That first Paxton quote kind of hits the nail on the head of the whole fascism debate, with the only struggle of translation to our current period being digging through the incoherence of what exactly the "master race" of Trumpism is. Though perhaps that vagueness serves the same benefit as the vagueness in all other parts of the program.
If nothing else, the centrality of antisemitism to the Nazi critique of finance capital should put this ludicrous “debate” to rest. Grappling with the implications of the separation of ownership from management and rise of the vertically-integrated joint-stock corporation of the 2nd industrial revolution preoccupied both left and right post-WWI (Veblen published “The Engineers and the Price System” in 1921, which proposed technocracy - rule by engineers - to resolve the problems of overcapacity, restriction of output, shareholder primacy, etc), but only the Nazis ethnicized the problem, and turned a critique of finance capitalism into a singular denunciation of “Jewish” capitalism. (Italian fascism of course did not have this feature).
It's a detail, but in context worth mentioning. Peter D. Stachura's 1983 book "Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism" looked at the historical reality behind the myth of a radical left "Strasserite" wing in the NSDAP and concluded it was mostly post-war mythologising by Otto Strasser, Gregor's idiot kid brother (Gregor got him into the party because their ma made him, to stop him getting into worse trouble and keep an eye on him). Otto was thrown out of the NSDAP back in 1930 for being a bollix, going on to found the microsect "Black Front" (footnote: original inventors of the Huifeisenschema or "horseshoe theory" for their brand of BS). Gregor's pro-worker rhetoric was mainly the kind of romantic cross-class solidarity emoting common amongst the National Conservatives (who he aligned with, rather than any more left tendency). Gregor's footsie with Papen and Schleicher is what signed his eventual death warrant, rather than any ultra-left posturing.
tl;dr "Strasserism" is BS far-right propaganda pushed by the post-war revisionists like Otto and Swiss SS-reject Armin Mohler. It is unfortunate that the meme has penetrated general leftist discourse and should be set straight at every opportunity
And, yes, for the record, I initially read Stachura's book back in the late 80s, hoping to get the skinny on Strasserism (very big in the UK NF split at that time) and was sorely let down that it was all bollocks. Despite the fact that there was a load of neo-nazis running around claiming to be Strasserites at that time (the "Political Soldier" wing of the NF split). In retrospect I should have known better than to trust the fash on the actual history. Stachura's receipts are pretty unarguable tho
Might be worthwhile—and maybe you plan already—to consider the particular history in Germany of figures from the right appropriating the term "socialism." Off the dome: Bismarck's "Staatssozialismus" or State Socialism, what he called his program of welfare and social insurance intended to shore up the German Empire's social order. Then there's Spengler's "Prussianism and Socialism," something like an ideological tract to rationalize Bismarck's policy and the future Caesarist state Spengler envisioned. Spengler asserted that Frederick Wilhelm I, the "Soldier King," embodied the *true* socialist ethic that had always formed an essential part of the German character: a total subservience and sacrifice of the individual to the nation (and to its military ambitions).
The U.S., except maybe for a 50-year stint between 1930 and 1980, always had a freewheeling frontier ethos that makes it difficult for many here to conceive that even conservative parties abroad have promoted notions of duty to society, paternalism, and unity. It shows up even in Britain, probably the next most individualistic country after ours, in Disraeli's One Nation Conservatism.
The differentiation between a kind of cosmopolitan, abstract global capital and producerist national capital seems the key to fascism everywhere
Oswald Mosley is interesting in that respect because, somewhat like Trumpism, he was articulating a vision of fascism from the perspective of a supposedly hegemonic international power, rather than from a revisionist one. There’s a section in his 1932 book where he identifies the difference between “alien” (Jewish) finance and national producers, but in his case the British state itself is seen as captured by that finance in the form of the City of London, and consequently runs an enormous global imperium which hollows out rather than protects national interests.
There’s something of a parallel to Trump’s objection to post-1945 American hegemony as an alien, liberal imposition on Real America. The British far-right (including Mosley and particularly Enoch Powell) obviously could be very imperialist but at other times had a complex relationship with the empire. Especially in the 1950s and 60s when the attempt was made to refashion it into something based less on naked violence through the Commonwealth.
All that is to say it’s worth reading Mosley today I think, as at least in the early ‘30s he presents the ideas in a less schizophrenic/mystic style than the continental fascists did.
Sheri Berman is well worth reading on this, with a fairly balanced assessment. I was going to mention anti-semitism as the socialism of fools, but I see that you've already covered it. https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/the-socialism-of-fools
The most grating internet trolls take the other side of this argument. Unfortunately they tend to follow the pattern in that excellent Paxton quote re loyalty snd interests over ideology.
My understanding is that the perceived success of German and Russian economies during the early 1930s while the western world struggled with the Great Depression, paved the way for FDRs New Deal. But at least in the Soviet’s case, the economic success was dubious. The Holodomor and associated mass starvation was imposed then covered up by Soviet leadership. In any case, the perception that free market economies could not survive or compete without massive government intervention won the day, and I’m glad. We’d likely have a much more regressive system today without this influence.
That first Paxton quote kind of hits the nail on the head of the whole fascism debate, with the only struggle of translation to our current period being digging through the incoherence of what exactly the "master race" of Trumpism is. Though perhaps that vagueness serves the same benefit as the vagueness in all other parts of the program.
absolutely!
if I had the patience to do it, I would post that “eyes glowing red” meme on a picture of Adam Tooze in anticipation of the next installment
If nothing else, the centrality of antisemitism to the Nazi critique of finance capital should put this ludicrous “debate” to rest. Grappling with the implications of the separation of ownership from management and rise of the vertically-integrated joint-stock corporation of the 2nd industrial revolution preoccupied both left and right post-WWI (Veblen published “The Engineers and the Price System” in 1921, which proposed technocracy - rule by engineers - to resolve the problems of overcapacity, restriction of output, shareholder primacy, etc), but only the Nazis ethnicized the problem, and turned a critique of finance capitalism into a singular denunciation of “Jewish” capitalism. (Italian fascism of course did not have this feature).
It's a detail, but in context worth mentioning. Peter D. Stachura's 1983 book "Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism" looked at the historical reality behind the myth of a radical left "Strasserite" wing in the NSDAP and concluded it was mostly post-war mythologising by Otto Strasser, Gregor's idiot kid brother (Gregor got him into the party because their ma made him, to stop him getting into worse trouble and keep an eye on him). Otto was thrown out of the NSDAP back in 1930 for being a bollix, going on to found the microsect "Black Front" (footnote: original inventors of the Huifeisenschema or "horseshoe theory" for their brand of BS). Gregor's pro-worker rhetoric was mainly the kind of romantic cross-class solidarity emoting common amongst the National Conservatives (who he aligned with, rather than any more left tendency). Gregor's footsie with Papen and Schleicher is what signed his eventual death warrant, rather than any ultra-left posturing.
tl;dr "Strasserism" is BS far-right propaganda pushed by the post-war revisionists like Otto and Swiss SS-reject Armin Mohler. It is unfortunate that the meme has penetrated general leftist discourse and should be set straight at every opportunity
And, yes, for the record, I initially read Stachura's book back in the late 80s, hoping to get the skinny on Strasserism (very big in the UK NF split at that time) and was sorely let down that it was all bollocks. Despite the fact that there was a load of neo-nazis running around claiming to be Strasserites at that time (the "Political Soldier" wing of the NF split). In retrospect I should have known better than to trust the fash on the actual history. Stachura's receipts are pretty unarguable tho
“Hitler did present a program (the 25 Points of February 1920)”
and here we are contending with Project 2025.
Thanks, nice adjunct history currently rhyming..
Might be worthwhile—and maybe you plan already—to consider the particular history in Germany of figures from the right appropriating the term "socialism." Off the dome: Bismarck's "Staatssozialismus" or State Socialism, what he called his program of welfare and social insurance intended to shore up the German Empire's social order. Then there's Spengler's "Prussianism and Socialism," something like an ideological tract to rationalize Bismarck's policy and the future Caesarist state Spengler envisioned. Spengler asserted that Frederick Wilhelm I, the "Soldier King," embodied the *true* socialist ethic that had always formed an essential part of the German character: a total subservience and sacrifice of the individual to the nation (and to its military ambitions).
The U.S., except maybe for a 50-year stint between 1930 and 1980, always had a freewheeling frontier ethos that makes it difficult for many here to conceive that even conservative parties abroad have promoted notions of duty to society, paternalism, and unity. It shows up even in Britain, probably the next most individualistic country after ours, in Disraeli's One Nation Conservatism.
The differentiation between a kind of cosmopolitan, abstract global capital and producerist national capital seems the key to fascism everywhere
Oswald Mosley is interesting in that respect because, somewhat like Trumpism, he was articulating a vision of fascism from the perspective of a supposedly hegemonic international power, rather than from a revisionist one. There’s a section in his 1932 book where he identifies the difference between “alien” (Jewish) finance and national producers, but in his case the British state itself is seen as captured by that finance in the form of the City of London, and consequently runs an enormous global imperium which hollows out rather than protects national interests.
There’s something of a parallel to Trump’s objection to post-1945 American hegemony as an alien, liberal imposition on Real America. The British far-right (including Mosley and particularly Enoch Powell) obviously could be very imperialist but at other times had a complex relationship with the empire. Especially in the 1950s and 60s when the attempt was made to refashion it into something based less on naked violence through the Commonwealth.
All that is to say it’s worth reading Mosley today I think, as at least in the early ‘30s he presents the ideas in a less schizophrenic/mystic style than the continental fascists did.
https://ia801403.us.archive.org/10/items/greater-britain-the-oswald-mosley_202206/Greater%20Britain%2C%20The%20-%20Oswald%20Mosley.pdf
Sheri Berman is well worth reading on this, with a fairly balanced assessment. I was going to mention anti-semitism as the socialism of fools, but I see that you've already covered it. https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/the-socialism-of-fools
The most grating internet trolls take the other side of this argument. Unfortunately they tend to follow the pattern in that excellent Paxton quote re loyalty snd interests over ideology.
My understanding is that the perceived success of German and Russian economies during the early 1930s while the western world struggled with the Great Depression, paved the way for FDRs New Deal. But at least in the Soviet’s case, the economic success was dubious. The Holodomor and associated mass starvation was imposed then covered up by Soviet leadership. In any case, the perception that free market economies could not survive or compete without massive government intervention won the day, and I’m glad. We’d likely have a much more regressive system today without this influence.