Origins of Modern Naziism

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Do the origins of modern Nazism lie in a corruption of socialism, or is it from above and just made to appeal to workers?
I say this because the BNP occasionaly claim to represent Old Labour, and it is my understanding that the German Nazi Party had it's origins in the working classes; but it still seems to me that such ideaologies are somewhat middleclassish and somewhat stuck-up - the leaders are often elitest and the structures are very rigid.
So could someone please enlighten me in the ideological origins of modern Nazism/Nationalism.

[Kléber]

Yep, fascism is a middle-class ripoff of socialism, which gets funded by the bourgeoisie to suppress working-class dissent. It's like an evil racial-nationalist cyborg clone of communism, built with the intention of wiping us out. Fascists always deliberately copy socialist/anarchist/working class symbols and culture to use against us.

It has a different origin in each country, but the fascists in Italy, Germany and Spain started out as lunatic fringe groups with some support from right-wing workers, that ended up winning sponsorship from the big bourgeoisie.

At the same time there was always an element of sinister bourgeois ulterior motives in there. Hitler (who by his own account initially joined the "German Workers' Party" as a police spy) said "we chose a red flag to get workers to come to our meetings" or something. Some Spanish Falangist said "the workers wore blue overalls, so we made that our uniform. the anarchists had red and black as their colors, so we stole those."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/index.htm

[Dimentio]

Do the origins of modern Naziism lie in a corruption of socialism, or is it from above and just made to appeal to workers?
I say this because the BNP occasionaly claim to represent Old Labour, and it is my understanding that the German Nazi Party had it's origins in the working classes; but it still seems to me that such ideaologies are somewhat middleclassish and somewhat stuck-up - the leaders are often elitest and the structures are very rigid.
So could someone please enlighten me in the ideological origins of modern Naziism/Nationalism.

Old nazism (national socialism) was mostly the culmination of social darwinism and German nationalism intertwined together. It had very, very little to do with socialism, except that Hitler stole the aesthetics of the leftists. Similar parties and movements had already existed in the underground scene of Germany and Austria since the late 19th century - but they had been as influential as the modern new age movement and mostly been confined to the segments of society which most often are attracted by new age nonsense.

New nazism (white supremacism) actually doesn't have so very much in common with old nazism. It is an ideology which mostly have originated from the USA. Instead of German chauvinism, it is propagating the idea of some sort of world-wide white solidarity movement. It is also moving towards an idea of segregation of races, wanting to perpetuate white supremacy in regional areas while building strategic alliances with reactionaries from other cultures. There are some signs that new nazism - while denying the Holocaust and preaching the "right for the white race to continue to exist" - has some very genocidal currents, obvious in books like "The Turner Diaries".

Then, there is esoteric nazism, which is too bizarre to even mention here. Its foremost proponent is the late Savitri Devi - or the nazi equivalent of Ayn Rand.

Old nazism was essentially a petty-bourgeois current before the chaos of Weimar Germany propelled it into the mainstream. The new nazism is mostly based on proletarised segments of the rural middle class in America and is an American phenomenon which has been spread over the world.

Another difference is that old nazism was very etatist and saw the ideal as a "race state", while new nazism is more focusing on the local community, the family, the right to carry guns and to spread racist nonsense.

I think the reason behind that was that racism was mainstream back in the 1920's and 1930's, even in the liberal and conservative mainstream (social democratic governments like the Swedish one instituted and supported eugenics and racialist pseudo-science). Nowadays - much because of the horrors of World War 2 - such ideas are almost universally reviled and most western states are wearing official togas of anti-racism. Thus, the nazis ironically enough are finding themselves stand there as a reviled minority. This sense of desperation is translating itself into a wish to self-segregate from society and build up their own societies.

I don't think nazism today is more than a local problem - except for maybe in Russia (and some other ex-Soviet states) where it enjoys some support from segments within the state apparatus. Fascism though is making a comeback, both in the form of the Tea Party movement in America and in the formation of anti-immigrationist parties in Europe.

[AK]

Yep, fascism is a middle-class ripoff of socialism, which gets funded by the bourgeoisie to suppress working-class dissent.
Middle-class rip-off?

The new nazism is mostly based on proletarised segments of the rural middle class in America and is an American phenomenon which has been spread over the world.
Are you claiming that there is a middle-class? That the working class doesnt exist and/or the working class is just made up of manual labourers or industrial workers?

Or are you saying that neo-Nazis claim that a middle-class exists and that it should adhere to their beliefs?

[9]

^There is a middle class... it is called the petit-bourgeoisie...

[AK]

^There is a middle class... it is called the petit-bourgeoisie...
But it's that the term middle-class was originally designed and meant to refer to some abiguous group of individuals from the proletariat, petit-bourgeoise and the (haute) bourgeoisie. And for the most part, it still is - nearly always used by reactionaries to attempt to blur class lines. And the term middle class (as used by reactionaries) has no definitive relation to production, as it is a combination of the three major social classes as defined by Marxist theory. By using the term middle class all we do is confuse people and seemingly betray our working class attitude. In place of the term "middle class", us leftists should be using "petit-bourgeoisie" or "the self-employed", etc. because most people who are familiar with the term "middle class" think of the reactionary definition; and that won't help build proletarian class-consciousness will it?

[Dimentio]

Yes. Modern North American white supremacism is based on proletarised segments of the petite-bourgeoisie in rural regions. Old national socialism was - in fact - a broad mass movement with a petite bourgeoisie leadership.

[AK]

Yes. Modern North American white supremacism is based on proletarised segments of the petite-bourgeoisie in rural regions. Old national socialism was - in fact - a broad mass movement with a petite bourgeoisie leadership.
Proletarised? How exactly?

[Dimentio]

Proletarised? How exactly?

It is more that their entire communities have become proletarised, due to the constant process of urbanisation inherent in decaying capitalism. That means that the foundation for an autonomous small business establishment is undermined and that the communities as a whole are more or less alienated from capitalist accumulation. That fuels resentment against the inner cities and against "blacks and latinos" who "steal" the "rightful entitlements" from the whites.

In short, it is frustrated people who are travelling to the lower stratas of the class society but still are identifying with the ruling class culture who could be attracted by white supremacism.

[AK]

It is more that their entire communities have become proletarised, due to the constant process of urbanisation inherent in decaying capitalism. That means that the foundation for an autonomous small business establishment is undermined and that the communities as a whole are more or less alienated from capitalist accumulation. That fuels resentment against the inner cities and against "blacks and latinos" who "steal" the "rightful entitlements" from the whites.

In short, it is frustrated people who are travelling to the lower stratas of the class society but still are identifying with the ruling class culture who could be attracted by white supremacism.
I see... So they are petit-bourgeois that have been reduced to the level of the proletariat - AND still think they constitute the ruling class (even though they consider themselves "middle class" and whatnot...)? Gotta love the free market :thumbup1:

[Bolshevism1917]

leftists should be using "petit-bourgeoisie" or "the self-employed", etc

The middle class or the petty-bourgeoisie (I've always understood these terms to be broadly synonymous with one another and don't really think that using middle class turns people away from revolutionary ideas - most working people probably have a good idea of what middle class means and outside of the United States I've never got the feeling that most working people actually view themselves as middle class) does not just encompass small business owners who work alongside the workers they employ, it also encompasses professionals. The inclusion of professionals is important and is consistent with Marx's approach to class analysis because the proletariat is defined not only in terms of its non-ownership of the means of production (or the sale of labour power as a commodity) but also in terms of the subordinate role that proletarians play in the workplace - professionals are different in that even though they may also sell their labour power in some way (for example, a doctor in a hospital, or an engineer working on a construction project) they retain an important degree of control over how their work is organized and in that sense they do not endure the same process of alienation as those who are actually part of the proletariat and are instead an important base of support for fascism because of the way that liberal capitalism seeks to limit autonomy and break down the relative privileges of professionals. As I said in one of my other posts the reason why both professionals and small entrepreneurs (which together comprise the middle classes) serve as the class base of fascism outside of revolutionary periods is that they are exposed to the insecurities of life under capitalism but retain a privileged position in comparison to the vast majority of the population and also do not have the same traditions of collective struggle and organization - that's what pushes them towards an ideology that promises protection against big business as part of a corporatist economic order, which can lead to conflict within fascist movements and organizations when fascism recruits the active support of the bourgeoisie.

[Dimentio]

I see... So they are petit-bourgeois that have been reduced to the level of the proletariat - AND still think they constitute the ruling class (even though they consider themselves "middle class" and whatnot...)? Gotta love the free market :thumbup1:

They are basically under the stress of the fear of having to see people from other "races" as their equals. In the USA, the "race" factor is the elephant in the living room.

[Bolshevism1917]

They are basically under the stress of the fear of having to see people from other "races" as their equals. In the USA, the "race" factor is the elephant in the living room.

You seem to be inferring that fascism can only have a racist character and that the insecurities of the petty-bourgeoisie are necessarily expressed in the form of racism, and this simply isn't so. There are fascist movements which have not been explicitly racist, at least during the early stages of their development, such as Peronism, Italian fascism, and arguably Ba'athism, and yet these movements are still fascist, in the first place because they embodied the theme of national revival, which is the ideological feature that distinguishes fascism from other forms of nationalism, and in the second place because they were rooted in the middle classes and came to power after they received the support of the bourgeoisie, in order to destroy a threat from a militant and organized working class, or after the working class had suffered a serious defeat. I would also argue that organizations and movements which are not initially fascist can assume a fascist character as a consequence of changing political and social conditions - the KMT party-state, for example, arguably constituted a fascist regime after 1927 because the Nanjing government was formed shortly after the crushing of a working-class revolt, which was itself caused by power moving into the hands of right-wing militarists and sons of the gentry like Chiang.

[Dimentio]

You seem to be inferring that fascism can only have a racist character and that the insecurities of the petty-bourgeoisie are necessarily expressed in the form of racism, and this simply isn't so. There are fascist movements which have not been explicitly racist, at least during the early stages of their development, such as Peronism, Italian fascism, and arguably Ba'athism, and yet these movements are still fascist, in the first place because they embodied the theme of national revival, which is the ideological feature that distinguishes fascism from other forms of nationalism, and in the second place because they were rooted in the middle classes and came to power after they received the support of the bourgeoisie, in order to destroy a threat from a militant and organized working class, or after the working class had suffered a serious defeat. I would also argue that organizations and movements which are not initially fascist can assume a fascist character as a consequence of changing political and social conditions - the KMT party-state, for example, arguably constituted a fascist regime after 1927 because the Nanjing government was formed shortly after the crushing of a working-class revolt, which was itself caused by power moving into the hands of right-wing militarists and sons of the gentry like Chiang.

Fascism and nazism are not the same thing per definition. Fascism don't need to be nazist, while nazism need to be fascist. The Italian fascists and the Spanish national syndicalists were mostly indifferent to the issue of race, instead focusing on state-patriotism and religion. I was talking about white supremacism in the USA, which undoubtly is a racist ideology as its entire basis is for race.

Moreover, the 1920's and 1930's are passed by. Modern right-wing extremism have partially different sources and faces different problems than its equivalent during that era.

Euro-fascism for example - which is the most dangerous right-wing radical current today in Europe - is basically using pro-liberal propaganda to slash muslims and try to mobilise the working class against a weak immigrant group. They are not attacking muslims because of race openly, but attack them for being "reactionary" and a threat to women and gays (while euro-fascists themselves often have reactionary viewpoints on women and homosexuals). Examples of parties which are adhering to such ideals are for example the Lega Nord in Italy, the Sweden Democrats in Sweden, the Danish People's Party - parties which actually have a shot to influence state power and use it in order to create conflicts within the working class.

White supremacists in the USA and ultra-nationalists/nazis in Europe have no chance of winning power today. They are reviled by most of the population. Yet, they do exist as small fringe cultures. The OP of this thread wanted to know about "modern nazism", so I described the differences between old and young nazism as well as their different sources. Nazism though, isn't the same as fascism - it is much worse.

[Kléber]

Duck That Goes Quack:
You're right, middle class is an imprecise term, petty-bourgeois is more correct, however, Marx and co. did all say "middle class." In Marxist terms it doesn't refer to an average income group, it just means someone occupying a "middling" position between capital and labor - they own some productive property, but personally put some work into it.

[Bolshevism1917]

Modern right-wing extremism have partially different sources and faces different problems than its equivalent during that era.
Euro-fascism for example - which is the most dangerous right-wing radical current today in Europe - is basically using pro-liberal propagandaTo the extent that there has been an change in the ideological character of fascism I don't think this has anything to do with fascism as such but is rather one part of a more general process of ideological adaption whereby reactionary forces are using the language of progressive thought in order to renew their legitimacy, in a world where more traditional ideological justifications for reactionary policies have ceased to be acceptable - consider the usage of feminist arguments to justify imperialist wars, for example. The reason I say "to the extent" is that I also think you exaggerate the extent to which fascist organizations have actually adopted liberal propaganda, in Europe or anywhere else. The anti-immigrant stances of organizations like the BNP and the NDP are still very much informed by cultural chauvinism as oppossed to a real or feigned concern for the rights of minorities as well as the promotion of myths and half-truths when it comes to the impact of immigrants on jobs and wages, and in fact the discourse of these organizations frequently embodies the theme of "political correctness gone mad", which seeks to attack the gains that oppressed groups have made in the past few decades - but what for me seems to be the most important issue (and the point which also leads me to question whether treating Nazism and fascism as distinct is at all useful) is that the Marxist analysis of fascism is not necessarily centered around ideology or language but rather the role that fascism plays and has played in relation to socialist revolution and working-class organizations (that is, class content) as this emphasis allows us identify organizations which, on the surface at least, appear very different from one another due to their usage of different language and aesthetics, but are in fact all part of the same phenomenon, and all need to be confronted to the same extent. If you don't adopt this class standpoint you end up accepting that the BNP and the PVV (the latter probably is a case where liberalism is being manipulated to justify Islamophobia whereas the BNP is definitely anti-liberal in its attitude towards the economy and social issues) as fundamentally different, based on how they present themselves.


White supremacists in the USA and ultra-nationalists/nazis in Europe have no chance of winning power today. The same is true of all fascist organizations outside of revolutionary situations but the need to confront them physically and ideologically still exists because of their role in intimidating workers from minority communities and fostering divisions within the working class.

[Dimentio]

I think that Alleanza Nationale and Lega Nord already do have power, as well as the FPÖ in Austria and the Danish People's Party. Front National, the BNP and the NDP are also gravitating towards euro-fascism. Islamophobia is - sadly - a success story.

The class situation in Europe today is different to the class situation in 1930. Modern fascism do not exist because of a revolutionary undercurrent society, but is enabled because of its absence due to the defaitism of the established left-wing parties.