Why is fascism petty bourgeois?

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

I often read on this site that fascism is petty bourgeois, but I don't really understand why. How is an extremely authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, corporatist state beneficial to owners of small businesses?
Why isn't it just bourgeois?
Can someone explain?

[Brutus]

It appeals to the petit bourgeois who have lost their businesses during a recession.

[Blake's Baby]

Baader-Meinhof has hit the nail on the head. The 'policy' of fascism is a policy of the bourgeoisie. But the appeal of fascism is to de-classed elements - people who feel they have 'lost something' (usually income or status or both) and are happy to blame the Jews/Blacks/Muslims/Mexicans/Poles/Whoever if promised that they can have it back. So it appeals particularly to the petite-bourgeoisie in times of economic hardship.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I often read on this site that fascism is petty bourgeois, but I don't really understand why. How is an extremely authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, corporatist state beneficial to owners of small businesses?
Why isn't it just bourgeois?
Can someone explain?
If you're looking for a full explanation, try reading Daniel Guerin's Fascism and Big Business. I think that you may come away very informed. Good luck.

[RedMaterialist]

I often read on this site that fascism is petty bourgeois, but I don't really understand why. How is an extremely authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, corporatist state beneficial to owners of small businesses?
Why isn't it just bourgeois?
Can someone explain?

Marx discussed the "true" or "German Socialism" in the Communist Manifesto. In part, he said:

"
While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.

To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction — on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic...

And on its part German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine.

It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature."

(my emphasis)

It amazes me that in 1848 Marx was able to forecast almost exactly the "true, German national socialism" and its fascist character. Who could have known that in 1933 a "true" "model" man, the racially pure "German" would appear with national socialism?

In this analysis the European petty bourgeois saw two threats: concentrated capital and the international working class. National socialism (German and Italian) saw a chance to kill the influence of capital by killing the European Jews and kill the international working class by destroying the Soviet Union. This assumes, however, that national, true, Socialism is, more or less, the same as fascism.

[Questionable]

While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie,

I'm a bit confused by this. How can the government be fighting against the German bourgeoisie when the state is the tool of the ruling class?

[RedMaterialist]

[/B]I'm a bit confused by this. How can the government be fighting against the German bourgeoisie when the state is the tool of the ruling class?

I think at that time (1848) the German ruling class was still the aristocracy which was trying to fight off the bourgeoisie. After WW I the aristocracy was pretty much overthrown (Hindenburg) which left a struggle over which class would take over the German state, the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie or the communists. I'm not sure what was the ruling class in Germany between 1933-45. I suppose the petty-bourgeois class ruled with the national socialist, fascist government. It's probably safe to say that WW II put an end to the German petty bourgeois class.

[Geiseric]

Fascism has upsurges in countries struck by huge economic woes, at the end stage when all of the capital is in the hands of monopolies and multinationals. Germany had tons of investments made into it by American business men such as Rockefeller and Ford. Hitler had a life size portrait of Ford behind his main desk.

So fascism was internationally supported by capitalists because of their need to destroy the fSU. International capitalists invested a shit ton of concentration camps and industry that the "booms" occured in, workers however had an overall reduction of about 10% in wages.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

"Fascism was neither particularly bourgeois nor particularly petty bourgeois. True, there were some class biases in Italy and perhaps also in Austria. But after 1930 there were none in Germany (if we add the SA and SS paramilitaries to the Nazi Party). These fascist coups also received some support from upper classes. But Romanian and Hungarian fascists were received from proletarian than bourgeois backgrounds and received less upper-class support. Class composition was thus complex and variable. Yet there were more constant tendencies of economic sector. Fascists tended to come from sectors that were not in the front line of organized struggle between capital and labor. They were less likely to be workers in urban, manufacturing settings (though they were around Budapest and Bucharest because industry there was more part of the "statist" constituency). They were less likely to be small or large businessmen or their managers. Yet they were not "marginal" or "rootless." Their social location was (for the interwar period) relatively secure. But from their slightly removed vantage poiint they viewed class struggle with distaste, favoring a movement claiming to transcend class struggle. Of course, in most cases transcendence was not achieved, and we find tension[...] between a more "radical" fascist base and a more "opportunist" leadership faction seeking compromise with elites. Similarly, capitalists and old regimes might also provide a more opportunistic constituency for such flawed transcendence. But if we do take fascists' beliefs seriously, then it would follow that fascism would appeal to those viewing class struggle from "outside," declaring "a plague on both your houses!"
- Michael Mann, Fascists 2004

Fascism might be appealing to the petty bourgeois in this day and age, but historically in countries like Italy, Austria, Romania, Hungary, and Germany - it did not. In countries like Italy and Germany a lot of the grassroots movement was built organically by ex-soldiers, and by the quote, typically those in a (privileged) position outside of capital and labor. However, in countries such as Hungary and Romania, it very-much-so had a proletarian base.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Fascism can appeal to workers too by throwing "socialism" into the party name like Hitler did. That tricky bastard :cursing:.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Fascism can appeal to workers too by throwing "socialism" into the party name like Hitler did. That tricky bastard :cursing:.
Although Hitler later regretted using the term National "Socialism" - it was used for a reason early in the movements.
Maurice Barres was the earliest example of using such a term, running for office in 1889 based on "Nationalism, Protectionism, and Socialism." He later coined the term "Socialist Nationalism" in 1898. This term was then flipped around by Enrico Corradini as "National Socialism." If we look at the historical context though, Corradini was living in Italy during a time in which syndicalism was also a popular movement that was gaining momentum. As some of you already know, a lot of the early Italian fascists from the syndicalist movement, as syndicalism played a very important role in the key characteristic of fascism -
The early fascists viewed themselves as the inbetween left and right - they thought of the left as too focused on materialism and internationalism, and yet the right-wing were too focused on individualism. The fascist has a devotion and an outright admiration for the artificial nation-state, having a strong sense of identity and culture. Thus we get the "National" part. However, the socialism part comes from syndicalism, in which the fascists viewed that the entire nation would be a working together for the common cause. Class conflict would be harmonized with the help of syndicalist (revolutionary) unions and organizations, which would be coordinated by a corporate state. "National socialism" would be confined within artificial national borders.

I'm using non-German examples of why it's called National Socialism, and I can only assume it influenced Hitler to use the same name for a similar idea/strategy.
But you do have a point. "National Socialism" was very appealing to the working class in certain countries, and even had a very proletarian angle to itself. Fascists will commonly take labor and left-wing slogans about capitalism, however, they unlike Marxists and socialists in general, lack a defined analysis and critique of capitalism.

[RedMaterialist]

Is national socialism the same phenomenon as fascism?

[Le Socialiste]

I often read on this site that fascism is petty bourgeois, but I don't really understand why. How is an extremely authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, corporatist state beneficial to owners of small businesses?
Why isn't it just bourgeois?
Can someone explain?

Well, in the long run it isn't. The petite bourgeoisie in Germany overwhelmingly backed Hitler and the NSDAP in the late 20s/early 30s, only to have the Nazis backtrack on their promises to these small business owners/landowners and give preferential treatment to Big Business. The petite bourgeoisie actually suffered under the Nazis; whatever benefits there were were greatly outweighed by the overarching reach and consolidation of Big Business.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Is national socialism the same phenomenon as fascism?
Yes.

Fascism can have many different names (third way, national-syndicalism, national socialism, Strasserism, etc.). Plenty of people have argued Fascism had been built and fully developed before WWI. Had the Great War not happened, Fascism would of been only a minor footnote in the history books. The first group to come along with this particular word was the Fasci d'Zione Internazionalista, which separated into a 2nd group called Fasci of Revolutionary Action, which Mussolini led. With the rise and popularity of Mussolini's fascists, the use of the word Fascist and the ideas and actions Mussolini took greatly influenced similar movements and leaders, even if they did call themselves something different (National Socialists (Nazi's), the Iron Guard, Arrow Cross Party, and so forth).

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Had the Great War not happened, Fascism would of been only a minor footnote in the history books.

Had the world proletariat succeeded in bringing down capitalism in the early 1900s, fascism would of been only a minor footnote in the history books.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Had the world proletariat succeeded in bringing down capitalism in the early 1900s, fascism would of been only a minor footnote in the history books.

cool.




aaaannyways




heres an interesting look at hte issue of nationalism within the socialist movement that in the late 1800s led to splits. im not saying this is the genesis, but this is an interesting example.


From marxism and the national quesiton chapter 4 - stalin (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm)


Having referred to the fact that "national dissension in Austria is hindering political progress," that "the final solution of the national question... is primarily a cultural necessity," and that "the solution is possible only in a genuinely democratic society, constructed on the basis of universal, direct and equal suffrage," the programme goes on to say:

"The preservation and development of the national peculiarities [15] of the peoples of Austria is possible only on the basis of equal rights and by avoiding all oppression. Hence, all bureaucratic state centralism and the feudal privileges of individual provinces must first of all be rejected.

"Under these conditions, and only under these conditions, will it be possible to establish national order in Austria in place of national dissension, namely, on the following principles:

"1. Austria must be transformed into a democratic state federation of nationalities.

"2. The historical crown provinces must be replaced by nationally delimited self-governing corporations, in each of which legislation and administration shall be entrusted to national parliaments elected on the basis of universal, direct and equal suffrage.

"3. All the self-governing regions of one and the same nation must jointly form a single national union, which shall manage its national affairs on an absolutely autonomous basis.

"4. The rights of national minorities must be guaranteed by a special law passed by the Imperial Parliament."

The programme ends with an appeal for the solidarity of all the nations of Austria. [16]


Springer's and Bauer's cultural-national autonomy is a subtle form of nationalism.

And it is by no means fortuitous that the national programme of the Austrian Social-Democrats enjoins a concern for the "preservation and development of the national peculiarities of the peoples." Just think: to "preserve" such "national peculiarities" of the Transcaucasian Tatars as self-flagellation at the festival of Shakhsei-Vakhsei; or to "develop" such "national peculiarities" of the Georgians as the vendetta! ...

A demand of this character is in place in an outright bourgeois nationalist programme; and if it appears in the programme of the Austrian Social-Democrats it is because national autonomy tolerates such demands, it does not contradict them.

But if national autonomy is unsuitable now, it will be still more unsuitable in the future, socialist society.

Bauer's prophecy regarding the "division of humanity into nationally delimited communities" is refuted by the whole course of development of modern human society. National barriers are being demolished and are falling, rather than becoming firmer. As early as the 'forties Marx declared that "national differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing" and that "the supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster." [18] The subsequent development of mankind, accompanied as it was by the colossal growth of capitalist production, the reshuffling of nationalities and the union of people within ever larger territories, emphatically confirms Marx's thought.

Bauer's desire to represent socialist society as a "checkered picture of national unions of persons and territorial corporations" is a timid attempt to substitute for Marx's conception of socialism a revised version of Bakunin's conception. The history of socialism proves that every such attempt contains the elements of inevitable failure.

There is no need to mention the kind of "socialist principle of nationality" glorified by Bauer, which, in our opinion, substitutes for the socialist principle of the class struggle the bourgeois "principle of nationality." If national autonomy is based on such a dubious principle, it must be admitted that it can only cause harm to the working-class movement.

...


True, such nationalism is not so transparent, for it is skilfully masked by socialist phrases, but it is all the more harmful to the proletariat for that reason. We can always cope with open nationalism, for it can easily be discerned. It is much more difficult to combat nationalism when it is masked and unrecognizable beneath its mask. Protected by the armour of socialism, it is less vulnerable and more tenacious. Implanted among the workers, it poisons the atmosphere and spreads harmful ideas of mutual distrust and segregation among the workers of the different nationalities.

But this does not exhaust the harm caused by national autonomy. It prepares the ground not only for the segregation of nations, but also for breaking up the united labour movement. The idea of national autonomy creates the psychological conditions for the division of the united workers' party into separate parties built on national lines. The breakup of the party is followed by the breakup of the trade unions, and complete segregation is the result. In this way the united class movement is broken up into separate national rivulets.

Austria, the home of "national autonomy," provides the most deplorable examples of this. As early as 1897 (the Wimberg Party Congress [19]) the once united Austrian Social-Democratic Party began to break up into separate parties. The breakup became still more marked after the Brünn Party Congress (1899), which adopted national autonomy. Matters have finally come to such a pass that in place of a united international party there are now six national parties, of which the Czech Social-Democratic Party will not even have anything to do with the German Social-Democratic Party.

But with the parties are associated the trade unions. In Austria, both in the parties and in the trade unions, the main brunt of the work is borne by the same Social-Democratic workers. There was therefore reason to fear that separatism in the party would lead to separatism in the trade unions and that the trade unions would also break up. That, in fact, is what happened: the trade unions have also divided according to nationality. Now things frequently go so far that the Czech workers will even break a strike of German workers, or will unite at municipal elections with the Czech bourgeois against the German workers.

It will be seen from the foregoing that cultural-national autonomy is no solution of the national question. Not only that, it serves to aggravate and confuse the question by creating a situation which favours the destruction of the unity of the labour movement, fosters the segregation of the workers according to nationality and intensifies friction among them.

Such is the harvest of national autonomy.

[MP5]

It's typical reactionary politics by the middle classes more or less. These people instead of addressing what the actual real problems are and how to solve them look for scapegoats such as illegal immigrants and the rest of those lazy ethnic groups who freeload on all of their "hard earned tax dollars" :rolleyes: . Seriously if i had a dime for every time i heard something like that i would be able to help fund a very well armed Socialist revolution by now.

I don't know why but the middle classes have a way of always blaming those worse off then them who are living on the pittance that the government gives them or illegal immigrants who the stupid governments waste money in trying to keep out rather then focusing on the real problem which is the Capitalists who suck up all their wealth and create these economic crises to begin with. It`s a stupid sickening Petite Bourgeois mentality that serves nothing other then creating a tide of reactionary conservatism that almost always expands to outright fascism in those who are particularly blind, stupid and already racist to begin with.

[TheEmancipator]

Let's not pretend workers haven't fallen foul to fascism either. Its entire ideology is based on divide and conquer tactics, eventually uniting the so called "good, hard workers of the nation" in hating immigrants. Fascists use an extreme form of right-wing populism, full of contradictions, that attracts all classes to vote for them, but is really just another love-child of the upper bourgeoisie's interests and the militarist ultra-nationalist retards.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yes, fascism is a petit-bourgeois movement but it is supported by large capitalists when it is in their interests and though its base is in the small capitalist class, it does attract workers who end up being foot soldiers of the movement.

in the case of Germany the Freikorps was ex-military, meaning proletarian.

[Rafiq]

Fascism is the fasces, the shared class interest between the petite bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie. Logically, the proletariat were targets of false consciousness, unlike the petite bourgeoisie who were actually fulfilling a class interest.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

Let's not pretend workers haven't fallen foul to fascism either. Its entire ideology is based on divide and conquer tactics, eventually uniting the so called "good, hard workers of the nation" in hating immigrants. Fascists use an extreme form of right-wing populism, full of contradictions, that attracts all classes to vote for them, but is really just another love-child of the upper bourgeoisie's interests and the militarist ultra-nationalist retards.

Let's just get something out of the way: Proletarians compose some 80-90% of society, when there is talk of "hur dur proletarians also made up fascist parties in large sums" you aren't saying anything of worth. Part of the function of capitalism and the power of the class enemy is keeping the proletariat in a state of false consciousness. There is no "free will", the proletariat as a class didn't "choose" to join the fascists, the mechanisms to articulate their own consciousness as a class did not exist for such a choice to be made. The same goes for all other bourgeois ideology: The majority of any large movement will compose of proletarians but this does not change it's class nature. Part of what defines the proletarian class is it's social relation to other classes, namely, the bourgeousie.

The class nature of something isn't defined by the class background of adherents but the unconscious ideological dynamic of which it transmits, which sustains and exerts an actual class interest. Take any proletarian Joe off the street and force him to start a movement it will likely be liberalist, and therefore it will be bourgeois in nature without direct involvement by members of the bourgeois class.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Yes, fascism is a petit-bourgeois movement but it is supported by large capitalists when it is in their interests and though its base is in the small capitalist class, it does attract workers who end up being foot soldiers of the movement.

in the case of Germany the Freikorps was ex-military, meaning proletarian.
Ex-military probably included lots of peasants (i.e., petite bourgeoisie). Fascism is an extreme method to which the bourgeoisie will resort if they fear the working class might take power. These are political movements based on armed terror against workers and minorities. This is not a preferred system of the bourgeoisie as fascist regimes tend to place restrictions on their freedom to do whatever they want.

The reason fascism leans on the PB is because they are the ones often most totally devastated by the cyclical economic collapse of capitalism. The lose all of their property and become proletarian or lumpen proletarian. And to be sure, while the Nazis recruited some workers during their rise in Germany,but not too many. It was nearly a year after they took power before brownshirts could walk alone at night around the Hamburg docks without waking up dead. After a while, lots of workers joined -- but that was after the left was physically eliminated.

[TheEmancipator]

Let's just get something out of the way: Proletarians compose some 80-90% of society, when there is talk of "hur dur proletarians also made up fascist parties in large sums" you aren't saying anything of worth. Part of the function of capitalism and the power of the class enemy is keeping the proletariat in a state of false consciousness. There is no "free will", the proletariat as a class didn't "choose" to join the fascists, the mechanisms to articulate their own consciousness as a class did not exist for such a choice to be made. The same goes for all other bourgeois ideology: The majority of any large movement will compose of proletarians but this does not change it's class nature. Part of what defines the proletarian class is it's social relation to other classes, namely, the bourgeousie.

Yes, they were mislead by forms of right-wing populism which betray proletarian interests. That does not somehow excuse them however of voting for nationalist parties. What I don't get about the OP is that he asks why "petty bourgeois" vote for fascists when many workers/employees have voted fascist too. So blaming the petty bourgeoisie for the rise of fascism is short sighted at best.

I am not saying fascism is a workers ideology though, or is in any way an ideology that workers would want to have. Did you read the second part of my post?


The class nature of something isn't defined by the class background of adherents but the unconscious ideological dynamic of which it transmits, which sustains and exerts an actual class interest. Take any proletarian Joe off the street and force him to start a movement it will likely be liberalist, and therefore it will be bourgeois in nature without direct involvement by members of the bourgeois class. Cultural hegemony is what Gramsci would call this. I have no doubt either that if the proletariat was well informed and had the most important factor of production of them all, knowledge, at their disposal, they wouldn't touch fascism with a barge pole, because it is nonsensical and flawed. But the capitalist class has made sure that if ever workers do become a discontented populace they either go for left liberalist reformism, or as you see in countries like France now (where 75% of FN voters are workers) and 1930s Germany, fascism. Ultimately both serve the upper bourgeoisie's interests.

[Rafiq]

Hegel, the point is that the petty bourgeois classes *were not* fooled into joining the fascists, they were following their own class interest.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

What I don't get about the OP is that he asks why "petty bourgeois" vote for fascists when many workers/employees have voted fascist too.
That wasn't exactly what I was asking, but rather, why it is petty bourgeois in nature and not just bourgeois.

Anyway, I understand it a lot better now. Thanks for all the responses.

[TheEmancipator]

Hegel, the point is that the petty bourgeois classes *were not* fooled into joining the fascists, they were following their own class interest.


Short term, yes, just like workers were given short-term benefits but in the long term they'd be swallowed by corporatist movements.

To say the petty bourgeois classes were aware of the dangers of fascism is pretty stretched. They were and still are as ignorant (and I don't mean that in an offensive way) as the working classes ie not class conscious, not aware of their powerlessness, blinded into believing that fascists will solve their problems. If you look at far right parties like FN in France that are now using immigration as their platform for some kind of fascist super-state, their policies are destructive to small businesses and petty bourgeois, but they still spout out enough false promises to get votes from them.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Fascism is absolutely not petit-bourgeoise alone!

I now see that, here in Holland at least, during this crisis people tend to pull towards more extreme parties. So now the Socialist Party (SP) and a Nationalist party (PVV with Geert Wilders) are getting more and more supporters. For Socialist parties you'll get why (worker inequality and shit), but for Nationalist (although PVV in Holland is more Fascist than Nationalist i think, with a lot of it's members still finfing them too mild) it is a bit different.

National-socialism aka Fascism Is a tendency much more dependant on raw emotions. People are getting mad that their jobs disappear (so yes, workers) and so are looking for someone to blame. During the 1930's in Germany it was the Jews, nowadays i think that globally the Muslims are the one (in Holland at least). Fascists honestly believe that Muslims are taking their jobs, houses and culture away. Some even say that Muslims are playing tricks on us and want to take over the world! (oh yes, may sound stupid, but i was told plenty of times)

So fascism is probably more emotional, while socialism is more intellectual. Not saying that all fascists are dumb, but they just depend on their emotions more than they do on their brain.

In Holland the PVV uses that to get workers to vote for them, advocating that THEY are the one actually standing up for the working people.
And although i've pointed out plenty of times the similarities between the Dutch Socialist Party (SP) and the PVV on worker-struggle, they won't hear it. Only thing you hear then is that they are not socialist and that it is a lie.

One asshole told me to read the PVV's election-program first before i said such bullshit. So i told him to read SP's program and summed up a list of similarities.
He still called me a liar.

Dumbass...

[Rafiq]

Short term, yes, just like workers were given short-term benefits but in the long term they'd be swallowed by corporatist movements.

To say the petty bourgeois classes were aware of the dangers of fascism is pretty stretched. They were and still are as ignorant (and I don't mean that in an offensive way) as the working classes ie not class conscious, not aware of their powerlessness, blinded into believing that fascists will solve their problems. If you look at far right parties like FN in France that are now using immigration as their platform for some kind of fascist super-state, their policies are destructive to small businesses and petty bourgeois, but they still spout out enough false promises to get votes from them.

Corporatist movements? Corporation within the context of fascism is defined as a state corporate which mediates problems between labor and capital, not the corporations of neoliberalism. Nobody knew the dangers of fascism, not even the bourgeoisie itself, because there wasn't a danger in fascism, the real danger was the capitalist mode of production which birthed it. The Petite bourgeoisie gained long term benefits, the main goal being the destruction of proletarian power which threatened them as a class and their property. On the other hand, 'wild west' capitalism threatened them as a class as it entailed the construction of monopoly. The bulk of fascism was the petite bourgeoisie, the arm of fascism. The head was the bourgeoisie. The proletariat (and perhaps some of the rural petite bourgeoisie) were the only classes in a state of false consciousness.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[TheEmancipator]

Corporatist movements? Corporation within the context of fascism is defined as a state corporate which mediates problems between labor and capital, not the corporations of neoliberalism.

They are linked. However, fascist corporations are created by the state (i.e the political, nationalist class) whereas the neo-liberal ones are done directly by the bourgeoisie.


Nobody knew the dangers of fascism, not even the bourgeoisie itself, because there wasn't a danger in fascism,No danger in fascism? Even the upper bourgeoisie saw the danger in fascism. It leaves the door open to militarist rule that does not benefit the bourgeois class as a whole.




The Petite bourgeoisie gained long term benefits, the main goal being the destruction of proletarian power which threatened them as a class and their property. On the other hand, 'wild west' capitalism threatened them as a class as it entailed the construction of monopoly. The bulk of fascism was the petite bourgeoisie, the arm of fascism. The head was the bourgeoisie. The proletariat (and perhaps some of the rural petite bourgeoisie) were the only classes in a state of false consciousness. The petite bourgeoisie were swallowed whole by the state corporations and lost any kind of potential power as a result. To claim fascism is some kind of reaction to proletarian uprising is only half the story. Yes, it was born out of anti-communism, but the petty bourgeoisie were certainly not the brains and didn't have the means to be the brawn of the fascist ideology. The emergence of fascism is just a division in the bourgeois classes and the idea of nationalism becoming a serious one to them. Its creation has very little to do with class warfare, as much as you may wish it.

And I think you'll find the proletariat were just as involved as becoming the arm of fascism as the petite bourgeoisie, as mentioned above (Freikorps). The National Socialists did a great job uniting all the classes under one, national banner through a twisted sense of logic. Still ,if we're going to suppress critical and historical analysis (that Hegel and Marx advocated) on this forum and pretend every single proletarian out there has never supported fascism consciously thinking his or her class would prevail in such a system, then so be it.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Because everything is petty bourgeois in ML language. Capitalism is petty bourgeois, anarchism is petty bourgeois, fascism is petty bourgeois, etc.

[Lokomotive293]

Objectively, fascism in power is "the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital" (Dimitroff). It's monopoly capital's last reaction to a crisis it cannot solve any other way. In times where it is not in power, the fascist movement still fulfills important functions for monopoly capital.

The petty bourgeoisie may or may not be especially attracted to it, but fascism is not objectively the class interest of the petty bourgeoisie, and it is especially not "the petty bourgeoisie in power" or something like that. The so-called petty bourgeoisie doesn't and will never constitute a class for itself, which means that it is simply not capable of taking over political power.

[Let's Get Free]

I always thought that the fascists had multi-class support. The fascists in Europe had support from hordes of unemployed people because they offered jobs and security and delivered on this promise.