Hello Comrades!

Hello, Socialist Phalanx!!! After hovering around your forums for a few days I've decided to join and engage you all in conversation. It's not everyday I get to talk to nationalist socialists, its good to know they're out there.

As for the reasons for my introducing myself through the cosmopolitian forum. well I'm generally an internationalist, but not in the normal fashion. My internationalism is nationalist and ultimately imperialist in nature so I could've actually just as easily posted elsewhere, but I felt this forum was the most appropriate for my intro.

My username is pretty much a summary of my thoughts, I'm very fond of Socialism aswell as Fascism (which from my point of view is simply a variant of Socialism), I am in fact a very recent ex-Fascist. Even as a Fascist, I felt an intense connection to Socialism and that will never cease.

I welcome question about my position on various issues, come at me bros.

Hello and welcome to the forum. I feel as though I should mention that internationalism and cosmopolitanism are not the same thing. Almost everyone here is an internationalist and internationalism is not a restrictable view. It's good that you are moving away from fascism but I think that you have some to learn about socialism and the brand of nationalism associated with this site.

Also, I like your avatar.

What do you think of Democracy?

Welcome, even though I severely disagree with much of what you believe, and therefore due to some of your ideological contradictions, I am inclined to ask: Do you support the maintenance of private property, or not? You have not made your view of this fundamental element clear to us.

Hello, Crimson Fasces.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I'm perplexed as to why you would consider imperialism, state socialism, or fascism to be justifiable concepts. If you could respond with an explanation, I would appreciate it.

Red Aegis wrote:Hello and welcome to the forum. I feel as though I should mention that internationalism and cosmopolitanism are not the same thing. Almost everyone here is an internationalist and internationalism is not a restrictable view. It's good that you are moving away from fascism but I think that you have some to learn about socialism and the brand of nationalism associated with this site.

Also, I like your avatar.

What do you think of Democracy?

Thanks, I feel the Phoenix is yet another expession of my inner thoughts about society.I feel at times the State must die and return from the dead, it to me is a personification of tradition and revolution. It will always be what it is, but it dies when its body becomes decadent, and it's reborn still a Phoenix, with a new body and greater wisdom.

That is one of the reasons for my brake with Fascism Proper, I've come to believe that democracy in some form is the optimium manner of implementing the Fascist idea of the organic state, not totalitarianism.

Well, I'd prefer for there to be a Semi-Presidental System with a bicameral legislature. The upper house being representative like our house of reps, and the lower one being more like a corporative camber like with Novo Estado Portugal. The lower house would be mostly an advisory body, with very little, if any power.

Egalitarian wrote:Welcome, even though I severely disagree with much of what you believe, and therefore due to some of your ideological contradictions, I am inclined to ask: Do you support the maintenance of private property, or not? You have not made your view of this fundamental element clear to us.

Yes, I don't believe in the complete abolition of private property or private enterprise, as I don't find either to be inherently in opposition to Socialism. I believe a system can be created and maintained that can allow for workplace democracy and public ownership of the means of production without eliminating the profit motive.

Celtiberian wrote:Hello, Crimson Fasces.

You seem like a reasonable person, so I'm perplexed as to why you would consider imperialism, state socialism, or fascism to be justifiable concepts. If you could respond with an explanation, I would appreciate it.

Well, for one I agree with Fascism and State Socialism that the State is a moral good and that it should have a powerful hand in shaping the organization of the nation.

I must also go deeper into what I believe should happen. As an American, I feel that we are the most techologically, militarily, and socially advanced civilization and as such we have an obligation to shape the world in our image while moving it in the direction of unification with us. I believe in the creation in a World State centered around a socialist United States......in essence I desire for the world to become part of the United States, but first I believe we as a nation must ourselves become Socialist.

What do you think Socialism is exactly? Without looking it up, what do you think it is?

Red Aegis wrote:What do you think Socialism is exactly? Without looking it up, what do you think it is?

Well, I feel that Socialism stands for ensuring that the means of production are the collective property of the people and that as many people as possible are incorporated into the national system (i.e enfranchisement).

If everyone has equal ownership of the means of production then how would there be a corporate structure?

Red Aegis wrote:If everyone has equal ownership of the means of production then how would there be a corporate structure?

I hate that word....equal....yuck.

Private cooperations could still exist within a Socialist framework alongside collectives/syndicates. I think that a way for there to be workplace democracy as well as give the owner of the private firm his/her due would be to divide onwership of the company into shares. The founder/founders would have 50% of the shares with the workers collectively sharing the other 50%, this would give both the workers and owners a part of the decision making process. Of course workers could be promoted according to their work, but they'd all still have the same share and voice weight.

You support something along the lines of all big businesses being like WalMart in that their employees usually have stock?

Red Aegis wrote:You support something along the lines of all big businesses being like WalMart in that their employees usually have stock?

Meh, something along those lines, but with the workers having actually influence and say in policy making roughly equivalent to that of the owners. I'm also supportive of cooperatives functioning in the economy as well.

Crimson Fasces wrote:I've come to believe that democracy in some form is the optimium manner of implementing the Fascist idea of the organic state, not totalitarianism.

Fascism was never about allowing an "organic state" to materialize. On the contrary, it was about molding the citizenry into conformity with the state. The views of the Italian fascist ideologue Alfredo Rocco demonstrate this quite clearly:

"Rocco viewed the entire development of modern history in light of reactionary thought as a process of disintegration of the State's central power and the dissolution of society. Ever since the Lutheran Reformation through the logical and coherent development of society's atomistic evolution according to naturalism, liberalism, and democracy through socialism was, according to Rocco a single uninterrupted path toward anarchy, the victory of individual interests or of entire groups over the superior interests of the State whose fundamental attributes were being questioned: power and absolute sovereignty. . . Basically, according to Rocco, there was a necessary logical development from liberalism to democracy, to socialism and their differences consisted only in the methods and means to reach the common goal, namely the welfare and happiness of single individuals living at a given time.

. . .He [Rocco] wanted a maximum expansion of capitalism to serve the State's power and a total regimentation of the masses into the labor organizations that were recognized as the institutions in the service of the State to transmit the will of those in power from above to the lower echelons for a rapid and efficient response. All of social life was to be organized for maximum productivity within the sphere of the State that was to re-conquer its sovereignty, its decision-making power and authority. Fascism came out of the need to react to the disintegration of central power and was destined to fulfill that task."
Gentile, Emilio, The Origins of Fascist Ideology, 1918-1925, pp. 327, 329.

Since, as the above passage illustrates, the fascists were concerned with the people serving the state (as opposed to the way around), it departs from the socialist tradition in a very profound sense. Moreover, the central tenet of fascism, class collaborationism, renders any notion of 'organic community' farcical.

the lower one being more like a corporative camber like with Novo Estado Portugal.

A corporative chamber, by definition, is a representative body of corporative enterprises. Yet corporativism is fundamentally at odds with state socialism, which is what I thought you now advocate..

Yes, I don't believe in the complete abolition of private property or private enterprise, as I don't find either to be inherently in opposition to Socialism. I believe a system can be created and maintained that can allow for workplace democracy and public ownership of the means of production without eliminating the profit motive.

Your second sentence negates the first. You're in favor of "public ownership of the means of production," yet believe in "private enterprise"? If what you're promoting is a system of workers' self-management which maintains the profit motive, you're basically a proponent of market syndicalism, not state socialism—the latter being a centrally planned system of state ownership and management of the means of production and distribution.

Well, for one I agree with Fascism and State Socialism that the State is a moral good and that it should have a powerful hand in shaping the organization of the nation.

The state does not possess intrinsic value, as it's merely an institutional arrangement which is utilized to facilitate governance and economic coordination. In other words, to claim it as a "moral good" is to fetishize it (and to denigrate morality itself).

As an American, I feel that we are the most techologically, militarily, and socially advanced civilization and as such we have an obligation to shape the world in our image while moving it in the direction of unification with us.

That's an utter non sequitur. Even if it could somehow be objectively proven that the United States is "the most technologically, militarily, and socially advanced civilization" (which it cannot), that wouldn't somehow justify forcing foreign nations into conformity with our culture or annexing them into our territorial boundaries. That's analogous to the intellectually bankrupt arguments used by the proponents of Manifest Destiny.

Omg, this is gonna be fun, my intellect hasn't been challenged like this in forever. This is exactly the mental excerise I need to solidify my ideology.

Celtiberian wrote:Fascism was never about allowing an "organic state" to materialize. On the contrary, it was about molding the citizenry into conformity with the state. The views of the Italian fascist ideologue Alfredo Rocco demonstrate this quite clearly:

"Rocco viewed the entire development of modern history in light of reactionary thought as a process of disintegration of the State's central power and the dissolution of society. Ever since the Lutheran Reformation through the logical and coherent development of society's atomistic evolution according to naturalism, liberalism, and democracy through socialism was, according to Rocco a single uninterrupted path toward anarchy, the victory of individual interests or of entire groups over the superior interests of the State whose fundamental attributes were being questioned: power and absolute sovereignty. . . Basically, according to Rocco, there was a necessary logical development from liberalism to democracy, to socialism and their differences consisted only in the methods and means to reach the common goal, namely the welfare and happiness of single individuals living at a given time.

. . .He [Rocco] wanted a maximum expansion of capitalism to serve the State's power and a total regimentation of the masses into the labor organizations that were recognized as the institutions in the service of the State to transmit the will of those in power from above to the lower echelons for a rapid and efficient response. All of social life was to be organized for maximum productivity within the sphere of the State that was to re-conquer its sovereignty, its decision-making power and authority. Fascism came out of the need to react to the disintegration of central power and was destined to fulfill that task."
Gentile, Emilio, The Origins of Fascist Ideology, 1918-1925, pp. 327, 329.

Since, as the above passage illustrates, the fascists were concerned with the people serving the state (as opposed to the way around), it departs from the socialist tradition in a very profound sense. Moreover, the central tenet of fascism, class collaborationism, renders any notion of 'organic community' farcical.

Hmm, I've never read any of Rocco's works, but from the text you provide he isn't representive of the whole of Fascist thought. To me he seems to belong to the strain of Fascist thought that began drifting away from the philosophy's roots in Socialism, those that became state worshippers and capitalist/reactionary collaborationists. Most of my reading on Fascist and Proto-Fascist thought is of the National Syndicalist variety (Sorel, Maurras, D'Annunzio, Ambris) as well as Strasser's and Mosley's texts in addition to the run-of-the-mill Mussolini and Hitler stuff, so the likes of Rocco and others like him had almost no influence on my developement as a Fascist. There are variants of Fascism that were for a transparent state apparatus responsible to the people.

Also, class collaboration is the only realistic solution. As I often remind other Socialists, workers =/= the people. Pandering to one social class is inherently anti-socialist, society must commodate the entirety of the people.

A corporative chamber, by definition, is a representative body of corporative enterprises. Yet corporativism is fundamentally at odds with state socialism, which is what I thought you now advocate..

Yes, I'm supportive of corporativism, but I concider myself State Socialist in the sense that I believe the State should still play an active part in the national economy (i.e Dirigisme/Subsidization, welfare, public education, nationalized heathcare)

Your second sentence negates the first. You're in favor of "public ownership of the means of production," yet believe in "private enterprise"? If what you're promoting is a system of workers' self-management which maintains the profit motive, you're basically a proponent of market syndicalism, not state socialism—the latter being a centrally planned system of state ownership and management of the means of production and distribution.

Well, I have only very tentatively labeled myself as a "State Socialist" as I don't actually know what the hell I am, but it seemed the closest to what I was thinking. As I stated earlier in this post, I've read ALOT of National Syndicalist literature and I actually wouldn't be suprised if I were some sort of Syndicalist.But I support basic industries (utilites, public transport, healthcare, welfare) being nationalized and under state direction.

The state does not possess intrinsic value, as it's merely an institutional arrangement which is utilized to facilitate governance and economic coordination. In other words, to claim it as a "moral good" is to fetishize it (and to denigrate morality itself).

The State is society's greatest tool for facilitating law, order,and justice. In this instance I view the state in the same manner as National Socialists, it exists for the sole purpose of servicing the people(the volk) and maintaining their continued progress and advancement. Without the State, the vital tool, humanity has difficulty in sustaining a purpose, order, and sophistication.

That's an utter non sequitur. Even if it could somehow be objectively proven that the United States is "the most technologically, militarily, and socially advanced civilization" (which it cannot), that wouldn't somehow justify forcing foreign nations into conformity with our culture or annexing them into our territorial boundaries. That's analogous to the intellectually bankrupt arguments used by the proponents of Manifest Destiny.

Well, I see it this way, there is no arguing with reality. The ways of the western world ( which is primarily driven by our culture and trends) have proven over the last few decades to be funtionally superior to the backwards habits of the easterners and third worlders (though I admit that some of it was due to colonization).

There, however, is only so much one can blame on colonialism, the imperial age of the Europeans is decades dead, yet many of those nations who gained freedom refuse to follow a progressive line of conduct.

I therefore propose that a new sort of imperial conquest be initated. we should conquer those culturally inferior nations and invest in their industrial and human resource developement through an aggressive public education of their ignorant masses and by government subsidization, basically reforming their culture and economy into a modernized/westernized one.

Crimson Fasces wrote:I hate that word....equal....yuck.

Why? Surely you realize that there is a significant difference between equality of condition and the notion of equality in genetic endowment. Historically, socialists and communists have sought the former, while largely dismissing the latter as being unrealistic. Vladimir Lenin summarized the matter well when he argued,

"When one says that experience and reason testify that men are not equal, then one understands under 'equality' the equality of abilities or the equivalence of bodily strength and mental capacities of men. It is quite obvious that in this sense men are not equal. No single reasonable man and no single socialist ever forgets this.

When socialists speak of equality, they understand thereby social equality, the equality of social position, but not at all the equality of physical and mental abilities of individual persons."
Lenin, Vladimir, Lenin: Collected Works, p. 137.

Private cooperations could still exist within a Socialist framework alongside collectives/syndicates.

Aside from being politically destabilizing in practice, you are undermining the very foundation of socialist theory with such a proposal. In other words, by preserving elements of capitalism, your conception of socialism reduces to a mere consequentialist position, thus ceding matters of deontological ethics to clever bourgeois philosophers. You cannot condemn capitalism for being exploitative, for instance, if you're willing to allow the perpetuation of exploitation (however limited) under socialism.

I think that a way for there to be workplace democracy as well as give the owner of the private firm his/her due would be to divide onwership of the company into shares. The founder/founders would have 50% of the shares with the workers collectively sharing the other 50%, this would give both the workers and owners a part of the decision making process. Of course workers could be promoted according to their work, but they'd all still have the same share and voice weight.

So essentially democratized ESOPs, or a more participatory variant of the German co-determination (Mitbestimmung‎) policy.. What makes you think that capitalists—whom you're theoretically permitting to retain upwards of 50% of ownership in enterprises—will content themselves with this arrangement for long? After all, they would possess the means and incentive to overturn any state ordinance which forced them into sharing ownership or management with their workforce.

I've never read any of Rocco's works, but from the text you provide he isn't representive of the whole of Fascist thought. To me he seems to belong to the strain of Fascist thought that began drifting away from the philosophy's roots in Socialism, those that became state worshippers and capitalist/reactionary collaborationists.

You're basically describing the entire early fascist intellectual milieu. Rocco himself had initially been a Marxist, but he came to adopt the very same revisionist theories (e.g., the proletarian nation hypothesis) which led every other socialist-turned-fascist to reaction. Étatisme has been fascism's philosophical raison d'etre since the very beginning.

Most of my reading on Fascist and Proto-Fascist thought is of the National Syndicalist variety (Sorel, Maurras, D'Annunzio, Ambris) as well as Strasser's and Mosley's texts in addition to the run-of-the-mill Mussolini and Hitler stuff, so the likes of Rocco and others like him had almost no influence on my developement as a Fascist.

Georges Sorel's most useful writings were published when he was still very much a Marxian syndicalist—his later nationalistic theories were inane twaddle; Charles Maurras's only lasting legacy was his role in the ignoble distortion of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's work in "le Cercle Proudhon"; Gabriele D'Annunzio was little more than a crackpot writer; the National so-called "Syndicalists" (such as Alceste De Ambris) had betrayed the working class and syndicalist movement even before entering the National Fascist Party; and the Strasser brothers' "socialism" was merely reactionary Left-corporativism. As for Oswald Mosley, the most radical phase of his political career was during his brief promotion of "European Socialism," but most people are unaware of just how tentative his short-lived syndicalist proposals actually were:

"The tradition of the medieval guilds in England, of the Hanseatic League and the syndicalism of the Latin countries was much nearer to my thinking at that time, and I returned to it in my European Socialism during the 1950s, when I proposed a workers' ownership of industries already nationalised, and, in the event of their success, the extension of the principle to other fully developed industries; measures accompanied both by vigorous encouragement of a completely emancipated private enterprise in all remaining industries and also by a reversion to private enterprise in cases where workers' ownership failed; a pragmatic method implementing the test of practical results."
Mosley, Oswald, My Life, p. 145 (bold emphasis added).

He died an advocate of milquetoast dirigisme, just as he had began.

There are variants of Fascism that were for a transparent state apparatus responsible to the people.

There were several fascists who used such rhetoric in their propaganda, certainly.

Also, class collaboration is the only realistic solution. As I often remind other Socialists, workers =/= the people. Pandering to one social class is inherently anti-socialist, society must commodate the entirety of the people.

I don't think you understand what socialists mean by the term "class." In short, we're referring to one's relationship to the means of production. Within capitalism, there are only two economic classes: the bourgeoisie and proletariat; the former own the means of production, while the latter possess only their labor power. Socialists seek the abolition of class society by collectivizing exploitative property (thereby liquidating the bourgeoisie). Fascists, on the other hand, theorized that, with appropriate institutional reforms and ideological conditioning, both classes could be made to collaborate with one another. In practice, of course, no collaboration was achieved and fascism revealed itself as the instrument of bourgeois oppression which Marxists had always accused it of being:

"In theory, the corporations were supposed to regulate economic relations between employers and employees, but in practice the tentacles of the Fascist dictatorship made this impossible. Mussolini, in fact, remained at the very centre of the decision-making process, which weakened the autonomy of the corporations. All discussions in the National Council of Corporations had to be approved by him, and corporation regulations could only be made effective by decrees from the Duce, which were rarely forthcoming.

Mussolini was supposed to be enthusiastic about the Corporate State, but the corporations remained ultimately toothless because whereas the employers were fully represented, the workforce was not. Representatives of the working class in the corporations were usually Fascist Party bureaucrats or Ministry of Corporations officials who had no real contact with the shop floor or village. In a similar fashion Bottai's 'Charter of Labour', which was supposed to focus on labour relations and social issues, proved to be a sad disappointment for those syndicalists of the Rossoni era who had seen the Corporate State as a means of eradicating class tensions and regulating capitalism.

Employers in Confindustria were gratified that the corporations did not involve them in any kind of centralised Soviet-style planning machanism. Neither were the Fascist syndicates represented at the shop-floor level in the way that free trade unions were represented by shop stewards. In fact, the syndicates continued to be an instrument for the coercion of a working class which was penalised if it dared to strike, and which suffered severe wage cuts between 1930 and 1934."
Neville, Peter, Mussolini, pp. 112- 113 (bold emphasis added).

Yes, I'm supportive of corporativism, but I concider myself State Socialist in the sense that I believe the State should still play an active part in the national economy (i.e Dirigisme/Subsidization, welfare, public education, nationalized heathcare)

All states "play an active part in the national economy," there's nothing inherently socialistic about that. By the criteria you listed, all of the Western European capitalist welfare states would qualify as being "state socialist."

Well, I have only very tentatively labeled myself as a "State Socialist" as I don't actually know what the hell I am, but it seemed the closest to what I was thinking.

If you don't support a centrally planned economy consisting of state-owned and managed enterprises, you're simply not a state socialist.

As I stated earlier in this post, I've read ALOT of National Syndicalist literature and I actually wouldn't be suprised if I were some sort of Syndicalist.But I support basic industries (utilites, public transport, healthcare, welfare) being nationalized and under state direction.

You're only a syndicalist insofar as you support workers' self-management in collectively-owned firms. Incidentally, even your irresolute promotion of that places you far ahead of the National "Syndicalists," who instead came to detest the very notion of workers controlling the means of production (see this post for more on that).

The State is society's greatest tool for facilitating law, order,and justice. In this instance I view the state in the same manner as National Socialists, it exists for the sole purpose of servicing the people(the volk) and maintaining their continued progress and advancement. Without the State, the vital tool, humanity has difficulty in sustaining a purpose, order, and sophistication.

The merits (or lack thereof) of the state vary between time and space. Moreover, to claim that "justice" has been attained by any hitherto existing state is just ludicrous. In fact, the state has thus far been used primarily as an instrument of class oppression. With respect to the National Socialists in particular, their idea of "servicing the people" consisted of systematically eliminating whatever groups (political or racial) the party arbitrarily deemed "undesirable." Not exactly what I'd call 'great.'

The ways of the western world ( which is primarily driven by our culture and trends) have proven over the last few decades to be funtionally superior to the backwards habits of the easterners and third worlders (though I admit that some of it was due to colonization).

When asked what he thought of Western civilization, Mahatma Gandhi once responded: "I think it would be a very good idea." Before belittling unsophisticated, technologically backwards nations, it's advisable to note the horrendous acts of brutality and oppression our country is still committing across the globe. No informed, honest person can seriously believe that we're any more "civilized" than the hunter-gatherer tribes we regularly disparage. If anything, we're even less so, because we've developed a level of weaponry which is capable of annihilating the entire human species, whereas the most damage they can do is perhaps spear a few rival tribes the death. (To say nothing of the ecological devastation we're responsible for.)

There, however, is only so much one can blame on colonialism, the imperial age of the Europeans is decades dead, yet many of those nations who gained freedom refuse to follow a progressive line of conduct.

Colonialism never ended, comrade, it merely changed forms. As for countries failing to "follow a progressive line of conduct," that's primarily attributable to the bourgeois government of the United States of America. Virtually every time a nation in the global south has attempted to increase the welfare of its citizenry through redistributive and democratic reforms, our government is quick to respond by subverting their development and installing barbaric dictators who ensure a "healthy business climate" for our investors. I recommend consulting Noam Chomsky's writings on international relations for further details.

I therefore propose that a new sort of imperial conquest be initated. we should conquer those culturally inferior nations and invest in their industrial and human resource developement through an aggressive public education of their ignorant masses and by government subsidization, basically reforming their culture and economy into a modernized/westernized one.

It is not up to us to forcefully and paternalistically offer undeveloped nations our tutelage at the expense of their own sovereignty. A lot can be achieved through fair trade, technological transmission, and so forth, but the only ethical manner by which to enter into these relationships is through free association and self-determination.

Crimson Fasces wrote:
I therefore propose that a new sort of imperial conquest be initated. we should conquer those culturally inferior nations and invest in their industrial and human resource developement through an aggressive public education of their ignorant masses and by government subsidization, basically reforming their culture and economy into a modernized/westernized one.

Could have been penned by Adolf himself. Thieves always find a reason for their crime.

Isakenaz wrote:Could have been penned by Adolf himself. Thieves always find a reason for their crime.

Not really, what I'm advocating isn't exploitative conquest, but incorporative conquest. I seek to integrate the whole of their nations (the people, the economy, the culture) into that of our own, their countries shall become American States and the people will become American citizens with every right herein.

BTW, I'm working on a response to your post Celt.

Celtiberian wrote:Why? Surely you realize that there is a significant difference between equality of condition and the notion of equality in genetic endowment. Historically, socialists and communists have sought the former, while largely dismissing the latter as being unrealistic. Vladimir Lenin summarized the matter well when he argued,

"When one says that experience and reason testify that men are not equal, then one understands under 'equality' the equality of abilities or the equivalence of bodily strength and mental capacities of men. It is quite obvious that in this sense men are not equal. No single reasonable man and no single socialist ever forgets this.

When socialists speak of equality, they understand thereby social equality, the equality of social position, but not at all the equality of physical and mental abilities of individual persons."
Lenin, Vladimir, Lenin: Collected Works, p. 137.

Fair enough, but alot of typical socialist rhetoric has a "everyone must the same" tinge to it, at least to me.

Aside from being politically destabilizing in practice, you are undermining the very foundation of socialist theory with such a proposal. In other words, by preserving elements of capitalism, your conception of socialism reduces to a mere consequentialist position, thus ceding matters of deontological ethics to clever bourgeois philosophers. You cannot condemn capitalism for being exploitative, for instance, if you're willing to allow the perpetuation of exploitation (however limited) under socialism.

I don't find my proposals to be potentially destabilzing nor undermining to the inherent goals of Socialism. You also haven't fully understood with manner in which I view "morality" and "ethics". I essentially believe that any consequentially benefitical practices (the only things I concider "right") should become the deontological duty of the people through a process of simultaneous normalization and legalization. Also, regarding my view of Capitalism....I see it as a tool, like an attack/guard dog. Capitalism is useful, but it must be housebroken and kept in line, and it must be kept on a leash because if allowed to run loose it might eat your children. It is a means of achieving economic efficiency, it is not an end in itself. I think the simplist manner of expressing my take on it is the I'm almost the opposite of a Social Democrat, they wish to maintain a fundementally capitalist system augmented with socialist constructs, I wish to create a fundementally socialist system augmented with capitalist constructs.

So essentially democratized ESOPs, or a more participatory variant of the German co-determination (Mitbestimmung‎) policy.. What makes you think that capitalists—whom you're theoretically permitting to retain upwards of 50% ownership of firms—will content themselves with this arrangement for long? After all, they would possess the means and incentive to overturn any state ordinance which forced them into sharing ownership or management with their workforce.

Yes exactly, Co-determination is basically what I'm going for. 50% was simply a number I through out there for the sake of argument, wouldn't have to be 50% to the "owner". The owners wouldn't have any choice but to except the arrangement, as if they tried to subvert the format they risk being voted out of the company by the workers, or the state would intervene.

You're basically describing the entire early fascist intellectual milieu. Rocco himself had initially been a Marxist, but he came to adopt the very same revisionist theories (e.g., the proletarian nation hypothesis) which led every other socialist-turned-fascist to reaction. Étatisme has been fascism's philosophical raison d'etre since the very beginning.

I suppose you're correct on this point about Fascism, but that is mostly from the period they'd actually began referring to themselves as Fascists instead of Marxists or Syndicalists onward.

Georges Sorel's most useful writings were published when he was still very much a Marxian syndicalist—his later nationalistic theories were inane twaddle; Charles Maurras's only lasting legacy was his role in the ignoble distortion of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's work in "le Cercle Proudhon"; Gabriele D'Annunzio was little more than a crackpot writer; the National so-called "Syndicalists" (such as Alceste De Ambris) had betrayed the working class and syndicalist movement even before entering the National Fascist Party; and the Strasser brothers' "socialism" was merely reactionary Left-corporativism. As for Oswald Mosley, the most radical phase of his political career was during his brief promotion of "European Socialism," but most people are unaware of just how tentative his short-lived syndicalist proposals actually were:

"The tradition of the medieval guilds in England, of the Hanseatic League and the syndicalism of the Latin countries was much nearer to my thinking at that time, and I returned to it in my European Socialism during the 1950s, when I proposed a workers' ownership of industries already nationalised, and, in the event of their success, the extension of the principle to other fully developed industries; measures accompanied both by vigorous encouragement of a completely emancipated private enterprise in all remaining industries and also by a reversion to private enterprise in cases where workers' ownership failed; a pragmatic method implementing the test of practical results."
Mosley, Oswald, My Life, p. 145 (bold emphasis added).

He died an advocate of milquetoast dirigisme, just as he had began.

I agree on all points, they all eventually betrayed Socialism, but they nonetheless pointed out important flaws within the Socialist Movement and attempted to correct them in practice.

I don't think you understand what socialists mean by the term "class." In short, we're referring to one's relationship to the means of production. Within capitalism, there are only two economic classes: the bourgeoisie and proletariat; the former own the means of production, while the latter possess only their labor power. Socialists seek the abolition of class society by collectivizing exploitative property (thereby liquidating the bourgeoisie). Fascists, on the other hand, theorized that, with appropriate institutional reforms and ideological conditioning, both classes could be made to collaborate with one another. In practice, of course, no collaboration was achieved and fascism revealed itself as the instrument of bourgeois oppression which Marxists had always accused it of being:

"In theory, the corporations were supposed to regulate economic relations between employers and employees, but in practice the tentacles of the Fascist dictatorship made this impossible. Mussolini, in fact, remained at the very centre of the decision-making process, which weakened the autonomy of the corporations. All discussions in the National Council of Corporations had to be approved by him, and corporation regulations could only be made effective by decrees from the Duce, which were rarely forthcoming.

Mussolini was supposed to be enthusiastic about the Corporate State, but the corporations remained ultimately toothless because whereas the employers were fully represented, the workforce was not. Representatives of the working class in the corporations were usually Fascist Party bureaucrats or Ministry of Corporations officials who had no real contact with the shop floor or village. In a similar fashion Bottai's 'Charter of Labour', which was supposed to focus on labour relations and social issues, proved to be a sad disappointment for those syndicalists of the Rossoni era who had seen the Corporate State as a means of eradicating class tensions and regulating capitalism.

Employers in Confindustria were gratified that the corporations did not involve them in any kind of centralised Soviet-style planning machanism. Neither were the Fascist syndicates represented at the shop-floor level in the way that free trade unions were represented by shop stewards. In fact, the syndicates continued to be an instrument for the coercion of a working class which was penalised if it dared to strike, and which suffered severe wage cuts between 1930 and 1934."
Neville, Peter, Mussolini, pp. 112- 113 (bold emphasis added).

I understand the concepts of the bourgeoisie and proletariat socio-economic classes and their relationship with eachother perfectly. Where we are disagreeing with eachother is to what extent that "classlessness" can be functionally acheived. I simply don't see how society can work if all people are relegated to the status of being a mere worker, that is impossible, their must be hierarchy, managers and subordinates. Class Collaboration is the closest to Classlessness that can be functionally implement without turning everyone into ambitionless drones.

Additionally, I agree that the Fascists didn't uphold their own principles, and became basically state capitalists and pandered to the bourgeosie.

All states "play an active part in the national economy," there's nothing inherently socialistic about that. By the criteria you listed, all of the Western European capitalist welfare states would qualify as being "state socialist."


If you don't support a centrally planned economy consisting of state-owned and managed enterprises, you're simply not a state socialist.


You're only a syndicalist insofar as you support workers' self-management in collectively-owned firms. Incidentally, even your irresolute promotion of that places you far ahead of the National "Syndicalists," who instead came to detest the very notion of workers controlling the means of production (see this post for more on that).

Point taken.

The merits (or lack thereof) of the state vary between time and space. Moreover, to claim that "justice" has been attained by any hitherto existing state is just ludicrous. In fact, the state has thus far been used primarily as an instrument of class oppression. With respect to the National Socialists in particular, their idea of "servicing the people" consisted of systematically eliminating whatever groups (political or racial) the party arbitrarily deemed "undesirable." Not exactly what I'd call 'great.'

I agree for much of history the state has been abusive, but the state in conjunction with nationalism have also helped propel humanity forward in technological and social developement without the State as a protector, such advancement wouldn't be possible. Without the state we'd be like cavemen.

As I stated my view of the state's purpose is very much in line with what you've stated are the policies the National Socialists supported. I do believe it is the States duty to weedout undesireable and destructive cultural and social elements from society, this is a good process.

When asked what he thought of Western civilization, Mahatma Gandhi once responded: "I think it would be a very good idea." Before belittling unsophisticated, technologically backwards nations, it's advisable to note the horrendous acts of brutality and oppression our country is still committing across the globe. No informed, honest person can seriously believe that we're any more "civilized" than the hunter-gatherer tribes we regularly disparage. If anything, we're even less so, because we've developed a level of weaponry which is capable of annihilating the entire human species, whereas the most damage they can do is perhaps spear a few rival tribes the death. (To say nothing of the ecological devastation we're responsible for.)


Colonialism never ended, comrade, it merely changed forms. As for countries failing to "follow a progressive line of conduct," that's primarily attributable to the bourgeois government of the United States of America. Virtually every time a nation in the global south has attempted to increase the welfare of its citizenry through redistributive and democratic reforms, our government is quick to respond by subverting their development and installing barbaric dictators who ensure a "healthy business climate" for our investors. I recommend consulting Noam Chomsky's writings on international relations for further details.


It is not up to us to forcefully and paternalistically offer undeveloped nations our tutelage at the expense of their own sovereignty. A lot can be achieved through fair trade, technological transmission, and so forth, but the only ethical manner by which to enter into these relationships is through free association and self-determination.

I agree that colonialism has continued in the form of "neo-colonialism" and such, but that is the nature of capitalism and thus the United States and the other capitalists engage in exploitative imperialism.

Again, my perception of proper imperialism is much different than the Capitalist variety, which seek it to benefit only the initiator. I believe conquest can be a mutually uplifting operation, the conquering state will have more resources (natural and human), while the conquered state has the advantage of being incorporated into the progressive socio-economic system of its conquerer. Both would absorb beneficial thoughts from eachother and mutually progress. Ultimately, national sovereignity/determination, individualism, and "freedom"....mean nothing to me if they don't advance the human condition or its standard of living. Anything that hinders progress must be irraticated.

Crimson Fasces wrote:Fair enough, but alot of typical socialist rhetoric has a "everyone must the same" tinge to it, at least to me.

There are certainly a few naïve individuals who identify as socialists or communists that occasionally employ rhetoric suggesting that people are 'equal' in their innate potential, but they are not representative of the Marxist tradition in general. Again, the egalitarianism we espouse pertains solely to economic and political equality.

Also, regarding my view of Capitalism....I see it as a tool, like an attack/guard dog. Capitalism is useful, but it must be housebroken and kept in line, and it must be kept on a leash because if allowed to run loose it might eat your children.

In other words, your view of capitalism is indistinguishable from that held by progressives. But if you don't consider the system to be intrinsically exploitative, the question which logically follows is: why even consider yourself a socialist?

It is a means of achieving economic efficiency, it is not an end in itself.

First of all, "efficiency" is inherently subjective. Secondly, we Marxists do believe that labor should be viewed as an end in itself. For example, if appropriately organized, labor can enable people to achieve a degree of self-realization which they're incapable of attaining through bourgeois social relations. Moreover, capitalism cannot provide humanity with a rational balance of leisure and work, and the only (arguable) "value" it's compilable with is that of possessive individualism.

I think the simplist manner of expressing my take on it is the I'm almost the opposite of a Social Democrat, they wish to maintain a fundementally capitalist system augmented with socialist constructs, I wish to create a fundementally socialist system augmented with capitalist constructs.

You may be to the Left of contemporary Social Democrats, but the original Social Democratic movement sough the eventual abolition of the capitalist mode of production—though they believed this would be achieved via an evolutionary political process, as opposed to revolution.

50% was simply a number I through out there for the sake of argument, wouldn't have to be 50% to the "owner".

If not to the owner, than to whom?

The owners wouldn't have any choice but to except the arrangement, as if they tried to subvert the format they risk being voted out of the company by the workers, or the state would intervene.

The workers wouldn't have the ability to vote them out of the company if they owned 50% of the enterprise. And the problem with the idea of state interventionism is that regulators, and the politicians who appoint them, are susceptible to corruption. It's a mistake to view the state as an autonomous entity outside of and above the economy; in reality, its primary function is to advance the interests of whichever class happens to be dominant at a given time. So, if you allow inequality to persist within your ideal "socialist" system, you're essentially equipping a class of individuals hostile to socialist objectives with the means by which to advance reactionary interests—hence why I warned of the political instability such a policy would inevitably generate. If you doubt me, I encourage you to look no further than Venezuela to observe the immense difficulties which beset countries that attempt to maintain elements of capitalism whilst reorganizing sectors of the economy on a socialist basis. History verifies that if you're serious about transforming the system, concessions cannot be made with the bourgeoisie.

I suppose you're correct on this point about Fascism, but that is mostly from the period they'd actually began referring to themselves as Fascists instead of Marxists or Syndicalists onward.

That is factually incorrect. As I said in my previous post, the National "Syndicalists" had betrayed the working class and syndicalist movement before identifying as fascists.

they all eventually betrayed Socialism, but they nonetheless pointed out important flaws within the Socialist Movement and attempted to correct them in practice.

Such as?

Where we are disagreeing with eachother is to what extent that "classlessness" can be functionally acheived. I simply don't see how society can work if all people are relegated to the status of being a mere worker, that is impossible, their must be hierarchy, managers and subordinates.

Once again, semantics are preventing you from comprehending the socialist position. Classlessness doesn't entail the entire population becoming manual workers, or what have you. Eliminating the bourgeoisie—who perform the wholly passive function of providing their capital in the process of production—wouldn't mean that other 'white-collar' professions would also be eliminated. Teachers, doctors, managers, state functionaries, etc. are themselves part of the working class, only they occupy subsumed class positions (unlike direct producers). As for "hierarchy," syndicalism is organized horizontally because that is the only way to overcome the exploitation of man by man. That isn't to say, however, that authority would be absent. Mikhail Bakunin explained the distinction quite sufficiently in the following passage:

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give—such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."
Bakunin, Mikhail, God and the State, pp. 32-33.

Class Collaboration is the closest to Classlessness that can be functionally implement without turning everyone into ambitionless drones.

I couldn't disagree more. Once the bourgeoisie has been dispensed with, classlessness will be achieved. The lesser intraclass divisions (e.g., that between the coordinator class and workers employed in disempowering jobs) are much easier to manage within a socialist mode of production than would be any attempt to maintain the bourgeoisie alongside an expanding syndicalist sector. If you're arguing that a functional economy fundamentally requires a bourgeois class, I'm perfectly willing to have that debate with you in a more appropriate thread.

without the State as a protector, such advancement wouldn't be possible. Without the state we'd be like cavemen.

It depends on how you define a "state." Some mechanism for regulating social relations will probably always be necessary to an extent, but humanity may not require many of the institutions which characterize the modern state indefinitely. (I'm not interested in pursuing such speculative discussions here, though.)

As I stated my view of the state's purpose is very much in line with what you've stated are the policies the National Socialists supported. I do believe it is the States duty to weedout undesireable and destructive cultural and social elements from society, this is a good process.

And who, pray tell, is to determine what qualifies as the "undesirable and destructive cultural and social elements" in society? The National Socialists murdered, imprisoned, and suppressed whoever and whatever the Führer arbitrarily deemed 'bad for Germany.' Is that what you seek to emulate? Sane people are generally agreed that, with the exception of regulations for social and economic negative externalities, individual freedom (be it in speech, sexual relations, religion, or association) should not be obstructed by the state.

I believe conquest can be a mutually uplifting operation, the conquering state will have more resources (natural and human), while the conquered state has the advantage of being incorporated into the progressive socio-economic system of its conquerer.

But you're still not providing a rational justification for why you believe it's ethically permissible to subjugate foreign populations. Claiming that they would benefit in some capacity doesn't qualify as a reasonable response because that's entirely subjective. Neither you, nor any government, is endowed with the incontestable right to unilaterally decide what is or isn't in the interest of foreign peoples. If you believe your culture is superior in some manner to those practiced elsewhere, the morally appropriate action is to persuade them that they should adopt customs akin to your own, not to conqueror them 'for their own good.'

Crimson Fasces wrote:Not really, what I'm advocating isn't exploitative conquest, but incorporative conquest. I seek to integrate the whole of their nations (the people, the economy, the culture) into that of our own, their countries shall become American States and the people will become American citizens with every right herein.

I think you'll find the British Empire held a similar position, and we all know how that turned out. Empires throughout time have held the idea of their being culturaly superior and as a result best suited to rule, Usualy they fall into decadence and are destroyed by the 'other' cultures they thought themselves superior to.

But to be fair some Americans have a reputation for believing the whole world wants to be like them.

Isakenaz wrote:I think you'll find the British Empire held a similar position, and we all know how that turned out. Empires throughout time have held the idea of their being culturaly superior and as a result best suited to rule, Usualy they fall into decadence and are destroyed by the 'other' cultures they thought themselves superior to.

But to be fair some Americans have a reputation for believing the whole world wants to be like them.

The British were Capitalists and the "civilizing mission" was only a propaganda ploy to advance the interests of big business and military industrialists. I plan to actually implement a legitimate mission of incorporative and civilizing conquest.

Crimson Fasces wrote:The British were Capitalists and the "civilizing mission" was only a propaganda ploy to advance the interests of big business and military industrialists. I plan to actually implement a legitimate mission of incorporative and civilizing conquest.

Call it what you like, many have put 'pleasing' spins on thievery in the past. "Civilising conquest" isn't that how Spain once described the rape of the Inca and the Aztec civilisations?

I had several reasons to dislike the term left-wing nationalism, but the biggest was its attraction to fascists in desperate search for a makeover to give them an aura of acceptability.

Celtiberian wrote:There are certainly a few naïve individuals who identify as socialists or communists that occasionally employ rhetoric suggesting that people are 'equal' in their innate potential, but they are not representative of the Marxist tradition in general. Again, the egalitarianism we espouse pertains solely to economic and political equality.

I can agree with that, I suppose.

In other words, your view of capitalism is indistinguishable from that held by progressives. But if you don't consider the system to be intrinsically exploitative, the question which logically follows is: why even consider yourself a socialist?

Upon further thought, I may have been confusing terms. I believe myself described support of limited "capitalism" is actually support for a market (I think). I believe that my interpretation of labor relations within a syndicate was mistaken, as meaning making everyone a manual laborer. I think that this has for the most part eliminated my argument in favor of fascist style corporatism, well played.

But, I have yet another inquiry on this matter. What do you think of lone entrepreneurship like if a person ran in online business out of their home for profit on the side?

First of all, "efficiency" is inherently subjective. Secondly, we Marxists do believe that labor should be viewed as an end in itself. For example, if appropriately organized, labor can enable people to achieve a degree of self-realization which they're incapable of attaining through bourgeois social relations. Moreover, capitalism cannot provide humanity with a rational balance of leisure and work, and the only (arguable) "value" it's compilable with is that of possessive individualism.

I find this conclusion to be true, I agree.

You may be to the Left of contemporary Social Democrats, but the original Social Democratic movement sough the eventual abolition of the capitalist mode of production—though they believed this would be achieved via an evolutionary political process, as opposed to revolution.

That is a fair statement, the original Social Democrats, I admit, were much further to the left than myself. I do however agree with them on the point of gradual transition to Socialism, I'm not opposed to revolution if the political climate is right for it though.

If not to the owner, than to whom?

Like I said, 50% is only a number I provided for as an arguing point, it probably wouldn't be the working percentage of such an arrangement. I personally think the working number should be in the range of 20% to 45%.

The workers wouldn't have the ability to vote them out of the company if they owned 50% of the enterprise. And the problem with the idea of state interventionism is that regulators, and the politicians who appoint them, are susceptible to corruption. It's a mistake to view the state as an autonomous entity outside of and above the economy; in reality, its primary function is to advance the interests of whichever class happens to be dominant at a given time. So, if you allow inequality to persist within your ideal "socialist" system, you're essentially equipping a class of individuals hostile to socialist objectives with the means by which to advance reactionary interests—hence why I warned of the political instability such a policy would inevitably generate. If you doubt me, I encourage you to look no further than Venezuela to observe the immense difficulties which beset countries that attempt to maintain elements of capitalism whilst reorganizing sectors of the economy on a socialist basis. History verifies that if you're serious about transforming the system, concessions cannot be made with the bourgeoisie.

Good points, but I still believe that the state would occasionally need to intervene in order to break gridlock in any predominately syndicalist or syndicalistesque system.

That is factually incorrect. As I said in my previous post, the National "Syndicalists" had betrayed the working class and syndicalist movement before identifying as fascists.

I'm still not totally convinced of this, I don't feel the Fascist Movement as a whole betrayed Socialism. And the ones that did, I believe did it much later into the movement.

Such as?

Utopianism, Liberalism, Anti-Statism/Anarchism.

Once again, semantics are preventing you from comprehending the socialist position. Classlessness doesn't entail the entire population becoming manual workers, or what have you. Eliminating the bourgeoisie—who perform the wholly passive function of providing their capital in the process of production—wouldn't mean that other 'white-collar' professions would also be eliminated. Teachers, doctors, managers, state functionaries, etc. are themselves part of the working class, only they occupy subsumed class positions (unlike direct producers). As for "hierarchy," syndicalism is organized horizontally because that is the only way to overcome the exploitation of man by man. That isn't to say, however, that authority would be absent. Mikhail Bakunin explained the distinction quite sufficiently in the following passage:

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give—such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination."
Bakunin, Mikhail, God and the State, pp. 32-33.

Point taken.

I couldn't disagree more. Once the bourgeoisie has been dispensed with, classlessness will be achieved. The lesser intraclass divisions (e.g., that between the coordinator class and workers employed in disempowering jobs) are much easier to manage within a socialist mode of production than would be any attempt to maintain the bourgeoisie alongside an expanding syndicalist sector. If you're arguing that a functional economy fundamentally requires a bourgeois class, I'm perfectly willing to have that debate with you in a more appropriate thread.

If, I'm understanding correctly, this would effectively be absorbing the Bourgeoisie into the Proletariat......basically making class collaboration and "classlessness" functionally the same thing?

It depends on how you define a "state." Some mechanism for regulating social relations will probably always be necessary to an extent, but humanity may not require many of the institutions which characterize the modern state indefinitely. (I'm not interested in pursuing such speculative discussions here, though.)

I don't agree, I believe the State will only become more complex as humanity evolves socially and technologically.

And who, pray tell, is to determine what qualifies as the "undesirable and destructive cultural and social elements" in society? The National Socialists murdered, imprisoned, and suppressed whoever and whatever the Führer arbitrarily deemed 'bad for Germany.' Is that what you seek to emulate? Sane people are generally agreed that, with the exception of regulations for social and economic negative externalities, individual freedom (be it in speech, sexual relations, religion, or association) should not be obstructed by the state.

Well a democratic socialist society would make the concept of the Organic State a reality, and with the people and state essentially being one it would be up to the People to decide what is socially permissable and the State will reflect their mindset. I believe behaviors and practices that are detrimental to the cohesiveness and prosperity of society as a whole becomes apparent to humanity in time, history proves what works and what doesn't.

For example, I think Liberalism and its allies (Pro-abortion, LBGTQ, Feminazis) are going to eventually lose their crusade against morality.....but that is a topic for another thread, which I shall make.

But you're still not providing a rational justification for why you believe it's ethically permissible to subjugate foreign populations. Claiming that they would benefit in some capacity doesn't qualify as a reasonable response because that's entirely subjective. Neither you, nor any government, is endowed with the incontestable right to unilaterally decide what is or isn't in the interest of foreign peoples. If you believe your culture is superior in some manner to those practiced elsewhere, the morally appropriate action is to persuade them that they should adopt customs akin to your own, not to conqueror them 'for their own good.'

I see it this way, if you live in a pleasant neighborhood and then hoodrats start moving in and causing all the problems associated with them (undisciplined children, gang violence, vandalism) this makes everyone's situation worse. So basically you must get rid of them, evict them from the area.

The states of those inferior nations are like hoodrats/gangsters and their people are like the neglected and undisciplined children that get caught in the crossfire. I feel we must alleviate the world of this problem.

Crimson Fasces wrote:Upon further thought, I may have been confusing terms. I believe myself described support of limited "capitalism" is actually support for a market (I think).

I see. It's crucial to distinguish the market from capitalism when discussing economic philosophy, as the former precedes the latter by millenia. As Karl Marx explained in Capital Vol. 1 (p. 932), "Property in money, means of subsistence, machines, and other means of production, does not as yet stamp a man as a capitalist if the essential complement to these things is missing: the wage-labourer, the other man, who is compelled to sell himself of his own free will." Markets have functioned well without capitalists for generations, and there are currents of socialist, anarchist, and syndicalist thought which advocate retaining competitive markets for goods and services within post-capitalist society. (There are, of course, various problems inherent in markets which should give pause to revolutionaries contemplating economic models, but that's a separate issue.)

But, I have yet another inquiry on this matter. What do you think of lone entrepreneurship like if a person ran in online business out of their home for profit on the side?

The aforementioned socialists, anarchists, and syndicalists who favor maintaining certain markets are not opposed to self-employment, since wage laborers are not exploited in such a practice. I've not considered how self-employment might be incorporated (if at all) into economic planning, but I suspect there are socialist theoreticians who have.

That is a fair statement, the original Social Democrats, I admit, were much further to the left than myself. I do however agree with them on the point of gradual transition to Socialism, I'm not opposed to revolution if the political climate is right for it though.

I would hope that you don't hold any illusions regarding socialism being achieved by parliamentary procedure. The only reason liberal democracy is currently tolerated by the bourgeoisie is because it serves as the bulwark of property; the moment it ceases performing that function, it will undoubtedly be suspended. That isn't to say that reforms which assist labor in some capacity should be opposed, but rather that we should be realistic concerning their limitations.

The higher stage of communism will be attained via a gradual process which may well take decades or even centuries, but it will emerge from the lower stage of communism (i.e., socialism or syndicalism), and as a result of a contradiction arising between the forces and relations of production.

Like I said, 50% is only a number I provided for as an arguing point, it probably wouldn't be the working percentage of such an arrangement. I personally think the working number should be in the range of 20% to 45%.

My counterargument applies to any percentage you arbitrarily choose.

Good points, but I still believe that the state would occasionally need to intervene in order to break gridlock in any predominately syndicalist or syndicalistesque system.

Indeed.

I'm still not totally convinced of this, I don't feel the Fascist Movement as a whole betrayed Socialism. And the ones that did, I believe did it much later into the movement.

You clearly haven't read through the link I provided in my previous posts. Had you done so, you would have seen that the historical record is unambiguous on this matter. In order to fully comprehend the counterrevolutionary nature of National "Syndicalism" and proto-fascism, you need only study their response to the biennio rosso. Aside from the former group denouncing the working class as being "undisciplined" for rebelling against their oppressors instead of "collaborating" with them, this was also when Mussolini formed the Blackshirts and directed them to destroy trade union and peasant organizations, burn down the offices of socialist and communist newspapers, and suppress the factories which workers had expropriated from the bourgeoisie. Mind you, this occurred two years prior to the March on Rome, so it's not as though the Fascist betrayal of socialism was the result of elements of the bureaucracy negotiating with reactionary forces after Mussolini had assumed power. Like the Nazis, the Fascists occasionally referred to their corporativist doctrine as a 'new form of socialism,' but this was merely an abuse of language.

Utopianism, Liberalism, Anti-Statism/Anarchism.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had already exposed the flaws in Utopian, liberal, and anarchist thought decades before the idea of fascism even existed, and they did so far more accurately and persuasively than any fascist philosopher ever has. In fact, the fascist criticisms against those concepts were entirely without merit.

If, I'm understanding correctly, this would effectively be absorbing the Bourgeoisie into the Proletariat......basically making class collaboration and "classlessness" functionally the same thing?

I'm afraid you're not understanding the profound extent by which they differ. Yes, the bourgeoisie will be reincorporated into the working class following the proletarian revolution, but this cannot be described as "class collaboration." Classlessness requires that an entire class be abolished and dispossessed, whereas class collaborationism presupposes the existence of both classes—otherwise how would they collaborate? You can't collaborate with yourself. Simply put, class collaborationism is an idealist theory whereby the contending social classes are supposed to think of themselves as being 'equal' only insofar as their obligation to the state is concerned; they remain materially unequal. Such 'equality' is illusory and does absolutely nothing to resolve the central injustices of capitalism.

I don't agree, I believe the State will only become more complex as humanity evolves socially and technologically.

When Marxists speak of the state, we're referring to something other than what most people envision. So when we refer to the probability of statelessness, it must be understood in the following way:

"What Marx hoped would wither away in communist society was not the state in the sense of a central administration. Any complex modern culture would require this. In fact, Marx writes in the third volume of Capital, with this point in mind, of 'common activities arising from the nature of all communities.' The state as an administrative body would live on. It is the state as an instrument of violence that Marx hopes to see the back of. As he puts it in the Communist Manifesto, public power under communism would lose its political character. Against the anarchists of his day, Marx insists that only in this sense would the state vanish from view. What had to go was a particular kind of power, one that underpinned the rule of a dominant social class over the rest of society. National parks and driving test centres would remain. . . . [P]olice, law courts, prisons [and] even paramilitary squads [are indispensable]. The latter, for example, might prove necessary if a gang of terrorists armed with chemical or nuclear weapons was on the loose, and the more tender-minded species of left-winger had better acknowledge the fact.
Eagleton, Terry, Why Marx Was Right, pp. 196-198.

For example, I think Liberalism and its allies (Pro-abortion, LBGTQ, Feminazis) are going to eventually lose their crusade against morality.....but that is a topic for another thread, which I shall make.

In other words, you believe that irrationality will triumph over reason and logic? Apparently I have a higher opinion of humanity than you do. The majority of the West (the southeastern United States notwithstanding) understands the importance of protecting individual freedom, that women should be endowed with the same rights as men, and that abortion isn't 'murder.' So, contrary to what Traditionalists may think, I seriously doubt we will witness a renaissance of the Dark Ages when capitalism is abolished.

I see it this way, if you live in a pleasant neighborhood and then hoodrats start moving in and causing all the problems associated with them (undisciplined children, gang violence, vandalism) this makes everyone's situation worse. So basically you must get rid of them, evict them from the area.

The states of those inferior nations are like hoodrats/gangsters and their people are like the neglected and undisciplined children that get caught in the crossfire. I feel we must alleviate the world of this problem.

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible analogy. The "hoodrats," as per your example, would literally be moving into your neighborhood and therefore affecting your daily life. Primitive peoples live in territories isolated from developed countries and in no way affect the affairs of said countries. They are harming no one, and will (justifiably) resist any attempt to force them into conformity with foreign cultures.

Furthermore, you should know that your imperial vision has no prospect whatsoever of being realized. People are simply not going to risk their lives, or those of their children, traveling the world in an attempt to bring "civilization" to backward populations, unless they are coerced or psychologically manipulated into doing so.