Fascism. David Renton

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 94 per cent of those who had joined the party that year. The most detailed study, by American historian Paul Madden, found that just 8 per cent of the Nazis’ recruits between 1919 and 1923 were women. Eighteen per cent were aged between 17 and 20, around double the presence of this age group within Germany as a whole.⁶⁹

      One trend in the historical literature is to insist on the large number of women who joined the fascist parties once they were in power, and the willingness of the fascist states to allow women to play leadership roles, albeit only within particular women’s campaigns. Young women were offered roles in mass organisations, where they were to be socialised into a fascist mindset. Middle-aged women contributed to the colonisation of Africa and eastern Europe. Older women were told that if they sacrificed their independence in favour of the development of future generations, they would be playing a heroic role. There were, undoubtedly, many hundreds of thousands of women who gave themselves willingly to the regime. ‘The women who followed Hitler,’ writes one historian, Claudia Koonz, ‘like the men, did so from conviction, opportunism and active choice.’⁷⁰

      Yet part of what enabled fascist parties to grow after 1918 was also that women’s equality had made significant advances over the past 50 years. In that context, fascism was the opponent of women’s agency. In an epoch of reform, women had won greater access to education, had been employed during the war in well-paid occupations that had previously been reserved for men⁷¹ and had enjoyed a postwar breakthrough (in Germany but not in Italy) in winning the franchise. Fascism was, in this sense, a ‘backlash’ movement. Part of the fascist appeal was the promise it made to right-wing men that it would subordinate a generation of ‘Red’ women. As we shall see, the diaries and memoirs of the earliest fascists thrill in a promise of sadistic violence against women.

      Once fascism was in power, these ideas continued, and were expressed in the determination with which fascism demanded control of women’s reproductive capacities. The regimes’ policy was for women to be mothers, while any deemed unfit were to be forcibly sterilised. Following childbirth, women were to become ‘angels of the hearth’,⁷² excluded from the masculine sphere of politics. Aided by non-fascist institutions such as the Catholic Church, which had its own idea of woman’s rightful subordination within the family, emphasis was given to increasing the birth rate, with medals for those who brought up large families.

      Later chapters of this book address how Marxists in the 1960s and 1970s, and those close to them, including the New Left historians Gisela Bock and Klaus Theweleit, theorised fascism’s relationship with women.

       Small Traders, White-Collar Workers

      One theme of the interwar Marxist literature was that fascism was drawn disproportionately from the middle class. Thus Clara Zetkin blamed the mass support for fascism on ‘Large numbers of the former middle classes [who] have become proletarians … masses of ex-officers, who are now unemployed.’⁷³ Similar passages can be found in the writing of Gramsci, Trotsky and many of the interwar Marxists whose writings are discussed in this book.

      The trend is for historians to disavow such sociological explanations of fascism, and to insist rather on the ‘messy, catch-all’ nature of fascist recruitment.⁷⁴ In particular, the New Consensus school rejects sociological explanations. Roger Griffin insists that the disproportionate presence of the middle class in the vanguard fascist parties was a matter of coincidence:

      If the middle classes were over-represented in the membership of fascism and Nazism, this is because specific socio-political conditions made a significant percentage of them more susceptible to a palingenetic form of ultra-nationalism than to a palingenetic form of Marxism or liberalism. There is nothing in principle which precludes an employed or an unemployed member of the working classes or an aristocrat ... from being susceptible to fascist myth.⁷⁵

      In any movement of millions of people, you would expect to find individual members of the aristocracy or some unemployed workers. The question, really, is whether the overrepresentation of the middle class within interwar fascism is better understood as a consequence of what Griffin terms ‘specific socio-political conditions’ (i.e. the tradition of a workers’ movement which to some extent protected its supporters against fascism), or as something essential and recurring. We must choose, Griffin insists, between explanations of fascism that insist on the latter’s emergence as a movement of people or as a strain of ideas.

      Any number of historians have rejected that choice. For example, Michael Mann, in his detailed study Fascists, argues that Mussolini was leading a class movement of a petty-bourgeois character. Its members were drawn disproportionately from the professional middle class, with white-collar workers, students and teachers massively overrepresented in the fascist party compared to Italian society as a whole, by a factor of around 5:1, and industrial workers, peasant farmers and tenants relatively poorly represented in the fascist ranks. This does not cause Mann to reject ideological explanations of fascism. ‘Was [Mussolini] fronting a class movement or was he leading a movement genuinely committed to paramilitary nation-statist ideas?’ Mann concludes: ‘he was doing both’.⁷⁶

      In Genoa, fascists initially recruited among a layer of working-class syndicalists who had supported Italian intervention in the war. However, these groups opposed the strikes of 1920 and lost support, they ‘withered and died’. The Genoa fascists had to be reconstituted entirely, based on a different, more respectable support. The fascist party which emerged in that city ‘was a relatively homogenous organisation; it did not really recruit much from the working class but had a good base among the white-collar workers and the petty bourgeoisie and the less prosperous professional classes’. This pattern is not unusual. Mussolini claimed that many of his supporters were workers. Indeed, according to PNF statistics, ‘in 1921–2 about a third of the membership were listed as workers and peasants’, but the more accurate figure was closer to 15 or 20 per cent, while in Rome and Milan there was a working-class membership of only 10 to 12 per cent, much less than the presence of that class within these cities as a whole.⁷⁷

      As for German fascism, between 1919 and 1923, around a fifth of all recruits were artisans (21.7 per cent) and a quarter white collar (25.2 per cent), meaning that both groups were overrepresented compared to their presence within German society (13.5 per cent and 14.7 per cent). Semiskilled and unskilled labourers were under-represented (16.2 per cent of NSDAP recruits compared to 33.1 per cent of the German population).⁷⁸ The most proletarian element of the Nazi movement was the SA, which recruited a number of young unemployed workers: ‘the SA mobilised the politically unaffiliated, jobless, young workers and some salaried staff in the towns and the countryside’.⁷⁹ Many of these, however, were drawn from rural areas. The Nazis achieved their first electoral breakthrough in rural northern Germany in the 1928 elections, and later it was the rural Prussian elite who would hand power to Hitler. Although workers made up 46.3 per cent of the population in January 1933, only 29.7 per cent of Nazi Party members were officially classified as workers, and even this estimate may have been too generous. In 1931, less than 5 per cent of the party’s nearly one million members were also members of its workers’ organisation, the National Socialist Factory Cell Organization. Meanwhile, although 20.7 per cent of the population were peasants, only 9 per cent of Nazis were peasants. Over half the members of the Nazi Party were white-collar workers, civil servants or self-employed. Leading members of the Nazi Party were drawn from this layer, not only Hitler, but Bormann, Frick, Himmler, Röhm, Rosenberg and others.⁸⁰

      There was more to fascist success among the middle class than a simple accident of fate. The Italian and German working classes had been courted over the preceding 30 years by first Socialist and then Communist parties, which retained a significant (albeit by 1921 or 1933 diminished) infrastructure of supportive organisations: unions, workers’ sporting clubs, tenants’ associations. These organisations trained their members in left-wing politics. This helps to explain why, for example, even СКАЧАТЬ