Seite - 338 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

338 chapter 8 4.2 OppositionalActivityoftheSocial-DemocraticMovementatHome andinExileafterthesdapBan The establishment of the corporative state on 1May 1934 after Dollfuss had securedcontrolof thegovernmentamounted to thedefinite triumphofAus- trofascism.Whatwasthe‘corporativestate’,Austrianstyle?Howdiditestablish itssupremacy,andwhatdiditmeanfordemocracyandtheSocial-Democratic movement?WhatroledidtheHeimwehrplay? Thevisionofaharmonious social structurebasedontheprinciplesof cor- poratismalreadyexistedasanideologyinAustriasince1918.90However,itonly foundpassionate advocates during the secondhalf of the 1920s – initially in academiccircles (e.g. thephilosopherOthmarSpann, the legalhistorianKarl Hugelman,thehistoriansHansHirschandHeinrichvonSrbik, thegeographer HugoHassinger, theGermanist JosefNadler, andthepalaeontologistOthenio Abel),91andlateramongpoliticiansembitteredbythecrisis(e.g.KarlLugmayr andLeopoldKunschak). Itssupportersaspiredtoabolishthebourgeoisdemo- cratic systemand replace itwith a corporative state equippedwith a strong apparatusofpower.Sectionalinterestsofindividualsandsocialgroupswereto be subordinated to the common interest of state andcommunity. The inten- tionwas to establish an authoritarian statewhose social structurewould be basednotonclasses,butonprofessionalsectors(corporations,interestgroups) functioning in ahierarchical order (federal state, region, commune, borough and village – all sectors were to be equal). This was based on the utopian premise that it was possible to achieve a unity of interests between produ- cers and capitalistswithin every professional sector anduse the goals of the respective sectors for the commongood.This, itwashoped,wouldendclass struggle. Inconsiderationoftheabove, it isnecessarytodrawattentionto1930sAus- tria, the ideologyofAustrofascism, and the ‘corporative state’ ledbyDollfuss and Schuschnigg. Anti-democratic tendencieswere already on the rise from 1926,whenthe‘ironchancellor’,IgnazSeipel,ruledthecountrywithanironfist. Seipelbelievedthatallpoliticalpartiesought tobedissolved–heconsidered themobstacles impeding the smooth functioning of government.92 Accom- plishingthisdependedontwofactors, themainfactorbeingtheexistenceofa politicalandmilitaryforceinterestedinthedestructionofdemocracy.Thesec- ondary factorwas theneed foran ideology thatwould justify suchaventure. 90 CompareKluge1984,pp.46–7. 91 FortheinfluenceofAustrofascistideologyonacademiccircles,compareStaudinger1984b, p.289. 92 ComparePelinka1972,p.26.