Fascist Economic Theory and Revolutionary Socialism

I am a convert to National Bolshevism/National Communism from National Socialism. At no point did I identify as a fascist, however I recognise that fascism has quite a lot in common with Nazbolism and the old Yellow Socialism and NS, but I have seen so many people, both here and elsewhere, attack fascism and Strasserism. At the moment I remain neutral on the matter, but I am open to anyone willing to explain this issue and make their point on it. If Strasserism is illegitimate socialism, how? If fascism is a tool of capitalism and elitists, how? Namaste ^-^

ChristNatCom wrote:I recognise that fascism has quite a lot in common with Nazbolism and the old Yellow Socialism and NS

Actually, it doesn't. The only form of National Bolshevism which advocated anything resembling fascist economics (i.e., corporativism) was Nikolai Ustryalov's version, and there is a considerable amount of debate among historians and political scientists regarding whether or not Ustryalov's political philosophy legitimately constitutes National Bolshevism. The other two major tendencies of National Bolshevism advocated council communism and state socialism, respectively. Fritz Wolffheim and Heinrich Laufenberg represented the former faction, while Ernst Niekisch and Karl Otto Paetel represented the latter.

but I have seen so many people, both here and elsewhere, attack fascism and Strasserism.

Strasserism is unrelated to National Bolshevism from an economic perspective, though they both descend from the same "conservative revolutionary" philosophical tradition—with the exception of the Wolffheim-Laufenberg tendency, which was a derivative of Marxism.

To his credit, following Hitler's ascent to power, Niekisch rejected the philosophically bankrupt conservative revolutionary doctrine and returned to Marxism. Certain researchers speculate that this sudden change in Weltanschauung may have been somewhat opportunistic, however:

"After 1933 Niekisch reverted to historical materialism and ridiculed his former allies for believing that Old Prussia had been a Socialist State, when its real character had been feudal and patriarchal. After being freed from prison in 1945, Niekisch became a Professor in East Germany.

It has been argued that concepts such as 'the spirit of Postdam' and the 'totalitarian State' were used by Niekisch as symbols of moral behaviour, and that they meant something quite different from what Hitler believed in. Since Niekisch, unlike Hitler, never became Chancellor of the Reich or had the opportunity to put his ideas into practice, we have no material proof of this; but it is not easy to give him the benefit of the doubt."
Walter Laqueur, Young Germany: A History of the German Youth Movement (Piscataway: Transaction Publishers, 1984), pp. 182-183.

If Strasserism is illegitimate socialism, how? If fascism is a tool of capitalism and elitists, how?

Syndicalists reject Strasserism's philosophical basis and the economic model it endorses. The former, which Otto Strasser termed the "Triune Polarity," is derived from Spenglerian idealism, which is utter nonsense for all the reasons Marx and Engels explained in their various critiques of idealism. (Dialectical materialism is a more fruitful sociological methodology to employ.) The latter is objectionable because it features a rigid division of authority in the workplace and market allocations of resources—which engenders inequitable remuneration. In short, it preserves alienation and generates technocratic exploitation.

I've explained the reactionary nature of fascism elsewhere, but to briefly recapitulate: it maintains private property in the means of production, class society (and therefore capitalist exploitation), and market social relations. It was utilized by the bourgeoisie during a particularly tumultuous period of the class struggle for the purpose of suppressing proletarian radicalism, as the fascists' role in the biennio rosso and overthrow of the Bavarian Soviet Republic verifies.

Thanks for your input! I was aware of the differences in Strasserism's economic theory with National Bolshevism, but I recognised that, yes, we are all, in the conservative revolutionary wing, essentially going for the same thing outside of economics. I had been considering Strasserism at one point, but in all honesty it was the aesthetics of Nazbolism that brought me in before I started learning the nitty-gritty details of ideology and theory. But I want to be consistent, and I dont want to constantly jump around from one wing to another, so Im going to try and remain a Nazbol. I take it that you are a great fan of Marx; I admire him greatly for a number of things, apart from his attitude towards religion, but Im curious, is a Bolshevist/Communist better when he lists Marx as his patron saint? Or when he simply takes from Marx that which seems good, and ignores that which seems irreconcilable with his concrete persuasions? Lastly, could you briefly outline revolutionary Syndicalism and its philosophical basis for me? Thanks again; great food for thought.

ChristNatCom wrote:I had been considering Strasserism at one point, but in all honesty it was the aesthetics of Nazbolism that brought me in before I started learning the nitty-gritty details of ideology and theory.

I understand how aesthetics and painted pictures in our minds can have a large influence on what we are drawn to within politics. When I first got into politics and the left I called myself an anarcho-communist simply because it sounded and looked cool. Once you get past about 15 you sort of have to snap yourself out of that though.

But I want to be consistent, and I dont want to constantly jump around from one wing to another, so Im going to try and remain a Nazbol.

This is ridiculous. You don't have to assign a label to yourself, especially if it's to "try to remain" such and such a tendency. I don't call myself anything other than a socialist/communist because I still don't hold any solid views which deserve a label. If you try to maintain the label and mindset of a National Bolshevik for the sake of keeping a name then you're going to ignore logic that conflicts with your views.

Hmmm... Well Im still learning about Nazbolism; I dont pretend to have a complete understanding of the ins and outs of it, but so far I like what I see. And Ive thought before "What if I discover that elements of this ideology conflict with my views?" ...In that case I shall either amend my views, or, if I cannot, I shall amend the ideology itself to suit my taste. Also, I understand the importance of propaganda, aesthetics, and style, and so far it's, for me at least, the Nazbols who have the best of this. I fell in love with their flag, the black hammer and sickle inside the white sun on a red sky, and their whole 'Dieselpunk' style. In terms of what they actually believe, I like the fusion of revolutionary socialism with ethno-nationalism and the tinge of Orthodoxy that pervades the Russian and east-European movements especially, myself of course being a devout mystic Christian. I see Christ as the prophet of the Communist utopia, especially in his words to the wealthy man who wished to follow him "Go, sell all that you own, giving the money to the poor, then take up your cross and follow me." In all honesty there are very little things I actually own for myself. Almost all that I have was given through charity and love, and therefore it is not mine; I am simply borrowing it for a time. Private ownership by individuals is nonsense anyways, as no matter what, the time WILL come when either we die and lose all our 'possessions', or we lose what we have, or give it to someone else. Only God truly owns everything, but I digress... Specifically Im looking for a rebuttal of "class cooperation" and a direct definition of the philosophy of lib-leaning revolutionaries. Are they egalitarians? Do they desire global uniformity as opposed to diversity?

ChristNatCom wrote:Thanks for your input!

No problem.

I was aware of the differences in Strasserism's economic theory with National Bolshevism, but I recognised that, yes, we are all, in the conservative revolutionary wing, essentially going for the same thing outside of economics.

And therein lies the problem. What the conservative "revolutionaries" seek for society is a reversion to a bygone feudal age, which, apart from being characterized by completely unjust social relations, simply cannot occur. People are unwilling to return to being ignorant serfs, and it would require a considerable amount of technological and cultural regression if such an order actually were to materialize again.

I take it that you are a great fan of Marx; I admire him greatly for a number of things, apart from his attitude towards religion

Though Marx was undoubtedly an atheist, many of his followers have not been. Spiritual matters fall outside of the range of what the materialist dialectic addresses. Hence, when individual Marxists reject religion, it is for reasons that transcend their Marxism. As Terry Eagleton (himself a Catholic Marxist) argues, "Marxist materialism is not a set of statements about the cosmos, such as 'Everything is made out of atoms' or 'There is no God.' It is a theory of how historical animals function" [Terry Eagleton, Why Marx was Right (London: Yale University Press, 2011), p. 158]. Following in this vein, the Irish Marxist James Connolly wrote:

"Socialism is a bread and butter question. It is a question of the stomach; it is going to be settled in the factories, mines and ballot boxes of this country and is not going to be settled at the altar or in the church.

"That the question to be settled by Socialism is the effect of private ownership of the means of production upon the well-being of the race; that we are determined to have a straight fight upon the question between those who believe that such private ownership is destructive of human well-being and those who believe it to be beneficial, that as men of all religions and of none are in the ranks of the capitalists, and men of all religions and of none are on the side of the workers the attempt to make religion an issue in the question is an intrusion, an impertinence and an absurdity.

Personally I am opposed to any system wherein the capitalist is more powerful than God Almighty. You need not serve God unless you like, and may refuse to serve him and grow fat, prosperous and universally respected. But if you refuse to serve the capitalist your doom is sealed; misery and poverty and public odium await you."
James Connolly, Socialism Made Easy (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1909), Ch. 4.

According to Connolly, since Marxism does not claim to be a "repositor[y] of all truth," one cannot reject religion by way of Marxist theory alone.

but Im curious, is a Bolshevist/Communist better when he lists Marx as his patron saint? Or when he simply takes from Marx that which seems good, and ignores that which seems irreconcilable with his concrete persuasions?

Marx and Engels detested dogmatism, so, were they alive today, it would undoubtedly disturb them a great deal to witness certain individuals treating their work as one does Holy Writ. It's important to critically examine all theories and accept or reject their tenets as your reason dictates. You must also bear in mind that Marx was writing in the mid 19th century and, consequently, lacked access to the wealth of information which has been accumulated since then. Thus, while a broadly Marxist framework remains applicable to a variety of social processes (e.g., societal evolution, economics, class dynamics, ethics, and even evolutionary biology), it occasionally needs to be reinforced with new sources of information—one might think of the work James Connolly, John Maclean, and Otto Bauer did to provide Marxism with a more complete theory of nationality as an example.

Lastly, could you briefly outline revolutionary Syndicalism and its philosophical basis for me?

Revolutionary syndicalism is more of a method of activism than a distinct political philosophy. For instance, it stresses the primacy of direct action in advancing proletarian revolution, as opposed to the parliamentarism favored by other socialist tendencies. Individuals approach revolutionary syndicalism from a plurality of philosophical backgrounds, from Marxism to utilitarianism.

Economically, revolutionary syndicalism distinguishes itself from other tendencies by affirming the need for workers to directly control the means of production, distribution, and exchange. In other words, it adamantly rejects edinonachalie (single-person management) and other technocratic conceptions of socialism.

While I consider myself a conservative revolutionary, I reject the notion that we ought to return to the feudal ages and have something akin to a Caste system. I believe in the pursuit of equality, and having lords going about the land with far too much power and so little accountability is contradictory to the ends of communism. Now, when it comes to comrade Marx, as stated before I admire him greatly for his secular contributions. I will not toss the man's ideas out the door simply because he did not accept my god, but neither will I hail him as an infallible prophet. I suppose at this point I can put up an image of him on my wall without fear of retribution. Im just trying to see where Marx fits in to most comrade's minds, and it seems you and many others have a healthy view of the man. This would be similar to if the Buddha Sidhartha Guatama returned to earth to see that some venerate him as a god and treat his teachings as a new religion, which he would be horrified at, humble as he was.

ChristNatCom wrote:I was aware of the differences in Strasserism's economic theory with National Bolshevism, but I recognised that, yes, we are all, in the conservative revolutionary wing, essentially going for the same thing outside of economics.

Celtiberian wrote:And therein lies the problem. What the conservative "revolutionaries" seek for society is a reversion to a bygone feudal age, which, apart from being characterized by completely unjust social relations, simply cannot occur. People are unwilling to return to being ignorant serfs, and it would require a considerable amount of technological and cultural regression if such an order actually were to materialise.

No doubt many "Radical Traditionalists" believed some sort of übermensch or hereditary almost royal leaderships should lead society,however to quote Otto Strasser.

"I have castigated and repudiated the liberal illusion of human equality,I nevertheless ardently champion the doctrine that equality of oppertunity is essential".

Ottos views where greatly influenced by his time in the army,(especially in the ranks) during the First World War.For Enlisted men you made your way up the ranks by your ability as a soldier,Strasser did this and was commissioned but still held the view that the position he held in the officers mess should be a condition of excellence and not a condition of birth or class.He carried this thinking into politics and beloved everybody should start life equal and be given the same opportunity thus allowing the best people rise to the top.

ChristNatCom wrote:While I consider myself a conservative revolutionary, I reject the notion that we ought to return to the feudal ages and have something akin to a Caste system. I believe in the pursuit of equality, and having lords going about the land with far too much power and so little accountability is contradictory to the ends of communism.

The pursuit of equality directly conflicts with the conservative "revolutionary" Weltanschauung, which argues that equality is an unattainable and destructive cause. Its entire raison d'être is the preservation of hierarchical differentiation, its exponents merely disagree with the criteria the so-called "modern world" has chosen as a basis for hierarchy (many are even preposterous enough to claim that capitalism is too egalitarian). Thus, while some of them are critical of the dictatorship of capital, they nevertheless seek to replace it with a ruling aristocracy endowed with more "traditional" values.

You'd be hard pressed to find a Marxist who argues against the notion of positions of leadership being occupied by competent individuals, but we insist upon the participation and consent of the governed, which is where we differ with conservative revolutionaries on matters of polity—the latter typically preferring various forms of absolutism.

Now, when it comes to comrade Marx, as stated before I admire him greatly for his secular contributions. I will not toss the man's ideas out the door simply because he did not accept my god, but neither will I hail him as an infallible prophet. I suppose at this point I can put up an image of him on my wall without fear of retribution.

The reason I explained that spiritualism and Marxism are non-overlapping magisteria was to encourage you to further study and possibly even identify with the Marxist tradition—should you find it a sound theory—despite your religious affiliation. No man is infallible, but Marx's contributions to the fields of economics, sociology, and philosophy remain unsurpassed in the history of socialist thought. The conservative "revolutionary" doctrine, by contrast, has but a trivial relationship to socialism, and has contributed virtually nothing of value to any discipline. In short, it's an ideology for megalomaniacs and credulous masochists.

TheocWulf wrote:No doubt many "Radical Traditionalists" believed some sort of übermensch or hereditary almost royal leaderships should lead society,however to quote Otto Strasser.

"I have castigated and repudiated the liberal illusion of human equality,I nevertheless ardently champion the doctrine that equality of oppertunity is essential".

Ottos views where greatly influenced by his time in the army,(especially in the ranks) during the First World War.For Enlisted men you made your way up the ranks by your ability as a soldier,Strasser did this and was commissioned but still held the view that the position he held in the officers mess should be a condition of excellence and not a condition of birth or class.He carried this thinking into politics and beloved everybody should start life equal and be given the same opportunity thus allowing the best people rise to the top.

I'm well aware of the influence Strasser's service in the First World War had in the development of his political philosophy, which is why his vapid "German socialism" was characterized by a rigid hierarchy and technocratic exploitation. In Germany Tomorrow (Oxford: Alden Press, 1940), for example, he refers to the capitalists-turned-"managerial estate" in his model as a "functional aristocracy" (p. 164). These "commissioned officers of economic life" would, by law, receive 49% of the profits their firms generate—the remaining 51% being apportioned to the state (39%) and workers (10%) [Douglas Reed, Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser and the Black Front (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1940), p. 48]. This so-called "factory fellowship" would permit direct laborers a degree of self-management, but they would be excluded from choosing their managers or deciding the manner by which the surplus value they create is distributed. In other words, non-managerial workers would be prohibited from participating in the decisions which most influence their work lives. Apropos, the transparent distributive injustice of this scheme actually led many of Strasser's own followers to abandon the Black Front and join the National Bolshevik 'Socialist National Group' instead, as Karl Otto Paetel recounts in Versuchung oder Chance? Zur Geschichte des deutschen Nationalbolschewismus and Reise ohne Uhrzeit: Eine Autobiographie.

Marxists don't deny that humans differ in their innate ability, but reject it as a basis for talented individuals to take advantage of people in a position of relative vulnerability for purposes of self-enrichment. In fact, the only difference between technocratic exploitation and capitalist exploitation is the latter is intensified by private ownership of the means of production. With the exception of a few irrational advocates of free access communism, Marxists generally believe that the only ethically permissible variations in remuneration should be attributable to the responsible choices individuals make, since all else derives from brute luck (whether in environmental surroundings or one's genetic endowment).

Celtiberian wrote:Marxists don't deny that humans differ in their innate ability, but reject it as a basis for talented individuals to take advantage of people in a position of relative vulnerability for purposes of self-enrichment. In fact, the only difference between technocratic exploitation and capitalist exploitation is the latter is intensified by private ownership of the means of production. With the exception of a few irrational advocates of free access communism, Marxists generally believe that the only ethically permissible variations in remuneration should be attributable to the responsible choices individuals make, since all else derives from brute luck (whether in environmental surroundings or one's genetic endowment).

Fair enough but with the state as majority share holder and that same state accountable to the folk short of the diffrence in wages I don't see how anybody is exploited as long as the post capitalism managers aren't the pre socialism owners of said business.Whats the diffrence between luck and decision in a world where people are not equal at birth in every field physical and mental?.

TheocWulf wrote:Fair enough but with the state as majority share holder and that same state accountable to the folk short of the diffrence in wages I don't see how anybody is exploited as long as the post capitalism managers aren't the pre socialism owners of said business.

First of all, the state wouldn't be the majority shareholder, the "managerial estate" would be—the government would control 39% of the shares. Strasser's federalist German state wouldn't be fully democratic either, because he proposed that the Reichspräsident be a position occupied by a single individual for life. He termed this form of governance "authoritarian democracy" [Germany Tomorrow (Oxford: Alden Press, 1940), p. 184], as it would combine a quasi-democratic corporativist structure with an aristocratic technocracy. Douglas Reed described the system as follows:

"Thus the Fourth Reich, as Otto Strasser would build it on a basis of German Socialism, would have a Reich President, a Reich Parliament, and a Reich Federal Council. Each Canton would similarly have a Cantonal President and a Cantonal Parliament, and the Reich Federal Council would be composed of the representatives of the Cantons, preferably the Cantonal Presidents. The Federal Council would elect the Reich President, as the Cardinals the Pope."
Douglas Reed, Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser and the Black Front (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1940), p. 117 (bold emphasis added).

As it happens, Adolf Hitler favored a similar polity, as documented in the various conversations he had with his close associates published in Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944.

Secondly, the former bourgeoisie would indeed become the initial managerial estate in Strasser's model. Again, to quote Reed:

"It [Strasser's reform] would re-confer the undertaking upon the owner, as usufructuary, and, in place of the present-day taxes, receive from the earnings of the undertaking a single payment, assessed from time to time, which would go to cover the expenditure of the State and would have precedence over profits and reserves. Thus in industry a common-ownership order, equally shared between State, usufructuary and workers, would be introduced. The head of the undertaking would under that order, as now, depend upon his energy and ingenuity for a greater or smaller income."
Ibid., pp. 111-112.

Strasser was vague regarding the precise method by which new managers would be chosen, but he certainly never suggested that workers be allowed to elect them. I presume he had in mind a technocratic corporative body appointing individuals on some basis of merit.

Finally, the difference between capitalist exploitation and technocratic exploitation concerns its structure more than its ethical dimension. The former materializes when differential ownership in the means of production places one class of people (proletarians) in a position of relative vulnerability to another class (the bourgeoisie), thereby enabling those in possession of the means of production to have the ability to dominate the less fortunate by instrumentalizing their vulnerability for the purpose of self-enrichment.

Technocratic exploitation differs in that it can emerge entirely independent of property or class relations. In short, it stems from talented individuals utilizing their scarce skills as a means by which to pressure society into remunerating their labor highly, so as to maximize their share of the social product. In the case of Strasser's "socialism," the law itself would guarantee that managers be paid far in excess of what ordinary workers receive, simply due to their leadership qualities. State socialism similarly privileges central planners, and even market syndicalism can give rise to coordinator hegemony through purely democratic means. The only way to overcome this form of exploitation is to fundamentally alter how labor is remunerated and successfully cultivate an egalitarian ethos in society.

Technocratic exploitation is definitely not as abhorrent as capitalist exploitation, but it's ethically objectionable in its own right and humanity can undoubtedly do better.

Whats the diffrence between luck and decision in a world where people are not equal at birth in every field physical and mental?

The difference is that everyone has control over the decisions they make in life, but no one has control over the environment they're born into or the genetic profile they're endowed with. For example, I can choose to put my life at risk by deciding to work in a dangerous field like coal mining, which is statistically proven to have a higher rate of injury relative to other occupations. So, it stands to reason that I be compensated somewhat more than individuals who have instead chosen to work under safer conditions. I can't, however, choose the family I'll be born into or in what part of the world that will be, nor do I have any control over the innate ability I'll have to work with. Hence, one should not be economically rewarded or punished for that which s/he had no part in determining.

Your correct with your break down of the factory fellowship,thanks for correcting me.indeed the problem with a lot of Strassers ideas are how these managers or fiefs are selected and in my opinion anything involving the pre capitalist owners of big business would be unacceptable,other than that I find it rather appealing.

TheocWulf wrote:Your correct with your break down of the factory fellowship,thanks for correcting me.indeed the problem with a lot of Strassers ideas are how these managers or fiefs are selected and in my opinion anything involving the pre capitalist owners of big business would be unacceptable,other than that I find it rather appealing.

I think you should consider a adopting more philosophically defensible socialist tendency, as Strasserism possesses no redeeming qualities which should cause one to remain faithful to its doctrine.

Celtiberian wrote:I think you should consider a adopting more philosophically defensible socialist tendency, as Strasserism possesses no redeeming qualities which should cause one to remain faithful to its doctrine.

I don't follow Strasserism as a tendency as such I'm influenced as much by the Strasser brothers just as much as I am by English and British Radicals and many revolutionaries from the third world.You have your way I have mine and I don't consider what I think to be a universal truth but do believe Marxist Leninism or Syndicalism don't own the label socialism either.

TheocWulf wrote:I don't follow Strasserism as a tendency as such I'm influenced as much by the Strasser brothers just as much as I am by English and British Radicals and many revolutionaries from the third world.You have your way I have mine and I don't consider what I think to be a universal truth but do believe Marxist Leninism or Syndicalism don't own the label socialism either.

Anarchism and Communism do own the titles of Socialism as much as 'owning the label' means anything.

Sorry, been out for a while But it looks like this thread is becoming most interesting... Ill have to read the recent posts after I finish my chores for the day.

Red Aegis wrote:Anarchism and Communism do own the titles of Socialism as much as 'owning the label' means anything.

Go on then tell me how they do?

TheocWulf wrote:Go on then tell me how they do?

No. I don't feel like explaining how stupid it is to group Anarchism, Communism, and Fascism together. If you don't understand why then there are some resources that are directed to here.

Red Aegis wrote:No. I don't feel like explaining how stupid it is to group Anarchism, Communism, and Fascism together. If you don't understand why then there are some resources that are directed to here.

And ill in turn direct you to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marx_socialists

Like I said Marxist Leninism doesn't own the world socialism,there are a long line of people pre Marx who inspire me,but only a few post Marx.

TheocWulf wrote:And ill in turn direct you to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marx_socialists

Like I said Marxist Leninism doesn't own the world socialism,there are a long line of people pre Marx who inspire me,but only a few post Marx.

I included anarchists as socialists so why do you think that including pre-marx socialists would matter? If you think that I am a Marxist-Leninist then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well good for you.Im also not personally interested in what tendency you are but thanks anyway.