[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)
Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1778877241277-0.png (1.72 MB, 1920x1400, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1778877241277-1.pdf (17.4 MB, 154x255, Hitler and the peasants a….pdf)

File: 1778877241277-2.pdf (4.49 MB, 174x255, The Persistence of the Old….pdf)

File: 1778877241277-3.pdf (33.68 MB, 162x255, Why did the heavens not da….pdf)

 

What were the class dynamics behind the rise of fascism in Europe?

A while ago I read The Persistence Of The Old regime by Arno Mayer (I wrote a short summary here >>>/edu/25554). It can be summarized as follows:
<"Down to 1914 Europe was preeminently pre-industrial and prebourgeois. Its civil societies being deeply rooted in economies of labor-intensive agriculture, consumer manufacture and petty commerce."
>Mayer goes on to show that economically, politically and culturally the now post-feudal ancien regime was still dominant. The grande bourgeoisie did not yet exist as a class for itself. Its new industrial economic base was grafted onto the old, but still dominant, agricultural one, the latter of which the nobility held in their hands through their vast land ownership.
Mayer asserts in Why Did The Heavens Not Darken, his book on the Judeocide, that Germany was "very much still an old regime" even after the revolution that ended the Wilhelmine autocracy. The same was true for much of Eastern Europe, hence why there too there was an aristocratic propensity towards empowering fascists as to use their popular base for the former's continued survival.

Right now I'm reading Hitler And The Peasants by Gustavo Corni and he too mentions the continued, but waning, supremacy that large landowners enjoyed on the countryside:
>[…] until 1940-5 the cast of large landowners in the east (aristocratic or otherwise) continued to exercise a hegemonic role from a social and politico-cultural point of view, rather than from an economic one.
Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg, himself an arch-Junker, and entered into a coalition with the traditional conservatives of the DNVP. The latter were only willing to do so after losing many (countryside) votes to the NSDAP because they failed to copy their "popular" conservatism.

Corni notes on Nazi agricultural ideology:
>The vital role of the state, the preservation of the landed estates for strategic purposes, and imperialist expansion (which was much more a response to the deeply rooted demands of the Junkertum than a move in the interests of the peasants) — these were all muted notes in the 'leitmotif' which ran through [Nazi agricultural ideologist Richard Walter] Darré's ideology

Of course, there is also the lower middle-class of self employed artisans who were being outcompeted by large scale industry. They, like the peasants, also found little representation in the new Weimar Republic where the main conflict seemed to be between the industrial Bourgeoisie and the unions and Social Democratic and Communist parties of the working class. Here too there was fertile ground for fascism to expand its popular base.

This all runs counter to the idea I sometimes see propagated that fascism is the Bourgeoisie's last ditch effort to stay in power when a real or imagined revolution seems near. Instead, it seems like actually existing fascism, at least in Europe, is aristocratic in origins, all the forces of pre-modernity sperging out one last time before truly losing all relevance (of course, the Bourgeoisie — cucked, as per Mayer — doesn't mind any of this). This would also imply (?) that in much of our contemporary world, the social base for fascism is completely gone, which is a conclusion I'm not sure I'd be willing to make.

Interesting topic. Yeah fascism and nazism allied with some monarchist and aristocratic elements but fascism itself was modernist, even deemed itself progressive, had anti-monarchist and anti-clerical demands, sought to advance industrial capitalism, tried to be populist, etc. When you look at the founding of fascism in 1919, the majority of people were middle class, intellectuals, soldiers, etc. all pretty young. And I think later there were few aristocrats in the upper echelons of the Italian state. Fascism wasn't enough but it was the closest thing they would have to a restoration of old values and rights they'd been gradually losing since 18th century. It was supported critically as the desperate last cry against the modern world. I'm going to check out those books because they sound very interesting.

>This all runs counter to the idea I sometimes see propagated that fascism is the Bourgeoisie's last ditch effort to stay in power when a real or imagined revolution seems near.
How so? Nothing you said here is mutually exclusive with this view. In fact it complements it nicely since the remaining aristocracy obviously would have been aligned with the big bourgeoisie in its opposition to socialism and the working class.
>Instead, it seems like actually existing fascism, at least in Europe, is aristocratic in origins
That's not really what your sources say here though. They say that traditional conservatives eventually fell in line behind the Nazis because they were unable to mobilize enough popular support to combat the social democrats and communists on their own. In other words, the aristocracy wasn't the source of fascism, but they did resort to it to protect their interests.

>>2813789
>>2813860
I just see fascism as a kind of Cromwellianism. A lot of bourgeois revolutions were pretty despotic. The capitalists just resorted to fascism when liberal democracy was unable to complete carrying out the tasks of creating ab industrialized nation-state. Pretty much every country has relied on penal labor and internal colonies to industrialize. The USA and Britain just did some of their awful shit a few decades ago in the past.

>>2813922
Have you ever read Gramsci's work on Caesarism from the Prison Notebooks? He doesn't use it to analyze fascism directly due to censorship, but it's clear that this is what he had in mind. It's an interesting take, and he essentially argues that fascism is just the latest iteration of a phenomenon where two class forces exhaust each other in the struggle and open space for an intervention by a previously un-mobilized or impotent third force.

Fascism is liberalism rebranded, don’t fall for the psyop

>>2813930
Indiana Jones is a movie where literally every scene is about how white people are superior and non-whites are like cattle who are helplessly herded around…but the villains are German nazis, because it was made by liberal Zioinist Jews 🤷‍♀️

File: 1778923237383.jpg (1.16 MB, 2439x3323, 91.139_01_b02-Large-TIFF_4….jpg)

>>2813860
>Nothing you said here is mutually exclusive with this view. In fact it complements it nicely since the remaining aristocracy obviously would have been aligned with the big bourgeoisie in its opposition to socialism and the working class.
If it's true that well into the Twentieth Century the Grande Bourgeoisie was still a junior partner to the old nobility, then it would follow that it is exactly the other way around, i.e. the capitalists aligning with the nobility. Mayer also sees the Great War as a preemptive counter-revolution by the nobility.
>the aristocracy wasn't the source of fascism, but they did resort to it to protect their interests.
You are correct, I worded that wrong. The whole point of empowering fascists is exactly to make use of their popular base which could never originate from the waning nobility. What I'm trying to find out is who played the active part in their empowerment. To me, it seems like these anti-modern forces who still held significant sway were the prime movers, while the Bourgeoisie took more of a backseat. The infamous meeting between Hitler, Göring and various industrialists on February 20 1933, as told by Tooze in Wages of Destruction, also seemed more like the Nazis stating their intentions rather than begging for desperately needed support. Meanwhile the DNVP played a much more active role in the walkways of the Reichstag in getting Hitler his coveted position.

I'm just trying to understand the consequences of Mayer's assertion about the continued supremacy of the nobility in the first half of the 20th century and where exactly fascism fits into this. The man had meant to write a sequel to his book, but he never finished it or gave up on it. In his mind, the nobility was central to what he calls "the second thirty years war of the general crisis of the twentieth century".

It doesn't help that fascism is characterised by a nonsensical syncretism that is impossible to make sense of.

Didnt the nobility hate their asses?

>>2814043
The grand bourgeoisie was not junior partner, this would be 19th century. It was already master class, while aristocracy was just some rentiere nuisance to industrial capitalism.

HOWEVER, one should analyze the role of FINANTIAL capitalism, especially English international finance, in this whole ordeal, as opposed to industrial capital and aristocracy. One of Nazism ideological points was it's fight against finantial capitalism

>>2814129
Obviously they were not their first choice or all of conservatism would have had a fascist character after the establishment of the Weimar republic.
>>2814165
>The grand bourgeoisie was not junior partner, this would be 19th century
I would love to hear your thoughts on the first chapter of The Persistence of the Old Regime then

>>2814043
> To me, it seems like these anti-modern forces who still held significant sway were the prime movers, while the Bourgeoisie took more of a backseat
Fascism took off in the 1920s, after 1918/19, it did not exist before aristocracy was abolished and the bourgeoisie managed to seize power and control of the military, police and administration entirely. The old junkers, barons, dukes, kings, emperors etc. retained their elite prestige and elite networks though so despite their new status at the top of the class pyramid in the Weimar republic the bourgeoisie kind of kept simping for the old elite and longed to get approved by former aristocrat big shots like Hindenburg and their monarchist loyalists in the military. However there is no doubt the bourgeois bankers, industry bosses (+associations), media oligarchs and liberal associates in the Reichstag were the main driving force behind fascism 100 years ago.

>Its new industrial economic base was grafted onto the old, but still dominant, agricultural one
That's bs tbh. The bourgeoisie and capitalism thrived here in the Free & Hanse cities since medieval times, feudalism and aristocracy was a rural thing. The cities were in fact politically ruled by the bourgeois already.

the aristocracy largely opposed nazism because it encroached on a lot of basic rights, even if they tolerated it, although italian-style fascism is certainly compatible with aristocratic rule, the difference between the two isn't contrasted and analysed as much as it should

>>2814043
>then it would follow that it is exactly the other way around, i.e. the capitalists aligning with the nobility
That's an interesting way to look at it, but I don't think it's super relevant for our understanding of fascism and it's current prospects and expressions. The big bourgeoisie still did behave in exactly the way described by the Marxist analysis of it. I don't think the absence of an aristocracy would have a large influence on its ability to function and take power today. The bourgeoisie are perfectly capable of it on their own.

>>2814206
Idk compare with Trump. Trump was shit but relatively harmless until his second term when he got the support of the bourgeois tech sector behind him. Trump's base of family business and land/resource owners (oil, coal, etc..) just couldn't come up with a real strategy for change. Trump was a reactionary in his first term. Trump is a fascist in his second term with big tech backing him.

It's the same with historical fascism. The aristocracy and the artisans could never unify around their own political project. It's only when the steel mill ran into a crisis of over-accumulation that these reactionaries could really be weaponized.


Unique IPs: 13
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /