We have stated that Hitler's success is to be ascribed neither to his 'personality' nor to the objective role his ideology played in capitalism. Nor, for that matter, is it to be ascribed to a mere 'befogging' of the masses who followed him. We put our finger on the core of the matter: What was going on in the masses that they followed a party whose leadership was objectively as well as subjectively in diametrical opposition to the interests of the working masses?
In answering this question, we must first of all bear in mind that in its first successful onset, the National Socialist movement relied upon the broad layers of the so-called middle , i.e., the millions of private and public officials, middle-class merchants and lower and middle-class farmers. From the joint of view of its social basis, National Socialism was a lower middle-class movement, and this was the case wherever it appeared, whether in Italy, Hungary, Argentina or Norway.
Hence, this lower middle class, which was formerly on the side of the various bourgeois democracies, must have gone through an inner transformation causing it to change its political position. The social situation and its corresponding psychological structure in the lower middle classes offer an explanation of the basic similarities as well as differences between the ideology of the liberal bourgeoisie and the fascists.
Fascism's lower middle class is the same as liberal democracy's lower middle class, only in a different historical epoch of capitalism. In the election years of 1930 to 1932, National Socialism polled its new votes almost exclusively from the German National Party and the smaller faction parties of the German Reich. Only the Catholic centre maintained its position, even in the Prussian election of 1932. It wasn't until the later election that National Socialism also succeeded in making an incursion into the masses of industrial workers.
The middle class was and continued to be the mainstay of the swastika. And it was this class, championing the cause of National Socialism, which stepped onto the political tribunal and halted the revolutionary reconstruction of society during the most severe economic convulsion the capitalist system had experienced (1929-32). Political reaction's assessment of the middle class's importance was absolutely correct. In a leaflet of the German National Party of 8 April 193 2, we read:' The middle class is of decisive importance for the existence of a state.'
After 30 January 1933, the question of the social importance of the middle class was widely discussed by the Left. Until then the middle class was given far too little attention, partly because all interests were focused on the development of political reaction and the authoritarian leadership of the state, and partly because a line of questioning based on a psychology of the masses was foreign to the politicians.
From now on, the 'rebellion of the middle class' was given more and more prominence in various places. In following the discussion of this question, one noted two principal views: the one contended that fascism was 'nothing other' than the party guard of the upper middle class; the other did not overlook this fact but stressed 'the rebellion of the middle classes', with the result that the exponents of this view were accused of obliterating the reactionary role of fascism.
In substantiation of this accusation, one cited the nomination of Thyssen as economic dictator, the dissolution of the middle-class economic organizations, and the rebuff to the 'second revolution'; in short, fascism's unadulterated reactionary character, which, from about the end of June 1933, became more and more evident and pronounced.
Certain obscurities were evident in these very heated discussions. The fact that, after the seizure of power, National Socialism showed itself more and more to be an imperialistic nationalism, which was intent upon eliminating everything 'socialistic' from the movement and preparing for war with every available means, did not contradict the other fact that fascism, viewed with respect to its mass basis, was actually a middle-class movement.
Had he not promised to take up the fight against big business, Hitler would never have won the support of the middle classes. They helped him to achieve victory because they were against big business. Owing to the pressure they exerted, the authorities were forced to adopt rf»//-capitalist measures, just as the authorities were later forced to abandon them under the pressure applied by big business. If the subjective interests in the mass basis of a reactionary movement are not distinguished from the objective reactionary function -the two contradict one another but were reconciled in the totality of the Nazi movement in the beginning - it is not possible to reach an understanding.
The former pertains to the reactionary interests of the fascist masses, while the latter pertains to the reactionary role of fascism. All its contradictions originate in the antithesis of these two sides of fascism, just as their reconciliation in the one form, 'National Socialism', characterizes the Hitler movement. Insofar as National Socialism was forced to stress its character as a middle-class movement (before the seizure of power and right afterwards), it was in fact anti-capitalist and revolutionary.
However, since it did not deprive big business of its rights and had to consolidate and hold on to the power it had secured, its capitalistic function was brought more and more into the foreground until finally it became an extreme advocate and champion of imperialism and the capitalist economic order. In this respect it is wholly immaterial whether and how many of its leaders had an honest or dishonest socialist orientation (in their sense of the word I), and it is just as immaterial whether and how many were out-and-out deceivers and power-mongers. A radical anti-fascist policy cannot be based on these considerations. Everything necessary for an understanding of German fascism and its ambivalence could have been learned from the history of Italian fascism, for the latter also showed these two strictly contradictory functions reconciled in a totality.
Those who either deny the function of the mass basis of fascism or fail to give it its proper due are stupefied by the fact that the middle class, since it neither possesses the principal means of production nor works with them, cannot really be a permanent motive force in history, and for that reason must oscillate between capital and the workers. They fail to see that the middle class can be and is 'a motive force in history', if not permanently then at least temporarily, as we learn from Italian and German fascism.
By this we mean not only the crushing of the workers' organizations, the countless sacrifices, the eruptions of barbarism; over and above this, it prevents the economic crisis from developing into a political upheaval, into a social revolution. Clearly: The greater the extent and the importance of a nation's middle-class strata, the more decisive is their significance as an effective social force.
From 1933 to 1942 we are confronted with the paradox that fascism was able to outstrip social revolutionary internationalism as an international movement. The Socialists and the Communists were so certain about the progress of the revolutionary movement in relation to that of political reaction that they committed outright political suicide, even if motivated by the best of intentions.
This question deserves the greatest of attention. The process that has taken place in the middle-class strata of all countries during the last decade deserves far greater attention than the banal, all-too-well-known fact that fascism constitutes extreme political reaction. The mere fact of fascism's reactionary nature is no basis for an effective counter political policy, as was amply shown by the events between 1928 and 1942, the middle class got caught up in the movement and made its appearance as a social force in the form of fascism.
Therefore it is not a question of Hitler's or Goring's reactionary purpose, but a question of the social interests of the middle-class strata. Owing to its character structure, the middle class has a social power far in excess of its economic importance. It is the class that preserves nothing less than several thousand years of patriarchy and keeps it alive with all its contradictions.
That a fascist movement exists at all is doubtlessly the social expression of nationalistic imperialism. However, that this fascist movement could become a mass movement, indeed, could seize power (only then fulfilling its imperialistic function), is to be ascribed to the full backing it received from the middle class. Only by taking these antitheses and contradictions into account, each in its turn, can the phenomena of fascism be comprehended.
The social position of the middle class is determined by (i) its position in the capitalist production process, (2) its position in the authoritarian state apparatus, (3) its special family situation, which is directly determined by its position in the production process and is the key to an understanding of its ideology. There are indeed differences in the economic situation of the farmers, the bureaucrats, and the middle-class business-but the basic nature of their family situation is the same.
The rapid development of capitalist economy in the nineteenth century, the continuous and rapid mechanization of the amalgamation of the various branches of production in monopolistic syndicates and trusts, form the basis of the progressive pauperization of the lower middle-class merchants and tradesmen. Not capable of competing with the cheaper and more economically operating large industries, the small enterprises go to ruin, never to recover.
'The middle class has nothing but ruthless annihilation to expect from this system. This is the issue: Whether we shall all sink into the great grey bleakness of proletarianism where we shall all have the same thing, namely nothing, or whether energy and diligence shall again put the individual in a position to acquire property by hard work. Middle class or proletarian! That is the issue!' — so the German Nationals warned before the election of the president of the republic in 1932. The National Socialists were not so blunt; they were careful not to create a wide gap between the middle class and the body of industrial workers in their propaganda, and they were more successful with their approach.
The fight against the large department stores played a large role in the propaganda of the NSDAP. The contradiction between the role played by National Socialism for big business and the interests of the middle class, from which it derived its main support, was expressed in Hitler's talk with Knickerbocker:
'We will not make German-American relations dependent upon a haberdasher shop [the reference is to the fate of the Woolworth store in Berlin] . . . the existence of such enterprises are an encouragement of Bolshevism . . . They destroy many small enterprises. For that reason, we will not sanction them, but you can rest assured that your enterprises of this nature in Germany will be dealt with no differently than similar German enterprises.'
Private business debts to foreign countries were an enormous burden to the middle class. Since his foreign policy was dependent upon the fulfilment of foreign claims, Hitler was for the payment of these private debts. His followers, however, demanded that they be annulled. Thus the lower middle class rebelled 'against the system', by which it understood the 'Marxist regime' of Social Democracy.
As much as these lower middle-class strata were urged, under the stress of the crisis, to form organizational alliances, the economic competition of the small enterprises nonetheless operated against the establishment of a feeling of solidarity corresponding to that of the industrial workers.
As a consequence of his social situation the lower middle-class man could join forces neither with his social class nor, for that matter, with the industrial workers; not with his own class because competition is the rule there, not with the industrial workers because it is precisely proletarianization that he fears most of all. And yet the fascist movement brought about an alliance of the lower middle class. What was the basis of this alliance in the psychology of the masses?
The answer to this is supplied by the social: position of the lower- and middle-class public and private officials. The economic position of the average official is worse than that of the average skilled industrial worker; this poorer position is partially compensated by the meagre prospect of a career, and in the case of the government official by a lifelong pension. Thus dependent upon governmental authority, a competitive bearing towards one's colleagues prevailed in this class, which counteracts the development of solidarity.
The social consciousness of the official is not characterized by the fate he shares with his co-workers, but by his attitude to the government and to the 'nation'. This consists of a complete identification with the state power and in the case of the company employee, it consists of an identification with the company. He is just as submissive as the industrial worker.
Why is it that he does not develop a feeling of solidarity as the industrial worker does? This is due to his intermediate position between authority 'and the body of manual labourers. While subordinate to the top, he is to those below him a representative of this authority and enjoys, as such, a privileged moral' (not material) position. The arch personification of this type in the psychology of the masses is to be found in the army sergeant.
Butlers, valets and other such employees of aristocratic families are a flagrant example of the power of this identification. By adopting-the attitudes, way of thinking and demeanour of the ruling class, they undergo a complete change and, in an effort to minimize their lowly origin, often appear, as caricatures of the people whom they serve.
This identification with authority, firm, state, nation, etc., which can be formulated 'I am the state, the authority, the firm, the nation', constitutes a psychic reality and is one of the best illustrations of an ideology that has become a material force. At first it is only-the idea of being like one's superior that stirs the mind of the employee or the official, but gradually, owing to his pressing material dependence, his whole person is refashioned in line with the ruling class. Always ready to accommodate himself to authority, the lower middle-class man develops a cleavage between his economic situation and hit ideology.
He lives in materially restricted circumstances, but assumes gentlemanly postures on the surface, often to a ridiculous degree. He eats poorly and insufficiently, but attaches great importance to a 'decent suit of clothes'. A silk hat and dress coat become the material symbol of this character structure. And nothing is more suited for a first-impression appraisal of the mass psychology of a people than its dress. It is its accommodating attitude that specifically distinguishes the structure of the lower middle-class man from the structure of the industrial worker.
How deep does this identification with authority go? We know already that such an identification exists. The question, however, is how — apart from economic existential conditions, which affect him directly - emotional factors reinforce and consolidate the lower middle-class man's attitude to such an extent that his structure does not waver in times of crisis or even in times in which unemployment destroys the immediate economic base.
We stated above that the economic positions of the various strata of the lower middle class are different but that the basic features of their family situation are the same. It is in this family situation that we have the key to the emotional foundation of the structure that we described earlier.