First off, no, I’m referring to (at least some of) the parties I listed earlier as Hindenburg’s base as bourgeois parties. I suppose you could include the Nazis and the SPD, but that’s not how I’m using the term, note that I said “the bourgeois parties… [and] the Nazis who they collaborated with,” implying a distinction.
Second, a bourgeois party is a party representing bourgeois interests and receiving bourgeois support. Working class people can and did support bourgeois parties, though as history showed, they shouldn’t have.
“the bourgeois parties… [and] the Nazis who they collaborated with,” implying a distinction.
A distinction without a difference. Whether explicitly bourgeois parties or not, the Nazis and SPD were both vehemently opposed to the ideology of the KPD, and those two parties received a majority of the votes in the 1932 election.
Working class people can and did support bourgeois parties…
And do, still. By the millions, in every election. Or, at least, if not explicitly bourgeois parties, parties that are based on some form is liberal ideology, not necessarily in opposition to bourgeois interests, and that often are aggressively opposed to Marxism-Leninism.
A distinction without a difference. Whether explicitly bourgeois parties or not, the Nazis and SPD were both vehemently opposed to the ideology of the KPD, and those two parties received a majority of the votes in the 1932 election.
Yes, and that’s why Hindenburg won and appointed Hitler.
And do, still. By the millions, in every election. Or, at least, if not explicitly bourgeois parties, parties that are based on some form is liberal ideology, not necessarily in opposition to bourgeois interests, and that often are aggressively opposed to Marxism-Leninism.
Yes, which is unfortunate and concerning, especially as the bourgeoisie tend to ally with the far-right to stop the left, which brought Hitler to power which is happening now with the CDU and the AfD, as pointed out in the article linked at the start of the conversation.
First off, no, I’m referring to (at least some of) the parties I listed earlier as Hindenburg’s base as bourgeois parties. I suppose you could include the Nazis and the SPD, but that’s not how I’m using the term, note that I said “the bourgeois parties… [and] the Nazis who they collaborated with,” implying a distinction.
Second, a bourgeois party is a party representing bourgeois interests and receiving bourgeois support. Working class people can and did support bourgeois parties, though as history showed, they shouldn’t have.
A distinction without a difference. Whether explicitly bourgeois parties or not, the Nazis and SPD were both vehemently opposed to the ideology of the KPD, and those two parties received a majority of the votes in the 1932 election.
And do, still. By the millions, in every election. Or, at least, if not explicitly bourgeois parties, parties that are based on some form is liberal ideology, not necessarily in opposition to bourgeois interests, and that often are aggressively opposed to Marxism-Leninism.
Yes, and that’s why Hindenburg won and appointed Hitler.
Yes, which is unfortunate and concerning, especially as the bourgeoisie tend to ally with the far-right to stop the left, which brought Hitler to power which is happening now with the CDU and the AfD, as pointed out in the article linked at the start of the conversation.