“Conservative Revolution” is a phrase unfamiliar to English politics (as self-identification) or to English scholarship (as well-defined category in the history of political thought).
C.R. in Germany
originated as a self-identification (Dietz [b], n. 33 to chap. 1, pp. 215–6)
tied up in a self-perception of “German uniqueness” (Sonderweg) (Mohler [b], part 2). That C.R. in Germany is as
disputed—from without, in scholarship—as
the nation’s “special path” (Klemperer) is a sign of the category’s potency.
Since C.R., rather than a
narrowly- and contingently-delimited movement or ideology, is an “attitude”
(Mohler [b], p. 229)—a setting oneself against “the Ideas of 1789” on the one
hand, and the timidity of mere conservatism on the other—it ought to obtain, in
potency if not in act, beyond Germany’s borders.
Dugin
explores C.R. in Russia; Veneziani in Italy. Mohler
(a) makes some suggestions re. France.
The possibility of C.R.
in England was suggested first by Hoeres, then by Dietz (a). Hoeres suggests T.
E. Hulme as a figure significantly analogous to German Conservative
Revolutionists. Dietz (a) suggests that “neoconservative” Conservative Party circles
around Douglas Jerrold and Charles Petrie might constitute an analogue to the Jungkonservativen (see Mohler [b], part
5.2).
Dietz revises his position slightly in (b), detailing “Neo-Tory” goings-on in and around the Conservative Party between the Wars. “Neo-Toryism,” in Dietz’s outline, is regrettably unknown by English politics (as self-identification) and scholarship (as well-defined and potent category). His analogies are worth developing; but he leaves valid analogies unmade. I’ll just sketch both here.
