Strasserism

[Eleftherios]

Were the Strasserists actually socialists who wanted to establish a workers' republic in Germany? This topic really confuses me, because the Nazis established a complete dictatorship of finance capital, while the adherents of this particular strand of Nazism wanted to overthrow the German elites and redistribute wealth. They also considered the idea of a possible alliance with the Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism

[spartan]

Strasserism is basically State Socialism in a nation that is for "Aryans" only.

The early NSDAP were quite revolutionary in a worker orientated way, which is probably why they had quite alot of support among working people, especially Ernst Rohm and his SA who repeatedly called for a "revolution" right into the thirties which of was an increasing embarrassment to Hitler who had abandoned any thought of a "revolution" after he was imprisoned for attempting to start one!

Hitler eventually, after his spell in prison, turned the party more mainstream and stopped the talk of a "revolution" so that he and his party could attract the influential middle class and funds from the upper class both of whom were scared of the popularity of the Communists and Socialists because they saw these groups as a threat to their money and property and were thus willing to fund the Nazis as they were vehemently anti Communist.

Thus the Nazis could pass themselves off as an alternative to the other workers groups and as protecters of the upper classes and their intrests which is a stratergy that worked well for them as they eventually became the second and then the biggest party in Germany and then were able to take power legally through elections and "Democratic" appointments.

It should be noted that alot of people in the various modern far right movements have readopted, to a degree, a similar concept to Strasserism as they see a racist Socialist society as the "perfect" one for white people to live in. :lol:

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:20 pm
It should be noted that alot of people in the various modern far right movements are readopted to a degree a similar concept to Strasserism as they see a racist Socialist society as the "perfect" one for white people to live in. :lol:
Yes, its quite bizzare. And now that I think of it, it is clear that not only did they fail in the past to implement their policy, but it is impossible for them to ever become able to achieve state power because even though it could become popular, the ruling class, the ones who bring up fascism when ther position is in serious danger, would never support them.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:20 pm
Strasserism is basically State Socialism in a nation that is for "Aryans" only.
Nowadays, everything seems to pass as "State Socialism" or "State Capitalism"...

Concepts that can be applied to anything are meaningless.


The early NSDAP were quite revolutionary in a worker orientated way, which is probably why they had quite alot of support among working people,

That's utterly false. The NSDAP has always been völkisch, ie, national-populist. It never embraced class struggle. And it never achieved much support among working people; the percentage of workers within its ranks was always lower than the percentage of workers within the German population at large.


especially Ernst Rohm and his SA who repeatedly called for a "revolution" right into the thirties which of was an increasing embarrassment to Hitler who had abandoned any thought of a "revolution" after he was imprisoned for attempting to start one!

Unhappily, Strasser's "revolution" was about placing the Nazi "old fighters" in the State apparatus, not certainly about giving power to the working class.


Hitler eventually, after his spell in prison, turned the party more mainstream and stopped the talk of a "revolution" so that he and his party could attract the influential middle class and funds from the upper class both of whom were scared of the popularity of the Communists and Socialists because they saw these groups as a threat to their money and property and were thus willing to fund the Nazis as they were vehemently anti Communist.

While Röhm or Strasser weren't anticommunists? Come on, those nice guys were the ones in charge of actually beating Communists (and Jews, and Social-democrats, etc) in the street strifes for the political control of the poor neighbourhoods of the German cities...

Luís Henrique

[spartan]

Unhappily, Strasser's "revolution" was about placing the Nazi "old fighters" in the State apparatus, not certainly about giving power to the working class.
The revolution that guys like Rohm and Strasser were calling for was still a National Socialist, and therefore racist, revolution but with more emphasis placed on the Socialist side of things economically as the Strasserists believed that State Socialism was the best economic ideology for an Aryan nation to have.

The Strasserists, within the NSDAP, did not like the fact that Hitler and his supporters had abandoned any notion of there style of a National Socialist "revolution" and had been embracing the middle and upper classes much more than ever after Hitler's spell in gaol as Hitler and his supporters, the majority of the NSDAP, decided that the only way that the NSDAP were ever going to gain power, and to make their Government once in power was as legitamite as possible, was through the Democratic process, whilst still secretly using there old un-Democratic violent methods against the opposition, rather then through agitation or a revolution which is what the Strasserists originally wanted.

The Strasserists held the believe that Capitalism weakened the Aryan man and that the middle and upper classes were thus the enemy of the Aryans as all the majority of these classes cared for was their money and property and not their race which is what the National Socialists thought was most important.

Race of course being an important theme for National Socialism and thus Strasserism which is a more Socialist off shot of National Socialism.

Of course Strasserism is, though an intresting cast off or off shot of National Socialism, ultimately just a racist variant of State Socialism where the party owns the MOP, the party appointed Bureaucrats control the MOP whilst the workers operate the MOP and everyone in the nation is an "Aryan" :lol:

This model of "Socialism" does not have any workers control or ownership of the MOP, just the classic workers operation of the MOP whilst someone else owns and controls it, though i am sure that the party will say that they are the "representatives" and "vanguard" of the workers :lol:

While Röhm or Strasser weren't anticommunists?
I never said that these two guys were not anti-Communist!

If anything they would have looked on the Communists as "foreign invaders" or the classic of white supremacism "led by Jews and non Aryans who wish to destroy us!" :lol:

Remember Socialism is not the same as Communism and it has been my experience that many in the far right then and now look upon Socialism favourably and some even think of it as an "Aryan" concept whilst these same idiots regard Communism as a "Jewish" concept just because Marx happened to have Jewish ancestory.

State Socialism was only the economic ideology of the Strasserists and not the Political ideology of this branch of National Socialism which was racism and white supremacism.

[spartan]

Wiki has a good article on Strasserism and i recommend that people read it to understand better this subject and to avoid confusion over certain features of this distinct, but ultimately stupid, ideology:Strasserism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism)

[Demogorgon]

To put it in perspective, so people can understand it quickly, Strasserism is Third Positionism. It has been suggested that BNP economic policies owe a fair bit to it. That gives you the general idea.

Basically they wanted the Nazi Government to be a little more working class friendly. When Hitler became Chancellor he quickly moved to establish very business friendly policies and put the squeeze on workers benefits. Some members of his party were a little put out with this because they had imagined that seizing power would benefit the entire "Aryan Race" rather than the same old businessmen as before.

It was not socialism they advocated for sure. Hell I wouldn't even call it state capitalism. It was just standard Nazi ideology with a bit of welfare economics added.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I think the wikipedia article hit the nail on the head quite well, strasserism takes a "hostile to an anti-semitic interpretation of finance capitalism"... the SA was always much more working class, populist and by the aforementioned definition anti-capitalist...

After Gregor Strasser's failed leadership bid when Hitler had come out of jail, he simply sunk in to irrelevance, as did the SA after the night of the long knives...

There was never a huge ideological basis to it, the SA - particularly Roehm wanted to extend the process of Gleischschaltung over big business. Nothing about class struggle whatsoever... All they wanted to do was further secure the position of the Nazi party.

[Luís Henrique]

Fascism always involves a twofold process towards the bourgeoisie: it is necessary to scare the bourgeois a bit, and cuddle it another bit, in order to better "sell" them the political panacaea. Strasser and Hitler disagreed on the exact mix of terror and adulation was most conducive to State power: Strasser would have preferred to scare the bourgeoisie a bit more.

But he wasn't even consistent about that. When Hitler made his final bid for power, aiming for nothing less than the position chancellor, Strasser started to make parallel negotiations with the conservatives (Hitler never forgave that, which eventually led to Strasser's assassination).

Luís Henrique

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 07:34 pm
Fascism always involves a twofold process towards the bourgeoisie: it is necessary to scare the bourgeois a bit, and cuddle it another bit, in order to better "sell" them the political panacaea. Strasser and Hitler disagreed on the exact mix of terror and adulation was most conducive to State power: Strasser would have preferred to scare the bourgeoisie a bit more.


But why would they want to scare the bourgeois? It seems to me that it has more to do with gaining support of the working class than actually scaring the bourgeois.