Introductions

Hello. i am new to this forum. i once registered on revleft to talk to those guys in the opposing views section of their forum about third positionism and similar topics. no suprise they deleted my topic question. so much for free speech.

My views on life and everything have led me to be a National Socialist (what i thought was the best political group) I dont like international capitalism, its vulgar and unfair. i beleive in a socialist economy, but without the internationalism in it, the cosmopolitianism and the egalitarianism. having grown up in the lower class i know what life is like for working class people. i beleive that a country/society is based around peoples of a common descent and cultural practice, and things like multiculturalism and mass immigration of people of a completely different racial and cultural desent dont help it, they just divide it and supplant it. multiculturalism is nothing but a tool for globalists and internationalist liberals. i dont personally have anything against them but i dont think they belong in my society. it causes nothing but tension between the natives and the invaders.

As a National Socialist you could summarise it in this: Socialism for one country. And one thing i find annoying is that people think National Socialism is right wing when its more akin to the left then it is to the right. you could say its both or its beyond the tradional left and right.

I beleive in the state owning the major utilites and factories/workplaces and away from greedy private owned capitalist enterprises. the state should should regulate the market so it is fair for the people.

What is your position regarding the secret Jewish conspiracy to conquer the world via international finance?

Welcome.

Identifying as a National Socialist, do you at all place any connection between "greedy private owned capitalist enterprises" and Jews?

Rev Scare wrote:What is your position regarding the secret Jewish conspiracy to conquer the world via international finance?

i dont think it matters if they are jewish or non jewish, the economic oligarchy of the capitalist world needs to be overthrown.

DSN wrote:Welcome.

Identifying as a National Socialist, do you at all place any connection between "greedy private owned capitalist enterprises" and Jews?

There is some connection, as they (jews) have a tendency to excel in the banking industry. but apart from that, not much. i have read quotes from their holy book the Talmud, about their hatred of gentiles, but thats it. I Think Europe and the rest of the western world is in such a dire situation because of its own decedance. just thinking of the short term gain and not long term plans. And you dont have to be of European blood to be a National Socialist, you can be Asian, African, Arab, etc and have the same ideas and doctrine.

Hello, harry. I would like to ask you a few questions.

How do you feel about private property rights?

How do you feel about living in a not entirely dictatorial society?

How do you feel about a proposed economic system that bases labour on the notion from each according to his ability to each according to his need?

Egalitarian wrote:Hello, harry. I would like to ask you a few questions.

How do you feel about private property rights?

How do you feel about living in a not entirely dictatorial society?

How do you feel about a proposed economic system that bases labour on the notion from each according to his ability to each according to his need?

i think the state should own the property. although i dont think the state should just kick you out of your home without adequete resettlement say if your home was in the way of a major new highway under construction.

I personally wouldnt mind living in a semi dictatorial society, the state would be ruled not by politicians coming not from a business or economic background but from a field that they represent: a doctor would be the health minister, etc.

The state should have a record of your qualifications, personal preference to employment and location to determine a suitable place of employment if you are unemployed and looking for work. if you wanted to move to another area for work the state will help you pay for moving and resettlement.

i have been placed in the reactionary section. how am i a reactionary?

harry5518 wrote:i have been placed in the reactionary section. how am i a reactionary?

You came to our forum declaring yourself a national socialist(this, if you did not know is the name of the ideology of the nazi party.) so the moderators acted accordingly if i say so myself

you do not seem to espouse the normal nazi nonsense we see on the forum, but rather a form of ultranationalist state socialism.

I personally wouldnt mind living in a semi dictatorial society, the state would be ruled not by politicians coming not from a business or economic background but from a field that they represent: a doctor would be the health minister, etc

this technocratic nonsense is nothing more than sugar coated elitism, if you are suggesting( i may have misinterpreted this based on a lack of information) that the state be controlled by those who are most qualified regardless of democratic decision, i see no difference between your supposed political system and that of authoritarian governments run by bureaucrats

harry5518 wrote:My views on life and everything have led me to be a National Socialist (what i thought was the best political group) I dont like international capitalism, its vulgar and unfair. i beleive in a socialist economy, but without the internationalism in it, the cosmopolitianism and the egalitarianism.

The term "National Socialism" has been utilized by a number of different tendencies over the years, none of which advocate(d) implementing a socialist mode of production. For example, Hitlerism is virtually indistinguishable from fascism, at least insofar as its economic doctrine is concerned; and Strasserism is a form of utopian socialism which differs from capitalism only in very minor respects. Judging from your avatar, I presume that the National Socialism you favor is of the latter variety. If so, it's inaccurate to claim that you "believe in socialism." However, if you actually do happen to support socialism, you are, by definition, an economic egalitarian—contrary to what many people think, there are several forms of egalitarianism.

it causes nothing but tension between the natives and the invaders.

The language of "natives" and "invaders" is problematic for a number reasons, particularly if you're a Caucasian residing within North America, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, or New Zealand.

As a National Socialist you could summarise it in this: Socialism for one country.

Absolutely not. But even if this were the case, socialism cannot exist in isolation (for very long, anyway).

And one thing i find annoying is that people think National Socialism is right wing when its more akin to the left then it is to the right. you could say its both or its beyond the tradional left and right.

That depends entirely on how one defines "Left" and "Right." Nearly all of the individuals who have attempted to associate National Socialism with the Left have failed to demonstrate any commonalities it possesses with the socialist Left, and have only been able to draw legitimate parallels between it and early American progressivism.

I beleive in the state owning the major utilites and factories/workplaces and away from greedy private owned capitalist enterprises. the state should should regulate the market so it is fair for the people.

So you support securing justice for only a segment of the working class (e.g., those employed in "major utilities and factories"), and advocate retaining markets? How would this serve to eliminate the exploitation, ecological destruction, or alienation endemic to capitalism? Every socialist (whether explicitly or implicitly) espouses a theory of productive, appropriative, and distributive justice; I'm curious as to which you endorse.

I personally wouldnt mind living in a semi dictatorial society, the state would be ruled not by politicians coming not from a business or economic background but from a field that they represent: a doctor would be the health minister, etc.

In other words, you don't believe that people should participate in decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected by them?

I am more akin to a strasserite, but im not a ultranationalist. i support the working class first before anything else. having ethnically homogenous nations can advance the cause of socialism because people are more inclined to feel empathy with their own people. i am still unsure about private small business and the free market. i would like to see the positives and the negatives weighed against each other.

harry5518 wrote:i am still unsure about private small business

myself(and the many marxists on the forum) will insist that private property is 1. comepletly incompatible with socialism as it is antithetical to the system as a whole, and 2.is comepletly unstable and unsustanable because of its horridly antagonistic nature.

I am more akin to a strasserite, but im not a ultranationalist. i support the working class first before anything else. having ethnically homogenous nations can advance the cause of socialism

i apologize for asserting you were one of the unltranationalist variety though as i claimed, my statement may have been flawed as i was working with little information. i agree that national sentiment can foster revolutionary conciousness but reject your concentration on ethnicity as highly influencing to the characteristics of a nation, multiple ethnicities exist in every nation today, and i see the cause of the problem you present as truly being caused by ethnocultural distictions between immigrants and the people of any given nation, rather than ethnic or racial distinctions alone

and the free market

there are models of socalism that use markets in there economic plans, and it has been proven to work in practice(communist yugoslavia), i would be glad to assist you by providing information on such systems if you would like. i do not consider my self a market socialist and i see it as carrying over many unwanted aspects from capitalism i.e commodity fetishism, increased inequality etc.

harry5518 wrote:I am more akin to a strasserite, but im not a ultranationalist. i support the working class first before anything else. having ethnically homogenous nations can advance the cause of socialism because people are more inclined to feel empathy with their own people.

You claim that you're not an "ultranationalist," then go on to insist that ethnic homogeneity is required for socialism to be achieved? Preposterous. While people do tend to agglomerate along ethnocultural lines, the relative emphasis they place on either ethnicity or culture varies significantly between time and space. Furthermore, while the various responses to the National Question may influence the functionality of socialism to an extent, the proletarian revolution itself will be influenced by factors unrelated to ethnicity or culture, in most instances.

i am still unsure about private small business and the free market. i would like to see the positives and the negatives weighed against each other.

Setting aside the fact that the market method of resource allocation and the continuation of wage slavery violates nearly every existing conception of socialist productive, appropriative, and distributive justice, let's just examine the logic of your argument. You've suggested that large industries violate your sense of justice, but haven't provided us with a specific reason regarding why they do. Now you're unsure as to whether or not you oppose "private small business" and, presumably, wish to subject it to some sort of utilitarian examination. In my opinion, all you need to do is ask yourself the following question: 'in what ways, if any, do petit-bourgeois enterprises differ from larger firms in the treatment of labor?' The answer is fairly obvious: (excluding petit-bourgeois enterprises operating within a few lucrative niche markets) labor suffers under worse conditions than do their counterparts in larger firms, due to the lower rate of profit yielded in small enterprises. Moreover, surplus labor continues to be expropriated by capital; labor remains inequitably remunerated; and a class of people hostile to cooperative values (i.e., the petit-bourgeois) are allowed to threaten the long-term viability of the socialist mode of production—small businessmen generally do not respond well to arbitrary state limitations being placed on their ability to accumulate capital.

I have never understood this favorable attitude toward "small business" that some people, who are otherwise anti-capitalist, harbor. I suppose they view every petit-bourgeois operation as mom-and-pop shops, while corporations more closely resemble robber barons, but they blithely ignore the fact that petit-bourgeois enterprises are structured in exactly the same manner as monopoly capitalists and seek the same outcome: maximum profit.

Rev Scare wrote:I have never understood this favorable attitude toward "small business" that some people harbor. I suppose they view every petit-bourgeois operation as mom-and-pop shops, while corporations more closely resemble robber barons, but they blithely ignore the fact that petit-bourgeois enterprises are structured in exactly the same manner as monopoly capitalists and seek the same outcome: maximum profit.

I think another facet of this phenomenon is that many workers view petit-bourgeois firms as a relatively accessible route to achieve autonomy, thereby escaping the exploitation and submission before a managerial bureaucracy which wage labor entail. In fact, the Republican Party in the 19th century justified wage labor solely on the basis that it provided a means by which workers could eventually become self-employed or small business owners. Former wage slaves fortunate enough to acquire capital frequently justify their exploitation of labor on the same basis today.

Good point. I absolutely agree.

Celtiberian wrote:You claim that you're not an "ultranationalist," then go on to insist that ethnic homogeneity is required for socialism to be achieved? Preposterous.

i think i may have an issue with semantics here, comrade i have always equated ultranationalism as athoritarian nationalism(usally encompessing bourgoise economic relations) if you could expand on the meaning your putting behind the word comrade, i would greatly appreciate it

and to be fair on his part he said ethnicaly pure societies can "advance the cause of socialism", rather than being neccessary for it to come about(never the less, i agree with the notion of ethnicity being relevent to socialism as being absurd)

4thsupporter wrote:i think i may have an issue with semantics here, comrade i have always equated ultranationalism as athoritarian nationalism(usally encompessing bourgoise economic relations) if you could expand on the meaning your putting behind the word comrade, i would greatly appreciate it

By "ultranationalist," in this context, I'm referring to individuals who place more emphasis on national identity than it warrants, and/or attempt to reduce nationality to ethnicity. As for reactionary nationalism, certain expressions of it can indeed be authoritarian, though it needn't be. The reactionary nationalism observable in the United States, for example, isn't particularly authoritarian.

and to be fair on his part he said ethnicaly pure societies can "advance the cause of socialism", rather than being neccessary for it to come about(never the less, i agree with the notion of ethnicity being relevent to socialism as being absurd)

Disregarding the erroneous notion of there being any "pure" ethnicities, I don't deny the possibility that ethnocultural homogeneity may assist in the functionality of socialism, but there's no way to quantify by how much. If, following the proletarian revolution, problems emerge in multicultural areas, the people will possess the means by which to address the issue peacefully. I don't think we need to elevate the topic in the manner which many nationalists tend to; the class struggle should be of greater concern at the moment.

Celtiberian wrote:By "ultranationalist," in this context, I'm referring to individuals who place more emphasis on national identity than it warrants, and/or attempt to reduce nationality to ethnicity. As for reactionary nationalism, certain expressions of it can indeed be authoritarian, though it needn't be. The reactionary nationalism observable in the United States, for example, isn't particularly authoritarian.

thank you for clearing that up comrade, i appreciate it

Disregarding the erroneous notion of there being any "pure" ethnicities, I don't deny the possibility that ethnocultural homogeneity may assist in the functionality of socialism, but there's no way to quantify by how much. If, following the proletarian revolution, problems emerge in multicultural areas, the people will possess the means by which to address the issue peacefully. I don't think we need to elevate the topic in the manner which many nationalists tend to; the class struggle should be of greater concern at the moment.

indeed, once national determination is input correctly and truly belongs to the proletariat, national questions will become much more simple and unlike under capitalism, will be able to be solved correctly.

to our guest that started this thread i hope to convey the message(essentially the same one as celtiberian addressed above) that national problems do exists, but are essentially "unsolvable" without the dissultion of private property and as you said yourself, should not be taking priority over the class struggle(the use of national sentiment to guide the worker to revolution however, contains the same priority as the class struggle as it only assist it)

one question, is there any other National Socialists on this forum? and by that i mean strasserites as well.

and what do you guys on this forum think of White Nationalists? i used to be one. but i found that trying to appeal to just one racial group even though they were the majority too hard. People would be turned off. i am anti multiculturalism as i see it as one of the death throes of the capitalist system, using cheap foreign workers instead of the local workers.

harry5518 wrote:one question, is there any other National Socialists on this forum? and by that i mean strasserites as well.

This is not a national socialist forum, nor is national socialism a welcome ideology outside of the Reactionaries sub-forum.

and what do you guys on this forum think of White Nationalists? i used to be one. but i found that trying to appeal to just one racial group even though they were the majority too hard. People would be turned off. i am anti multiculturalism as i see it as one of the death throes of the capitalist system, using cheap foreign workers instead of the local workers.

Due to the strong right-wing bias within the white nationalist community, along with the problems inherent to racial nationalism, most individuals here frown upon it, and if you consider yourself a genuine socialist, I recommend that you distance yourself from both Nazism and white nationalism.

harry5518 wrote:one question, is there any other National Socialists on this forum? and by that i mean strasserites as well.

and what do you guys on this forum think of White Nationalists? i used to be one. but i found that trying to appeal to just one racial group even though they were the majority too hard. People would be turned off. i am anti multiculturalism as i see it as one of the death throes of the capitalist system, using cheap foreign workers instead of the local workers.

I consider myself a National Socialist, mainly a strasserite.

The white nationalist movement is basically "National Capitalism" and shouldn't be considered as an actual ideology. The people on stormfront don't know anything about their "Idols".

Random789654 wrote:The white nationalist movement is basically "National Capitalism" and shouldn't be considered as an actual ideology.

In essence, National Socialism and Strasserism are fitting to the aforementioned category on practically all accounts. The latter simply put isn't as fanatical and dogmatic as the former.

please tell me what are the differences between National Socialism and National Bolshevism? it seems Nazbols are just a Russian variant of National Socialism.

i also would like to know what would be the differences between a Left Wing Nationalist, Socialist, National Socialist and National Bolshevist Government in a country? eg what would it be like to live there, etc

harry5518 wrote:please tell me what are the differences between National Socialism and National Bolshevism? it seems Nazbols are just a Russian variant of National Socialism.

Harry, there is a huge difference; especially if you follow Dugin's National Bolshevism which was properly expanded into "Fourth Political Theory" (I would highly suggest that book by the way). National Bolshevism is about Socialism and achieving social justice on the home front, but it is also about breaking down global liberal hegemony and ensuring the preservation of a wide variety of cultures and traditions (sometimes dubbed Eurasianism when dealing with geopolitics).

In Dugin's own words, National Bolshevism encompasses all the enemy's of "Karl Popper's Open Society", in other words, harmful liberal individualism, which includes free market anacrhism.

The big difference between the two is that "National Socialism" is reactionary, racist, and chauvinistic. Nothing more. At least in it's Hitlerian form. I should let you know I admire Otto Strasser though I do not identify as a Strasserite for a variety of reasons.