Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm, Rinehart & Company (1941).
This book, initially published in 1941, provides an invaluable framework for understanding the rise of Fascism in the 1930s. Fromm argues that the German masses (especially the lower middle class) were not tricked into supporting Hitler and his cohorts; they willingly succumbed to gain powerful psychic benefits. In brief, by surrendering themselves to the great leader, they escaped the dilemma of surviving in a world that seemed threatening and beyond their control.
Having come to the United States in 1934 to escape the Nazis, Fromm wrote with first hand familiarity of the political situation in his native country. In addition, he was an accomplished psychologist, well versed in the theories of Sigmund Freud et al. No wonder his analysis of the appeal of Nazism to the German population rings true, even though this development might seem of primarily historical interest at this point.
But there is much more, because Fromm postulates a similar lack of comfort with individual political and economic freedom to the populations of other nations under widely varying circumstances. He also describes a variety of coping mechanisms, from accepting religious belief systems (which he obviously does not set much store in) to giving up one’s own autonomy and buying into the conventional wisdom of the society as communicated by the mass media.
While it is suggested that people can learn to live authentically in accordance with their own ideas, converting freedom from a threat to a benefit, Fromm sets so many obstacles in the way that one is inclined to doubt whether he truly believes in such a vision. Note also his sense of comfort with society in the Middle Ages, when people knew what fate held in store for them based on the accident of their birth, and with the lot of animals (e.g., wood chucks) that can make their way in life based on instinct.
Ultimately, Fromm makes clear what he really think: most people are not qualified for freedom after all and someone (hopefully infused with benevolent intent) must do their thinking for them.
On the one hand, he says, “progress for democracy lies in enhancing the actual freedom, initiative, and spontaneity of the individual, not only in certain private and spiritual matters, but above all in the activity fundamental to every man’s existence, his work.”
On the other, “the irrational and planless character of society must be replaced by a planned economy that represents the planned and concerted effort of society as such.
*** Only in a planned economy in which the whole nation has rationally mastered the economic and social forces can the individual share responsibility and use creative intelligence in his work.”
In holding up a planned economy as a part of the solution, it seems to us, Fromm is basically conceding the bankruptcy of his central premise – that there is some way to have certainty and freedom at the same time.
Where is the proof that a planned economy works better than the free market, or that people will really have more outlets for their individual aspirations and abilities in such a system? Also, come to think of it, the Fascists (and Communists as well) were big on centrally planned economies.