if, at some future date, the history of social processes would allow the reactionary historian time to indulge in speculations on Germany's past, he would be sure to perceive in Hitler's success in the years between 1928 and 1933 the proof that a great man makes history only inasmuch as he inflames the masses with 'his idea'. In fact, National Socialist propaganda was built upon this 'fuhrer ideology'. To the same limited extent to which the propagandists of National Socialism understood the mechanics of their success, they were able to comprehend the historical basis of the National Socialist movement.
This is very well illustrated by an article published at that time entitled 'Christianity and National Socialism', written by the National Socialist Wilhelm Stapel. He stated: 'For the very reason that National Socialism i s an elementary movement, it cannot be gotten at with “arguments”. Arguments would be effective only if the movement had gained its power by argumentation.'
In keeping with this peculiarity the rally speeches of the National Socialists were very conspicuous for their skilful-ness in operating upon the emotions of the individuals in the masses and of avoiding relevant arguments as much as possible. In various passages in his book Mein Kampf Hitler stresses that true mass psychological tactics dispense with argumentation and keep the masses' attention fixed on the 'great final goal' at all times.
What the final goal looked like after the seizure of power can easily be shown by Italian fascism. Similarly, Goring's decrees against the economic organizations of the middle classes, the rebuff to the 'second revolution', which was expected by the partisans, the failure to fulfil the promised socialist measures, etc., revealed the reactionary function of fascism. The following view shows just how little Hitler himself understood the mechanism of his success:
This broadness of outline from which we must never depart, in combination with steady, consistent emphasis, allows our final success to-mature. And then, to our amazement, we shall see what tremendous results such perseverance leads to - to results that are almost beyond our understanding.
Hitler's success, therefore, could certainly not be explained on the basis of his reactionary role in the history of capitalism, for this role, had it been openly avowed in his propaganda, would have achieved the opposite of that which was intended. The investigation of Hitler's mass psychological effect has to proceed from the presupposition that a fuehrer, or the champion of an idea, can be successful (if not in a historical, then at least in a limited perspective) only if his personal point of view, his ideology, or his programme bears a resemblance to the average structure of a broad category of individuals. This leads to the question: To what historical and sociological situation Jo these mass structures owe their genesis? And so the line of questioning of mass psychology is shifted from the metaphysics of the 'fuhrer idea' to the reality of social life.
Only when the structure of the fuhrer's personality is in harmony with the structures of broad groups can a ''fuhrer' make history. And whether he makes & permanent or only a temporary impact on history depends solely upon whether his programme lies in the direction of progressive social processes or whether it stems them. Hence one is on the wrong scent when one attempts to explain Hitler's success solely on the basis of the demagogy of the National Socialists, the 'befogging of the masses', their 'deception', or to apply the vague, hollow term 'Nazi psychosis', as the Communists and other politicians did later.
For it is precisely a question of understanding why the masses proved to be accessible to deception, befogging and a psychotic situation. Without a precise knowledge of what goes on in the masses, the problem cannot be solved. To assert that the Hitler movement was a reactionary movement is not enough. The NSDAP's mass success is inconsistent with this supposed reactionary role, for why would millions upon millions affirm their own suppression? Here is a contradiction that can be explained only by mass psychology - and not by politics or economics.
National Socialism made use of various means in dealing with various classes, and made various promises depending upon the social class it needed at a particular time. In the spring of 1933, for example, it was the revolutionary character of the Nazi movement that was given particular emphasis in Nazi propaganda in an effort to win over the industrial workers, and the first of May was 'celebrated', but only after the aristocracy had been appeased in Potsdam. To ascribe the success solely to political swindle, however, would be to become entangled in a contradiction with the basic idea of freedom, and would practically exclude the possibility of a social revolution.
What must be answered is: Why do the masses allow themselves to be politically swindled? The masses had every possibility of evaluating the propaganda of the various parties. Why didn't they see that, while promising the workers that the owners of the means of production would be disappropriated, Hitler promised the capitalists that their rights would be protected?
Hitler's personal structure and his life history are of no importance whatever for an understanding of National Socialism. It is interesting, however, that the lower middle-class origin of his ideas coincides in the main with the mass structures, which eagerly accepted these ideas.
As is done in every reactionary movement, Hitler relied upon the various strata of the lower middle class for his support. National Socialism exposes all the contradictions that characterize the mass psychology of the petty bourgeois. Now it is a question of (i) comprehending the contradictions themselves, and (2) getting an insight into their common origin in the conditions of imperialistic production. We will restrict ourselves to questions of sex ideology.