specificities.
Polycracy is the rule, rather than the exception, in the era of interventionist monopoly capitalism, wherein polycracy is “the conjunct body of independent public agencies (social insurance institutions, control boards, publicly owned corporations, and so forth), subject to no parliamentary supervision” (44)--reminds one of the APA in the US, incidentally.
Notes that “the idea of the totalitarian state grew out of the demand that all power be concentrated in the hands of the president” (47). This was intentionally anti-liberal in the NSDAP lawyer’s arguments, because “an identity between the ruler and the ruled,” i.e., in democratic representation, “undermined the necessary authority of leadership” (48). The totalitarian state was not mere coercive absolutism, but rather “a form of life of the racial Volk” (id.). NSDAP lawyers flipped out over this stuff, but nevertheless totalitarian “glorification of the state was abandoned a short time later” (49). Contrary to post-war critics of totalitarianism (typically from the rightwing end of liberalism), Schmitt theorized Romanic v. Germanic totalitarian doctrine; the former “regimented all spheres of life,” whereas the latter “left economic activities unrestricted” (49). The enabling act of 24 March 1933 is the enthronement of this doctrine.
Though the reality is totalitarian, the ideology remained very much party-oriented: the NSDAP wanted “not the establishment of the state’s totality, but of the totality of the National Socialist movement” (63). The text has much discussion of parallel state and party organs, ultimately electing the view that the Third Reich is Hobbes’ eponymous behemoth, an anarchy, stateless, wherein the party, the army, the bureaucrats, and the cartels had overlapping and conflicting jurisdiction. One such parallel party organization is the SS (i.e., it is a private organization, though its head, Himmler, also has state appointments) (69).
Fuhrerprinzip is introduced with some discussion of Luther and Calvin (no shit), which is generally kickass (85-92). Long sections on race doctrine and the doctrine of greater German empire. We see in the latter the normal attack on liberalism from the right, i.e., a frontal assault on egalitarian doctrine.
Part II: disagrees that the Third Reich is state capitalism or bureaucratic collectivism (221-225). Text really shines in its presentation of the economic organizations, which is quickly bewildering, in its cartels (horizontal organization), trusts (vertical organizations), groups (am still not sure exactly what a group is), and combines (apparently mega-firms that span many industries, whereas cartels, trusts, and groups are local to the steel industry, or the coal industry, or the salt industry, or whatever). This type of organization is to be considered autonomous to industry, i.e., self- regulation--though of course there is plenty of public regulation, also, typically concerning procurement for the war.
Useful discussion of Germanic law of property & contract (255-261). Cartelization became compulsory by statute in July 1933 (265). So the inference to draw from this is: anti-liberalism (i.e., no competition of capitals under the aegis of antitrust law) but also anti-socialist (i.e., private property is maintained). Much like the economic statutes in Lemkin, the regulation on display here (very detailed minutiae!) involves the fixation of industry at its current state--an attempt to forestall the revolutionization of the means of production, to stay the invisible hand, and so on.
NSDAP “will not nationalize industry because National Socialism believes in a ‘spiritual’ and not a ‘materialistic’ nationalization of economy” (270). This means that Aryanization and Germanization of capital may involve expropriation, but not socialization, as properties taken from Jewish owners and enemies of the Reich were distributed to monopolists (or to the Party)--not the public or the state.
Despite the self-organization of capitalism in the Third Reich (a process that was proceeding pre-WWI, NB), there is also the command economy which handles: “1) direct economic activities of the state, 2) of the party, 3) the control of prices, 4) of investment and profits, 5) of foreign trade, and 6) of labor” (293). Neumann sets these areas of inquiry up as antitheses to his thesis regarding totalitarian monopoly capitalism, and then produces the synthesis, which involves tracking these command economy elements through four stages (initial power, the Schacht plan, the Four Year Plan, and the war planning). Much very specific analysis of capital accounts, joint stock holdings, and other indicators. As to state activity, it is small compared to the whole. Regarding party activity, it is presented as US gangsterism, wherein the criminal conspiracy attempts to become legitimate through investment of criminal proceeds into real industry (229 ff). Price controls is reeled in by noting that this by no means abolished the market, and acts as a means of destroying small firms to the benefit of the cartels (312 ff). Denies that profit control exists (316), noting that NSDAP likes “productive capital,” as opposed to “predatory” or “parasitical” capital. (“Whenever the outcry against the sovereignty of banking capital is injected into a popular movement, it is the surest sign that fascism is on its way” (322).) As for foreign trade, presents the nifty idea that NSDAP is not autarkic by doctrine, but merely as a preparation for war (329 ff). Great discussion of contract law historically regarding the control of labor (contract challenged as liberal, &c)--which makes for a return to corvee levies and chattel slavery (337 ff). In the end, “the profit motive holds the machinery together” (354).
Ends with the “contribution of the National Socialist party to the success of the war economy is nil. It has not furnished any man of outstanding merit, nor has it contributed any single ideology or organizational idea that was not fully developed under the Weimar Republic” (351).
Part III lays out NSDAP production of a ruling class, ruled classes, and the ultimate result. Contrary to the Lederer thesis that the Third Reich is classless (365), the goal is rather atomization: a social policy that “consists in the acceptance and strengthening of the prevailing class character of German society, in the attempted consolidation of its ruling class, in the atomization of the subordinate strata through the destruction of every autonomous group mediating between them and the state, in the creation of a system of autocratic bureaucracies interfering in all human relations” (366). The four competing groups (army, party, bureaucracy, industry) participate in this process. Clarifies: “Nothing could be more erroneous than to call National Socialism a feudal system, for the essence of feudalism, sociologically speaking, is the directness of human relations expressed without mediation by a market. Bureaucratization of the economy entails the complete depersonalization of all property relations. Even the traditional market economy leaves a large number of direct human relations in existence” (386). (This all brushes against the grain of Dimitrov and Dutt, incidentally--but that's to be expected, as this is Frankfurt marxism.)
NB: “By the Hereditary Estate Act, in force since 1 October 1933, the peasant (only if racially a pure Aryan, of course) was tied to the land” (394). (Perhaps a bit inconsistent with the commentary on feudalism, supra, though!). NB also: “the peasant elite is being created without de-feudalizing or even dividing the entailed Junker estates” (395). Nonetheless, many such estates, referenced as latifundia at times by author, were subject to some sort of sequestration, as described in detail by Lemkin for the occupied territories (396 ff).
Punchline of much of this is that the “various strata are not held together by a common loyalty. To whom could they give it, after all? Not to the state, for it has been abolished ideologically and even to a certain extent in reality” (397). (This thesis builds on the discussion of international law in the Third Reich, which argued against the Third Reich being a state proper (151 ff).) All four of the parallel ruling groups “is sovereign and authoritarian; each is equipped with legislative, administrative, and judicial power” (398).
Regarding the ruled classes, NSDAP objective is to “create a uniformly sado-masochistic character” (402)--cf. Adorno! Thorough presentation herein of the labor movement from Weimar to the Third Reich, all damned interesting. “Wage differentiation is the very essence of National Socialist wage policy” (433), i.e., performance bonuses and piece work compensation, rather than wages based on incremental time. Extremely strong section on the transformation of the legal system into a system of individualistic arbitrariness (440-58).
Concludes with a discussion of the hobbesian Behemoth. Denies that the Third Reich is a hobbesian Leviathan (459), but is rather “a non-state, a situation characterized by complete lawlessness” (id..) Denies that there is a coherent political ideology, but merely opportunistic pragmatism, cynical and nihilistic (463).
Denies that the Third Reich is a state: “We are not concerned with the sophistry of this new theory of transubstantiation implied by the identification of the Leader and the people” (469). Rather, “advanced National Socialist constitutional theory, although attacked by Carl Shmitt, clearly admits that it is not a state which unifies political power but that there are three (in our view, four) co-existent political powers, the unification of which is not institutionalized but only personalized” (id.).
Part IIII: updates all sections extremely concretely through 1944 (521-634).
Recommended!
November 17, 2023
الحمد لله بعد عامان من بدء قراءتي للكتاب، أنهيته على خير ...
الكتاب للعالم والفيلسوف الألماني فرانز ليوبولد نيومان.
الكاتب عكف على كتابة هذا الكتاب أثناء الحرب العالمية الثانية، والطبعة الأولى منه صدرت عام 1942، ثم صدرت طبعة أكبر وأشمل في عام 1944.
الطريف في الكتاب هو نهايته والي قال فيها الكاتب: "لن تقود التصدعات في النظام ولا حتى هزيمة ألمانيا العسكرية إلى انهاير النظام الحاكم بصورة آلية، فهو لن يُخلع بالعمل السياسي الواعي الذي تقوم به الجماهير المقهورة".
ممكن الجملة لو حللناها هتدينا صورة لقوة وتمكن وتغلغل النازية في مفاصل الدولة لدرجة يأس الجميع من التخلص من النازية واستحالة انهيار النظام ولو حتى بالقوة العسكرية.
ولكن الي حصل إن 80% من كبار النظام هربوا أو انتحروا مع سقوط برلين، فالأنظمة الشمولية ضعيفة وهشة عن السقوط.
الكتاب شامل جميع نواحي الاشتراكية القومية "النازية" السياسية، الاجتماعية، الاقتصادية.
الكتاب ثري، وعند قراءته سوف تحصل على معلومات لا بأس.
فالقسم الأول وهو عن النمط السياسي للنازية، يقدم الكاتب مفهوم الدولة التوتاليتارية "الشمولية" ويقدم أيضًا دور الحزب الواحد في دولة هتلر والجماعات المسلحة مثل الإس إس وشبيبة هتلر
وفي فصل من عشرين صفحة يقدم الكاتب صورة رائعة عن الزعيم الكاريزمي في دولة شمولية، ووظيفة الزعيم الدستورية وما هي الكاريزما وتحليلها.
وفي فصل يعتبر من أهم الفصول في الكتاب يتحدث الكاتب عن العرق والشعب والأمة وتعريفات كلُ منها، ثم يتحدث عن النظريات العرقية في ألمانيا وتطورها، وبدء معادات السامية، ومشاريع تنقية الدم والتشريعات المعادية لكل العروق المختلفة للعرق الآري.
فعل سبيل المثال:
سنة 1933 ألمانيا أصدرت قانون تحسين النسل لتنقية الدم الألماني، حددت فيه بعض الأمراض يجب على المصاب بها إخصاءه:
أصحاب العاهات الوراثية - جنون الفصام - هوس الاكتئاب - العمى الوراثي - التشوه البدني المفرط - قصر النظر الشديد.
السياسة السكانية لألمانيا كانت تدور في فلك أمرين: زيادة معدل إنجاب نساء ألمانيا لزيادة العرق الأنقى "العرق الآري" والأمر الثاني التخلص من البشر الغير مؤهلين للحياة المصابين بأمراض مزمنة.
وعليه حصلت عمليات تعقيم وإخصاء حوالي نصف مليون فرد وعمليات إعدام ضخمة للغاية لأشخاص لا ذنب لهم إلا المرض كان منهم "غير اليهود" واليهود.
عمليات الإعدام كان تفسيرها: أشخاص غير أهل للحياة، ولا يحتاج الأسياد "العرق الآري" تحمل أعباء الضعفاء "الشعوب العرقية الأخرى".
أما الفصل الذي يليه فهو عن رايخ ألمانيا الكبرى ومجال الحيولي لهذا الرايخ، والذي يقدم فيه الكاتب الأفكار والأفعال الاستعمارية والتي كانت دولة الرايخ الثالث تقوم بها للسيطرة واحتلال الدول المجاورة لألمانيا تحت مسمح المجال الحيوي.
القسم الثاني من الكتاب فكان عن الاقتصاد وشكله وأساليبه في دولة شمولية مثل دولة ألمانيا النازية، مثل الاقتصاد الأمري والاقتصاد الاحتكاري، وصور التأميم والاقتصاد المتعلق بالحرب.
والقسم الثالث: المجتمع في دولة الرايخ: الطبقة الحاكمة والطبقة المحكومة.
وفي نهاية الكتاب، يوجد خاتمة تحتوي على صورة مختصرة لدولة الاشتراكية القومية: من هم القادة، وزارة الداخلية وعملها، الساسة والإرادة السياسية في ألمانيا، الحزب النازي.
الكتاب رائع ولكن صعب الهضم وهناك الكثير من المصطلحات والشخصيات التي تجعلك تبحث عنها لفهم أشمل، ولكن في النهاية فهو كتاب يقرأ أكثر من مرة.
تم بفضل الله وعونه وكرمه في 26 أكتوبر - 2023
الكتاب للعالم والفيلسوف الألماني فرانز ليوبولد نيومان.
الكاتب عكف على كتابة هذا الكتاب أثناء الحرب العالمية الثانية، والطبعة الأولى منه صدرت عام 1942، ثم صدرت طبعة أكبر وأشمل في عام 1944.
الطريف في الكتاب هو نهايته والي قال فيها الكاتب: "لن تقود التصدعات في النظام ولا حتى هزيمة ألمانيا العسكرية إلى انهاير النظام الحاكم بصورة آلية، فهو لن يُخلع بالعمل السياسي الواعي الذي تقوم به الجماهير المقهورة".
ممكن الجملة لو حللناها هتدينا صورة لقوة وتمكن وتغلغل النازية في مفاصل الدولة لدرجة يأس الجميع من التخلص من النازية واستحالة انهيار النظام ولو حتى بالقوة العسكرية.
ولكن الي حصل إن 80% من كبار النظام هربوا أو انتحروا مع سقوط برلين، فالأنظمة الشمولية ضعيفة وهشة عن السقوط.
الكتاب شامل جميع نواحي الاشتراكية القومية "النازية" السياسية، الاجتماعية، الاقتصادية.
الكتاب ثري، وعند قراءته سوف تحصل على معلومات لا بأس.
فالقسم الأول وهو عن النمط السياسي للنازية، يقدم الكاتب مفهوم الدولة التوتاليتارية "الشمولية" ويقدم أيضًا دور الحزب الواحد في دولة هتلر والجماعات المسلحة مثل الإس إس وشبيبة هتلر
وفي فصل من عشرين صفحة يقدم الكاتب صورة رائعة عن الزعيم الكاريزمي في دولة شمولية، ووظيفة الزعيم الدستورية وما هي الكاريزما وتحليلها.
وفي فصل يعتبر من أهم الفصول في الكتاب يتحدث الكاتب عن العرق والشعب والأمة وتعريفات كلُ منها، ثم يتحدث عن النظريات العرقية في ألمانيا وتطورها، وبدء معادات السامية، ومشاريع تنقية الدم والتشريعات المعادية لكل العروق المختلفة للعرق الآري.
فعل سبيل المثال:
سنة 1933 ألمانيا أصدرت قانون تحسين النسل لتنقية الدم الألماني، حددت فيه بعض الأمراض يجب على المصاب بها إخصاءه:
أصحاب العاهات الوراثية - جنون الفصام - هوس الاكتئاب - العمى الوراثي - التشوه البدني المفرط - قصر النظر الشديد.
السياسة السكانية لألمانيا كانت تدور في فلك أمرين: زيادة معدل إنجاب نساء ألمانيا لزيادة العرق الأنقى "العرق الآري" والأمر الثاني التخلص من البشر الغير مؤهلين للحياة المصابين بأمراض مزمنة.
وعليه حصلت عمليات تعقيم وإخصاء حوالي نصف مليون فرد وعمليات إعدام ضخمة للغاية لأشخاص لا ذنب لهم إلا المرض كان منهم "غير اليهود" واليهود.
عمليات الإعدام كان تفسيرها: أشخاص غير أهل للحياة، ولا يحتاج الأسياد "العرق الآري" تحمل أعباء الضعفاء "الشعوب العرقية الأخرى".
أما الفصل الذي يليه فهو عن رايخ ألمانيا الكبرى ومجال الحيولي لهذا الرايخ، والذي يقدم فيه الكاتب الأفكار والأفعال الاستعمارية والتي كانت دولة الرايخ الثالث تقوم بها للسيطرة واحتلال الدول المجاورة لألمانيا تحت مسمح المجال الحيوي.
القسم الثاني من الكتاب فكان عن الاقتصاد وشكله وأساليبه في دولة شمولية مثل دولة ألمانيا النازية، مثل الاقتصاد الأمري والاقتصاد الاحتكاري، وصور التأميم والاقتصاد المتعلق بالحرب.
والقسم الثالث: المجتمع في دولة الرايخ: الطبقة الحاكمة والطبقة المحكومة.
وفي نهاية الكتاب، يوجد خاتمة تحتوي على صورة مختصرة لدولة الاشتراكية القومية: من هم القادة، وزارة الداخلية وعملها، الساسة والإرادة السياسية في ألمانيا، الحزب النازي.
الكتاب رائع ولكن صعب الهضم وهناك الكثير من المصطلحات والشخصيات التي تجعلك تبحث عنها لفهم أشمل، ولكن في النهاية فهو كتاب يقرأ أكثر من مرة.
تم بفضل الله وعونه وكرمه في 26 أكتوبر - 2023
July 16, 2025
Franz Neumann’s Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933–1944 stands as one of the most penetrating and theoretically rich analyses of the political economy of Nazi Germany. Written during the war and revised shortly before Neumann’s untimely death, the work remains a landmark in both political theory and empirical social science. A member of the Frankfurt School and a legal theorist trained in both German and Anglo-American traditions, Neumann blends Marxist analysis, Weberian sociology, and legal scholarship to offer a searing critique of the Nazi regime as a “non-state” or anti-state system: a Behemoth in Hobbesian terms.
At the heart of Behemoth is Neumann’s bold contention that Nazism should not be understood as a totalitarian state in the traditional sense. Unlike the centralized, Leviathan-like image of the Nazi regime promoted by some contemporaries, Neumann argues that the Third Reich functioned as a chaotic, polycratic system dominated by four power blocs: the Nazi Party, the military, the state bureaucracy, and big business. These competing centers of power were bound together less by ideology or bureaucratic rationality than by opportunism, coercion, and a shared interest in the destruction of labor, democracy, and the rule of law.
Neumann’s analysis of Nazi political economy is especially noteworthy. He characterizes the regime as a form of “monopoly capitalism” taken to its extreme, in which the concentration of capital in a few dominant industrial cartels and financial conglomerates (such as I.G. Farben and Krupp) is fused with the political apparatus of the Nazi party. Yet, unlike classical Marxist theory, which would predict a greater degree of capitalist rationalization, Neumann stresses the irrationality and unpredictability of Nazi governance. The fusion of private capital with fascist politics resulted not in efficiency but in administrative anarchy, arbitrary violence, and the destruction of institutional checks and balances. Law itself, Neumann contends, was eviscerated; the Rechtsstaat was replaced by a system of legalized terror.
The book also situates the Nazi regime within a broader historical trajectory. Neumann sees fascism as the outcome of the failure of both liberal democracy and revolutionary socialism in the interwar period. The economic crisis of the 1930s, the weakness of the Weimar Republic, and the complicity of German industrial elites created the conditions for an authoritarian solution to capitalist instability. In this sense, Behemoth is not merely a study of Nazism but a warning about the fragility of liberal institutions in the face of capitalist crisis and political demagoguery.
Methodologically, Behemoth is impressive in its range. Neumann draws on legal documents, Nazi policy statements, internal party records, economic data, and political theory. His interdisciplinary approach prefigures later developments in critical theory and political sociology. However, the book’s hybrid nature can also be a source of difficulty. Its structure is dense, its arguments sometimes circuitous, and its language occasionally technical. Moreover, Neumann’s proximity to the events he describes—writing in exile while the war was ongoing—lends the work both urgency and a degree of incompleteness.
Nevertheless, Behemoth remains a towering achievement. It offers a powerful alternative to the simplistic models of totalitarianism that dominated Cold War-era political science. In contrast to the image of Nazi Germany as a tightly controlled state apparatus, Neumann shows a regime marked by institutional chaos, factional conflict, and the breakdown of legal order. His insight that fascism could simultaneously serve monopoly capital and destroy the bourgeois legal order has influenced generations of critical scholars.
Franz Neumann’s Behemoth is a foundational text in the study of fascism, authoritarianism, and the political economy of dictatorship. It combines empirical rigor with theoretical depth, and its critique of the complicity between capital and authoritarian politics is as relevant today as it was during the 1940s. While the book’s complexity may deter some readers, those who engage with it will find a work of enduring intellectual value and political insight.
GPT
At the heart of Behemoth is Neumann’s bold contention that Nazism should not be understood as a totalitarian state in the traditional sense. Unlike the centralized, Leviathan-like image of the Nazi regime promoted by some contemporaries, Neumann argues that the Third Reich functioned as a chaotic, polycratic system dominated by four power blocs: the Nazi Party, the military, the state bureaucracy, and big business. These competing centers of power were bound together less by ideology or bureaucratic rationality than by opportunism, coercion, and a shared interest in the destruction of labor, democracy, and the rule of law.
Neumann’s analysis of Nazi political economy is especially noteworthy. He characterizes the regime as a form of “monopoly capitalism” taken to its extreme, in which the concentration of capital in a few dominant industrial cartels and financial conglomerates (such as I.G. Farben and Krupp) is fused with the political apparatus of the Nazi party. Yet, unlike classical Marxist theory, which would predict a greater degree of capitalist rationalization, Neumann stresses the irrationality and unpredictability of Nazi governance. The fusion of private capital with fascist politics resulted not in efficiency but in administrative anarchy, arbitrary violence, and the destruction of institutional checks and balances. Law itself, Neumann contends, was eviscerated; the Rechtsstaat was replaced by a system of legalized terror.
The book also situates the Nazi regime within a broader historical trajectory. Neumann sees fascism as the outcome of the failure of both liberal democracy and revolutionary socialism in the interwar period. The economic crisis of the 1930s, the weakness of the Weimar Republic, and the complicity of German industrial elites created the conditions for an authoritarian solution to capitalist instability. In this sense, Behemoth is not merely a study of Nazism but a warning about the fragility of liberal institutions in the face of capitalist crisis and political demagoguery.
Methodologically, Behemoth is impressive in its range. Neumann draws on legal documents, Nazi policy statements, internal party records, economic data, and political theory. His interdisciplinary approach prefigures later developments in critical theory and political sociology. However, the book’s hybrid nature can also be a source of difficulty. Its structure is dense, its arguments sometimes circuitous, and its language occasionally technical. Moreover, Neumann’s proximity to the events he describes—writing in exile while the war was ongoing—lends the work both urgency and a degree of incompleteness.
Nevertheless, Behemoth remains a towering achievement. It offers a powerful alternative to the simplistic models of totalitarianism that dominated Cold War-era political science. In contrast to the image of Nazi Germany as a tightly controlled state apparatus, Neumann shows a regime marked by institutional chaos, factional conflict, and the breakdown of legal order. His insight that fascism could simultaneously serve monopoly capital and destroy the bourgeois legal order has influenced generations of critical scholars.
Franz Neumann’s Behemoth is a foundational text in the study of fascism, authoritarianism, and the political economy of dictatorship. It combines empirical rigor with theoretical depth, and its critique of the complicity between capital and authoritarian politics is as relevant today as it was during the 1940s. While the book’s complexity may deter some readers, those who engage with it will find a work of enduring intellectual value and political insight.
GPT
May 29, 2022
Detailed look into the economy, governmental structures and law of Nazi Germany.
Read
June 19, 2021This book offers an extremely well-informed analysis of the organization of Nazi Germany; it could have appeared in the late 1960s after decades of extensive archive searches, interviews, perhaps some first-hand experience, and bullying at least a dozen starved Ph.D. students. The truly amazing thing is that it was published (in the United States) in 1944.
Neumann is an intelligent Marxist. He subscribes to the viewpoint of historic materialism in the sense that major historic developments are shaped by material (usually economic) circumstances. It would be all too easy to ascribe totalitarianism to a small number of deviant personalities; in fact it would be dead wrong, taking into account that totalitarian dictatorships developed simultaneously in a relatively large number of industrial nations.
He begins by observing that National Socialism is not organized, in the sense that there is no coherent underlying philosophy or plan. Hitler and his immediate circle have often spoken and acted contrary to the ideas and intentions stated in Mein Kampf. In fact, practical National Socialism since 1933 has consisted of little more than a sequence of opportunistic responses to the challenges of the moment, an imitation of the forms of rational behaviour without internal consistency or even without meaning. The real explanation, Neumann argues, lies not in published books and articles but in the economics of German industry. The elite of Germany after 1933 is composed of four groups: party, burocracy, army and industry. Although outwardly the party appears to control the three others, actual party policy is more often than not dictated by the other three. German industry especially has undergone a major structural change since WWI and under the Weimar republic; competition has been replaced with cartels, trusts and de facto monopolies. The Nazi policy, rather than discouraging such collusion (as the Americans did starting with the 1890 Sherman Act), stimulated industrial collaboration. Neuman demonstrates how seemingly illogical German policies since 1933 can always be explained by the interests of major industrial manufacturing cartels. Even the war itself emerges as a necessary consequence of the need to combine industrial expansion with low inflation.
I am not in a position to judge the correctness of this thesis. Perhaps the Marxist perspective has led the author to conveniently ignore important contingencies and specific aspects of early 20th-century German education and consciousness. This does not diminish the interest of the book and the wealth of information and observation it offers.
This review was updated on 19/06/2021. The earlier version incorrectly gave 1942 for the book's publication date.
Neumann is an intelligent Marxist. He subscribes to the viewpoint of historic materialism in the sense that major historic developments are shaped by material (usually economic) circumstances. It would be all too easy to ascribe totalitarianism to a small number of deviant personalities; in fact it would be dead wrong, taking into account that totalitarian dictatorships developed simultaneously in a relatively large number of industrial nations.
He begins by observing that National Socialism is not organized, in the sense that there is no coherent underlying philosophy or plan. Hitler and his immediate circle have often spoken and acted contrary to the ideas and intentions stated in Mein Kampf. In fact, practical National Socialism since 1933 has consisted of little more than a sequence of opportunistic responses to the challenges of the moment, an imitation of the forms of rational behaviour without internal consistency or even without meaning. The real explanation, Neumann argues, lies not in published books and articles but in the economics of German industry. The elite of Germany after 1933 is composed of four groups: party, burocracy, army and industry. Although outwardly the party appears to control the three others, actual party policy is more often than not dictated by the other three. German industry especially has undergone a major structural change since WWI and under the Weimar republic; competition has been replaced with cartels, trusts and de facto monopolies. The Nazi policy, rather than discouraging such collusion (as the Americans did starting with the 1890 Sherman Act), stimulated industrial collaboration. Neuman demonstrates how seemingly illogical German policies since 1933 can always be explained by the interests of major industrial manufacturing cartels. Even the war itself emerges as a necessary consequence of the need to combine industrial expansion with low inflation.
I am not in a position to judge the correctness of this thesis. Perhaps the Marxist perspective has led the author to conveniently ignore important contingencies and specific aspects of early 20th-century German education and consciousness. This does not diminish the interest of the book and the wealth of information and observation it offers.
This review was updated on 19/06/2021. The earlier version incorrectly gave 1942 for the book's publication date.
September 15, 2011
the first edition was written in 1942 (only later editions expand to '44), and this book is totally amazing for how much franz neumann was able to learn (contemporaneously!) about the nitty-gritty of party politics, state bureaucracy, and economic practices in nazi germany. highlights include the role of magic in european monarchies (takes up about a paragraph in this 500 page book, but totally interesting), the nazi attitudes toward international law, and speculation on the ultimate economic aims of the national socialists. it's dense, but worth it, as it's really stood the test of time.
April 19, 2025
fairly dry but quite detailed analysis of nazi germany and its economy. was written contemporary to ww2 so there is some stuff that is not covered much at all(e.g. nothing about the holocaust because that hadn't really come to light yet) but still a lot of interesting info. treads some similar ground to Fascism and Big Business with its conclusions about increased monopolisation and cartelisation although the focus here is different enough to not make the books repetitive with respect to each other. neumann had a legal background so there is a lot of detail about the legal basis for nazi actions and the legal theories that they utilised, which isn't that interesting to me but i'm sure it is to somebody. also interesting to see a lot of info about the continuity of certain institutions going back to the imperial and weimar periods.
July 13, 2022
Neumann‘s analysis if German fascism is incredibly detailed and manages to tackle some of the most challenging questions very successfully. His central thesis that the Nazi regime represents a “Behemoth” - less state than unorganized monster - is quite profound. It is certainly not without justification that Neumann’s work is still revered as one of the definitive analyses of fascism.
May 21, 2025
If anyone in your life ever has the audacity to claim that the Nazis were socialists, throw this book directly at their head
April 27, 2020
I only read parts of this book for a seminar I was doing.
I just want to say: if you're interested in the history of Nazis and you're like: a normal American person, this is not the starting place. This is incredibly detailed, incredibly dry, incredibly tedious. I'm sure it's useful for folks who are deep deep in but...
I feel like this is like the right book for about 1% of all people who are interested in some facet of this terrible story.
I just want to say: if you're interested in the history of Nazis and you're like: a normal American person, this is not the starting place. This is incredibly detailed, incredibly dry, incredibly tedious. I'm sure it's useful for folks who are deep deep in but...
I feel like this is like the right book for about 1% of all people who are interested in some facet of this terrible story.
February 29, 2024
Incredible work. I don't remember how I heard about it, but Behemoth is the platonic ideal of rigorous Marxist scholarship. Should be read in tandem with Alfred Sohn-Rethel's Economy and class structure of German fascism and R Palme Dutt's Fascism and Social Revolution to get a full picture of how the Nazis came to power and sucked Europe dry.
January 19, 2019
Behemoth is one of these books on History that gives you a fresh perspective on the modern events. Neumann made a scrupulous vivisection of the Nazi regime, analyzing it not only as a political scientist but also as a legal scholar. Thousands and thousands of III Reich normative acts, from the edicts of Führer himself to the circulars of local councils (not mentioning the vast and deep analysis of the practice of Nazi judicial system), were weighted in the ruthless academic manner.
The light that was shed on the various techniques of the mass manipulation used by Nazis could definitely be used nowadays to find a path from the abyss of populism in the modern politics.
The light that was shed on the various techniques of the mass manipulation used by Nazis could definitely be used nowadays to find a path from the abyss of populism in the modern politics.
July 30, 2021
Shockingly thorough tome on the inner workings and development of the totalitarian monopoly capitalism of Nazi Germany. Fascism scholarship is frequently unpleasant, and Neumann put an undeniably extreme amount of research into this text. As it also uses exclusively German sources, it is no wonder that so many classic texts in the field refer back to this. What an incredible historical document.
December 29, 2025
Umfassende Analyse der NS-Gesellschaft. Besonders spannend war für mich die Klassifizierung der nationalsozialistischen Wirtschaftsordnung und die Bestimmung der innerhalb des Systems herrschenden Machtblöcke.
November 14, 2019
Wer Struktur, Praxis und Verflechtungen des Dritten Reichs mit anglo-amerikanischen Wirtschaftsinteressen verstehen will, sollte nicht nur die bis heute unwiderlegten Arbeiten von Anthony C. Sutton studieren, sondern auch und vor allem dieses Standardwerk Neumanns.
May 26, 2023
Napuštanje univerzalizma zbog njegovih neuspjeha usporedivo je s odbacivanjem građanskih prava zbog toga što pomažu ozakonjenju i prikrivanju klasne eksploatacije, ili demokracije zbog toga što krije dominaciju gazde, ili kršćanstva zbog toga što su crkve iskrivile kršćanski moral. Razborita osoba suočena s pokvarenim sudstvom ne traži povratak u rat svih protiv sviju, nego se bori za pošten sustav.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews