Fascism, revisited here at the Imperium

[Tchort]

I have been leaning more and more towards using the term 'Fascism' to describe the underlying 'core' of any and all 'Third Positionist' philosophies- past and present. Mussolini's Fascism, Falangism, National Syndicalism, National Socialism, National Bolshevism, etc

Fascism is the spark in Western man that makes him want to move mountains to get to the ocean, forsake reason for gut-morality, write European law rather than human laws.

From Dreamer of the Day, Coogan paraphrases Bardeche:

"We seek in vain the book of Fascism, although no such bible exists because Fascism is not a doctrine but an obscure and remote longing written in our blood and in our souls. Fascists are men who feel more deeply and more desperately than other men, that the ideal of Fascism is a means of salvation, the secret of life and well-being which every zoological species preserves like an instinct in the depths of its conscience. But how were those who feel more deeply and desperately to survive in the wintertime of the West?"

This passage articulates extremely well the notion I've had in my head. I am interested to know if anyones else feels that Fascism is not an historical movement, but the essence of modern, Western mans cries for sanity and strength in his society. Or, just post what you think about this passage.

[Daniel Shays]

National Bolshevism, etc
National Bolshevism is not a form of Fascism in the economic sense, it is in fact declaredly anti-Fascist. Fascism is a western ideology rooted in the Roman Catholic church that belongs to, as you write, "western man". To the east there lies (National) Bolshevism which is an expression of the Byzantine tradition that eventually overwhelmed and incorporated the Russian Orthodox church, under the leadership of a former seminarian.

Natbol has synthesized historically fascistic concepts of nationalism and esotericism - not Fascist economics. Though the aforementioned ideas were present in orthodox Bolshevism clearly with Bogdanov and later, Stalin; they were never explicit for fear of alienating intl. supporters and conforming to the capitalist label of a mere "new Russian empire".

[Vindex]

I do wonder when Fascism became a dirty word.

[Tchort]

National Bolshevism is not a form of Fascism in the economic sense, it is in fact declaredly anti-Fascist. Fascism is a western ideology rooted in the Roman Catholic church that belongs to, as you write, "western man". To the east there lies (National) Bolshevism which is an expression of the Byzantine tradition that eventually overwhelmed and incorporated the Russian Orthodox church, under the leadership of a former seminarian.

Natbol has synthesized historically fascistic concepts of nationalism and esotericism - not Fascist economics. Though the aforementioned ideas were present in orthodox Bolshevism clearly with Bogdanov and later, Stalin; they were never explicit for fear of alienating intl. supporters and conforming to the capitalist label of a mere "new Russian empire".

I disagree entirely. Economically, Nazbol is, as wikipedia has it put, "A marriage between Mussolini's Corperatism and Lenin's New Economic Policy"- which is a very concise and accurate description (the NEP, like Roosevelt's New Deal, were Fascist in all but name). National Bolshevism is an ideology whos founders were Germans; later adopted by White Russians in exile if I'm not mistaken. In any event, NB is at its core Fascist, and Western. It is of the same substance as NS; with different trappings is all.

I do wonder when Fascism became a dirty word.

When Fascists started to pose a threat to the status quo of the communists, socialists, industrialists, business tycoons, monarchists, democrats, etc. It is the antithesis to Enlightenment society, Marxism being the absolute extreme wing of the Enlightenment.

[Boleslaw]

Economically I prefer a system akin to the Chesterbelloc's Distributism or Proudhon's Mutualism.

[Daniel Shays]

I disagree entirely. Economically, Nazbol is, as wikipedia has it put, "A marriage between Mussolini's Corperatism and Lenin's New Economic Policy"
Yes, as Wikipedia has erroneously put it... The Dugin and even the Limonov groups respect Fascist national romanticism but not national capitalism, they view the fascist economy as a bourgeois parasite that destroys the proletarian-agricultural-soldierly "fascist fascism". Natbol means Russian Socialism, which would be a kind of anti-bourgeois "red and borderless fascism". It is updated (slightly decentralized) Stalinism.
National Bolshevism is an ideology whos founders were Germans; later adopted by White Russians in exile if I'm not mistaken.
It was created by Ustryalov.
In any event, NB is at its core Fascist, and Western. It is of the same substance as NS; with different trappings is all. Russia has real Fascist parties and they hate the National Bolsheviks. The National Bolsheviks don't believe in the 'class cooperation' that defines Fascism.
When Fascists started to pose a threat to the status quo of the communists By the time Communism was part of the status quo in the west, Fascism had been dead for 30 years. Where did Fascists ever pose a threat to industrialists and tycoons?

[Tchort]

Yes, as Wikipedia has erroneously put it... The Dugin and even the Limonov groups respect Fascist national romanticism but not national capitalism, they view the fascist economy as a bourgeois parasite that destroys the proletarian-agricultural-soldierly "fascist fascism". Natbol means Russian Socialism, which would be a kind of anti-bourgeois "red and borderless fascism". It is updated (slightly decentralized) Stalinism.

There is a big difference between the practice of certain Fascist regimes and the various theories or 'degrees' of Fascist policy-ideology-tenants. I still think the Corperatist+N.E.P. example is accurate. Stalinism has been called 'Russian National Socialism' by pre and post war Fascists/National Socialists/etc. National Bolshevism, the Dugin Eurasianism and Limonovism, are both legitimate, modern forms of Fascism in the Eastern Bloc. Economically I see them being very similar to the Salo Republic- which further illuminates my point.

It was created by Ustryalov.

Niekisch & Juenger deserve credit for creating NB (the original version being more similar to Stalinism than what we now call National Bolshevism)

Russia has real Fascist parties and they hate the National Bolsheviks. The National Bolsheviks don't believe in the 'class cooperation' that defines Fascism.

I disagree that class cooperation defines Fascism: I believe that most Fascist movements or ideologies incorperate class cooperation, I do not believe that it is 'written in stone' that it is or must be a Fascist trait. BTW-can you prove that statement? I have never heard that the Limonov-NB did not call for class cooperation.

Russia has ultra-nationalist parties and neo-Nazi groups; the former being a modern 'Monarchist'-esque strain of gutteral patriotism and Orthodox loyalty (Pam'Yat, RNU, etc) the latter being a Western export to Russia (Combat 18/B&H, Outlaw Hammerskins, etc). Both of which (especially nationalist skinheads) are used to oppose the NB's during public demonstrations and in ideology- even though, at the most basic levels, they all wish for the same things for Russia: but of all of these groups and ideals, National Bolshevism is the most modern, most revolutionary, and most 'threatening' to the Russian democratic establishment (a big reason why the government sees fit to let the skinheads run wild in the cities and nationalist groups to beat up fags and other groups whom the government does not care to listen to). I do not consider these parties 'Fascist': they are nationalist and racist, they are lacking the ideological mission and revolutionary social current that is Fascism.

By the time Communism was part of the status quo in the west, Fascism had been dead for 30 years. Where did Fascists ever pose a threat to industrialists and tycoons?

I was answering Vindex's question: Fascism has been a dirty word from the beginning, when communists, socialists, the establishment (capitalists, industrialists, etc), etc were threatened by Fascism on the streets, in government, and in war.

[Kodos]

Economically I prefer a system akin to the Chesterbelloc's Distributism or Proudhon's Mutualism.

Capitalism without a welfare state and it should fund fundamental advances in technology and science. The state will place native men in jobs though...

[Tchort]

Capitalism without a welfare state and it should fund fundamental advances in technology and science. The state will place native men in jobs though...

Sounds like Britain before it instituted the Dole ;)

[Kodos]

Thank you Tchort.

[Thomas777]

Great post.

Tchort:
I discussed some of these matters with our Bolshevik friends here:http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14063

There were a number of threads dedicated to NazBol,Fascist,M-L schematics while you were gone.

[Tchort]

Great post.

Tchort:
I discussed some of these matters with our Bolshevik friends here:http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14063

There were a number of threads dedicated to NazBol,Fascist,M-L schematics while you were gone.

I am in the process of writing a long socio-politic manifesto. The similarities between 'left and right', Marxists (Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists,etc-> all but Trotskyists) and Fascists (3rdPos,NB,NS,Etc) are extreme. We are interested in the same goals; the dismantling of the American global empire, the financial usury that entangles former Soviet nations, developing (natural resource rich) nations, etc in a web of political and financial intrigue, exploitation and control. The two groups who are thought to fall in this Marxist-Fascist sphere are the Troptskyists and the ultra nationalists/racialists: the Trotskyists are respondible for the current American global empire and lead it from Washington (the neo-cons), street level Trotskyists are the enemies of revolution. On the other side, the neo-Nazi, ultranationalist racialists/White Nationalists (the worldwide 'Movement' of white skinned, anti-EU, R.A.C., anti-everyone but their nationality types) are also anti-revolutionary, and do nothing but hold back any kind of meaningful revolutionary movement from the right.

We are in no need of Conservative Revolutionists, so it all comes down to the genuine Marxists and Fascists/3rdPositionists who want real social and political and economic revolution. Like I said, stop associating Trotskyists and 'White Nationalists' with either movement, and we will be in business :)

[Vindex]

While I'am NS, I'am not WN as it is the otherside of the coin of what they claim to hate and is generally reactionary it is thrallish. NS to me is third position as it was supposed to bring together the best of the Left and Right into a balance. So I look foreward to your manifesto on the matter Tchort.

[Boleslaw]

Capitalism without a welfare state

That is essentially what Im advocating; along with Capitalism without corporations.


The state will place native men in jobs though...

An economy based on a decentralized basis will do that, out of necessity if nothing else.

[ogenoct]

Like I said, stop associating Trotskyists and 'White Nationalists' with either movement, and we will be in business :)

Actually, some argue that Trotskyites have more in common with National Revolutionaries than Stalinists do. This is because Stalinism is the epitome of Russian imperialism and everything this entails, like the subjugation of independent nations and the crushing of national self-determination (as was the case in Hungary where the revolution was a social nationalist anti-Stalinist Trotskyite one). Early Trotsky (before he turned traitor and semi-Fascist turncoat) was a true National Bolshevik. After all, the Red Army was his creation: a militant bulwark against the capitalist exploiter beasts. His idea of workers councils is also more in tune with the European spirit of socialism. Stalinist bureaucracy resembles the rule of a centralized Asian khanate.

Constantin

[Petr]

Early Trotsky (before he turned traitor and semi-Fascist turncoat) was a true National Bolshevik. After all, the Red Army was his creation: a militant bulwark against the capitalist exploiter beasts.
Do you honestly believe in this bullshit?


Petr

[Boleslaw]

We are in no need of Conservative Revolutionists, so it all comes down to the genuine Marxists and Fascists/3rdPositionists who want real social and political and economic revolution.

Many would say that "Conservative Revolution" and "Third Positionism" are the same thing.

Either way, I disagree with the notion that there's no for Revolutionary Conservatives. I feel that's exactly what we need.

[Boleslaw]

Actually, some argue that Trotskyites have more in common with National Revolutionaries than Stalinists do.

I fail to see this, considering the fact Trotskyists are staunchly anti-nationalist.

Early Trotsky (before he turned traitor and semi-Fascist turncoat) was a true National Bolshevik.

How so?


After all, the Red Army was his creation: a militant bulwark against the capitalist exploiter beasts.

Not really, it was the leadership of the Bolshevik party that actually created the Red Army, and mostly out of remants of the old Tsarist army; and even forced many officers into it by kidnapping their families. Trotsky was largely a figurehead and an inept commander for the most part.

In the end, Trotsky's influence on the Red Army was short-lived. The influence of Mikhail Frunze was more widespread and longer-lasting on Soviet strategic thinking. In fact many have called Frunze the real father of the Red Army.

[Daniel Shays]

There is a big difference between the practice of certain Fascist regimes and the various theories or 'degrees' of Fascist policy-ideology-tenants.
This is one reason 'Third Positionism' reminds me of Trotskyism. It distances itself from past implementations of the ideology it claims to uphold (sometimes Socialism, sometimes Fascism) and seeks some fantastical golden mean. "Neither Washington nor Moscow". No wonder the leading 'Third Positionist', Troy Southgate, wants an alliance with Trotskyites.
I still think the Corperatist+N.E.P. example is accurate.
I don't. Natbol is not corporatist in any way. They favor govt. collectivisation of agriculture, not independent farms operated by companies. All land is to be owned by the Socialist government, all profits distributed equally among citizens.
Stalinism has been called 'Russian National Socialism' by pre and post war Fascists/National Socialists/etc.
Yes, it is socialist and nationalistic, real NS; not the social-reformist state capitalism of the Fascists and Nazis.
National Bolshevism, the Dugin Eurasianism and Limonovism, are both legitimate, modern forms of Fascism in the Eastern Bloc. Economically I see them being very similar to the Salo Republic- which further illuminates my point.
What information is this based on?
Niekisch & Juenger deserve credit for creating NB (the original version being more similar to Stalinism than what we now call National Bolshevism)
I have never read Der Arbeiter so I am unsure about Juenger. Many Germans can take partial credit for germanizing Natbol for German consumption. National Bolshevism however was pioneered by Stalin with Socialism in one country, this is a fact that National Bolsheviks in Germany acknowledged.
I disagree that class cooperation defines Fascism: I believe that most Fascist movements or ideologies incorperate class cooperation, I do not believe that it is 'written in stone' that it is or must be a Fascist trait.
Fascism must be class collaborationist. It isn't just that 'most' Fascist regimes are/have been, they all are. Otherwise they would cease to be Fascist.

Mussolini:

Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society
BTW-can you prove that statement? I have never heard that the Limonov-NB did not call for class cooperation.
Limonov is a joke. He insults the Russian workers and wants a "youth revolution" against the proletariat, middle-class, bourgeoisie and "elderly".:rolleyes: That is Fascistic (trans-class youth cult).
the ideological mission and revolutionary social current that is Fascism.
What is the ideological mission of Fascism?

Anyway here are quotes from the NBF's(Dugin) pronouncement:

http://russia3.ru/zayavlenie_nbf?PHPSESSID=32be4bc8998dc7949d31c8dd2c02e72c

4.

[...]

a new stage in the history of National Bolshevism, a return to its roots - Anti-Fascism (Niekisch, Ustryalov), with sovereignty ("Russia is everything, the rest is nothing!") and Socialism ("oligarchs to the flames").

5.

[...]

National-Bolshevik Front, the heir of Russian and European National Bolsheviks (defensive, anti-fascist).

[Thomas777]

What is the ideological mission of Fascism?


To me, its Mosley's program:
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/policies/higherforms.html

Fascism is a progressive, revolutionary movement that aims to reconcile class conflict by protecting wages and the integrity of domestic labor markets from subterfuge by free-market profiteers while marshalling the resources of the national organism to cultivate cultural, military, and scientific excellence and create harmony within the national organism.

[Thomas777]

Mind you, I tend to disregard Mosley's pretentions about "Hellenic" traditions in Europe (for the same reasons Spengler objected to this sort of "linear" view). Otherwise, its a pretty cogent (if open ended) philisophical foundation.

[Daniel Shays]

Thanks for the info, Thomas.
This is because Stalinism is the epitome of Russian imperialism and everything this entails, like the subjugation of independent nations
Stalinism empowered proletariats across eastern Europe and Asia to subjugate their own bourgeois nations to the interests of the working class. There was no draculean imperialism, the Eastern Bloc always had much higher living standards than the Soviets.
and the crushing of national self-determination (as was the case in Hungary where the revolution was a social nationalist anti-Stalinist Trotskyite one).
When the demo started to re-instate a Communist party member, there were no problems. Only when pro-American Fascists hijacked it was it put down.
His idea of workers councils is also more in tune with the European spirit of socialism.Stalinist bureaucracy resembles the rule of a centralized Asian khanate.
:lies:

[ogenoct]

Stalinism empowered proletariats across eastern Europe and Asia to subjugate their own bourgeois nations to the interests of the working class. There was no draculean imperialism, the Eastern Bloc always had much higher living standards than the Soviets.

Of course there was imperialism. And that was a good thing. With the rise of Stalin, the ideology of the Soviet Union shifted into a decidedly imperial direction. National Bolshevism is an imperial (but anti-imperialist) ideology while National Communism is an anti-imperial ideology. National Bolshevism, as established by the Red Tsar Stalin, was based upon the Great Rus principle: Russia as the Third Rome, the center and guiding light for the oppressed masses on the great continent where all Hyperborean traditions had their origins. National Communists decried the so-called "Moscow dictatorship" and actively endorsed separatist tendencies within the Soviet empire and the Warsaw Pact. The KPD/ML of East Germany (under the leadership of the National Communist Ernst Aust) postulated that the rule of the leadership of the GDR was illegimate since it considered it consisting of vassals of Moscow. In a sense, the KPD/ML was right. After all, the GDR was still occupied by Soviet forces, and Germany was still divided and not a neutral country. However, the claim of the KPD/ML that the GDR was a "social Fascist" state that did the bidding of a "socialist Fascist" Soviet Union is ridiculous. By pretending that Germany was the crux of the matter and actually something that needed to be saved from an imperialist and capitalist AmeriKa and a "social Fascist" Soviet Union, the KPD/ML displayed its infantile belief in the primacy of nations as entities. It did not understand that nations are concepts that betray the imperial destiny of the worker as the creator of a new cosmos. The KPD/ML was essentially reactionary as it viewed the nationalist principle (the good of Germany) as being above the inter-nationalist axiom (the good of the empire). Nationalism is an ideological relict of the bourgeoisie while inter-nationalism is the guiding philosophy of proletarian imperialism. In this context, it is interesting to note that a large number of the imperial Communists (National Bolsheviks) who struggled in the Ukraine against the nationalist Communists (National Communists) were assimilated Jews. In this light, it makes sense why Stalin made anti-Judaism a criminal offense. While National Communism merely adapts Communism to further reactionary and backwards nationalist causes, National Bolshevism is a universal Eurasian philosophy that supercedes nations and ushers in the Messianic age of universal proletarian domination and liberation. National Communist traitors were at work in Hungary, and they were justifiably crushed by the imperial glory of the Red Salvation Army.

Constantin

[Captain Marinesko]

Let us not attach to Stalin modern imperialistic ideas. Yes Stalin and his regime highlighted the greatess of Russian identity, but Muscovite imperialism(which I would not accuse him of), is a backward Tsarist idea that has been exploited again and again by Ukrainian nationalists as well as those who would wish to use them in furthering their own goals. "Russian" must expand to describe those of Belarus and Ukraine as well.

[ogenoct]

Let us not attach to Stalin modern imperialistic ideas. Yes Stalin and his regime highlighted the greatess of Russian identity, but Muscovite imperialism(which I would not accuse him of), is a backward Tsarist idea that has been exploited again and again by Ukrainian nationalists as well as those who would wish to use them in furthering their own goals. "Russian" must expand to describe those of Belarus and Ukraine as well.

Ukrainians are Russians, and the Ukraine is an integral part of Russia. The same goes for Belarus. It is precisely nationalists that play the game of divisiveness. Therefore, I am not sure what your criticism is aimed against. Ukrainian nationalist separatism must be crushed! Stalin did not support "Muscovite imperialism" and neither does the modern National Bolshevik movement. On the contrary, National Bolshevism promotes the Eurasian ideal which is imperial but not imperialist. The Eurasian ideal is aimed at the future while acknowledging the fruits of the past.

Constantin

[Captain Marinesko]

Ukrainians are Russians, and the Ukraine is an integral part of Russia. The same goes for Belarus. It is precisely nationalists that play the game of divisiveness. Therefore, I am not sure what your criticism is aimed against. Ukrainian nationalist separatism must be crushed! Stalin did not support "Muscovite imperialism" and neither does the modern National Bolshevik movement. On the contrary, National Bolshevism promotes the Eurasian ideal which is imperial but not imperialist. The Eurasian ideal is aimed at the future while acknowledging the fruits of the past.

Constantin


Well then they need to seriously change their language because much of what I read is easily twisted to fit the outlook of those opposition factions. People need to remember that regardless of what "Russian" SHOULD mean- at the moment it means "Muscovite" in the eyes of the world.

[ogenoct]

Well then they need to seriously change their language because much of what I read is easily twisted to fit the outlook of those opposition factions. People need to remember that regardless of what "Russian" SHOULD mean- at the moment it means "Muscovite" in the eyes of the world.

Please provide evidence and/or quotes that back up your claim that the Russian National Bolsheviks are "Muscovites." Naturally, the RUSSIAN National Bolsheviks promote a strong and healthy RUSSIA. And, besides Russia, who else should play the avantgardist role in a future European revolution? France? Please... How does "Russian" mean "Muscovite" "in the eyes of the world"? I was not aware of that. Russia is clearly reaching out to its neighbors, like the Ukraine. It also wants to extends its ties to Germany (as first step in consolidating a counter-hegemony to AmeriKa). Anyone who cannot see that must be blind. Anyway, how do you define "Muscovite"?

Constantin

[Captain Marinesko]

Please provide evidence and/or quotes that back up your claim that the Russian National Bolsheviks are "Muscovites." Naturally, the RUSSIAN National Bolsheviks promote a strong and healthy RUSSIA. And, besides Russia, who else should play the avantgardist role in a future European revolution? France? Please... How does "Russian" mean "Muscovite" "in the eyes of the world"? I was not aware of that. Russia is clearly reaching out to its neighbors, like the Ukraine. It also wants to extends its ties to Germany (as first step in consolidating a counter-hegemony to AmeriKa). Anyone who cannot see that must be blind. Anyway, how do you define "Muscovite"?

Constantin

I did not make any such statement about Nazbol's usage of the word Muscovite, or non-usage for that matter. But the fact is that the adjective "Russkii" is commonly understood to refer to the Greater Russian(Muscovite) ethnicity AT THIS TIME. I am one of those that think it should not be limited in this way. Every effort should be made to ensure that the nationality "Russkii" is expanded to include the other Russian nationalities of Belarussian or Ukrainian. That is not to say that the practice of referring to oneself as Ukrainian or Belarussian should be discouraged, but a more all-encompassing "Russian" ethnicity is something that needs to be built through cultural work.

Names are extremely important to identity in Eastern Europe, though I wish it weren't so. It is counter-productive to mis-label some group without the proper time spent in sweeping away old superstitions and developing the necessary cultural and political bonds that are needed to unify people.

[ogenoct]

Every effort should be made to ensure that the nationality "Russkii" is expanded to include the other Russian nationalities of Belarussian or Ukrainian.

But that is exactly what the Russian National Bolsheviks are doing! Why are you then complaining about them? Why do you think that "they need to change their language"? What is the "outlook of those opposing factions" that you mentioned? Who are "those opposing factions"?

Constantin

[Captain Marinesko]

But that is exactly what the Russian National Bolsheviks are doing! Why are you then complaining about them? Why do you think that "they need to change their language"? What is the "outlook of those opposing factions" that you mentioned? Who are "those opposing factions"?

Constantin


Aside from the ruling European establishment, there is also the many different shades of nationalists in places like Ukraine or Belarus. I have never been impressed by the National Bolsheviks, despite their determination to cause various publicity stunts. The type of revolution needed in Russia necessitates a movement that begins its campaign in complete discretion if not total secrecy.

I might add, if Nazbol's propaganda were correct, what can explain that the most popularity they enjoy is in Rossiya and not the other two Russian states?

[Daniel Shays]

Of course there was imperialism. And that was a good thing. With the rise of Stalin, the ideology of the Soviet Union shifted into a decidedly imperial direction. National Bolshevism is an imperial (but anti-imperialist) ideology while National Communism is an anti-imperial ideology.
I of course agree, it's why I wrote that the Soviet Union did not engage in draculean imperialism. Imperial methods are perfectly legitimate for expanding economic systems, they have been used to great success by the Aristocracy, Bourgeoisie, and with the USSR: Proletariat.

When Stalin begrudgingly accepted the emergence of the GDR, he wanted it to use the Imperial Schwarz Weiss Rot color scheme on its flag. The SED politely refused, they should have taken his advice.
The KPD/ML of East Germany
They were a West German party.;)
(under the leadership of the National Communist Ernst Aust) postulated that the rule of the leadership of the GDR was illegimate since it considered it consisting of vassals of Moscow. In a sense, the KPD/ML was right. After all, the GDR was still occupied by Soviet forces, and Germany was still divided and not a neutral country. However, the claim of the KPD/ML that the GDR was a "social Fascist" state that did the bidding of a "socialist Fascist" Soviet Union is ridiculous. By pretending that Germany was the crux of the matter and actually something that needed to be saved from an imperialist and capitalist AmeriKa and a "social Fascist" Soviet Union, the KPD/ML displayed its infantile belief in the primacy of nations as entities.
Well, Stalin, along with Beria, Molotov, and other leading Soviets tried to establish a neutral united Germany with a strong Communist party but the Anglo-Americans were not going to allow this (they held all the major industry in the West). Stalin knew that a nation like Germany needs a revolution from within for it to be valid and merit allegiance of the population. After Stalin died, Beria was still writing pro-neutral unity articles for German papers; Khrushchev used this to traduce Beria by claiming he was 'undermining' the DDR by holding the Stalinist line.
National Communist traitors were at work in Hungary, and they were justifiably crushed by the imperial glory of the Red Salvation Army.

National Communism aka 'Titoism' did really fuckup Socialist Europe, that is for sure. Tito wasn't some visionary who discovered that Socialism must adapt itself to the nation, he just wanted his own corrupt fiefdom. His actions caused the DDR to abandon The German Road to Socialism and actually made Communism in Europe LESS nationalistic because Moscow could not trust its constituent states so much with the Titoist/capitalist/Trotskyite sores, oozing revisionism and decadence. The Maoist presence in Europe was also bizarre to say the least.

Communism is always nationalistic, but "National Communism" is proletarian jingoism.

[ogenoct]

When Stalin begrudgingly accepted the emergence of the GDR, he wanted it to use the Imperial Schwarz Weiss Rot color scheme on its flag. The SED politely refused, they should have taken his advice.

I agree. After all, the National Committee for Free Germany (the organization which later proved to be instrumental in the founding of the GDR) was founded under the black-white-red flag of imperial (Bismarck) Germany and a portrait of Lenin in Krasnagorsk (near Moscow) in 1943. Read more about my opinion on the GDR here:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12791

They were a West German party.;)

It had illegal branches in the GDR. A friend of mine in Berlin used to head one of them. The Stasi arrested many of the KPD/ML East German ringleaders.

Communism is always nationalistic, but "National Communism" is proletarian jingoism.

This is where you are wrong. The Soviet Union was not nationalist but imperial. The difference between these two terms is huge. While the former has chauvinist and exclusive connotations, the latter has messianic and inclusive (but on the basis of a common acceptance that ethnic diversity is a prerequisite for an ethnopluralist socialist empire) connotations.

Constantin

[ogenoct]

Aside from the ruling European establishment, there is also the many different shades of nationalists in places like Ukraine or Belarus. I have never been impressed by the National Bolsheviks, despite their determination to cause various publicity stunts. The type of revolution needed in Russia necessitates a movement that begins its campaign in complete discretion if not total secrecy.

I might add, if Nazbol's propaganda were correct, what can explain that the most popularity they enjoy is in Rossiya and not the other two Russian states?

You still have not answered my question: Why do you think that "they need to change their language"? Besides that, you are obviously referring to Limonov's traitor party (the NATIONAL BOLSHEVIK PARTY [NBP]). However, I am referring to the only TRUE National Bolshevik organization (the NATIONAL BOLSHEVIK FRONT [NBF]) in Russia which has since split from Limonov's gang and joined up with Alexander Dugin's MOVEMENT EURASIA. The MOVEMENT EURASIA has successful branches in both the Ukraine and Belarus. Read more about the NBF here:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12830

Constantin

[Captain Marinesko]

You still have not answered my question: Why do you think that "they need to change their language"? Besides that, you are obviously referring to Limonov's traitor party (the NATIONAL BOLSHEVIK PARTY [NBP]). However, I am referring to the only TRUE National Bolshevik organization (the NATIONAL BOLSHEVIK FRONT [NBF]) in Russia which has since split from Limonov's gang and joined up with Alexander Dugin's MOVEMENT EURASIA. The MOVEMENT EURASIA has successful branches in both the Ukraine and Belarus. Read more about the NBF here:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12830

Constantin


I was not aware of that split. If that is the case I will have to take the time to read over their material.

[Captain Marinesko]

This is where you are wrong. The Soviet Union was not nationalist but imperial. The difference between these two terms is huge. While the former has chauvinist and exclusive connotations, the latter has messianic and inclusive (but on the basis of a common acceptance that ethnic diversity is a prerequisite for an ethnopluralist socialist empire) connotations.

Constantin

It was not imperial, it was based on the majority will of the former colonies to join a federation(union).

[ogenoct]

It was not imperial, it was based on the majority will of the former colonies to join a federation(union).

I think that you are confusing "imperialist" with "imperial." The Soviet Union was not imperialist but DEFINITELY imperial. Read my essay EMPIRE AGAINST EMPIRE for more on this topic:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11419

Constantin

[Daniel Shays]

This is where you are wrong. The Soviet Union was not nationalist but imperial. The difference between these two terms is huge. While the former has chauvinist and exclusive connotations, the latter has messianic and inclusive (but on the basis of a common acceptance that ethnic diversity is a prerequisite for an ethnopluralist socialist empire) connotations.
I was writing about Yugoslavia. The Soviet Union could never be nationalist because it wasn't a nation.

[ogenoct]

I was writing about Yugoslavia. The Soviet Union could never be nationalist because it wasn't a nation.

Then why did you say that "Communism is always nationalistic" (emphasis on "always")? The Soviet Union (arguably the most important fortress of Communism) was a federation of several nations. Of course, the Russian nation was the avantgarde nation.

Constantin

[Daniel Shays]

Then why did you say that "Communism is always nationalistic" (emphasis on "always")? The Soviet Union (arguably the most important fortress of Communism) was a federation of several nations. Of course, the Russian nation was the avantgarde nation.

Constantin
The Soviet Union as a whole could not be nationalist but it fostered healthy proletarian nationalism among its constituent nations.

[NoSugar]

Quick question: Can anyone point me to a website or a book that highlights all the different socio-economical polical movements? PM me please. Thank you.

[Thomas777]

The Soviet Union was not nationalist but imperial. The difference between these two terms is huge. While the former has chauvinist and exclusive connotations, the latter has messianic and inclusive (but on the basis of a common acceptance that ethnic diversity is a prerequisite for an ethnopluralist socialist empire) connotations.

Constantin

This is on-point. Excellent summation...the importance of this distinction cannot be overstated.

[Tchort]

I am proud of this thread :)

I'd like to say that Mussolini is not a definitive definer of Fascism. Sure, he headed the first 'Fascist' party and nation-state, but that does not give him monopoly on post-WWII (and posthumous) Fascist ideology.

Quick question: Can anyone point me to a website or a book that highlights all the different socio-economical polical movements? PM me please. Thank you.

The lesson you should've learned from reading this is that no such thing exists. The central defining tenants of various belief systems are debated by those who consider themselves the same thing. Anyone who claims they have a definitive, objective definition of all political, economic, social etc movements is a bias liar.

Why is Limonov so hated? I would like to hear opinions of those who reject the NBP and promote the NBF.

[Daniel Shays]

I'd like to say that Mussolini is not a definitive definer of Fascism. Sure, he headed the first 'Fascist' party and nation-state, but that does not give him monopoly on post-WWII (and posthumous) Fascist ideology.
I just ask to see one Fascist government, nay, Fascist Party that has ever called for the liquidation of a class other than the proletariat.
Why is Limonov so hated? I would like to hear opinions of those who reject the NBP and promote the NBF.
He encourages youngsters to get arrested in wacky stunts, is against the Russian working class, and there are rumors he performed oral sex on an African man. Most of all Dugin has rejected his antics, although he still values his writing skills. Dugin is far more valuable to Russian Socialism/Eurasianism/Natbol than Limonov.

[Vindex]

Fascism done with a organic Tradition as the core would make the superior system. I like the fact it removes the need for socialism because it addresses the root problem that caused the symptom to arise. Class cooperation not class warfare.

I don't want the dictatorship of the proletariat/working class thier fucking retards.

[ogenoct]

The Soviet Union as a whole could not be nationalist but it fostered healthy proletarian nationalism among its constituent nations.

Merely because the Soviet member states had a strong sense of group identity (which was encouraged by the various party leaderships) does not mean that they were nationalist. Their loyalties were always to the Soviet Union as a whole (the empire) first. In the Soviet Union, the preservation and veneration of empire transcended the worship of individual nations. Hence, Soviet Communism was not nationalist, not even among the different states that comprised the federation.

Constantin

[Boleslaw]

The Soviet Union as a whole could not be nationalist but it fostered healthy proletarian nationalism among its constituent nations.

Thats BS. I already talked about how the Soviets suppressed national communism among the Ukrainians.

[Daniel Shays]

Thats BS. I already talked about how the Soviets suppressed national communism among the Ukrainians.
Ukrainians are Russians, they ought to be Russified. Any protest is similar to the Austro-Fascist resistance to Germanization. The Soviet Union built many nations, Soviet Turkmenistan (http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i7858.html) being a great example, they also upheld and enhanced national cultures; only bourgeois nationalism was suppressed. You flaunt your support for the 'Orange Revolution', so of course you are against Socialism in the Ukraine.

And please don't sully this thread with your mendacious Holodo-Hoax claims that have been totally refutted by historians in 'The Famine That Never Was' thread in the SP.

[Boleslaw]

Ukrainians are Russians
No they are not. Even many Russians admitted the significant differences between the two peoples. For example, one 19th century Russian judge who travelled through Ukraine once remarked that he was astonished at how alien the natives seemed to him.


they ought to be Russified.

Funny, that wasnt Communist policy throughout the 1920's, where Ukrainization was the major policy. Of course it was all suppressed later in the 30's.

Any protest is reactionary and bourgeois
Then care to explain to me why socialism and Ukrainian nationalism were so closely connected? Ivan Franko was even glorifed by the Soviet regime in many ways. Taras Shevchenko was also praised as a true poet of the oppressed masses, although they suppressed his anti-Russian statements.

It was even said in the late 19th century that Ukrainians would carry a copy of "the Communist Manifesto" in one pocket and a book of Shevchenko's poems in the other.

And again, what about National Communists like Mykola Skrypnyk or even Mykola Khvylovy, who famously coined the slogan "Away from Moscow", because he felt it wrong for international Communism to be monopolized by one country.

So dont hand me this.


- similar to the Austro-Fascist resistance to Germanization.

The Austro-Fascist regime actually based itself off the Germanic identity of Austria. They just had to desire to see their country loose its independence in a Pan-German state.


only bourgeois nationalism was suppressed.

National Communism among the non-Russian peoples was also suppressed.


You flaunt your support for the 'Orange Revolution', so of course you are against Socialism in the Ukraine.

Im not against socialism in Ukraine, Im against your version of it.


And please don't sully this thread with your mendacious Holodo-Hoax claims that have been totally refutted by historians in 'The Famine That Never Was' thread in the SP.

Many of those sources have actually been refuted I hope you know.

[ogenoct]

He encourages youngsters to get arrested in wacky stunts, is against the Russian working class, and there are rumors he performed oral sex on an African man.

They are not a rumors. Limonov describes it in detail in his autobiographical novel IT'S ME, EDDIE. Also, he did not suck a negro's cock but got fucked in the ass by a negro.

Constantin

[Captain Marinesko]

Fascism done with a organic Tradition as the core would make the superior system. I like the fact it removes the need for socialism because it addresses the root problem that caused the symptom to arise. Class cooperation not class warfare.

I don't want the dictatorship of the proletariat/working class thier fucking retards.


The working class is the majority of your "organic" nation. If you feel the majority of your people are "fucking retards", how can you possibly say your ideology represents their best interests.

[Captain Marinesko]

Proudhoun, could you cite some of your sources on the support for socialism in the Ukraine you speak of; I can always use stuff like that to torpedo UNA-UNSO and mainstream Ukrainian "nationalists" who like to pretend that Communism was a Muscovite invention. For example, I often have to remind these types that even the Western Ukrainian army sided with the Reds during the Civil War. In addition to that I do find myself in debates from time to time with ignorant Americans who assume that because the country is called Ukraine, the people must be Ukrainian and therefore different than "Russians"(Muscovites). Part of this problem came from the 2004 election when the Western media actually implied that Western Ukrainians are the majority in Ukraine when the truth is the exact opposite.

Other than that though, the myth of specific anti-Ukrainian supression has pretty much been debunked. Even historians who still blame the 31-32 famine on Stalin admit that the famine existed far outside of Ukraine.

I am in favor of a Socialist Federation of Rus, and to ensure that it is a fair and equal representation for each group I would be willing to support moving the Federal capitol of this federation to Veliki Novgorod if necessary.


@Iron Lazar: It's not a matter of "Russifying" Ukrainians, because they are already Russian. These terms are very difficult for westerners or outsiders to understand. I teach many "Russians" and if I were to ask one with an obvious Ukrainian surname if they were Ukrainian- they would say 'no'. But if I asked them if they were of Ukrainian "descent", they will say yes. Often times they will admit this and then say they consider themselves "Russian". It's something rather malleable.

[ogenoct]

@Iron Lazar: It's not a matter of "Russifying" Ukrainians, because they are already Russian. These terms are very difficult for westerners or outsiders to understand. I teach many "Russians" and if I were to ask one with an obvious Ukrainian surname if they were Ukrainian- they would say 'no'. But if I asked them if they were of Ukrainian "descent", they will say yes. Often times they will admit this and then say they consider themselves "Russian". It's something rather malleable.

I agree. I was actually going to say the same thing. One can hardly "Russify" something which is already Russian. I lived in Odessa for a couple of weeks. Hardly anyone speaks Ukrainian there. Russian is the dominant language. The same is the case in many other areas of the Ukraine. I am also teacher. When I asked some of my students in Odessa if they considered themselves Russian, they said that they did. My Russian teacher in Odessa even bluntly stated, "Russian... Ukrainian... What is the difference?"

Constantin

[Captain Marinesko]

If I may share yet another story along those lines. When I was training in Prague one of our instructors was a Carpatho-Ukrainian born in the far east region of Slovakia, about as far from Muscovite control as can be imagined. When I began to talk to her about Ukraine, I mentioned my grandfather being from "Lviv"(the Ukrainian pronunciation of Lvov). She actually corrected me with "Lvov"(the "Russian" pronunciation). We talked more about that and as I suspected, she admitted that she would never speak only Ukrainian. When I heard her talking to her husband on the phone she was clearly speaking in Russian. She also talked about how the Ukrainian language as we see it today is basically "under construction". I have seen more examples of this in recent times.

When she told me that as soon as I got home I chucked my "Teach Yourself Ukrainian" book in the trash. No need for a book that might be totally incorrect in a few years. Furthermore, I noticed a particularly hilarious bit in the book where they actually referred to a "occasionally used" present tense verb of "be"(which is not normal for Eastern Slavic languages).

The verb was "je", something like he/she/it is in Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Czech, etc. But here's the best part- IT'S NOT CONJUGATED AT ALL!!! That's right folks!! There's:

"Ja je"
"Ty je"
"On/Ona/Ono Je"
"My je"
"Vy je"
"Oni je"

We are supposed to believe that this language has existed for centuries and yet millions of Ukrainians don't know this UNCONJUGATED present-tense verb of be exists!! And it is probably the ONLY UNCONJUGATED verb in the entire Indo-European family. How about that!

[Vindex]

We already have the dictatorship of the proletariat over here but thier calling it democracy. I do not want a system based around one class tier of people. And yes they are retards and are not fit to run anything outside of their day lives. Let alone a Nation.

Just cause thier the quanity does not mean thier the quality. Ideology has to represent the greater interest.

The working class is the majority of your "organic" nation. If you feel the majority of your people are "fucking retards", how can you possibly say your ideology represents their best interests.

[Daniel Shays]

We already have the dictatorship of the proletariat over here but thier calling it democracy.
That is nonsense. American government is dictated and funded by the wealthy capitalist class. You think that American workers support the outsourcing of jobs and importation of immigrants?
I do not want a system based around one class tier of people.
There will always be a dominant class, until a classless society is achieved by the Proletariat and its vanguard party.
And yes they are retards and are not fit to run anything outside of their day lives. Let alone a Nation.
Even Hitler prided himself on his working class background and berated the Aristocratic Roosevelt. He wasn't a wannabe-Aristocrat like Himmler and many net-nazis; he was despised by the Aristocracy. He would have liked to purge them, but in central Europe such a grandiose affront to the inter-Euro squirearchy would have further isolated Germany from its neighbors.

Hitler:
National-Socialism came to power in Germany in the same year as Roosevelt was elected President. I understand only too well that a world-wide distance separates Roosevelt's ideas and my ideas. Roosevelt comes from a rich family and belongs to the class whose path is smoothed in the Democracies. I am only the child of a small, poor family and had to fight my way by work and industry. When the Great War came, Roosevelt occupied a position where he got to know only its pleasant consequences, enjoyed by those who do business while others bleed. I was only one of those who carry out orders, as an ordinary soldier, and naturally returned from the war just as poor as I was in Autumn 1914. I shared the fate of millions, and Franklin Roosevelt only the fate of the so-called Upper Ten Thousand.

After the war Roosevelt tried his hand at financial speculation: he made profits out of the inflation, out of the misery of others, while I, together with many hundreds of thousands more, lay in hospital. When Roosevelt finally stepped on the political stage with all the advantages of his class, I was unknown
Just cause thier the quanity does not mean thier the quality. Ideology has to represent the greater interest.
The Proletariat eventually encapsulates EVERYONE besides the bourgeoisie. Just like a third world nation.

[Vindex]

Thier will be a classless society right around the time jesus comes back. The working class is not a thing to be made a holy Icon out of. Captialism is a joint rule of merchant and worker, bolshevikism is sole rule of the lowest caste the worker, each rules in the reflection of themselves. Neither class are fit to rule so both are failures in that area.

The richer are ruling now because your proles are simply dumber appetites. Roosevelt was a money Aristocrat not a natural one.

"The Proletariat eventually encapsulates EVERYONE besides the bourgeoisie" Yes because it kills off the superiors and makes way for more inferiors it is the mob revolt of the lowest elements of the gutter in the end.

That is nonsense. American government is dictated and funded by the wealthy capitalist class. You think that American workers support the outsourcing of jobs and importation of immigrants?

There will always be a dominant class, until a classless society is achieved by the Proletariat and its vanguard party.

Even Hitler prided himself on his working class background and berated the Aristocratic Roosevelt. He wasn't a wannabe-Aristocrat like Himmler and many net-nazis; he was despised by the Aristocracy. He would have liked to purge them, but in central Europe such a grandiose affront to the inter-Euro squirearchy would have further isolated Germany from its neighbors.

Hitler:


The Proletariat eventually encapsulates EVERYONE besides the bourgeoisie. Just like a third world nation.

[Thomas777]

We already have the dictatorship of the proletariat over here but thier calling it democracy. I do not want a system based around one class tier of people. And yes they are retards and are not fit to run anything outside of their day lives. Let alone a Nation.

This is rather meanspirited, Vindex.

One of the more abomnable efforts of the current regime has been their all out assault against the White, working class. These people are valuable in their own right, and under the proper tutelage could constitute an incredible national resource.

I don't have any interest in eliminating class divides, but class bigotry is an ugly thing.

[Daniel Shays]

Captialism is a joint rule of merchant and worker This makes no sense. Capitalism is the system the capitalist class uses to enrich itself. The worker has no part in the rule of any capitalist system. Under the fascistic varient, the merchant is allowed to assume a [minor] role via their erroneously named "guild" (guilds are for trades, not traders).
Roosevelt was a money Aristocrat not a natural one. The Delano family were Dutch Aristocrats cum 'Boston Brahmins'.
Yes because it kills off the superiors and makes way for more inferiors it is the mob revolt of the lowest elements of the gutter in the end. This low element is ruthlessly worked to death (literally) by Communism, not embraced. Criminals are the the bourgeoisie of the underworld, operating in the shadows of capitalist hegemony. Capitalists move between the prisons and the penthouses as though by connecting channels.

[Thomas777]

Under the fascistic varient, the merchant is allowed to assume a [minor] role via their erroneously named "guild" (guilds are for trades, not traders).


As was the case in the Third Reich. In contrast, the proper Fascist economic scheme, IMO, would be Sorel's heterodox syndicalism.

[Vindex]

Mean maybe, but realistic yes. The rule of the worker is one step backwards not forewards. So they might have fullier bellies but in the long run the stagnation rolls on. I'am looking way beyond economic system rungs.

The economy is a means to a end nothing else.

You want a superior civilization....civilization is built by people. So you need a higher Race to create Higher civilization.

One aspect that needs to be is a leveling of the field, creation of a meritocracy making sure all classes are working in harmony and well being and rights of all are taken care of, of all classes and citizens, and all work together for the good of the Nation all centred around a Cosmic/organic, Tradition. No class conflicts, no class oppression. All classes working as a family unit in balance and harmony on the path of upward healthy evolution of the individual and whole.

You do not need bolshevikism which is just what you would call "class bigotry" on a nightmare scale to achive this.




This is rather meanspirited, Vindex.

One of the more abomnable efforts of the current regime has been their all out assault against the White, working class. These people are valuable in their own right, and under the proper tutelage could constitute an incredible national resource.

I don't have any interest in eliminating class divides, but class bigotry is an ugly thing.

[Vindex]

It makes perfect sense most of the capitalist class of today came out of the worker class and they both need each other for the creation of goods and payment of monies and economic life. Just because one hand decides to become predator to the other does not mean they are not connected to the same vitals system.

The Delano family where not Vedic Priest class.

Good point the communists worked thier workers just as cruel if not more so then the capitalists and just had them shot or gulaged if they bitched or could not keep up.


This makes no sense. Capitalism is the system the capitalist class uses to enrich itself. The worker has no part in the rule of any capitalist system. Under the fascistic varient, the merchant is allowed to assume a [minor] role via their erroneously named "guild" (guilds are for trades, not traders).
The Delano family were Dutch Aristocrats cum 'Boston Brahmins'.
This low element is ruthlessly worked to death (literally) by Communism, not embraced. Criminals are the the bourgeoisie of the underworld, operating in the shadows of capitalist hegemony. Capitalists move between the prisons and the penthouses as though by connecting channels.

[Captain Marinesko]

Videx's motives are simple. He hates his people and/or race, and believes that those in power were vested with some kind of genetic superiority that got them there. That is a basic eugenic standpoint.

[tempus fugit]

Videx's motives are simple. He hates his people and/or race, and believes that those in power were vested with some kind of genetic superiority that got them there. That is a basic eugenic standpoint.

I don't see where he is saying he hates "his" people.

[Daniel Shays]

The Delano family where not Vedic Priest class. :nuts:
Good point the communists worked thier workers just as cruel if not more so then the capitalists Not really. Take the DDR and GDR for instance, workers had the same hour week (45, then 40) in both - but industrial accidents in the GDR happened at half the rate they did in the West. Infant mortality was also much lower in the GDR.
and just had them shot or gulaged if they bitched or could not keep up. That is simply not true. The Gulags were for common criminals and political enemies. Exhausted citizens were sent to hospitals and given fine medical care, until the Gorbachev years.

[Tchort]

It makes perfect sense most of the capitalist class of today came out of the worker class

So the $1500 three-piece-suit crowd worked their way up from factory workers or dish washers?

they both need each other for the creation of goods and payment of monies and economic life. Just because one hand decides to become predator to the other does not mean they are not connected to the same vitals system.

You are using the basics of economics to apologize for capitalist failures.

The Delano family where not Vedic Priest class.

It was a joke relating to how much power the monied-aristocrats in the North have.

Good point the communists worked thier workers just as cruel if not more so then the capitalists and just had them shot or gulaged if they bitched or could not keep up.

Iron Lazar is correct- the Gulag was for enemies of the class (ideological opponents) and thieves/hooligans/prostitutes; you should read a book about the Gulag system sometime.

[Vindex]

Hmmmm......the Stalin years.

[Daniel Shays]

Hmmmm......the Stalin years. Amusing that so many self-described 'NS' can reject the establishment's lies about Hitler while uncritically embracing all libel of Stalin. Hitler and Stalin are the two most lied about leaders of the 20th century.

What about Stalin, Vindex? Were you going to mention how the Socialist Reich Party was funded by him?

[Thomas777]

Amusing that so many self-described 'NS' can reject the establishment's lies about Hitler while uncritically embracing all libel of Stalin. Hitler and Stalin are the two most lied about leaders of the 20th century.

What about Stalin, Vindex? Were you going to mention how the Socialist Reich Party was funded by him?

National Socialism became inextricably bound to knee-jerk anti-Communism...in some ways, this was even exascerbated after the War. Yockey tried to diffuse this tendency and his efforts led to his being blacklisted by most self-described "Nazis". Willis Carto and H. Keith Thompson knew the score...but they were sort of beacons in the darkness on the political Right.

I personally don't have any illusions about Stalin (pro or con).

[Vindex]

Much of the current capitalist class from upper-middle class and up started out at the bottom but over time climbed the ladder.

So the $1500 three-piece-suit crowd worked their way up from factory workers or dish washers?


Nope capitalism is created to fail no need to apologize for it.

You are using the basics of economics to apologize for capitalist failures.


They must have had a few million plus ideological opponents then.

Iron Lazar is correct- the Gulag was for enemies of the class (ideological opponents) and thieves/hooligans/prostitutes; you should read a book about the Gulag system sometime.

[Vindex]

From what I have been reading I would like to see the Facist core of NS stressed over the socialist add on. Which I feel was created in order to gain support from the popular socialist movements of the time in Germany. Maybe it would put a stop to the socialism pissing contest between the reds and NS.


National Socialism became inextricably bound to knee-jerk anti-Communism...in some ways, this was even exascerbated after the War. Yockey tried to diffuse this tendency and his efforts led to his being blacklisted by most self-described "Nazis". Willis Carto and H. Keith Thompson knew the score...but they were sort of beacons in the darkness on the political Right.

I personally don't have any illusions about Stalin (pro or con).

[Captain Marinesko]

Much of the current capitalist class from upper-middle class and up started out at the bottom but over time climbed the ladder.

Uh, who the hell told you that? The ruling capitalist class today inherited their wealth. The future capitalist class will inherit that wealth. It is an aristocracy, nothing more. The idea that simply hard work or intelligence gets you to that level is nonsense. The days of open competition and small entrepeneurs is long since over, as big giants are able to crush any threat.




Nope capitalism is created to fail no need to apologize for it.

They why not eliminate it?




They must have had a few million plus ideological opponents then.

Nope, the records of political prisoners as well as "common law" were released back in the early 90s, showing that during the entire Stalin era the maximum number of political prisoners, without considering appeals, commuted sentences, and failed sentences(sentences never carried out), never exceeded roughly 500,000(Somebody correct me on this if I am quoting the wrong figure from Getty) in any year. The entire GULAG population throughout that entire period was actually smaller than the percentage of the adult population behind bars in the US right now.

It is also important to remember that many political prisoners got the lowest sentences, were often rehabilitated, released on appeal, and/or served out their sentences in the far less restricted labor colonies.

[Vindex]

I don't expect you to agree that would require taking a step outside of the dogma of your ideology.:deadhorse:

[Captain Marinesko]

I don't expect you to agree that would require taking a step outside of the dogma of your ideology.:deadhorse:


Where's the dogma involved in looking at the actual RECORDS of imprisonment to determine how many people were "repressed" by Bolshevism?

Secondly, if you want to take the time to trace the history of the major heads of corporations in the US(e.g. Eisner, Redstone, etc.), you would see that my conclusions regarding the source of their wealth are correct.

[Tchort]

From what I have been reading I would like to see the Facist core of NS stressed over the socialist add on. Which I feel was created in order to gain support from the popular socialist movements of the time in Germany. Maybe it would put a stop to the socialism pissing contest between the reds and NS.

The wings of the NSDAP were not 'socialist' and 'Fascist'- the former being the 'left' of the party, the latter being the 'right'. This is an infantile, simple opinion of history with no consideration for the truth.

[Vindex]

Given the fact you are a red all information and opinions will be run thought the filtering lens of your ideology. So the information could be right, wrong or some of both. But you have a investment in a certain answer. It is the same boxing that fuels the holyhoax vs holocaust round and round debates. Both sides are soley interested in the truth according to them.

Those jews you mentioned clawed thier way up over the other apes from the rag mechants and other gutter level of their not so distance ancestors to being the wealthy capitalist they are today which just shows the point that I stated before.


Where's the dogma involved in looking at the actual RECORDS of imprisonment to determine how many people were "repressed" by Bolshevism?

Secondly, if you want to take the time to trace the history of the major heads of corporations in the US(e.g. Eisner, Redstone, etc.), you would see that my conclusions regarding the source of their wealth are correct.

[Vindex]

There is no logical merit in this post to address.

The wings of the NSDAP were not 'socialist' and 'Fascist'- the former being the 'left' of the party, the latter being the 'right'. This is an infantile, simple opinion of history with no consideration for the truth.

[Captain Marinesko]

Given the fact you are a red all information and opinions will be run thought the filtering lens of your ideology. So the information could be right, wrong or some of both. But you have a investment in a certain answer. It is the same boxing that fuels the holyhoax vs holocaust round and round debates. Both sides are soley interested in the truth according to them.

Those jews you mentioned clawed thier way up over the other apes from the rag mechants and other gutter level of their not so distance ancestors to being the wealthy capitalist they are today which just shows the point that I stated before.


There isn't much of a "filter" when you consider that I spent most of my life as an anti-Communist and until recently, a National Socialist. You have got to be insane if you expect me to believe that your opinions are any more unbiased.

[Tchort]

Vindex you have proven that you are uninformed, a dogmatist, and incapable of abstract thought. The only person with a 'lense' is you- incapable of responding to comments, statements or opinions in an objective fashion. You are contributing nothing to this thread but, well, bullshit. Get back on topic.

[Wrath of the Tyrant]

I have been leaning more and more towards using the term 'Fascism' to describe the underlying 'core' of any and all 'Third Positionist' philosophies- past and present. Mussolini's Fascism, Falangism, National Syndicalism, National Socialism, National Bolshevism, etc

Fascism is the spark in Western man that makes him want to move mountains to get to the ocean, forsake reason for gut-morality, write European law rather than human laws.

From Dreamer of the Day, Coogan paraphrases Bardeche:

"We seek in vain the book of Fascism, although no such bible exists because Fascism is not a doctrine but an obscure and remote longing written in our blood and in our souls. Fascists are men who feel more deeply and more desperately than other men, that the ideal of Fascism is a means of salvation, the secret of life and well-being which every zoological species preserves like an instinct in the depths of its conscience. But how were those who feel more deeply and desperately to survive in the wintertime of the West?"

This passage articulates extremely well the notion I've had in my head. I am interested to know if anyones else feels that Fascism is not an historical movement, but the essence of modern, Western mans cries for sanity and strength in his society. Or, just post what you think about this passage.

:applause

I have been following an impulse like you describe for some time now. I became a "fascist" without even knowing it. So maybe it is something that arises out of some longing for glory.

[ogenoct]

German National Marxist Reinhold Oberlercher is correct in his assessment that the Bolshevik Revolution was an anti-capitalist counterrevolution which introduced the Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP) on an industrial basis. Highly centralized and autocratic, the economic administration of the Soviet Union did not allow for autonomy or the emergence of an independent economic life, both hallmarks of a truly progressive industrialized nation. Thus, the Soviet Union became a fossilized structure, burdened with a bureaucracy that did not speed up processes of production but burdened the state with the institutionalized incompetence of oligarchic party cadres.

East German dissident and former SED functionary Rudolf Bahro, who was imprisoned in the GDR for constructively criticizing the state, argued that Communism was a church. Just like the church became corrupted over the years, so Communism lost its original ideals in the periodic solidification of the Soviet state. But just like the Grand Inquisitor could not hurt the image of Christ as a savior, Stalin could not destroy the righteous nature of Marx's ideology. Just because the Communist "church" was once repressive does not mean that one has to become an anti-Communist. As Bahro notes, Francis of Assisi, while opposed to the degenerative nature of the Catholic Church, still remained loyal to it. The crux of the matter is freedom of opinion: If it does not exist, democratic centralism has failed.

Belgian geopolitician Jean Thiriart put forth an Hegelian argument: Racist National Socialism was the thesis and Marxist Communism the antithesis. Thus, the synthesis must be elitist and imperial Communism. Thiriart was right, of course. Only with the brutal efficiency of National Socialism, coupled with the universal appeal of Marxism, can a future Eurasian empire be constructed and maintained successfully. While Communism was evidently inefficient economically, it nevertheless succeeded in creating an imperial mythology that was able to patriotically mobilize all its citizens. While National Socialism was extremely efficient economically and technologically, it did not succeed in overcoming its inherently nationalist and chauvinist nature. Thus, historical National Socialism was not suited for an imperial ideology. Communism, on the other hand, was. But a future Communism for overmen can only survive if it employs National Socialist methods in terms of state management.

Constantin

[Sigrdrifa]

It seems to be the rule so far on this thread that people are relatively well informed regarding political viewpoints but not about history.The symbolism of Fascism goes back to Imperial Rome.The Fasces is a symbol of the power of the Magistrates of ancient Rome and I think you should all take a break from politics and read a little about the history of the West and Fascism before you lauch into these exotic explanations of the history of Fascism.Apparently not many of you Reds would have a clue about the Bundle.I'm guessing that the symbolism of it is probably lost on all you all, as well.It symbolises power through unity, in contradistinction to the liberal concept of multi-culturalism or class-warfare.It is the concept of all working together as one with no perscution of one class by another but the recognition of the true value of each.

It is natural for Western countries to have a class system, because before Capitalism or even modern nations ever existed there were different classes in a stratified society.If you are fighting the concept of class stratification then you are going against many thousands of years of Western tribal history and what constitutes the normal state of affairs for Western man.Take the history of any Western tribe, take the Vikings for example: roughly speaking, three classes: Jarls, Karls and Thralls..... a similar system to be found all over Europe; and it had nothing to do with Capitalism, it is simply the natural way that Western values are expressed and the legacy of that persists today, like it or not.To me, the class system is just the Western attitude to life left in its natural state.

This differs from what you find in a liberal such as the U.K today where the proles are patronised, resulting in the success of McDonalds and low-brow T.V programmes such as Big Brother.It is not natural for proles to dictate in such a way, the end result is unnatural and anyone intelligent complains about it.It is the natural condition for Western society to be stratified along class lines.Look around you and see human nature for what it is: there will always be the people who know more, do more and therefore have more and have the pleasure of passing on their rewards to their children as a result and there will always be people who resent that fact.Of course, it would be a mistake to associate the class system only with the West as a similar stratification is traditionally found in non-Western cultures such as in Japan, India and so on.Communist Utopian ideas of us all being proles don't work: note how hypocritical Communist Party officials and their families in China have always lived in luxury and how they are right now building shopping malls and forcing the Chinese peasants to sell their houses en masse so they can build them...the best example I know of Communist Hypocrisy.Indeed some animals are more equal than others!:rofl:

[cyborg]

Most of our equalitarian cognitive malfunction is a residual effect of recent events in history. Spiritual sameness before God, Locke and Enlightenment, the French and Russian revolutions, the Industrial Revolution and worker exploitation have left a strong impression on Western society.

When the naturally gifted find themselves pushed into serfdom or when we experience the tyranny of a degenerate in the role of leader, our common sentiment moves toward increasing equality. But, this erroneous solution of randomly allowing anyone with the most marketed popularity or money as qualifier into various roles leads us to more of the same social disfunction.

[Basil Fawlty]

Off-topic flame-fest moved here - http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35214

[Sulla the Dictator]

Most of our equalitarian cognitive malfunction is a residual effect of recent events in history. Spiritual sameness before God, Locke and Enlightenment, the French and Russian revolutions, the Industrial Revolution and worker exploitation have left a strong impression on Western society.


It seems to me that the concepts of rugged individualism and market based meritocracy answer the 'concerns' that Fascism supposedly has about the role of peoples and nations.

I don't know how any supposed Darwinist state justifies the stifiling of market forces with the yoke of corporatism.

[Cenodoxus]

the best example I know of Communist Hypocrisy.

Well, what if a communist movement in a given country were up front about this inevitable stratification even under a communist system? what if it frankly proposed to enslave, oppress, and mould in accordance with its will an entire people, while retaining rights of luxury for the secretariat, and never gave out any propaganda about a completely classless society and all being equal? is it the hypocrisy that upsets you, the great teeming mass of proletarians, the ideology itself or its origins?