[WS:] This is true but only to a point. This neo-marxist view tends to underestimate the critical role of the military in fascist movements. It is because Marxists do not really have a good theory of the state, and even less so of the military - they tend to see them as obedient servants of the bourgeoisie, a view that is fundamentally flawed. The military is a class in itself thanks to its organization and resources and it can align itself with other social classes, depending on the broader socio-political context.
The Russian revolution would have flopped without the support of the military or at least a significant part of it. The same is true of the Nazi takeover. The difference between Russia and Germany is not the strength of the working (much stronger in Germany) but the role of the military. In Russia and in Germany the military was split between the red faction coming from the lower classes, and the 'white" factions coming from the upper classes. However, the Russian military was not demobilize, - they lost the war but were not demobilized so the reds could support the revolution and fight the whites. In Germany, the army was demobilized as a result the Treaty of Versailles, and that had very different effect on the red and white factions. The red faction was for the most part demobilized - some of it joined the Communists bust most of them became dispersed. The white faction, by contrast, remained highly organized through "civil" (or rather un-civil) society organizations that played a major role in Nazi organizing in the late 1920s. The military support of the nazi movement explains the difference between the Beer Hall Putsch flop in 1923 and It becoming the largest political party ten years later.
Again this has nothing to do with the strength of the working class, and it is only marginally related to the role of capitalists. True some capitalist supported the nazis, but most did not seeing it as a bunch of rabble rousers. They put their eggs in the basket of conventional conservative parties. They started support the nazi AFTER they became a major political force, not before. So what needs to be explained is why the nazis became a major political force prior to large scale capitalist backing, and the support they received from "civil society" organizations of the military origins provides that explanation. This is pretty much in line with Gramsci's argument.
Please also not ethat Germany had one of the strongest working class in Europe and yet did not start a proletarian revolution. Russia, with one the weakest working classes did. The Marxist class analysis that does not take into account the role of the military and its "civil" society organizations simply cannot explain these two different outcomes.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."