Vis-a-vis commerce and war mobilization were a lot of post-wwi german conservative revolutionaries like that?
If you mean them going all in on “war socialism” and being suspicious of “rootless cosmopolitan” merchants (imagined through every antisemitic trope in history) then yeah that was very common for the German Conservative Revolutionaries. Arthur Rosenberg’s book Imperial Germany gives a good historical account of how widespread this was and the role that the right of the SPD played in promoting it. Paul Lensch, for example, was effectively the German equivalent to Mussolini as far as being the most prominent pro-war socialist. The SPD’s wartime social imperialist current was later outdone by leaps and bounds by the Nazis.
Werner Sombart’s Traders and Heroes is a characteristic WWI-era text articulating this “war socialist” outlook. This political current, and especially its influence on the “stabbed in the back” myth, is what informed the famous interwar Conservative Revolutionaries like Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, and Ernst Niekisch.
Ernst Jünger’s interwar articles, War as an Inner Experience, and Total Mobilization essay provide some sense of the general themes that the “war socialist” Conservative Revolutionaries were diving into in the Weimar era. I would also recommend looking into Fritz Wolffheim and Heinrich Laufenberg to see how a parallel tendency to what Jünger advocated was developing within the German communist movement itself. Weimar Radicals by Timothy Scott Brown can provide you a useful historical framework to understand what was going on here.
Initially, this social revolutionary strategy was actually what drove the growth of the Nazi Party from a tiny sect into a mass movement. Gregor Strasser was the lead organizer of the Nazis in Bavaria during the 1920s and he led the establishment of the region as the movement’s base. He adopted a strategy of drawing on the resentment of the more aristocratic decadent conservatives for the bourgeois Weimar Republic on the one hand and on other hand beating the Social-Democrats and Communists at their own game with class struggle rhetoric. The influence of these “beefsteak Nazis” (brown on the outside, red on the inside) was so extensive that it shaped the Nazis’ rhetoric around presenting themselves as a revolutionary movement opposed to reactionaries, liberals, and communists alike. This is covered in Hitler’s Rise to Power by Geoffrey Pridham.
After Hitler became chancellor, these “beefsteak Nazis” wanted a social revolution to accompany the political revolution. Ultimately for them that meant restoring war socialism and crushing the liberal bourgeoisie that had backed the Weimar Republic (though even in the rhetoric of Strasser it was never about crushing capital itself but nationalizing it). The “beefsteaks” were destroyed by the Hitler faction with the 1934 Night of Long Knives purge. Although many of the faction’s supporters remained, including Joseph Goebbels himself, they made peace with the Hitlerites for the sake of consolidating institutional power.
Hitler justified the purge as necessary to calm the landed elites (who were afraid of the pro-peasant land reform talk of the “beefsteaks”), the industrialists (who hated the pro-nationalization propaganda), and the Army (who worried that the Sturmabteilung, the Nazi militia that many working class veterans and “beefsteaks” participated in, would replace them). Hitler’s strategy in power was generally to collapse the social revolution into a controlled institutional political revolution and bring everything under a command chain leading up to him at the top in accordance with the Führer principle. The Nazi revolution’s institutional meaning, especially as articulated by Goebbels as propaganda minister, ended up just being the universal obligation of all classes to do their duty to the state as the protector of the People’s Community (and for workers, that meant accepting whatever shitty conditions the state-contracted corporations dealt out to them). The egalitarian leveling of traditional status hierarchies combined with the intensification of capitalist exploitation is covered very well in Hitler’s Social Revolution by David Schopenhaum.
If you want to follow up on where the Conservative Revolutionary anti-commercial current went during WWII, apart from the more obvious influences on Third Reich ideology, I would genuinely recommend reading Goebbels’ key speeches. For one, the 1943 Sportpalast speech, which marked the shift to total warfare and includes some of the more explicit justifications of the Holocaust as an extension of Germany’s total mobilization to enslave and exterminate all enemies in the name of national security. His final essay “Creators of the World’s Misfortunes” from 1945, written at the height of the Holocaust and in the face of defeat, is arguably the most explicit acknowledgement and justification of the Holocaust by any Third Reich leader and it also includes all of the expected Conservative Revolutionary themes.
To see the wartime Conservative Revolutionary countercurrent, I would also recommend reading Carl Schmitt’s Land and Sea. In that text he adapts the basic themes of Sombart’s book to the doctrines of geopolitics, with the relevance to the strategy of the Nazi imperialist project being clear. He heavily implies that Germany as a telluric military power (as opposed to the commercial thalassocratic powers like England, depicted as civilizationally aligned with “International Jewry,” or even Japan, which Schmitt questioned as an ally) would have its most natural ally in Russia as a fellow telluric military power. Obviously things didn’t turn out the way he wanted but this was influential on the postwar geopolitical orientation of neo-fascists, which you can read about in The Beast Reawakens by Martin Lee.
I think in general people on the left underestimate how much the mass base of fascist movements (as opposed to their institutionalized forms in party-states) sought to pose a real challenge to capitalists (if not necessarily to capital itself). The only classic theorists I can think of who took this revolutionary streak in movement fascism seriously are José Carlos Mariátegui in Biology of Fascism, Clara Zetkin in her reports on fascism for the Comintern, Ernst Bloch in his book about Nazi millenarianism called Heritage of Our Times, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in the sections on the nomadic war machine in A Thousand Plateaus, Timothy Mason’s amazing compilation of historical essays Nazism, Fascism, and the Working Class on how the total mobilization of the welfare-warfare state tamed the German proletariat, and J Sakai in his essay The Shock of Recognition. I would recommend reading what they had to say if you want to develop a strong theoretical framework to understand this
germansingergirl
origamiaround
amandla
yousharknotpass
ellievsbear
gummygunk
tangentwithtanner
