National Socialism came to power under the form of a bourgeois movement, its ranks were filled with uprooted bourgeoisie. The unemployed proletarians, who shared the rootlessness of the bourgeois members, reinforced them. Millions of peasants joined it. These peasants, more sensitive to the changes of the time than anyone, felt their ruin approaching. For all, insecurity was an element of their daily lives. With the collapse of their little world where they had a center and in which they once felt free, they had lost their psychic equilibrium. They wanted to throw overboard the few certainties that still existed but from which they were excluded, in order to be able to land on a floating island and install themselves there. There no longer remains much to defend for them. Thus they became attackers deciding to conquer new spaces to take root there. They were the banished people who refused to rest. By force, they would want to admit themselves where they could feel secure, where they could feel at home.
All true revolutionary movements appeal to a relatively homogeneous social class, that rises against the established order in society, an order that has reigned for decades, nay centuries. An important working class rises and realizes that it is disfavored by destiny, that a “thin ruling class” oppresses it and considers it as “inferior.” Wanting to accede to power, it believes itself called to a historic mission. Thus it was in France, with the revolution of 1789, when the Third Estate gave birth to a bourgeois era. In the same fashion, the Russian workers and peasants started, in 1917, a proletarian century. All true revolutions want to introduce a new social system, a new directing principle in universal history.
In this sense, the victory of Fascism in Italy was not a revolution. Fascism defended and reinforced a threatened social order, the we wanted to disturb and overthrow. It “modernized” it and transformed it in the fashion where it could better resist cyclical disturbances. Fascism did not invoke bygone things, fallen into disuse. It was not a movement of restoration. It was rather a conservative enterprise. Mussolini was a conservative “revolutionary.”
National Socialism is closer to Fascism than the Jacobinism of 1789 or the Bolshevism of 1917. But in no case, is it one in the same ideology. It does not have this natural relation to a universal, rooted, structured order, where the situation of propriety is stable. It lacks the social foundations remaining intact and unshakable. It rallies millions of men that, by reason of the deterioration of their material conditions, were left out of the national structure to become a formless mass. At the start, these rootless has taken their loss as passing misfortune. Like the unemployed, who hoped to rapidly find work, those who had been dispossessed of their goods thought they could recover them. They kept the ways of life and ideas that corresponded to those that had not yet lost their social and material security. They continued to consider themselves as “members of a nation,” thus they were already melted into a mass. National Socialism obtained fabulous success because it did not hesitate to submit the German people to the influences of propaganda and to rules of organization, always effective when they produced their impression on the rootless. It did not provoke the processes leveling the Germans, but it recognized them and adapted them. Its revolutionary act consisted of the destruction of a “national consciousness” that had long survived the collapse of the social order. It replaced it with a “mass consciousness,” more current. A people, which doubts itself, seeks refuge in pride and intolerance, proper to any weapon. The German abandoned the nation as such to be reborn in the National Socialist movement, under the mass form. Hitler is marked by the decline that he lived. His discourse reflects it. His vocation consists of reconstructing that which is degraded and has fallen into ruin. He reconstructs it according to a new law that he dictates as the Führer of the masses. No social class, living since then in obscurity and constituting, in a certain manner, a national biological reserve, can be carried to power by National Socialism. Maybe he is a pathetic attempt to restructure the expelled classes in the space of history and re-conquer their space for them, before they are definitively consumed. As with all Fascism, these classes do not want to restore what they were, but they no longer want to conserve anything. Desirous of creating a new world, yet they fall under the charm of images of a bygone past. They sincerely believe they are revolutionaries, but in reality, they succumb to the seduction emanating from the kingdom of historical memories.
In the epoch where National Socialism takes its flight, its cohesive force does not reside in the common enjoyment of an existing social state. All on contrary, the National Socialist masses feel “excluded” and, as such that they are excluded, they were comrades, members of a party. Certainly, one is permitted to doubt that the lone negative feeling of being socially excluded could suffice to rally millions of men in solidarity. National Socialism wants to seduce the Germans. But in each German sleeps a soldier. By organizing the masses according to the rules of military discipline, it satisfies the elementary needs of the Germans. The man in the street, an element of the masses, feels in himself a warrior. The military spirit gives back a meaning and a dignity to his existence. What, at its start, was a mass now becomes an “army.” Assault groups (SA) considered themselves as “the people mobilized.” The social order of the world collapsed, but military order, which had been established in the meantime, was ready to replace it. That fact that for the German, military discipline always represents a return to his proper nature, to his true essence, assured the success of this new order. In this way, Hitler transformed bit by bit from the leader of a party to the head of an army. For the brown army, the Germany of Weimar was a foreign country. It “conquered” it in the course of a long campaign. The victory of March 5th was a military affair. A commandant battled his adversary and the opponent capitulated. There were victims that destiny struck. According to the law of the conqueror, the brown army seized the this blessing that represents the power of the state. Germany replaced the forms of the state of civil rights with those of a state based on military power. The Führer took the place of the parliament.
National Socialism reestablished a military regime in Germany. For this reason, it could reclaim the spirit of Potsdam. The warrior nature of the Prussian manifests across it.
Certainly, this warrior substance is firstly a natural phenomenon. It could just as well lead to mercenary engagement in the service of a foreign power. “Prussianism” is the marriage between this natural phenomenon and the idea of the state born in the Northeast of Germany. Frederick the Great who, as an unbeliever, adhered exclusively to the reason of the Prussian state, was the perfect incarnation of this Prussianism. A military reign is not forcibly Prussian. It is only in the measure where it resumes and develops the state thought of Frederick II.