> Wojtek writes
>
> "Historically, working class was far more likely to fall for nationalism
> than for socialism, let alone internationalism"
>
> Really? From what I've read, the National Socialist Party's membership and
> voters were heavily skewed towards students, petit bourgeois types, and
> peasants, whereas most industrial workers voted Socialist (and not a few for
> the KPD). There was a problem of national chauvinism in the socialist
> movement (which is what Lenin addressed), but as he argued, that was largely
> a preoccupation of the parliamentary and official union representatives. The
> out-and-out nationalists were the students and intellectuals, shopkeepers,
> small farmers, broken down aristocrats.
>
> If you were looking for the sociological equivalent of the Nazi Party
> today, you would find it in Greenpeace, or Plane Stupid,
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Yes, but a very big reason for these people voting Nazi was because of their fear of the nascent worker's movement (a lesson which shouldn't be lost today...). Many of these voters were the ideologically inclined who couldn't square their own interests with the worker's parties. These people, perhaps not without some grounding, saw bourgeois culture and society as a crumbling ruin and needed something, which turned out to be, well, anything, to replace this state of affairs. Since "Bolshevism" was off limits many idealistic and nostalgic Germans retreated into anti-modernist rural folk culture. Hence the absurd image of Heidegger chopping wood behind a log cabin before going inside to write some of the 20th century's most important and influential philosophy.