Left-wing Nazism

[spartan]

I was reading up on this intriguing aspect to Nazism and the people and groups associated with the left-wing of the Nazi party.

Ernst Rohm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm
Karl Ernst:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ernst
Sturmabteilung (SA):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
Gregor Strasser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser
Otto Strasser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser
Strasserism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism
Black Front:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Front

Though these people and groups were still racist, Nationalist and anti-communist it seems to me that these people and organisations were genuinely committed to their anti-capitalist variant of National Socialism (Rather than just using it as Populist rhetoric to attract working class support like most far-right groups do).

Rohm believed in a revolution to implement a Socialist economy and the SA was made up of mostly working class or unemployed men who thought of themselves as the revolutionaries literally fighting for revolution and the implementation of Socialism in the streets (Even though most of the people they were fighting were Communists).

As such they were viewed with suspicion by the German establishment who forced Hitler to choose between them and the left-wing of the party. Hitler choose the former (As he needed the support of the army who hated Rohm and the SA and wouldnt allow Hitler to be President with him still around) and in 1934 came the "Night of the long knives" where the SA was suppressed and it's leaders thrown in prison and some killed (Rohm and Ernst among them).

Indeed before he was executed Ernst thought that he was a victim of a pro-capitalist, Monarchist group within the Nazi party staging a coup against the left-wing of the party and shouted "Heil Hitler" before they opened fire not knowing that Hitler had authorised the crackdown on him, the SA and the left-wing of the party.

As such what does this say about the type of people attracted to far-right parties?

They seem to attract, and are sometimes even led by, working class people who genuinely believe in a Socialist economy in a Nationalist white only society.

The BNP has very Populist rhetoric aimed at white working class people in run down former industrial towns and this seems to be working for them as they are increasing their percentage of the vote in general, council and by-elections everytime one is held (The recent by-election in the mayor of London Boris Johnson's old constituency even had the Labour candidate finishing fifth behind, i.e. receiving less votes than, the BNP candidate!).

The BNP have also argued for more cooperatives and nationalisation and the resurrection of the traditional industries which were destroyed by the Tories in the 80's in northern England.

I wonder then do working class people respond more favorably to Socialism when it is presented in a Nationalist manner? (i.e. "it is in your national intrests to adopt Socialism" etc)

If so then what does this say about our (Communist) dedication to internationalism?

Is the working class ready to give up it's nationalities and ethnicities?

I think that we are losing potential supporters to clever far-right parties who know what to say (Or alternatively genuinely believe in a Socialist economy) to attract this working class support.

What can we do to tackle this?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thankfully people like yourself have gone past Trotsky's archaic "analysis" of "far-rightism." :)

In trying to tackle the thugs, you may wish to bring up the necessity of union globalization:

The Labour Movement: One Big Union

“Under certain circumstances this sort of competition, like that of the capitalists, may lead to a new emphasis on national lines, a new hatred of foreign workers on the part of the native born. But the conflict of nationalities, which is perpetual among the capitalists, can be only temporary among the proletarians. For sooner or later the workers will discover that the immigration of cheap labor-power from the more backward to the more advanced countries, is as inevitable a result of the capitalist system […]” (Karl Kautsky)

The past two or three years have seen tremendous developments in regards to the mobility of labour. Granted, it was only years earlier that mobility of labour came about with the “globalization” phenomenon, resulting in increased emigration and immigration between countries, as well as mergers amongst national unions in reaction to declines in union membership, but now it has entered into a stage of maturity, in the form of union globalization. Indeed, said Kautsky:

German workers have every reason to co-operate with the Slavs and Italians in order that these may secure higher wages and a shorter working-day; the English workers have the same interest in relation to the Germans, and the Americans in relation to Europeans in general.

Before union globalization, there was already the transnational coordination amongst national unions, involving the Communications Workers of America, the Service Employees International Union (covering the United States and Canada), and the United Steelworkers, among other national unions in Europe and even South America. This transnational coordination was made possible due to consolidations amongst employers, thus resulting in more common employers, from Alcoa to Bridgestone to Georgia-Pacific.

In April 2007, the United Steelworkers entered into merger negotiations with what was then the United Kingdom’s second-largest trade union, Amicus. Shortly afterwards, Amicus merged with the Transport and General Workers’ Union to form UNITE. This new union then agreed to merge with the United Steelworkers and thus form the world’s first multinational trade union (not to be confused with mere multinational trade union federations such as the International Trade Union Confederation).

"While big business is global and labour is national, we are going to be at a disadvantage," said UNITE spokesman Andrew Murray. Said fellow UNITE trade unionist Derek Simpson, “We have a view that we need a global trade union in order to be able to deal effectively and on a par with the many global companies that we now have members working for.” The benefits of this union globalization are obvious: outsourcing to cheaper locations abroad may be more difficult (notwithstanding increases in oil forcing outsourcing to head closer to home and not further abroad), criticisms of labour protectionism by the corporate champions of “globalization” can be muted, and some market analysts have already warned about the prospects of global strikes. Overall, global working-class solidarity is increased. Said Kautsky:

Such a bridging of the chasm between the nations, such an international amalgamation of great sections of the people of different lands, the history of the world has never seen before.



REFERENCES:

Unions for a Global Economy by Harold Meyerson [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7042502409.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502409.html)]

UK and US unions to “join forces” by BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7419256.stm]

Forming a transatlantic labor union by Marketplace [http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display.../uniting_unions (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/26/uniting_unions)]

Globalization being undone by high oil costs: CIBC by The Canadian Press [http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/05/27/cibc.html]

[DancingLarry]

This is an important and timely topic. However bad the situation in this regard may be in the UK, it is much much worse in the US. Here the only opening to socialist ideas in white working class communities is in a formulation that includes extremes of racism, nationalism and militarism, and as subordinate to that unholy trinity. This is a wall I've been banging my head against for some 25 years now, and I do have a few thoughts on the topic.

There simply is no social base in such communities for even the barest introduction of state socialist ideas. This is a population that considers Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to be Bolsheviks; imagine then their reaction to actual Bolshevism. The Leninists will simply never get anywhere with them. The first words out of the mouth and the windows of opportunity will slam shut. They will be seen preemptively as hostile to far too many central cultural elements of white working class life. Whether or not those assumptions are correct, they will be there, deeply entrenched. The bourgeoisie has built its house upon a deep bedrock of false consciousness.

It is the left/social anarchists in various flavors that contrary to prevailing assumptions may actually be better positioned to find a responsive segment in such communities. Distrust of the government/state runs deep and is closely tied to class self-identification e.g. "The government always screws the working man." These are not (in general) the same people that respond vigorously to the racist nationalist socialists, but they are their friends, neighbors, siblings. If going forward we want a left base in white working class communities, it will almost certainly have to come from an anti-statist perspective, because that is the only available entrypoint for any sort of left ideas. Anything else will get you ignored, ostracized and marginalized at best, with beatdowns very much a possibility.

Those are just a few thoughts I have after having spent the last quarter century on and off doing various kinds of organizing in working class communities in the northeast of the US. Unfortunately, typing is not one of my strong points, and it takes much too long for me to write out all my thoughts on this topic.

Anyway, thank you very much for bringing forward this vital and highly contemporary issue that is applicable in many of our countries today. One problem I see is too much of the left functioning as something of an intellectual nostalgia society, recreating the debates of the 1860s and 1870s, 1920s and 30s, or the 1960s and 70s at the most recent. That's not what we need today, we cannot cling to the "eternal verities" of what were the prevailing conditions in Russia in 1917, in China in 1949. That has nothing to do with the class structures and relations of production of the advanced capitalist countries of the 21st century, not to mention the legacy that the history of "existing socialism" left in the world. This OTOH is a topic that speaks directly to our current condition, and is appreciated.

[GPDP]

Indeed, there is a wall of extreme nationalism/racism/religious conservatism that permeates white working class society in the US, especially in the South (I should know, I live in Texas :(). If any socialist ideas get through, it is either through the aforementioned reactionary stances, or through anti-state, anarchist methods. I see Leninist organization having a tough time with them.

Luckily, minority groups are usually more receptive to leftist ideas. The area I live in is mostly made up of Mexicans and their American-born children. The local anarchist group I once associated myself with (but not for long - a lot of things came up) did a lot of work here and around the San Antonio and Austin areas. And they have not had many problems with the locals. But again, people here are more "liberal" than the rest of Texas. And if we are to build a mass worker movement, we must get through to the majority white population as well.

But yeah, I second the good call on bringing this up. It is important that we realize that fascism can come in many flavors, and is much more flexible in its attempts to appeal to the working man than many of us would like. I would not be surprised to see a fascist movement appear someday, advocating what would otherwise be a complete Socialist proposal for the economy, with its set goal being exactly that which is every right-wing Libertarian's personal boogeyman: a complete state takeover of every aspect of our lives, both social and economic. Not saying it will, but if the situation calls for it, I would not be too surprised.

[Yehuda Stern]

In Israel also there are various trends advocating "socialism for Jews." They do not express themselves openly in this manner, but their premise is that the left must give up, or at least tone down, its struggle against the occupation and the state's racism, and that it should focus on "social" questions, i.e. on reformist slogans. This is the line of the left-wing of the Labor party, of some groups in the Communist Party, and especially of Maavak Sozyalisti (the Israeli CWI section).

That in Israel this line comes from left groups instead of fascist groups expresses the backward consciousness of Israeli workers, as well as these groups' chauvinist tendencies. But it is a world trend nonetheless.

On the one hand, many workers and poor people understand that they cannot keep living under this decaying capitalism. They feel that "this can't go on" and that "something must be done." But they have not started struggling yet. They are still chauvinists and nationalists and cannot be attracted to Leninist ideas.

What are we to do, then? Since revolutionary groups are very small today, all we can do is try to intervene in the existing struggles and seek individuals whose struggles have led to revolutionary conclusions. A worker who has been through many strikes, and has seen the way in which the state oppresses them, the way union bureaucrats sell them out, who sees that those who are on his side are workers of other ethnicities or nationalities, is much more likely at the moment to be open to revolutionary propaganda than a young worker with no experience and with all the backwards prejudice fed to him through the schools and the media.

These individuals certainly exist. The task of revolutionaries is to get in touch with them and convince them that only the socialist revolution can solve their and their class brothers' problems.

[Organic Revolution]

Wolves in sheep's clothing these fools. They will use any rhetoric to recruit for a racist, nationalist, and sexist cause, no matter how much it compromises their ideas. Third positionists are a very dangerous current within contemporary leftism, because they speak the same as the RCP person selling a paper, but with nationalism slipped in.

The only option is to confront these folks wherever they are, and put a stop to their racist Ideology.

[Red Flag Rising]

Fascism and/or National Socialism grew out of socialists who were dissatisfied with internationalism. It appealed to people who were sympathetic to socialism but not the internationalist component. There were individual Communists and Nazis who moved back and forth from one party to the next, depending who was up at the time. They were called "Beefsteak Nazis:" brown on the outside, red on the inside.

[Strummerism]

Fascism and/or National Socialism grew out of socialists who were dissatisfied with internationalism. It appealed to people who were sympathetic to socialism but not the internationalist component. There were individual Communists and Nazis who moved back and forth from one party to the next, depending who was up at the time. They were called "Beefsteak Nazis:" brown on the outside, red on the inside.

Interesting take on it. Thanks.
I always thought of the two as being binary opposites.
But Mussolini was a communist at university? I still can't fathom how one can "move back and forth" like that. One day you believe in humanism and class struggle, the next you want to massacre all immigrants, for instance.

I find in my country that the “white working class”, as GPDP depicted as being Southerners in the US, couldn’t care less about class inequalities or job insecurity - as dwindling union membership suggests, rather its all about homeland security, creating binaries and “us versus them” mentalities against immigrants, while upholding the most basic and ignorant patriotic views. Sorry for the generalisation. It’s just a shame that this group is, by and large, the reason why we are on this forum in the first place, yet so many of them (at least in Sydney) continue to vote conservative in elections - ignorant to the fact that they get screwed every year.

[Demogorgon]

Interesting take on it. Thanks.
I always thought of the two as being binary opposites.
But Mussolini was a communist at university? I still can't fathom how one can "move back and forth" like that. One day you believe in humanism and class struggle, the next you want to massacre all immigrants, for instance.

It is complicated. Fascism is not a single monolithic entity, it comes (or at least came) in a number of flavours. You got the extreme racism and nationalism of Nazi Germany, the generic anti-Communist, pro-Monarchist reactionary outlook of Spanish fascism, the Catholic fundamentalism of Portuguese fascism, the aggressive expansionism of Japanese fascism, the free-market fanaticism of Austro-Fascism and the highly altered form of National Syndicalism of Italian fascism.

Of these, only the first and last have been linked to the left in any way. Nazism only because it initially had an anti-capitalist wing who wanted a form of militaristic socialism for Aryan workers. However they were purged in 1934. Italian fascism is more interesting because its routes can in many ways be traced to disenchanted syndicalists who adopted positions of extreme nationalism. Italian fascism was in certain ways the opposite of Marxism, it sought to end class struggle and create an organic hierarchical society. The notion was of "class-collaboration", all classes working together in "corporates" for their mutual gain. By a complicated series of alterations and changes in outlook some forms of syndicalism influenced this.

Anyway, it obviously isn't left wing and in practice it let capitalism thrive despite its promises otherwise. However it attempted to ease social tension with certain concessions to poorer people and provision of social welfare was fairly generous compared to its contemporaries. For this reason it was able to appeal to the working class to an extent. That didn't make it socialist by any stretch, but it didn't come out of traditional Conservative movement either. I would call it right wing populism.

[trivas7]

One problem I see is too much of the left functioning as something of an intellectual nostalgia society, recreating the debates of the 1860s and 1870s, 1920s and 30s, or the 1960s and 70s at the most recent. That's not what we need today, we cannot cling to the "eternal verities" of what were the prevailing conditions in Russia in 1917, in China in 1949. That has nothing to do with the class structures and relations of production of the advanced capitalist countries of the 21st century, not to mention the legacy that the history of "existing socialism" left in the world. This OTOH is a topic that speaks directly to our current condition, and is appreciated.
Thanks for this. This a marvelous ending to a thoughtful post that merits its own thread. How does one intelligently go about learning re current class structures and relations of production nowadays? It's not exactly in the main stream media, etc.

[trivas7]

It is complicated. Fascism is not a single monolithic entity, it comes (or at least came) in a number of flavours.

[...] but it didn't come out of traditional Conservative movement either. I would call it right wing populism.
Who were some of those traditional Conservative movements? You mean Monarchist parties in Europe? Tories in England?

[Demogorgon]

Who were some of those traditional Conservative movements? You mean Monarchist parties in Europe? Tories in England?

That sort of thing, yes. The likes of Franco were coming out of traditional Conservative movements, as were some of the other fascists, but Italian fascism had a quite different genesis.

The trouble with fascism is that it is a quite wide ranging term The only thing that really united the different fascist groups was authoritarianism and anti-Communism. The anti-Communism took different forms however. In Spain for instance, it was about retreating into deep traditionalist Conservatism, in Italy it was about creating an alternative form of radicalism.

It should also be pointed out that the fascist groups manifested their authoritarianism to different degrees and in different ways. All of them repressed their opponents but Italy for example was utterly fixated on it whereas Spain for example directed the majority of its repression against those seen as threatening traditional values in general.

Social Conservatism existed to differing degrees as well. In those countries where the fascism grew out of the Conservative movement, there was enormous social Conservatism. In Portugal for existence very strict Conservative Catholicism was imposed and woe-betide anyone who tried to deviate from it. On the other had, the regime did not maintain so tight a political control allowing all right-wing positions to debate amongst themselves. Conservative Catholics, Free-market fundamentalists, Colonialists and so on were all tolerated and could debate amongst themselves unimpeded. The left wing was still heavily persecuted of course.

In Italy on the other hand where the fascism did not come out of the traditional Conservative movement, there was much less social Conservatism, Mussolini was not in the least bit interested in imposing traditional Catholicism and so people had a bit more personal freedom (though don't imagine they were granted the level of privacy and autonomy we look for now), however political dissent was ruthlessly stamped out and there was little room for debate at all (except in the first few years, Mussolini took a surprisingly long time to really clamp down).

Anyway, I've gone on a bit long here, but the topic is one that interests me. Anyway, fascism is not really well understood here so I think it is worth explaining it in more detail. I think a problem we have here is that people view fascism too narrowly and as a result fail to spot some of the emerging fascist movements that exist these days.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is complicated. Fascism is not a single monolithic entity, it comes (or at least came) in a number of flavours. You got the extreme racism and nationalism of Nazi Germany, the generic anti-Communist, pro-Monarchist reactionary outlook of Spanish fascism, the Catholic fundamentalism of Portuguese fascism, the aggressive expansionism of Japanese fascism, the free-market fanaticism of Austro-Fascism and the highly altered form of National Syndicalism of Italian fascism.

Of these, only the first and last have been linked to the left in any way. Nazism only because it initially had an anti-capitalist wing who wanted a form of militaristic socialism for Aryan workers. However they were purged in 1934. Italian fascism is more interesting because its routes can in many ways be traced to disenchanted syndicalists who adopted positions of extreme nationalism. Italian fascism was in certain ways the opposite of Marxism, it sought to end class struggle and create an organic hierarchical society. The notion was of "class-collaboration", all classes working together in "corporates" for their mutual gain. By a complicated series of alterations and changes in outlook some forms of syndicalism influenced this.

Anyway, it obviously isn't left wing and in practice it let capitalism thrive despite its promises otherwise. However it attempted to ease social tension with certain concessions to poorer people and provision of social welfare was fairly generous compared to its contemporaries. For this reason it was able to appeal to the working class to an extent. That didn't make it socialist by any stretch, but it didn't come out of traditional Conservative movement either. I would call it right wing populism.

Given your most excellent statement regarding Italian fascism, wouldn't Stalin's "social fascism" stuff be partially validated? Lots of post-war Keynesian "social-democrats" shared a lot of similarities with the ITALIAN fascists. ;)

[Demogorgon]

Given your most excellent statement regarding Italian fascism, wouldn't Stalin's "social fascism" stuff be partially validated? Lots of post-war Keynesian "social-democrats" shared a lot of similarities with the ITALIAN fascists. ;)

Not really. There were economic similarities, but they did not share enough in the way of authoritarianism, nationalism or anti-Communism to fit into that category.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What about modern Blairites? :p

[Demogorgon]

^^^ What about modern Blairites? :p

Ha ha, maybe! Though they are free-market maniacs so they don't match the economics.