Marxist commentator Matt Christian says the backbone of every fascist movement has been middle class religious people...

Small business owners universally despised the Bolsheviks, retard.

In pretty much every instance of class conflict, those who hold some capital (no matter how small an amount) side with the elites who are much wealthier than themselves over the masses who are slightly poorer than themselves.

>Marxist commentator

this is where you went wrong.

Is Stalin the only one who was actually from a poor family?

Why?

>to assert their way of life.

Yeah, I'm sure that being a Christian is in any way analogous to being a secular, National Socialist.

I mean, to the extent that these people turned to fascism is the extent to which they stopped being Christian in my mind.

The workers' parties (SPD and KPD) were relatively stable, it was the liberal parties that dramatically lost most of their supporters (petty bourgeoises basically) to the NSDAP. You're right about rural protestants, many of those switched from conservative right-wing parties (DNVP mostly) to the NSDAP. Rural catholics tended to stay loyal to their party (Centre party).

Pretty much, churchgoes and the like are quite literally nazis.

yes, its been explicitly true many times over

that is the basis of fascism, middle class people using force to keep things the way they want them

in 1920is italy it was literaly the guy who had 5 cows, getting together with the other 30 guys with 5+ cows near by, against the 300 ones with 1 cow each, squadristi, fasci di combattimento, ardity, all that stuff

mind you the ones with 1 cow or 0 cows were organising too, they just failed to put up a united front in 1920, if they did pull together italy could of been a communist country, or there would of been a civil war

Well yeah. Revolution breaks out when masses want to topple the government, and the job of the educated vanguard party is to lead revolutionary energy to the construction of a socialist state.

In Iran and in Syria this did not happen, and revolution was co-opted by Islamic extremists.

The leader of Comintern, Dimitrov, denied this. He said that Fascism the dictatorship of the most reactionary forces of bourgeoisie.
By the way, the entire middle class conception is not marxist, since the marxism defines classes by their relation to the means of production. You either own and rule them or you're not doing it and sell your working power for money to those who own them.
So, the middle class is, in fact, a bunch of social groups. The top one is the petite bourgeoisie - like the shopkeepers and the owners of small businesses. The others are the members of proletariat with above-average price for their labor.
Classes are not good or bad, they just exist in the current society, so it doesn't matter who supports the movement. Everything will happen on itself, the revolution will happen anyway.

Middle class individuals are often revolutionary, but the middle class -as a class- cannot be. Because smalltime capitalists are still capitalists, it's against their rational self interest to support the abolition of the old order.

But "middle class" is a meaningless phrase in a Marxist context. The working class, AKA the proletariat, means all wage laborers. The vast majority of Americans who identity as middle class are proletarian. Teachers, nurses, architects, journalists, IT guys, PR girls, web developers, and programmers are working class whether they like it or not.

ok let's take a crack at this, not really my area of knowledge but

>the most famous hitler
maybe lower middle class as a child, was abused, became a soldier, got gassed, lost war with no formal education, not really religious, possibly deist

>the eternal anglo
aristocrat, fought in first world war, i dont know his religion

>mussolini
working class family, heavily influenced by socialists like his dad, atheist

>fransisco franco
middle class military family, fought in rif war, was badly injured and might have lost a ball, catholic

I only know so much about the major fascists, gonna do some research on the nazi party itself and come back

but clearly Christian's sayings don't seem to hold water

Keep in mind that the huge investments in the Nazi Party were made by Krupp and Thyssen.

ok just briefly scanned nazi party page on wiki, dont expect anything for sure

>Depressed working-class areas such as Thuringia also produced a strong Nazi vote
>The Nazis' strongest appeal was to the lower middle-classes – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the inflation of the 1920s

meh not much info and too lazy to research more

>lower-middle class
That's understandable. They are afraid of loosing what they have and have the desire for growing higher, that's why they vote for those who would protect their businesses

Almost all regimes exist because of middle class support, just as most political leaders come from the middle and upper classes.

The poor dont have the education to command or organize themselves into politically effective groups

They don't have much free time to educate themselves in politics either

>Ideologues viewing other ideologues through their ideological lens

Fascism, which only existed in Italy between WW1 and the end of WW2, was a the backlash of angry male fighters who'd been in the trenches during ww1. They even called themselves a trenchocracy at points, and almost all their motifs and ideological points were inspired by their military exploits and experiences.

Trying to tack it to a class thing is completely ignoring the actual historical circumstances around the movement in order to sublimate it under a marxist ideology, and also quite likely an underhanded attempt to paint middle class religious people as fascists. Mussolini's appeasement towards the Catholic church was just that, appeasement, and quite necessary in a country that was almost overwhelmingly Catholic. The same could be said for Spain and Portugal, while, as far as I know, Peron and the Catholic church were actively opposed at points (but of course, no Marxist will admit to Peronism being fascist because they didn't have death camps and have recently been somewhat left wing, depending on the ideology I've seen his regime painted as an example of "positive nationalism" by the anglo-left and "the authoritarian despotism of a banana republic" (at least, something along those lines) by the bourgeois armchair 'economists' of the New York Times.

>fascism was a thing between WWI and WWII
>who is Pinochet
>who is Park Chung-hee
>who are the members of American-backed juntas in Southern America

Peronism is a sort of attempt to fit the unfitting things together. Like fascism was. It was relying on popular slogans and the support of high society. Like fascism. It was the rule of army men, who were sometimes messing with the interests of the church for the sake of the regime and status quo. Like many other fascist governments

Nope, urban centers went for the social democrats and communists. Workers in German cities were very red prior to 1932. The NDSAP had planned to rely on the urban poor for their primary base of support, but left-wing parties were better at addressing these workers' needs.

Nazis won a plurality or majority among the suburban middle class and rural poor who feared the Jews, communists, and Jewish communists taking power in the cities. Germany's Catholic minority mostly voted for various Catholic parties, though many of these had a similar ideological bent to the Nazis.

johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm

Not fascists

And Black colonels of Greece?

Nope. Middle class isn't the ultimate driving force representatives of the illlumifags that they are painted to be.

The truth is instead that the middle class has invaluable importance a sort of means of communication between the classes.
Since neithet the elitists nor the worker class enters contact with one another, only the support of the middle class allows them to effectively support/oppose one another.
Think of the Middle classes as a wild card: Without their support, a peasant revolution would lead to a bunch of ragtag revolutionaires wandering the countrysides until they collapse of exhaustion or lack of supplies or just completely lose their momentum.
Likewise an elitist revolution would be left powerless without the manpower and workforce, not to mention soldiers to bolster their ranks, to administer the "new" country.

Stalin wasn't a revolutionary. But you're right that he and his cronies formed a "proletarian bloc" within the early USSR. In fact, his poor background was part of his claim to legitimacy. He criticized his enemies for being too educated, too urban, too idealistic, too Jewish.

Stalin actually seemed like a very rational pick to lead the Soviet Union among those who didn't know him personally. Only his close associates realized what a ruthless psycho he was.

Religious identities are often more about group membership and signalling than theology

What's a Marxist commentator?

You're obviously right, but that's more about the general hivemind of a human than the fault of religion.

I mean, I don't get how you can square the Sermon on the Mount with Fascism in any way, shape or form, for example, and I'm not even a Christian.

I'm gonna tell you a secret. Revolutions have almost always been about the middle class taking over and becoming the next upper class.

I guess you could say... the 19% work with the 1% to fuck over the 80%?

this.
same thing in Portugal.
Commies here fucking hated northern proles who where incredibly conservative and religious.

This. The "middle class" is a liberal conception that says very little about one's relation to capitol.

That just affirms Christman's point in the OP, no?

Yes, the bourgeoisie. The original meaning of the word - urban middle class. Those are the ones always fucking shit up. Marx even successfully tried redifining the word to mean a class that owns production means, probably to conceal the fact he was bourgeoise himself.

But make no mistake, all these bloody revolutions from the English civil war through the French revolution and all the communist ones are almost always orchestrated by the same group of people and almost never the working class.

>architects, journalists, IT guys, PR girls, web developers, and programmers
anyone of these that work on their own, and own a computer free of debt effectively owns his means of production.
He cannot, therefore, be working class.
Anyone who is not under wage labour, and that goes from your Hedge Fund Manager to your mom&pops corner shop owner is not working class either.

thats pretty much what fascism wants to be, rxcept the 1% end up fucking everione over one way or the other

>using Marxist definition of class
Get the fuck out.

Marxist commentators usually consider any political movement backed by middle class religious people to be fascist, so there you have it.

strangely enough they are usualy not that wrong

This.

>Does private property exist?
>Is it authoritarian?
>THEN IT'S FASCISM!

This is the train of thought of Marxist """intellectuals""" so why should we even bother

but thats true, most fascist regimes were authoritarian systems the purpose of which was to maintain and protect private capital and enforce class cooperation

If it's not corporatist it's not fascism, simple as that.

thats what i said

Fascism has become shorthand for nationalistic autocracy, whether or not is accurately reflects fascism.

Middle class religious people tend to vote conservative, unless their life is bad enough to warrant drastic change (i.e. Great Depression Germany, though the NSDAP managed to attract voters from every demographic besides Catholics [muh Zentrum] and Jews) not for radical militarist and revolutionary movements like actual fascists - any use/evaluation of "fascist" by a Marxist should be taken with a grain of salt, and is often fecal

>Rexism
>Peronism
>National Socialism

literal meme ideologies

Falangism was a derivative of corporatism, like Italian Fascism

unfortunately corporatism has been maligned to equal corporatocracy in every respect. hell I never encounter the latter without getting called the former

yes of course, we all remember the notoriously anti-worker fascist rhetoric about 8-hour work days, minimum wage, and worker representation

>Marxist commentators usually consider any political movement backed by middle class religious people to be fascist, so there you have it.

And why does this surprise you? Marxist literally have a religious mania about private property. It's literally their Lucifer.

Rexism, National Socialism, and Falangism were forms of fascism.
This meme's heart is in the right place, but it's ruined by the rage faces, huge watermark, and confusion regarding what fascism is.

Hence why 90% of communist theoreticians come from privileged backgrounds.

You'll be hard pressed to find anybody who does any of those things full-time independently. Nearly all of them sell their labor to a larger firm.

>meme ideologies

Nothing memetic about it compared to the autism spectrum of anarcho-anything.

desu the working class wouldn't really know how to carry out a revolution

As evidenced by how commie countries turned out, the middle class is no less dumb.

>anarchism happens
>no central authority to enforce any particular an-ism over any other
>every subsection of society spontaneously adopt the an-ism that best correlates to its mode of living
>longterm civil war unsustainable because no central authority to maintain the effort
>together the conflicting strains of an-isms form a attenuated equilibrium, each complementing or compensating for the faults of the others in some way
>actual pluralist utopia is achieved

then forein forces invade with nato/russian backing, of course

It's hilarious watching commiefags do logical acrobatics about why bourgeious scions really know what's best for the working class
>"Hey, it's not their fault prole scum couldn't afford to spend their days reading and debating Capital!"

Well there is no working class revolutions to compare to anyway

Yeah, commies are first like "the workers know what's best for them" and then do a 180 and claim tge workers are retarded cattle who need to be led.

Proletarian is just someone who has to go sell his labour, so even people like famous actors and pop stars are considered proletarians according to Marx.

>it is another right winger doesn't know what bourgeious is

so what happens when an actor also owns a business?
is this like a marxist gattai

Like some other user mentioned, a peasant owning a small dairy farm with a few hired helpers is bourgeois or petit bourgeois while a multi millionaire CEO is a prole. Marx was just a retard and his meme ideology has no practical application orher than fucking shit up.

>"It doesn't matter how many times revolutions lead by avowed Marxists ultimately fail, since they didn't achieve TRUE [communism/socialism] obviously there is nothing whatsoever to learn from their failure, they were just fucking morons idk"

So itt Fascism care about Proletariat more than Communism

See Marx quite literally redefined a coherently defined word because otherwise it would include him personally.

yes

Funnily enough the working class experienced the highest amount of social mobility under the Nazis. Many Gauleiters came from extremely poor backgrounds and achieved higher education and income then their fathers ever did.

>But make no mistake, all these bloody revolutions from the English civil war through the French revolution and all the communist ones are almost always orchestrated by the same group of people and almost never the working class.

Have you read Turchin's Secular Cycles? He makes a pretty convincing argument that a lot of "social revolutions" were more about the overproduction of elites than anything else (something like ~70% of the Russian Nihilist movement had either noble or merchant parents)

People say this shit, but with the exception of Cambodia every communist revolution left the nation substantially better than it had been prior.

So? Would you prefer he come up with a new label? He needed a term to explain one's relationship to capital

Famines in Russia between 1800 and 1917: 2
Famines in Russia between 1917 and 1940: 7

>substantially better

is that why the hungarians had another revolution a decade after to get rid of the commies

I'm pointing out the guy used tge word bourgeois in its original, correct meaning and you chimped out because he wasn't using the Marxian definition, because that's the only one you feel is acceptable. Typical Marxist autism on display.

>Marxist commentator

Into the trash it goes

Well East Germany and Czechoslovakia didn't becone communist through a popular revolution, but communists fucked them up raw.

>but with the exception of Cambodia every communist revolution left the nation substantially better than it had been prior.

Given how life was in those countries before the revolution practically anything would've been a substantive improvement

But I think anyone who lived through Mao's Great Famine would argue that it was for the best

would argue that it wasn't* for the best

No he clearly using it in Marxist terms, he didn't even linked to that post

He trained and studied for priesthood, before washing out

>Hitler
>lowe middle class
He was born into an upper middle class family. His dad was a customs official and was loaded. His mother raised him like a mama's boy.
Before the war Hitler spent his years in Vienna like a slacker, living off his parents' free bux.

Hitler literally lived like a spoiled hipster artist who never made it to arts school.
This whole "Hitler was poor and his dad was abusive" is a fabricated myth to gain popularity among the lower class people.

No, they rebelled because they thought the Soviet Union wasn't communist enough. 1956 was literally led by Left Communists like Gyory Lukacs.

Hitler did live like a poor man however in Vienna. A neet who didn't finish high school became Führer.

>Look at German elections for example - the average Hitler voter was poor, rural and protestant, while the urban middle classes voted for either conservatives or socialists.
German workers voted SPD or KPD

>>>/leftypol/

>This whole "Hitler was poor and his dad was abusive" is a fabricated myth to gain popularity among the lower class people.

Except he did his best to hide the period of his life before WW1 from the public.

All of this was false

>customs official
>loaded
Jesus Christ stop shilling this hard

That would explain why the ehm, globalists want to destroy the middle class and christianity so hard

Feudalism is a term literally coined by Marx, retard.

Adam Smith did you faggot

Well he did leave him enough money to laze about Vienna for years...How many government employees can do the same these days?