Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:44:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: The Origins of Nazism


On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, James Farmelant wrote:

> 
> Did Trotsky ever specifically write about the Nazis' purging of Ernst
> Roehm
> and the other SA leaders on June 30, 1934?  This would seem to be an
> excellent example illustrating the Nazi regime's transition to a
> Bonapartist
> phase.
> 

The purge of the Roehmites was absolutely necessary in order to rid the
Nazi movement of its plebeian aspects. Analysis of the Nazi Party has
often tilted in the direction of portraying it as a mere tool of capital.
The reality is more complex. The Nazis were a grass roots movement that
targeted the workers movement, but there was a important anti-capitalist
dimension as well. The explanation for the anticapitalist component is
simple. The capitalist class in Germany was despised. The ruin of the
economy could be attributed to the Treaty of Versailles, the Jews,
strikes, etc., but at a certain point one could not let the bourgeoisie
off the hook. Too many of the petty-bourgeois supporters of the Nazis had
deep resentment to one or another bank that had foreclosed on their farm
or businesses.

"Radical Perspectives on the Rise of Fascism in Germany, 1919-1945"
(edited by Michael Dobkowski and Isidor Wallimann, Monthly Review, 1989)
contains an interesting article "The NSDAP: An Alternative Elite for
Capitalism in Crisis" by John D. Nagle. Nagle takes up the question of the
nervousness of the big bourgeoisie with respect to the street-fighting,
fanatical Nazi movement. One of the biggest anxieties was over the
possibility that the Nazis represented a form of "national Bolshevism."
The Nazis called for the break-up of department store chains and railed
against the big banks and insurance companies. They advocated a "People's
Revolution" in contradistinction to the proletarian revolution of the
Marxist parties. However, the bourgeoisie is wary of any kind of
revolution and preferred to see a stable Bonapartist government such as
Hindenburg's in power.

Hitler tried to reassure the big bourgeoisie in two ways. In private talks
with the elites, he said that he had no intention of dismantling private
property. And in June 1930 he threw Otto Strasser and his followers out of
the Nazi party. Yet the influence of the Strasserites remained strong.
Throughout the 1932 elections, the Nazi militants continued to employ
anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Despite these measures, the ruling class continued to distrust the Nazis.
It continued to fear the street-fighting army of the Sturmabeilung (or
SA). In the early 1930s, its leader Ernst Rohm claimed not only military
authority but political authority as well. The SA had attacked meetings
and demonstrations of the left, but it had also attacked bourgeois parties
as well.

Eventually the fears of the ruling class were assuaged and Hindenburg the
Bonapartist decided to turn state power over to Hitler. Nagle suggests
that the Protestant Church was a key factor in improving the public image
of the Nazi party. The bourgeois press also began to view the Nazis as the
only hope in the fight against Bolshevism. Once the Nazis took power,
however, the dangers to the capitalist system from this party were no
longer taken seriously. Hitler's economic policy was conducted in close
consultation with the ruling circles of big business and plebeian threats
to the capitalist system were rooted up. More on this in my next post.

Louis Proyect




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---