Interwar movements outcompeted parties by attacking the state and transcending class appeal.

Evidence

This was the situation between the two wars when every movement had a greater chance than any party because the movement attacked the institution of the state and did not appeal to classes. Fascism and Nazism always boasted that their hatred was directed not against individual classes, but the class system as such, which they denounced as an invention of Marxism. Even more significant was the fact that the Communists also, notwithstanding their Marxist ideology, had to abandon the rigidity of their class appeal when, after 1935, under the pretext of enlarging their mass base, they formed Popular Fronts everywhere and began to appeal to the same growing masses outside all class strata which up to then had been the natural prey to Fascist movements. None of the old parties was prepared to receive these masses, nor did they gauge correctly the growing importance of their numbers and the growing political influence of their leaders. — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 655

Categorization

• XREF: Core scaffolding for the Islamophobia toolkit: the movement-vs-party distinction and the denaturing of class analysis prefigures how later identity-based mobilizations (including contemporary Islamophobia movements) bypass class categories.