The Mass Psychology of Fascism - Anxiety Depression Self-Help

German plow and daily bread for the nation.
(MEIN KAMPF, p. 140)
Thus Hitler saw himself confronted with the following questions: How can the National Socialist idea be carried
to victory? How can Marxism be fought effectively? How can one gain influence over the masses?
To this end, Hitler appealed to the nationalist emotions of the masses, at the same time resolving to organize on
a mass basis like Marxism, and to develop a propaganda technique of his own and to use it consistently.
As he openly admitted, he proposed to achieve nationalist imperialism by methods borrowed from Marxism and
its technique of mass organization. The reason for the success of this mass organization lies in the masses and not
in Hitler. His propaganda could take root because of the authoritarian freedom-fearing structure of the people.
Thus Hitler's sociological importance does not lie in his personality but in the significance which he is given by
the masses. The problem is made all the more acute by the fact that Hitler held the masses, with the aid of which
he was to accomplish imperialism, in thorough contempt. He stated candidly that "the mood of the people was
always a mere discharge of what was funneled into public opinion from above."
What was the structure of the masses that it made them absorb Hitler's propaganda in spite of everything?
3. ON THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF THE LOWER MIDDLE CLASSES
We stated that Hitler's success was due neither to his "personality" nor to the objective role of his ideology in
capitalism, nor to a mere "obfuscation" of the masses who followed him. We focussed attention on the question,
What was it in the masses that caused them to follow a party the aims of which were, objectively and subjectively,
strictly at variance with their own interests?
[34] To begin with, the fact has to be remembered that the National Socialist movement, in its initial success,
leaned on the so-called middle classes, that is, the millions of private and public officials, small business people
and farmers. With regard to its social basis, National Socialism was originally a middle class movement. This
was the case wherever it developed, be it in Italy, Hungary, Argentine or Norway. It follows that this middle
class, which had previously belonged to the bourgeois Democratic parties, had undergone a change, that it had
changed its political standpoint. The social position and the corresponding psychological structure of the middle
class explain the basic differences, as well as the similarities, between the bourgeois-liberal and the fascist
ideologies. The fascist middle class is the same as the Democratic-Liberal, only in a different epoch of capitalism.
In the election years of 1930-32, the growth of National Socialism derived almost exclusively from the German
Nationalist party, the Wirtschafts-partei and the various minor parties of the Reich. Only the Catholic Center
Party maintained its position even in the Prussian election of 1932. Only at that time did National Socialism
succeed in making an inroad into the masses of the industrial workers. But the mainstay of the Swastika was
always the middle class. During these years of 1929-32, the period of the severest economic disruption of the
capitalist system, the middle class entered the political arena in the form of National Socialism and put the brakes
on a revolutionary reorganization of society. Political reaction well knew the decisive importance of the middle
class. "The middle class is of decisive significance for the existence of the State," said a handbill of the German
Nationalists of April 8, 1932.
After January 30, 1933, the social significance of the middle class played an important role in the discussion of
the Left. Up to that time, the question had been neglected, partly because attention was focussed on the
development of political reaction, partly because the politicians did not think in mass-psychological terms. In
these discussions of the "rebellion of the middle class" two main opinions were expressed. One group maintained
that [35] fascism was "nothing but" the guard of big business. The other, while not overlooking this aspect,
emphasized the "rebellion of the middle class." The advocates of this standpoint were blamed for minimizing the
reactionary function of fascism, they were reminded of Thyssen's nomination as economic dictator, of the
abolition of the middle class economic organizations, the retreat of the "second revolution," in brief, of the
reactionary character of fascism which, in the summer of 1933, became increasingly manifest.