Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

How a Leading Dutch Spinozist became a Nazi:

Some Notes on Dr. Johan Herman Carp (1893-1979)

André Mommen

Synopsis

Congrès Marx International VI : Crises, révoltes, utopies

Université de Paris-Ouest-Nanterre-La Défense (200 avenue de la République, Nanterre)

22 au 25 SEPTEMBRE 2010
1. Starting point: a confrontation between two theses

1. Zeev Sternhell’s thesis of “Ni droite ni gauche” and the origins of the revolutionary
right superseding the cleavage between the Right and the Left in the 1920s and 1930s;
2. Georg Lukács irrationalism thesis in his Die Zerstörung der Vernunft.

The crisis of Dutch philosophy in the 1920s and 1930s reflected a profound political,
economic and ideological crisis shaking the Dutch power structures after the decline of
protestant Liberalism, the rise of confessional Parties with the introduction of the popular
vote.. The Russian Revolution played the role of catalyser in this process ultimately leading to
the founding of the Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging (NSB) in December 1931 absorbing
most “revolutionaries of the right” and conservatives looking for an authoritarian
“alternative”.

One can Johan H. Carp consider as a typical representative of a “politicising” philosopher and
lawyer finding his way to the revolutionary Right.

By 1921, he obtained at Leyden University his Ph.D. on a study on the Bolshevist


phenomenon at the very moment he became an important figure in the world of “organised
international Spinozism”. He was, however, a law philosopher acquainted with German
philosophy Windelband (and philosophy of law - Hans Kelsen).

His basic idea about society was the (re)establishment of the supremacy “law sovereignty” he
had adopted from Prof. Krabbe of Leyden (J.H. Carp, “Krabbe’s leer der
rechtssouvereiniteit”, in Nederlandsch Juristenblad, vol. 11, 1936, pp. 157-160).

2. Career

Dutch higher civil servant at the Province House of South-Holland in The Hague, lawyer
(Leyden University), public law specialist, academic anti-communist (Ph.D.).
Member of the NSB in June 1940 (No. 106.964).
Member of the Political Bureau of NSB; 1941 head of the Section Public Affairs of NSB;
Supervisor of the Association of Dutch Cities; President of the Exception Court, etc.
Married Anton Mussert’s friend Maria Kerkhoven.
1939 member of the editorial board of De Waag (fascist periodical).
After Liberation in 1945: convicted because of high treason (12 years).

3. Spinozist or opportunist?

Member of the editorial board of Chronicon Spinozanum, yearbook of the international


Societas Spinozana (1921-1927) in which he published his considerations on Spinoza articles.

On 21 February 1927: an international commemoration of Spinoza’s death was organized by


the Societas Spinozana in The Hague, etc. Carp’s keynote speech was about “Essence and
value of Spinozism”. However, a competing ceremony was organised at the Communist
Academy in Moscow. Keynote speakers were A. Deborin and A. Thalheimer (Thalheimer
and Deborin: Spinozas Stellung in der Vorgeschichte des dialektischen Materialismus. Reden
und Aufsätze zuer Wiederkehr seines 250. Todestages, mit einem Vowort von Hermann
Duncker, Wien-Berlin: Verlag für Literatur und Politik, 1928).

In 1933: a Dutch section of the international Societas Spinozana was founded: Carp became
its first president. His competitor was the much older theologian and people’s educator J. D.
Bierens de Haan with whom (and with C. Roelofsz, H.S. Frenkel and H. F. Torringa) he used
to organize lectures on Spinozism. From 1938 until summer 1940, publication of
Spinozistisch Bulletin was realised with some difficulties.

In the 1930s Carp would become a prolific Spinoza commentator and propagandist.
Meanwhile, Carp did not publish on “law philosophy”.

His main publications on Spinoza are:

“Naturrecht und Pflichtbegriff nach Spinoza”, Chronicon Spinozarum, vol. 1, 1921, pp. 81-
90.

“Spinoza and Marx”, De Tijdspiegel, 1921, II, pp. 662-665.

“Psychologischebeschouwingen in verband met het wezen van het spinozisme”, Tijdschrift


voor Wijsbegeerte, 1922, no. 1, pp. 280-301.

“Über das Emotionale und Rationale im Spinozismus”, Chronicon Spinozarum, vol. 2, 1922,
pp. 131-137.

“Der Gemeinschaftsgedanke im Spinozismus”, Chronicon Spinozarum, vol. 3, 1923, pp. 196-


203.

“Belgium. Wezen en waarde van het Spinozisme”, Chronicon Spinozarum, vol. 5, 1927, pp.
3-13.

“Die metaphysische Grundlage der spinozanischen Politik”, Chronicon Spinozarum, vol. 4,


1924-25-26, pp. 68-78.

Het Spinozisme als wereldbeschouwing: inleiding tot de leer van Benedictus de Spinoza,
Arnhem: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1931.

With J. D. Bierens De Haan, Leo Polak, J.J. von Schmid and H. W. van der Vaart Smit:
Spinoza, gezamenlijke redevoeringen gehouden bij de Spinoza-herdenking door de Afdeeling-
Nederland van de Kant-Gesellschaft op donderdag 29 december 1932 te Amsterdam in de
Agnieten-Kapel (Athenaeum-Illustre), Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1933.

God-Wereld-Leven. Gedachten van Benedictus de Spinoza, The Hague: Societas


Spinozana/Albani, 1935 (with J.D. Bierens de Haan).

“Spinozistische en Hegelsche beschouwingswijze”, in Feestbundel aangeboden aan Dr. J. D.


Bierens de Haan door vrienden, vereerders en leerlingen ter gelegenheid van zijn 70sten
verjaardag 14 October 1936 met bijdragen van H. Aalbers, Dr. D. Bartling, Dr. J.H. Carp,
Dr. Jac. Van Dael, Dr. T. Goedewaagen, Mej. E. C. Knappert, Dr. H. Oldewelt, Dr. Herman
Wolf benevens de toespraak van Prof. H. J. Pos ter gelegenheid van de eerepromotie te
Amsterdam op 21 September 1936, het antwoord daarop van Dr. J.D. Bierens de Haan en
een bibliographie van zijn werken door Nel Ritman en Bertha Wolterson, Assen: Van Gorcum
& Comp. N.V., [1937], pp. 49-63.

Van Despotie tot Vrijheid. Voordrachten over de ontwikkeling der Gezagsidee als probleem
van wereld- en levensbeschouwing, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1937.

Spinoza: Uren met Spinoza, Baarn: Hollandia, 1940.

Carp took his Ph.D. at the Faculty of Law, at Leyden University, with a study on the
ideological origins of the Russian Revolution: Het Bolsjewisme, The Hague 1921.

Tijdgeest en staatswetenschappen: inleiding, in Handelingen van de Vereeniging voor


Wijsbegeerte des Rechts, XI 1e gedeelte, The Hague: Vereeniging voor Wijsbegeerte des
Rechts, 1926, pp. 1-35.

Staatsrechtelijke opstellen: uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van het aftreden van Prof. H. Krabbe
als hoogleeraar aan de Rijks Universiteit te Leiden, Tweede Deel: Bijdragen van oud-
Leerlingen door H. Krabbe en J. H. Carp, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1927.

Eer-herstel van de leer der rechtssouvereiniteit, The Hague: Belinfante, 1928.

Het Koningschap, Bussum: Van Dishoeck, 1939 (De Waag Reeks).

After 1940 Carp would become A. Mussert’s close adviser in matters of how to take over
political power and how to make deals with Hitler. “Ontwerp-statuut van den Bond van
Germaansche Volkeren”, in A. Mussert, A. E. Cohen, J. H. Carp, Vijf nota’s van Mussert aan
Hitler over de samenwerking van Duitschland en Nederland in een bond van Germaanscha
Volkeren, 1940-1944, ’s-Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff (Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie
Amsterdam), pp. 113-118.

4. Sources of his ideas:

a. Spinozism differs from Marx, Hegel and Kant: Carp is eclectic enough
especially when introducing, after having based himself first of all on neo-
Kantian ideas (Windelband and Hans Kelsen,) Hegel and even Nietzsche into
his Spinozist philosophy of history and law.
b. Carp is interested in the metaphysical basis of Spinozian politics; especially in
the concept “people” versus “ruler”.
c. Several elements of his ideas come back in his “masterwork” Beginselen van
Nationaal-Socialisme, Utrecht NENASU (2nd ed.).
d. His first programmatic article on the “essence” of Spinozism was published in
Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte (vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 280-301).
e. At the end of the 1930s Carp came nearer to Hegel (“Spinozistische en
Hegelsche beschouwingswijze”, in Spinozistisch Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.33-
47.
f. However, Carp had already adhered to the view that in Spinozian politics
existed a metaphysical base. “Die metaphysische Grundlage der spinozanische
Politik”, in Chronicon Spinozarum, vol. 4, 1924-25/26/27, pp. 68-78.
g. Carp is rather unclear about Spinoza’s Jewish background, but he vehemently
defends Spinoza’s honour against the German nazi ideologue Hans Alfred
Grunsky who made of Spinoza a greedy Jew in an article in the Frankfurter
Zeitung (“Spinozas zegel “caute”, in Spinozistisch Bulletin, vol. 1, pp. 122-
128).

5. Where should one situate Carp?

Carp was not a traditional Dutch philosopher/theologian interested in ethics, but a political
philosopher and lawyer looking for political “solutions” to the problems of mass politics. He
belonged nonetheless to an old Protestant family having arrived from Germany in the 17th
century.

He must have joined organised Spinozism by “accident”, maybe he was rebuked by


“Bollandism” (reactionary Hegelianism) and Heymans’s psychology dominating at Leyden
University.

Carp was influenced by the teachings of neo-Kantian Wilhelm Windelband. Against his
positivist contemporaries, Windelband argued that philosophy should engage in humanistic
dialogue with the natural sciences rather than uncritically appropriating its methodologies. His
interests in psychology and cultural sciences represented an opposition to psychologism and
historicism schools by a critical philosophic system. Windelband relied in his effort to reach
beyond Kant on such philosophers as Hegel, Herbart and Lotze. Closely associated with
Windelband was Heinrich Rickert. Windelband's disciples were not only noted philosophers,
but sociologists (Max Weber) and theologians like Ernst Troeltsch and Albert Schweitzer.

The Spinozists accepted both rationalists and irrationalists as members. Spinozism had been
popular during the 19th century, but was then facing competition by other philosophical
currents of German philosophy, i.e. Kant, Hegel and even Nietzsche; German (experimental)
psychology/psychiatry and (irrational) psycho-analysis (Freud, Jung).

After the First World War philosophers organised in specific or categorical societies, some
with international connections:

- after 1922 Bolland’s death, the Bollandists (Hegelians) founded the Gerard Bolland Society;
- the Kantians (1923) organised the Society for Critical Philosophy (split in 1933);
- the Society for Thomist Philosophy (1934);
- and the Society for Calvinist Philosophy (1935) met the needs of religiously inspired
philosophers.
- The Society of Philosophy of Law (1919) responded to wishes of all lawyers publishing on
the character of the state and its institutions.

In the 1930s and after May 1940 several leading Dutch philosophers joined fascist
organisations; they ended in active collaboration with the German occupier. Among them
were: J. H. Carp, H. W. van der Vaart Smit (Kantian), Tobias Goedewaagen (Nietzschian),
the Hegelians G. H. van Senden and Jacob Hessing (who was with Balthus Wigersma
publisher of De Waag - a pro-German magazine funded by Henry Deterding of the Shell Oil
Company).

Carp must have become a Fascist in 1936 or at least in 1937.

In 1937, Carp, who was also a member of the editorial board of Algemeen Nederlandsch
Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte en Psychologie, proposed an article “Philosophical reflection
and the National-Socialist idea” in which he attacked a recently published pamphlet of Prof.
Th. Kohnstamm warning for the danger of National-Socialism. His article was refused by the
board. Carp and Goedewaagen left the editorial board of the journal.

6. Carp’s political Spinozism

It took Carp about ten years to develop his (political) views on Spinoza, views that were based
on a metaphysical interpretation of Spinoza’s writings. Carp’s political views were anti-
communist and defended the idea of a “popular community” as the moral base for political
authority. But, already in 1921, in a polemic with F. Tönnies, he knew that there could be no
relation between Spinoza and Marx (Spinoza en Marx, 1921, p. 662).

Though in his Ph.D. (1921) Spinoza is not cited, several remarks refer nonetheless to
Spinoza: (social) instincts. However, he rejects Communism on the ground of political
inequality contained in the Soviet Constitution (Kelsen), but he accepts the idea of workers’
councils. Carp’s community concept is based on the idea that primitive egoism should be
combated; man is not unselfish. He rejects the idea the possibility of constructing human
nature. Dictatorship of the proletariat means the end of rights of the members of the bourgeois
class.

In 1926 (Tijdgeest en Staatswetenschap) he rejects positivism and so-called objective


observation and calls for a metaphysical foundation of public law. The state in law theory can
be seen as the prima causa in philosophy. Constitutionalism is leading to a form of “organic
democracy”. Because rulers and ruled are becoming identical (source: Carl Schmitt, Political
Theology) the community gains supremacy over the individual (social) rights and (social)
plights. Spinoza is not mentioned. The Eros or the “potentiality” of the creative mind will
create a legal conscience. Transcendence, immanence and desire/lust are mentioned as
principals; “representations” must help creating a sense of community.

In his state theory Carp is, however, more Hegelian than Spinozist. History of the state starts
with the formation of communities and religious believes legitimating the state. This leads to
a conflict between the Church and the Emperor in the Middle Ages. The absolute state is
based on the assumption that all power emanates from God. This is contested by the
bourgeoisie reducing the power of the King by establishing a parliament elected by the
citizens appointing a responsible government.

Carp’s theory of legal sovereignty is evolutionary: political authority is a continuing process


in conscience of individual subjects, it is the revelation of their legal conscience. That is how
public authority and individual subjects are united: public authority is reflecting itself in
individual conscience of the subjects. According to Carp a true community spirit should rise.
“The individual is free as far as it serves the community, revealing hence its true essence,
which is incorporated in its essential community.”(Van Despotie, 1937, p. 97). His political
authority idea, he claimed, was based on the principles of Spinozism: “History is a
development process in which humanity is gaining insights, striving to perfection and tending
into the direction of forming a Spinozist community idea in which the popular essence is
based on a rationality relation that is rooted in true human liberty (ibid., p. 99). Soon, Carp
would become more explicit when marrying the Constitutional Monarchy (based on the
bourgeois revolution) with the appointment of a popular Leader and the institution of a
referendum as well. The Leader is emerging by the workings of the irrational forces which are
determining people’s existence (Het Koningschap, 1939, p. 35).

For his authority and other political views, Carp – he refers to Tract. Pol. II/21; V/2; V/4;
VII/46 and Tract. Theol. Pol. XVI and XIX in his polemic against Colerus, a Spinoza
biographer – argues that people are not born as citizens, but have to be educated to citizens
(Tract. Pol. V/2); community sense has to be fostered (created); peace dos not mean the
absence of strive, but a virtue engendered by spiritual strength. That requires schooling and
effort. One has to foster community sense to strengthen the fundaments of Public Authority,
and as such the organisation should reflect as much as possible community unity. That is why
government should not be split up into parties en some rulers should not advantage alternately
this or that claimant. According to Carp, Spinoza’s philosophy was impregnated by
community thinking. The rulers should be guided by undogmatic religious opinions, which
could be the only really general foundation of a uniform opinion. Thus, Spinoza considers
unity of opinion as necessary for the foundation of the State. “Community interest in the sense
of the interest of the State, Spinoza puts forward, independently from higher norms. This
inspired him to reject a intermediary-stately legal system, that could formulate demands in
contrast with the interests of the own popular community. The so-called “closula rebus sic
statibus” is unbreakably connected with Spinoza’s political teachings.” (Tract. Theol. Pol.
XVI). According to Carp, Spinoza was a great revolutionary of his time, because the duty to
the Fatherland was the highest virtue a man could accomplish.

Potrebbero piacerti anche