My Political View

Hi.

As I've written in the presentation , I'm a 27 years old boy from Italy and I've got a personal kind of political ideology.

I'll try to explain what's my view and who are the philosophers and the statemen that I appreciate.

First of all: I'm socialist. Not a social-democrat nor a bolshevik. I believe in socialization of factories but I tend to respect small forms of private property. I can define myself as a "strasserite" that accept marxian interpretation of capitalist processes. But Otto Strasser never took power and Karl Marx's thought was distorted by some burocrats. so I have to observe historical "third way" experiences.

I've found very interesting the economical and political strategies supported by statesmen as Juan Domingo Peron, Juan Velasco Alvarado, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Josip Broz Tito (he wasn't a "communist" as the most thinks), J. Nehru and in part Charles De Gaulle. Today I respect Ugo Chavez.

About fascism: In Italy Mussolini betrayed the social and anti-plutocratic positions that that characterized old style fascism. He found the capitalists' support and he served the monarchy. Also Francisco Franco acted in a similiar way.

Adolf Hitler, IMHO, was totally right-wing. Only Otto Strasser , as I've written, tried to support a "left-wing" form of prussian socialism. I also reject biological and paranoic racism (anti-semitic or anti-slavic) although I'm really anti-zionist.

I mean: If I met a person with jewish heritage...clearly I will not scream. But If I will find a zionist (jew or not) the things will be different.

I strongly believe in social justice and in national sovereignty (today threatened by USA, Israeli and by the European Union).

Surely I'm not racist but I'm against mass immigration. I can't accept that foreigners come to my country to steal our jobs and home. Besides, I think that every people should keep their own specificity. But slogans like "expel them all away" are not realistic. I can surely tolerate a moderate form of immigration . But not this daily mess.

As a socialist you probably think that I'm feminist or pro-gay marriage. It's NOT true. Women must be women and not men, and the gay couples can live together but are not entitled to adopt children. Also about individual freedom: I detest every kind of drugs and I considers junkies like political enemies.

To resume: not capitalist, not marxist-leninist and not nazi-fascist. Can I define myself "strasserite", "social-revolutionary" or "third positionist"? There are political organizations in the world with ideas similar to mine?

Excuse me for the long post and if my english is not ok.

Thanx for the patience and for the future answers.

'Third Positionist' generally denotes fascism. I think we have a better claim to the title but it's already taken. Most of what you say seems consistent with Strasserism, including the belief in market socialism.

Fourth_Poistion wrote:First of all: I'm socialist. Not a social-democrat nor a bolshevik. I believe in socialization of factories but I tend to respect small forms of private property.

"Small forms of private property" as in petit-bourgeois businesses, or possessions for active personal use? If the former, it's ironic that you should claim not to be a Social Democrat when their position historically was that of nationalizing the "commanding heights" of the economy—e.g., large corporations, strategically important industries, etc.—while allowing relatively small firms to remain privately owned.

I've found very interesting the economical and political strategies supported by statesmen as Juan Domingo Peron, Juan Velasco Alvarado, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Josip Broz Tito (he wasn't a "communist" as the most thinks), J. Nehru and in part Charles De Gaulle. Today I respect Ugo Chavez.

Josip Broz Tito was most certainly a communist, he just happened to implement a socialist market policy while in office—unlike the rest of the Eastern bloc which practiced centralized economic planning. The Basic Law on Management of State Economic Enterprises and Higher Economic Associations by the Workers' Collectives, passed in 1950 by the Yugoslav Federal Assembly, formally granted workers the right to manage their firms—though, unfortunately, in practice state officials retained most control over the management of Yugoslav companies. Nevertheless, Tito viewed this policy as the Yugoslavian route to communism, just as Joseph Stalin viewed central planning as the Soviet route to communism.

As for Juan Perón, he was a populist dictator whose economic program was almost indistinguishable from the contemporaneous European Social Democracies. The same can be said of the rest of the individuals you listed (Nasser, et al.), with the exception of Hugo Chávez, who is genuinely attempting to construct socialism in Venezuela. The standard policy of the majority of left-of-centre dictators in the global south has been agrarian reform coupled with strategic nationalizations.

About fascism: In Italy Mussolini betrayed the social and anti-plutocratic positions that that characterized old style fascism. He found the capitalists' support and he served the monarchy.

Indeed. Though, to Mussolini's credit, he did attempt to take Italian Fascism in a more socialistic direction during the short-lived Salò Republic. Nicola Bombacci (former member of the Italian Communist Party) drafted the Charter of Verona in 1943, which was adopted by the Republican Fascist Party the same year. Among other things, the Charter called for the socialization of industry—which actually had started to be enforced shortly before the overthrow of the regime. That's not to say I appreciate Mussolini, however. His epiphany, following the betrayal of King Victor Emmanuel III and the bourgeois elements in the National Fascist Party, that he was "wrong" to embrace the forces of reaction upon assuming power doesn't even begin to compensate for the incredible damage he caused to the socialist and communist movement in Italy, or to the Italian proletariat more generally. (And I won't even get into the utter bankruptcy of fascist philosophy.)

As a socialist you probably think that I'm feminist or pro-gay marriage. It's NOT true. Women must be women and not men, and the gay couples can live together but are not entitled to adopt children. Also about individual freedom: I detest every kind of drugs and I considers junkies like political enemies.

Proclaiming that "women must be women" is inane. People will be whatever comes naturally to them. Are you suggesting that traditional gender roles (e.g., women being relegated to "Kinder, Küche, Kirche") should be strictly enforced by the state? Personally, I consider such a position to be incredibly sexist and oppressive.

With respect to homosexuals adopting children, that's a topic deserving of a thread unto itself, so I'll refrain from addressing it here.

To resume: not capitalist, not marxist-leninist and not nazi-fascist. Can I define myself "strasserite", "social-revolutionary" or "third positionist"? There are political organizations in the world with ideas similar to mine?

There are plenty of Strasserist and National Bolshevik organizations in Europe which espouse views quite similar to your own, but I would ask that you consider keeping an open-mind to revolutionary socialism and left-wing nationalism. If you should come to find our ideology disagreeable, however, you may want to consider joining the reactionaries at the Iron March forum.

Excuse me for the long post and if my english is not ok.

No problem at all.

Thanks for that, Celtiberian. I didn't know about a whole lot of that stuff. And highlighting the difference between socialism and 'social democracy' is always a good thing.

Funnily enough, I already post on Iron March. They seem willing to tolerate a commie or two, and if they could just drop that corporatist nonsense a lot of them would be a hair's breadth away from joining us.

RedSun wrote:Thanks for that, Celtiberian. I didn't know about a whole lot of that stuff. And highlighting the difference between socialism and 'social democracy' is always a good thing.

No problem. I'm glad you found it helpful.

Funnily enough, I already post on Iron March. They seem willing to tolerate a commie or two, and if they could just drop that corporatist nonsense a lot of them would be a hair's breadth away from joining us.

I don't know if I'd go that far. They're fascists. Consequently, their worldview is basically the polar opposite of our own. They despise democracy because they share a Nietzschean disdain for "common people," and they practically worship hierarchy and authoritarianism. Perhaps a few members of Iron March could be convinced of the ethical desirability of revolutionary socialism and left-wing nationalism, but the preponderance of them are heavily indoctrinated.

You're probably right, but every little bit helps. I would say that we have common ground on left-wing nationalism, though.

It's worth noting that the leader of the forum --Alexander Slavros, whose article on Metanationalism I reposted and which now appears in the Reactionaries section-- is one of the furthest away from the description of fascists you gave with regards to the reasons for his attitudes on hierarchy and democracy, and I think I or someone better at debate might be able to sway him. And considering the position he holds on that forum, he might be something of a keystone.

RedSun wrote:I would say that we have common ground on left-wing nationalism, though.

I disagree. Their nationalism is thoroughly reactionary, in that it is authoritarian, militaristic, and often times expansionist in nature.

It's worth noting that the leader of the forum --Alexander Slavros, whose article on Metanationalism I reposted and which now appears in the Reactionaries section-- is one of the furthest away from the description of fascists you gave with regards to the reasons for his attitudes on hierarchy and democracy, and I think I or someone better at debate might be able to sway him. And considering the position he holds on that forum, he might be something of a keystone.

Having read through some of Slavros's posts on Iron March, I'm pessimistic with respect to the possibility of convincing him of the legitimacy of left-wing nationalism and revolutionary socialism. On one thread, he claims to have been a communist before discovering the enlightening texts of Nikolay Ustryalov (a reactionary Russian statist, mistakenly considered to have been a National Bolshevik by certain historians) and the Traditionalist and Conservative Revolutionary philosophies. In another thread—wherein he responds to a socialistic member (Владимир_Борисов) arguing on behalf of the merits of Marxism—he proposed a ridiculous (non-)solution to the class warfare capitalism engenders, which consists of organizing workplaces along militaristic lines:

"Class warfare will be eliminated through an overall unifying ideology and the implementation of a particular attitude on the workplace, a sort of militarization - the workers are the soldiers, the owner (who must be hands on and not alienated from his workers) - their officer. Naturally this implies the destruction the lecherous version of an owner who's only in it for the profits, like what we have in modern society, so that comes back to what ideology sets in place to do this."

You'll notice that this petit-bourgeois form of class collaborationism is merely a theory which (unsuccessfully) attempts to solve the subjective element of exploitation, it does absolutely nothing to redress objective factor of exploitation: namely, the bourgeois expropriation of the surplus value labor produces.

I stand by my initial assessment of that forum. However, if you feel as though you may be able to sway them over to our line of thinking, I wish you the best of luck.

Not to derail the topic (which seems to have been answered a while back), but can I get a definition of 'reactionary nationalism'? Cos at first I thought it just meant racist, but it seems to be a broader term than that.

RedSun wrote:Not to derail the topic (which seems to have been answered a while back), but can I get a definition of 'reactionary nationalism'? Cos at first I thought it just meant racist, but it seems to be a broader term than that.

Reactionary nationalism is any form of nationalism which features: racism, chauvinism, sexism, militarism, authoritarianism, expansionism, class collaborationism, and/or theocracy.

Thanks.

Celtiberian wrote:Reactionary nationalism is any form of nationalism which features: racism, chauvinism, sexism, militarism, authoritarianism, expansionism, class collaborationism, and/or theocracy.

No offence but honestly whats so magical about the word reactionary? I mean it seems that everyday its definition gets longer and longer on this forum.

I think it's an attempt to define our nationalism by taking all the traditionally pejorative characteristics of nationalism and making them a subcategory, therefore implying that there can be a (left-wing) nationalism which holds all races and genders equal, which is dedicated to class struggle, which keeps church and state separate, and which respects the right of self-determination and thereby repudiates any doctrine promoting conquest. This creates a way to speak of nationalism without bringing Hitlerism, fascism, and other "nationalist" ideologies into the discussion.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:No offence but honestly whats so magical about the word reactionary? I mean it seems that everyday its definition gets longer and longer on this forum.

The definition (within the context in question) has been clear on this forum for some time now.

Left-wing nationalism is a unique variety of nationalism that is both thoroughly anti-capitalist and anti-reactionary. As such, this variety of nationalism inherently rejects the theories and tendencies associated with most other expressions thereof — e.g. ethnic chauvinism, economic exploitation, and imperialism.

FAQ

Admin wrote:The definition (within the context in question) has been clear on this forum for some time now.

Left-wing nationalism is a unique variety of nationalism that is both thoroughly anti-capitalist and anti-reactionary. As such, this variety of nationalism inherently rejects the theories and tendencies associated with most other expressions thereof — e.g. ethnic chauvinism, economic exploitation, and imperialism.

FAQ

I know all this. I just kind of get tired of seeing people slap the label " reactionary" onto any bad thing they dont like but whatever. Just my opinion.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I know all this. I just kind of get tired of seeing people slap the label " reactionary" onto any bad thing they dont like but whatever. Just my opinion.

Well, some of us kind of get tired of seeing people slap together reactionary bullshit, but whatever. Just my opinion.

Rev Scare wrote:Well, some of us kind of get tired of seeing people slap together reactionary bullshit, but whatever. Just my opinion.

I dont think Ive ever slapped together any reactionary bullshit.

I have got some problems to connect with the old nickname (Fourth_Position) , so I've decided to choose this new nick.

Celtiberian wrote:

"Small forms of private property" as in petit-bourgeois businesses, or possessions for active personal use? If the former, it's ironic that you should claim not to be a Social Democrat when their position historically was that of nationalizing the "commanding heights" of the economy—e.g., large corporations, strategically important industries, etc.—while allowing relatively small firms to remain privately owned.

I'm not social-democrat. Social-democrats believe in liberal-democracy, they support wild immigration (to promote capitalist exploitment) and soft welfare state. I've talked about "socialization" and it's a position that social-democrats and labourists reject at all. In fact they're totally pro free market and against every form of workers' partecipation. About private propriety: I wasn't talking about corporations or great capitals. I meant small private propriety (familiar or individual managment) as it was accepted in the soviet NEP.

Celtiberian wrote: Josip Broz Tito was most certainly a communist, he just happened to implement a socialist market policy while in office, unlike the rest of the Eastern bloc which practiced centralized economic planning. The Basic Law on Management of State Economic Enterprises and Higher Economic Associations by the Workers' Collectives, passed in 1950 by the Yugoslav Federal Assembly, formally granted workers the right to manage their firms—though, unfortunately, in practice state officials retained most control over the management of Yugoslav companies. Nevertheless, Tito viewed this policy as the Yugoslavian route to communism, just as Joseph Stalin viewed central planning as the Soviet route to communism.

Tito was NOT a soviet communist. He was near the not-alligned countries. There was more points of contact between Tito and Peron (or Tito and Velasco) than Tito and Stalin. Believe me. I agree with you about " Yugoslavian route to communism". Tito promoted "socialization" but he doesn't suppressed every kind of p. property. Also him was a social-democrat?

Celtiberian wrote: As for Juan Perón, he was a populist dictator whose economic program was almost indistinguishable from the contemporaneous European Social Democracies. The same can be said of the rest of the individuals you listed (Nasser, et al.), with the exception of Hugo Chávez, who is genuinely attempting to construct socialism in Venezuela. The standard policy of the majority of left-of-centre dictators in the Global South has been agrarian reform coupled with strategic nationalizations.

Juan Domingo Perón wasn't a populist and he wasn't a fascist because he doesn't believed in the ethical state and he briefly abandoned the corporatist model. Statemen like Perón, Nasser and Nehru can be considered "third way socialists" (not social democrats nor bolsheviks) and NOT vulgar demagogues. Ugo Chavez has got a similiar agenda and he cited Perón, Velasco and Ortega as "great men".

Celtiberian wrote: Indeed. Though, to Mussolini's credit, he did attempt to take Italian Fascism in a more socialistic direction during the short-lived Salò Republic. Nicola Bombacci (former member of the Italian Communist Party) drafted the Charter of Verona in 1943, which was adopted by the Republican Fascist Party the same year. Among other things, the Charter called for the socialization of industry—which actually had started to be enforced shortly before the overthrow of the regime. That's not to say I appreciate Mussolini, however. His epiphany, following the betrayal of King Victor Emmanuel III and the bourgeois elements in the National Fascist Party, that he was wrong to embrace the forces of reaction upon assuming power doesn't even begin to compensate for the incredible damage he caused to the socialist and communist movement in Italy, or to the Italian proletariat more generally. (And I won't even get into the utter bankruptcy of fascist philosophy.)

The R.S.I. never adopted the socialist points Verona's chart. It was only propaganda. The fascist socialization, indeed, was a sort of co-management program under the old corporatist control. Bombacci was a little bit confused. If you want to read the words of a real "social-fascist" (his positions was considered seriously also by an anti-fascists like Vittorio Foa) I suggest to read some text by UGO SPIRITO.

Celtiberian wrote: Proclaiming that "women must be women" is inane. People will be whatever comes naturally to them. Are you suggesting that traditional gender roles (e.g., "Kinder, Küche, Kirche") should be strictly enforced by the state? Personally, I consider such a position to be incredibly sexist and oppressive.

Talking of woman situation: I'm not chauvinist or obscurantist. But there's some roles. We cannot force women to imitate men. It's a violence against their nature. And I'm not a sexist if I say women should make female works and think about their children. It's just "common sense". Also some anarchists (Proudhon and, in total different terms and times, Bob Black) took position against feminism. Feminism have NOTHING to do with socialism and national sovereignty. Feminism preach hate between genders.

Celtiberian wrote: There are plenty of Strasserist and National Bolshevik organizations in Europe which espouse views quite similar to your own, but I would ask that you consider keeping an open-mind to revolutionary socialism and left-wing nationalism. If you should come to find our ideology disagreeable, however, you may want to consider joining the reactionaries at the Iron March forum.

The problem is this: a lot of national-bolshevik and strasserist circles are not true. They're pro-Hitler or pro-Stalin and these positions are schizophrenic. A strasserite that glorifies Hitler is like a trotzkist that talks in good terms about Stalin.
But , as you know, the real strasserites were killed under the nazi regime and the neo-national bolsheviks , like Dugin or Limonov, were not tolerated under USSR dictatorship. Maybe only some phalangist movements (I think about "Authentic Phalanx" in Spain) have totally took distances from fascism/francoism. But this is another story.

Celtiberian wrote: No problem at all.

Thanx