Introductions

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.

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

National Bolshevism is what I would call the "halfway point" between National Socialism and Strasserism; it is slightly less fascistic than the former and slighter more than the latter. (I base this opinion on the observation of the National Bolshevik Party's program. Various National Bolshevik perspectives may and will probably vary.)

Left-wing Nationalist and Revolutionary Socialist society will be free of bourgeois hierarchy resulting in a proletarian civilization based on mending wealth disparities and allowing the worker to be remunerated adequately for his labour without having to be concerned about foreign profit by means of owning the productive machinery in common.

National Socialism and National Bolshevism has been and will be the opposite of the aforesaid way of life; a dictatorship of capital protected by authoritarian sentinels wherein the working class is coerced into a force of lumpenproletariat that serves a dogmatic imperialist.

Egalitarian wrote:National Socialism and National Bolshevism has been and will be the opposite of the aforesaid way of life; a dictatorship of capital protected by authoritarian sentinels wherein the working class is coerced into a force of lumpenproletariat that serves a dogmatic imperialist.

Not quite sure where you got your idea of National Bolshevism at, but, it's wrong.

Pantheon Rising wrote: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.

And as i National Socialist i do want to protect my own culture and traditions, and not at the expense of other cultures. i dont want the preservation of my culture to harm others. and i dont want a national socialist state to degenerate into a fascist state where you have little freedom for the individual.

I'm only here so I can try to find rational far-left discourse rather than the things I've seen on other websites and from other groups, although I'm often shunned on left-wing forums for my beliefs (naturally) but I can't say I don't enjoy it. This website seems to have far more rational intelligence than other leftsites I've been on, so here I am.

This is just some basic introduction but questions are welcome.

Random789654 wrote: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".

The people on Stormfront don't know anything about their idols or the ideology they preach but the entire white nationalist movement being dumbed down to a 'national capitalist' state? lol, that seems foolish & too broad. The white nationalist movement doesn't just encompass stereotypical right-wing individuals; the white nationalist movement encompasses quite a few types of ideology throughout individuals. "White nationalism" just means 'desire for white nation'. I don't see how that instantly promotes Capitalism.

For that matter - it seems like you just wanted to call something that's opposite to your own 'Capitalism'. It reminds me of Orwell saying that Fascism simply becomes whatever the reader dislikes. White nationalism IS an ideology, but it's an umbrella ideology that can be adopted by various platforms. Platform, is actually a better name for it. It's obviously third positionist politics in most instances.

To call an ideology which doesn't even HAVE economic implications or even geopolitical implications on a heavy scale at its' core "national capitalist" makes no sense. If you had white nationalists promoting Capitalism, then yes, you'd have national capitalists. I've not met too many white nationalist that would outright promote Capitalism or anything similar.

Hello. I'm having a hard time not giving you a hard time. I'll try to be civil though. Why would you think that people would not be extremely hostile when you have a nazi swastica in your signature?

Welcome, I use to be very influenced by National Socialism as well before becoming a National Bolshevik/Fourth Political Theorist. I noticed you are from the USA. As a lot of fascists like to rant on about how class collaboration is one of their main goals, do you actually propose class collaboration with the American Bourgeoisie?

All American Protectorate wrote:The people on Stormfront don't know anything about their idols or the ideology they preach but the entire white nationalist movement being dumbed down to a 'national capitalist' state?

Whether they claim to espouse capitalism or not, the entire "White Nationalist" movement is entirely stupid and irrelevant because of their completely materialist conception of "white" independent of cultural, psychological, and spiritual factors. Not to mention their absurd obsessions with RaHoWas.

The sole criteria for nationhood was never, and will never be how "white" one is. Instead; A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

All American Protectorate wrote:I'm only here so I can try to find rational far-left discourse rather than the things I've seen on other websites and from other groups, although I'm often shunned on left-wing forums for my beliefs (naturally) but I can't say I don't enjoy it. This website seems to have far more rational intelligence than other leftsites I've been on, so here I am.

This is just some basic introduction but questions are welcome.

Welcome to the Socialist Phalanx.

Given your ideological disposition, your account is hereby restricted. We therefore insist that you confine your contributions to the Opposing Views section. If you have any questions regarding your restriction, please consult the following statement on the matter: Restrictions and Bannings .

The swastika in your signature has been removed, due to its blatant violation of forum policy. You are also required to immediately change your avatar to something that corresponds with our guidelines before it is unilaterally removed.

Fascists, like yourself, are more than welcome to debate with our membership, provided your conduct is civil and corresponds with the forum's policies.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Welcome, I use to be very influenced by National Socialism as well before becoming a National Bolshevik/Fourth Political Theorist. I noticed you are from the USA. As a lot of fascists like to rant on about how class collaboration is one of their main goals, do you actually propose class collaboration with the American Bourgeoisie?

The American bourgeoisie has become its' own beast entirely. Although I vocally promote class collaboration in the United States, I cannot honestly believe that the American bourgeoisie can be collaborated with by anyone without an extreme "reshuffling" and "recreation" of the American bourgeoisie. It has become a fat & gluttonous beast; the only way you can tame a beast that large is by making it a bit smaller first. It's basically eaten away at American industry, the American economy, and the American middle-class..pretty severely.(although that certainly isn't the only source of our woes.)

Red Aegis wrote:Hello. I'm having a hard time not giving you a hard time. I'll try to be civil though. Why would you think that people would not be extremely hostile when you have a nazi swastica in your signature?

I DO expect hostility, contrary to what you may believe, but I expect RATIONAL hostility; not the trollish nonsense I've had left-wing nerds hurl at me on other websites. That's not enlightening, nor does it make your ideological value look very high - it's just funny.

Admin wrote:Welcome to the Socialist Phalanx.

Given your ideological disposition, your account is hereby restricted. We therefore insist that you confine your contributions to the Opposing Views section. If you have any questions regarding your restriction, please consult the following statement on the matter: Restrictions and Bannings .

The swastika in your signature has been removed, due to its blatant violation of forum policy. You are also required to immediately change your avatar to something that corresponds with our guidelines before it is unilaterally removed.

Fascists, like yourself, are more than welcome to debate with our membership, provided your conduct is civil and corresponds with the forum's policies.

Understood completely. Avatar changed; citizen Mosley should be more acceptable for you. I certainly intended to remain in the opposing views forum anyway. Thank you.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Whether they claim to espouse capitalism or not, the entire "White Nationalist" movement is entirely stupid and irrelevant because of their completely materialist conception of "white" independent of cultural, psychological, and spiritual factors. Not to mention their absurd obsessions with RaHoWas.

The sole criteria for nationhood was never, and will never be how "white" one is. Instead; A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

I wasn't arguing the intellectual value of the white nationalist movement; I was arguing the concept of calling the entire movement a 'national capitalist' movement. That title is simply one of the most moronic things I have ever seen someone bestow upon the white nationalist movement and is in itself a complete backfire because, again, it's incredibly moronic.

Regarding the "white nationalist" movement as a whole - the only reason the white nationalist movement approaches things on such a broad scale is due to how the movement interprets itself - defender status. Most white nationalists fully believe the white race is doomed to extinction if we do not ramp up our reproduction to sustain our populations next to the rapidly growing minority populations in so-called "white" countries. I'm not saying this is true - I'm merely saying this is why. Thus, they promote a sort of 'caucasian unity' regardless of the boundaries built on nation-states.

For that matter, the movement exists because there is no such thing as a 'white country' anymore. Yes, you can argue that concept alone is invalid but the fact is in Europe the influx of immigrants has created a lack of cultural identity amongst some Europeans; whilst white nationalists here in America feel America has completely given up her original values as a nation. This isn't red land anymore. Fact.

All it's aiming for is the creation of a country for whites and no one else; I don't really see the issue in that past the fact that whites are not a race of complete identity. It's reactionary ideology espousing the desire for a country free of non-whites, without openly promoting hatred of non-whites. Yes, many white nationalists DO hate non-whites but that isn't the point. White nationalism in itself is no different than Africans saying Africa for Africans. You're overestimating the ideology because of the supremacist tendencies of the many who call themselves WN. White supremacy =/= white nationalism. They may go hand-in-hand, but for them to do so, they must first be separate. That's all there is to it. You overanalyzed it with nonsense strawman arguments like it was going to make some enlightening point on the "invalid" nature of white nationalism. It doesn't. You are completely missing the point of the WN movement, and why it exists, and why it hasn't always existed like it does now.

All American Protectorate wrote:I wasn't arguing the intellectual value of the white nationalist movement; I was arguing the concept of calling the entire movement a 'national capitalist' movement. That title is simply one of the most moronic things I have ever seen someone bestow upon the white nationalist movement and is in itself a complete backfire because, again, it's incredibly moronic.

How so? As a former white nationalist, I would say the overwhelming majority of white nationalists (ESPECIALLY Americans) openly say capitalism is their ideal system.

Regarding the "white nationalist" movement as a whole - the only reason the white nationalist movement approaches things on such a broad scale is due to how the movement interprets itself - defender status. Most white nationalists fully believe the white race is doomed to extinction if we do not ramp up our reproduction to sustain our populations next to the rapidly growing minority populations in so-called "white" countries. I'm not saying this is true - I'm merely saying this is why. Thus, they promote a sort of 'caucasian unity' regardless of the boundaries built on nation-states.

Obviously, white birth rates are lower than the growing minority populations, however their whole "caucasian unity" thing is something that hardly existed in the past and will almost never materialize in the present. I am mainly dealing with white nationalist solutions at this point.

This whole white people uniting to fight a race war is not only unethical, but also impractical. Smashing international capitalism will be enough to halt third world immigration, and yet white nationalists cheer on the system of their masters.

For that matter, the movement exists because there is no such thing as a 'white country' anymore. Yes, you can argue that concept alone is invalid but the fact is in Europe the influx of immigrants has created a lack of cultural identity amongst some Europeans; whilst white nationalists here in America feel America has completely given up her original values as a nation. This isn't red land anymore. Fact.

I admire the history of federalism and decentralization America has, and I think it should be used again when a new system is created, but just because something is used in the past doesn't mean it has justification at this moment in time. Many white nationalists get their strong support for capitalism due to their reverence of the founding fathers who were through and through classic liberals.

Immigration has been used by the ruling class in Europe and elsewhere to break down a people's identity absolutely, that doesn't justify a white nationalist attitude however.

All it's aiming for is the creation of a country for whites and no one else; I don't really see the issue in that past the fact that whites are not a race of complete identity. It's reactionary ideology espousing the desire for a country free of non-whites, without openly promoting hatred of non-whites. Yes, many white nationalists DO hate non-whites but that isn't the point. White nationalism in itself is no different than Africans saying Africa for Africans. You're overestimating the ideology because of the supremacist tendencies of the many who call themselves WN. White supremacy =/= white nationalism. They may go hand-in-hand, but for them to do so, they must first be separate. That's all there is to it. You overanalyzed it with nonsense strawman arguments like it was going to make some enlightening point on the "invalid" nature of white nationalism. It doesn't. You are completely missing the point of the WN movement, and why it exists, and why it hasn't always existed like it does now.

And you are totally wrong in ever believing that is ever going to happen and that a nation is just going to decide to kick out anyone that isn't white. Now, ethnic enclaves might be established and I support them, but they would have to operate in a greater federalism for reasons of practicality and cooperation. It is also unlikely that such enclaves would operate on the basis of kicking out anyone that isn't "white enough".

All American Protectorate wrote:The American bourgeoisie has become its' own beast entirely. Although I vocally promote class collaboration in the United States, I cannot honestly believe that the American bourgeoisie can be collaborated with by anyone without an extreme "reshuffling" and "recreation" of the American bourgeoisie. It has become a fat & gluttonous beast; the only way you can tame a beast that large is by making it a bit smaller first. It's basically eaten away at American industry, the American economy, and the American middle-class..pretty severely.(although that certainly isn't the only source of our woes.)

So what is your opinion on the so called "occupiers" then? Useless hippies or crusaders against the American bourgeois?

The white nationalist "movement" is a reactionary current whose brand of "socialism" (when it is not strictly national capitalist) reduces to a minimal Keynesian welfare state.

Immigration is a problem engendered by capitalism, and racial nationalism is a poorly conceived ideology founded upon a biologically antiquated categorical construct. Needless to say, its arbitrary reactionary preservationism is anathema to our left-wing nationalism, to say nothing of socialism.

Most of us are intimately familiar with the various ideological dispositions found within white nationalism. None of them are redeeming, and from a revolutionary socialist perspective, All American Protectorate, your attempt to portray them as significantly heterogeneous seems nothing more than a gross exaggeration. We are generally referring to actual existing white nationalism, not some abstract conception of such. Real WN is overwhelmingly pro-capitalist, and when it is not strictly so, it is almost always third positionist nonsense. If you wish to discuss the faults within white nationalist theory (e.g., its idealistic racial overtone), we can certainly do so. The very fact that "white nationalism" is an umbrella term underscores its lack of substance.

Pantheon Rising wrote:

All American Protectorate wrote:I wasn't arguing the intellectual value of the white nationalist movement; I was arguing the concept of calling the entire movement a 'national capitalist' movement. That title is simply one of the most moronic things I have ever seen someone bestow upon the white nationalist movement and is in itself a complete backfire because, again, it's incredibly moronic.

How so? As a former white nationalist, I would say the overwhelming majority of white nationalists (ESPECIALLY Americans) openly say capitalism is their ideal system.

Regarding the "white nationalist" movement as a whole - the only reason the white nationalist movement approaches things on such a broad scale is due to how the movement interprets itself - defender status. Most white nationalists fully believe the white race is doomed to extinction if we do not ramp up our reproduction to sustain our populations next to the rapidly growing minority populations in so-called "white" countries. I'm not saying this is true - I'm merely saying this is why. Thus, they promote a sort of 'caucasian unity' regardless of the boundaries built on nation-states.

Obviously, white birth rates are lower than the growing minority populations, however their whole "caucasian unity" thing is something that hardly existed in the past and will almost never materialize in the present. I am mainly dealing with white nationalist solutions at this point.

This whole white people uniting to fight a race war is not only unethical, but also impractical. Smashing international capitalism will be enough to halt third world immigration, and yet white nationalists cheer on the system of their masters.

For that matter, the movement exists because there is no such thing as a 'white country' anymore. Yes, you can argue that concept alone is invalid but the fact is in Europe the influx of immigrants has created a lack of cultural identity amongst some Europeans; whilst white nationalists here in America feel America has completely given up her original values as a nation. This isn't red land anymore. Fact.

I admire the history of federalism and decentralization America has, and I think it should be used again when a new system is created, but just because something is used in the past doesn't mean it has justification at this moment in time. Many white nationalists get their strong support for capitalism due to their reverence of the founding fathers who were through and through classic liberals.

Immigration has been used by the ruling class in Europe and elsewhere to break down a people's identity absolutely, that doesn't justify a white nationalist attitude however.

All it's aiming for is the creation of a country for whites and no one else; I don't really see the issue in that past the fact that whites are not a race of complete identity. It's reactionary ideology espousing the desire for a country free of non-whites, without openly promoting hatred of non-whites. Yes, many white nationalists DO hate non-whites but that isn't the point. White nationalism in itself is no different than Africans saying Africa for Africans. You're overestimating the ideology because of the supremacist tendencies of the many who call themselves WN. White supremacy =/= white nationalism. They may go hand-in-hand, but for them to do so, they must first be separate. That's all there is to it. You overanalyzed it with nonsense strawman arguments like it was going to make some enlightening point on the "invalid" nature of white nationalism. It doesn't. You are completely missing the point of the WN movement, and why it exists, and why it hasn't always existed like it does now.

And you are totally wrong in ever believing that is ever going to happen and that a nation is just going to decide to kick out anyone that isn't white. Now, ethnic enclaves might be established and I support them, but they would have to operate in a greater federalism for reasons of practicality and cooperation. It is also unlikely that such enclaves would operate on the basis of kicking out anyone that isn't "white enough".

a. I don't deny that many white nationalists claim capitalism as their preferred system. I've been on Stormfront, too, but I was merely saying that reducing an umbrella term to a singular term is both unreasonable & absolutely ridiculous. It'd be like me saying all Communists, are Stalinists. I was not arguing the core fact of the matter - just the generalization present IN the fact of the matter.

b. Totally wrong? I never said I believed in white nationalism, did I? In fact - at one point in my post, I specified "not that I believe in these things". I'm not a white nationalist. I find the concept impractical & absurd, but I'm not going to allow a generalization on the movement either. I know many so-called white nationalists, and not all of them claim to be the given identity to all of them by the generalization I saw earlier. I'm not a fan of generalizations, although I'll admit to making them at times.

c. It's not so much that the dissolution of European ethnic identity is a justification for white nationalism; it is that it is a justification for some sort of defense for your ethnic group as a whole from something foreign. Maintaining European culture. I'm not saying it justifies white nationalism or white supremacism, but it does justify defense of European culture, regardless of what 'type' of European culture it is.

Rev Scare wrote:The white nationalist "movement" is a reactionary current whose brand of "socialism" (when it is not strictly national capitalist) reduces to a minimal Keynesian welfare state.

Immigration is a problem engendered by capitalism, and racial nationalism is a poorly conceived ideology founded upon a biologically antiquated categorical construct. Needless to say, its arbitrary reactionary preservationism is anathema to our left-wing nationalism, to say nothing of socialism.

Most of us are intimately familiar with the various ideological dispositions found within white nationalism. None of them are redeeming, and from a revolutionary socialist perspective, All American Protectorate, your attempt to portray them as significantly heterogeneous seems nothing more than a gross exaggeration. We are generally referring to actual existing white nationalism, not some abstract conception of such. Real WN is overwhelmingly pro-capitalist, and when it is not strictly so, it is almost always third positionist nonsense. If you wish to discuss the faults within white nationalist theory (e.g., its idealistic racial overtone), we can certainly do so. The very fact that "white nationalism" is an umbrella term underscores its lack of substance.

a. I never once linked white nationalism to left-wing subjects. I don't believe for one second that white nationalism has any relation to leftism, because many white nationalists are virulently opposed to left-wing politics on the whole. Ones that I've met, at least, regardless of their individual classification; so don't bring up how it's anathema to your left-wing nationalism. That's something I already know, and never tried to argue or disprove. I hope you didn't get that implication & if you did, I don't know where.

b. You are generally referring to actual existing white nationalism, yes; something you yourself say in the last part of your post is an umbrella term therefore it's completely absurd to apply a singular ideology to the entire group. You have no definition of 'real white nationalism' if you're going to call it an umbrella term in the final part of your statement. An umbrella term has no singular ideological definition; white nationalists are people of many ideological breeds that I've met. I've even met some on the 'center', and no I'm not referring to third positionists either. You could call them fake, or idealistic, but it doesn't matter considering they're still white nationalists - just with a different ideology than you believe the majority of them to uphold. "Abstract conception" of such makes no sense; it's not an abstract conception when white nationalism has no specific ideological definition aside from 'white nation'. It makes no sense to outright say that any assertion that not all white nationalists are 'national Capitalists' or 'third positionists' is an 'abstract conception'. Trying to say so and then saying something about white nationalism being an umbrella term comes off as contradictory.

c. I never once gave support to white nationalism in my post; merely clarified on what it was against a generalization. I do not see how that automatically translates to 'I am a white nationalist'. I don't personally care what's "redeeming" to you, either. I'm merely remarking on the fact of the matter that trying to assert yourself as an 'expert' on an umbrella ideology is absolutely..well, stupid. I'm not an expert on it either, considering I haven't met every white nationalist. Being that it is an umbrella term - there are various interpretations of it corresponding to individual beliefs. Again - I've met white nationalists on other sides of the scale than 'third positionist" and 'national Capitalist'. Just because you haven't, doesn't mean anyone else hasn't either. Secondly - their interpretations of their own convictions in white nationalism varied individually based on their individual ideology. White nationalism was just apart of their individual ideology.

Pantheon Rising wrote:So what is your opinion on the so called "occupiers" then? Useless hippies or crusaders against the American bourgeois?

Idealistic hippies. The whole movement has become a joke for the first-class and a burden on some workers'. It's made no real difference & won't make any real difference aside from "revolutionary" Facebook posts, and "WE SHALL OVEERRRCOOOMMEE" choirs in the street. They are making no real impact on the American bourgeois; their methodology will NEVER make an impact on the American bourgeois.

I support some of their ideas, but the methodology? No, it's ineffective as far as I'm concerned.

All American Protectorate wrote:I don't deny that many white nationalists claim capitalism as their preferred system. I've been on Stormfront, too, but I was merely saying that reducing an umbrella term to a singular term is both unreasonable & absolutely ridiculous.

It's not "unreasonable" when referring to actually existing White Nationalism, as the participants in this thread are. The only thing that would be "absolutely ridiculous" would be to attempt to portray White Nationalists as being more ideologically heterogeneous than they really are. Technically speaking, you're correct insofar as the term 'White Nationalism' merely denotes one who advocates the formation of an exclusively Caucasian national territory, but why should that be of any relevance? The vast preponderance of political organizations which espouse White Nationalism today also support a utopian form of National Capitalism, and a minority of them advocate a rhetorically "anti-capitalist" type of Third Positionism.

Totally wrong? I never said I believed in white nationalism, did I?

No, but you are a self-identified "National Socialism," which (depending on how you define that term) is far worse. You don't strike me as a particularly genocidal or mentally unbalanced individual, so I'm curious as to why you consider such an irrational ideology worthy of advocating today.

It's not so much that the dissolution of European ethnic identity is a justification for white nationalism; it is that it is a justification for some sort of defense for your ethnic group as a whole from something foreign. Maintaining European culture. I'm not saying it justifies white nationalism or white supremacism, but it does justify defense of European culture, regardless of what 'type' of European culture it is.

The only threat to European (or any other) culture is international capitalism. Capitalism is a homogenizing force. Thus, if you're seriously concerned with resolving that issue, you should focus your energies toward assisting the proletariat succeed in the class struggle. This language of ethnic or cultural "defense," however, is inappropriate (especially if you're an American). Such terminology invokes the image of race war, which isn't at issue—malevolent races aren't the source of the problem, despite what the 'ZOG' conspiracy theorists would have you believe. What's at issue is an international system, whose epicenter is the United States of America, which cannot and will not abide anything which interferes with the bourgeoisie's ability to accumulate capital.

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.

National Socialism and National Bolshevism are both heterogeneous ideologies. The two main tendencies of the former are Strasserism (which has been discussed at length here and here) and Hitlerism (which has been discussed here). National Bolshevism is slightly more complex.

The progenitors of the term 'National Bolshevism' were actually the council communists Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim—who accepted the "proletarian nation" hypothesis of post-World War I Germany, which suggested to them that communism could be achieved in the country by way of class collaborationism—but very few contemporary National Bolsheviks adhere to this form of the ideology. Occasionally the nationalistic sentiments displayed by the Weimar-era KPD were/are described as instances of "National Bolshevism," though it would be fallacious to consider that to have represented an entire political tendency unto itself.

A more popular use of the term is derived from the reactionary Russian philosopher Nikolay Ustryalov, who developed a theory regarding the Bolsheviks which held that the new regime wouldn't remain legitimately internationalist or socialist for long since both ideologies were allegedly impracticable, and would instead come to fulfill the traditional (i.e., imperial) objectives of reactionary Russian nationalism. (Proponents of this conception of Russian National Bolshevism refer to it as the 'Third Rome' theory today.) Another current which used the term was a group of state socialists in Weimar-era Germany, led by Ernst Niekisch, who espoused a syncretic ideology which combined elements of the so-called 'conservative revolutionary' philosophy with utopian socialism. One faction of these National Bolsheviks—the Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists, headed by Karl Otto Paetel—were slightly more Marxian in orientation, though the extent of their class analysis was quite limited.

The National Bolshevism of the Russian National Bolshevik Party is more closely related to Ustryalov's Third Rome tendency, though Alexsander Dugin's eurasianist National Bolshevik Front also incorporates certain elements of the aforementioned German conservative revolutionary philosophy into its doctrine.

In my opinion, all hitherto existing forms of National Bolshevism are inane.

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

Simply put, left-wing nationalism is a political theory which contends that national identity is an enduring element of mankind's Gattungswesen, and therefore needs to be acknowledged by socialist activists and theorists, and channeled into avenues which assist in the development of socialism.

The rest of your question is too broad to sufficiently answer. You have to be more specific in what you mean by the terms socialism, National Socialism, and National Bolshevism.

Greetings comrades, i came here mainly because of the high level of the discussions. This seems to be the best place for revolutionary debates and for me, the most striking aspect, is the variety and flexibility of socialist tendencies the community accept. My personal political tendency is basically a Socialist Nationalism. I developed a political view derived from the National-Bolshevism which aims to be the ultimate enemy of the liberal order and the capitalist system. This ideology is very similar to Fascism in relation to methods and aplication (Totalitarian State; Corporativist-like social organization; State-oriented economy with tolerance to private property and free enterprise etc). I am also a nationalist and revolutionary/traditionalist oposed to pure materialist/marxist view of the history and man relationship. In short, i'm here to discuss and debate to improve and develop my and other similar political views.

(Sorry for the bad Inglish, i know how this is irritating, i'm not used to write as much as speech but i'll try my best)

Your English was perfect, so don't worry about it. Welcome to the forum! It would be interesting if you were to make a thread discussing your reason for supporting what you do and I would participate. Again, welcome.

well im going to have to say as a National Socialist is that i am exacting that. i am not a 'state capitalist' i am for socialist modes of production and labour. i dont beleive in private property. i dispise multiculurism and internationalism, as they are just tools for the globalists interests. i beleive in national identity and heritage, and the people should recognise where they come from and be proud of it. i am not fascist, i dont want to force my beliefs on other people. i do not want to exterminate minorites or anything like that.

harry5518 wrote:well im going to have to say as a National Socialist is that i am exacting that. i am not a 'state capitalist' i am for socialist modes of production and labour. i dont beleive in private property.

If you genuinely oppose private property and are in favor of a socialist mode of production, "National Socialism" is an inappropriate term to describe the political philosophy you espouse, as none of the tendencies associated with that label have ever sought to completely abolish capitalism.

i dispise multiculurism and internationalism, as they are just tools for the globalists interests.

There is a significant difference between bourgeois cosmopolitanism and socialist internationalism. The former advances "globalist interests," while left-wing nationalism is perfectly compatible with the latter.

i am not fascist, i dont want to force my beliefs on other people. i do not want to exterminate minorites or anything like that.

Very well, then I recommend reconsidering your affiliation with National Socialism.

All American Protectorate wrote:I'm only here so I can try to find rational far-left discourse rather than the things I've seen on other websites and from other groups, although I'm often shunned on left-wing forums for my beliefs (naturally) but I can't say I don't enjoy it. This website seems to have far more rational intelligence than other leftsites I've been on, so here I am.

This is just some basic introduction but questions are welcome.

As several comrades have already mentioned, unlike other leftist forums, we are fully capable of debating advocates of fascistic ideologies. Having once espoused such views myself, I'm intimately familiar with the factors which lead people to fascism and National Socialism. Much of the contemporary Left treats those on the far Right today as if they're inhumane, genocidal psychopaths unworthy of rational discourse; and while that may accurately describe a fragment of the neo-fascist movement, the vast majority of the individuals associated with such ideologies are, in my experience, ordinary people who simply possess a false understanding of history, biology, sociology, and economics. The so-called 'no platform policy' promoted by certain socialists and communists ultimately does more harm than good, because it allows harmful ideas to be perpetuated unchallenged.

I certainly hope that you will read our arguments carefully and continue to debate with us in a mature manner. As for questions, I'd be interested in reading your answers to the following:

1.) What tendency of National Socialism do you follow (e.g., Strasserism or Hitlerism), and what do you find appealing about it?
2.) Are you in favor of, or opposed to, capitalism?
3.) What are your thoughts on race?
4.) Do you believe in the Jewish conspiracy theory, as propounded by David Duke, Kevin MacDonald, Tomislav Sunić, et al.?
5.) How do you define nationalism?

All American Protectorate wrote:Idealistic hippies. The whole movement has become a joke for the first-class and a burden on some workers'. It's made no real difference & won't make any real difference aside from "revolutionary" Facebook posts, and "WE SHALL OVEERRRCOOOMMEE" choirs in the street. They are making no real impact on the American bourgeois; their methodology will NEVER make an impact on the American bourgeois.

I support some of their ideas, but the methodology? No, it's ineffective as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously we all have our own criticisms of that movement, but what have YOU done to bring the fight to the American Bourgeois? You do realize the American Bourgeois state as the prime vehicle of globalization, do you not?

All American Protectorate wrote:a. I don't deny that many white nationalists claim capitalism as their preferred system. I've been on Stormfront, too, but I was merely saying that reducing an umbrella term to a singular term is both unreasonable & absolutely ridiculous. It'd be like me saying all Communists, are Stalinists. I was not arguing the core fact of the matter - just the generalization present IN the fact of the matter.

As CeltIberian said, "White Nationalism" is rather heterogeneous, but even the ones who claim to oppose capitalism only support its replacement by some heavily state directed fascistic sort of economy.

b. Totally wrong? I never said I believed in white nationalism, did I? In fact - at one point in my post, I specified "not that I believe in these things". I'm not a white nationalist. I find the concept impractical & absurd, but I'm not going to allow a generalization on the movement either. I know many so-called white nationalists, and not all of them claim to be the given identity to all of them by the generalization I saw earlier. I'm not a fan of generalizations, although I'll admit to making them at times.

The point is, is that it was a rather accurate generalization.

c. It's not so much that the dissolution of European ethnic identity is a justification for white nationalism; it is that it is a justification for some sort of defense for your ethnic group as a whole from something foreign. Maintaining European culture. I'm not saying it justifies white nationalism or white supremacism, but it does justify defense of European culture, regardless of what 'type' of European culture it is.

It does justify a defense, everyone should work to preserve their culture and traditions, but the white nationalist methods are absurd and haven't worked in the past and will never work in the future. Every sane person should distance themselves from so called white nationalists methods.