Re: Working class support for the Nazis?

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx> 02/04/00 06:26PM >>>

Michael Mann believes that 20th century Marxism has made a mistake by
describing fascism as a petty-bourgeois mass movement, since "scientific"
sociological investigations have turned up working class support. He
develops these points at some length in an article "Source of Variation in
Working-Class Movements in Twentieth-Century Movement" which appeared in
the New Left Review of July/August 1995, which is largely meant to refute
classical Marxist understandings of the nature of fascist movements.

If he is correct, then there is something basically wrong with the Marxist
approach, isn't there? If the Nazis attracted the working-class, then
wouldn't we have to reevaluate the revolutionary role of the working-class?
Perhaps it would be necessary to find some other class to lead the struggle
for socialism, if this struggle has any basis in reality to begin with.

&&&&&&&&&&

CB:  Seems to me that some Marxist analyses of fascism have recognized that 
there were
always large numbers of workers who were fooled by fascist demogogy. In 1935 
Dimitroff
said:

This, the true character of fascism ( open, terrorist dictatorship of the most
reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance 
capital)  must
be particularly stressed; because in a number of countries fascism, under cover 
of
social democracy, has managed to gain the following of the petty-bourgeois 
masses who
have been driven out of their course by the crisis, and even of certain 
sections of
the most backward strata of the proletariat..."  Dimitroff goes on to describe 
the
means by which "a large section of the toiling masses of Germany and a number 
of other
fascist countries failed to recognize  in fascism the most bloodthirsty monster 
of
finance..."


  This is especially true if one's understanding of the working class is that it
constitutes 85 to 90% of the population and that thus there can be no mass 
movement
without significant participation by the working class and certainly its 
acquiesence.
Fascism was always very essentially an extremely demogogic project, 
specifically a
FALSE socialism. Mussolini had been a leader of the Socialist Party.  His 
rhetoric
was, no doubt, still demogogically proworker when he formed the fascists. As 
has been
pointed out many times, the Nazis pretended to be a "Socialist Workers'" party, 
even
in name ! One of Hitler's main pretenses was that he was anti-capitalist.  The
workers' and socialist movement was so powerful at the time, that the fascists 
had to
make this pretense. The whole purpose of the fascist parties was to prevent what
looked to the finance capitalist oligarchy like an inevitable march to 
socialism in
Italy and Germany.  The portrayal of the fascists as petit bourgeois is !
a scapegoating to cover for the big bourgeoisie, who remained the ruling class
throughout fascism. I mean why did the fascists respect Switzerland as "neutral"
throughout their generalized war making ? Because it was the home of the 
international
bourgeoisie financiers, not the petit bourgeoisie.

The partymembers , storm troopers and elite guards may have been petit 
bourgeoisie,
but the bulk of the troops of the Nazi war machine had to be working 
class/peasants.

Afterall, the vast majority of fighters in WWI , and all capitalist wars , 
including
Cold War anti-communist war,  were working class too. So, the irony or paradox 
of
working class support and self-sacrifice in bourgeois slaughter is endemic to
capitalist hegemony. Figuring out the puzzle of irrational working class 
support for
bourgeois war and fascism is tantamount to unravelling capitalism.

&&&&&&&&&&


CB