National Shield vs. Socialist Phalanx

Revocity wrote:What's the RSF? Is that a thing you made up? How adorable.

Oh fucking Christ not this straw man bullshit again.

I kind of expected a response like this since you are, after all, a snide little twot. Rest assured, I understand your language perfectly which is why I know the words you use are unnecessary and everything you're saying can be put in much more concise terms which would save us both time. But if you want to continue writing like you're penning an academic essay to impress your lecturers at the University of Hicksville, go right ahead.

Yes, I'm sure your little forum posts are capable of refuting the theories of one of the most influential sociologists in history. Corporative socialism is not a contradictory position. It's a necessary theory to resolve the contradictions inherent in both systems of thought.

Yes, the relevance of not being a racist is "negligible."

I am a left-wing nationalist because I believe capitalism and consumerism are the common enemies of the workers and the nation who need to enter into an alliance in order to exorcise them. It's really as simple as that. If you want to convolute it and turn it into an intellecutalist circle jerk of self-gratifying wankery that's your business but I know many patriotic socialists who have done great things for their country and the workers who would not meet your precious little definition of what a "left-wing nationalist" is.

Yes, and then I directly said I KNOW FUCKING MARXIST THEORY DOES NOT ADVOCATE THE ABOLITION OF ALL PRIVATE SPACES.

Drab online forums? Really? Don't throw stones mate, you live in a glass house. I guess it's a question of taste at the end of the day, though. Personally, I prefer clean designs and layouts to the grungy Ukrainian porn site look. This place looks like it was made by someone who plays way too much RedAlert, but I'm assuming it's not you and I can appreciate the work that went into it, so I'll just chalk it up to a matter of personal taste.

I did my undergraduate degree in the United States and for the vast majority of “socialist” students being working class meant they couldn’t afford to get the latest I-whatever. Judging by the fact you have time to write obnoxious paragraphs of text on an internet forum as opposed to say mopping the floors at Walmart, chances are you’re not a “worker” but a spoilt American teenager who wears skinny jeans and smokes weed.

The UK Labour Party may have been overrun by communitarian frauds and pseudo-socialist hipster weasels like yourself, but at least my country has a labour party as opposed to just different shades of liberal.

In terms of my contribution to the labour movement, I wish I could do more but there's only a certain amount of time I can invest in lost causes, this site being a case in point. But there are glimmers of hope. See, for instance, Blue Labour.

Oh look, you do have a sense of humour. Too bad it just comes across as fucking creepy.

Isakenaz wrote:Possibly, but at least I'm not pathetic like you lot.

When this forum began, great things were promised.

Yet here we are over two years later and what has changed? nothing. Still you bleat the same promises, tell people that great things are in the offing, and point to an increasing membership to prove the vigour and strength of your failed ideology. However, how many of the original membership still remain? From what I see now most members are bored American highscool kids playing socialist because its fashionable.

The RSF has become nothing more than a hipster fashion accessory in which a few twenty somethings show the little children the might of their intellect. If, and it's a big if, America was ever to undergo a socialist revolution you would probably come out from under your desk to discover you are the first to go up against the wall.
Left-wing Nationalism can never be internationalist outside your wet dreams.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: Dah fuck this long ass post!

There's no sense in it. Anyways the point is ( like others have pointed out) many of y'all act way too arrogant. For no fucking reason at that. Yes sure y'all are more smart than many of your opponents but that dont mean you gotta act so high and mighty. Besides y'all are shooting yourselves in the foot here in the long run.

I mean you want to bring down the System right?

Well guess what, you might not have enough numbers even in the future to bring it down by yourselves. Which means there's a good chance youd have to ally with other radicals. I can just see a situation like that : Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Neo Nazis, Black Panthers, outlaw bikers, metalheads, punk rockers, skinheads, pissed off rednecks and all the fucking radicals and loose screws out there uniting to bring down the Man once and for all.

And y'all know what? Thats the most realistic scenario if you think about it unless one group becomes really huge to take on the System by itself ( which may not happen) cause the general public most likely ain't gonna do shit.

All your rants about rising above counterculture aside, your still in it.

If y'all had some sense you would be more respectful to your opponents because one day you might have to ride in the same boat with them to survive. It dont matter whether your a Corporatist or a Socialist the Man's always going to be against you if your a radical. Anyways think about that people.

Over and out.

Revocity wrote:I think the problem is that we are looking at socialism from two different perspectives. I’m looking at socialism from a contemporary, practical perspective specific to a particular national context. The project of modern socialism in Britain is building a socially conscionable nation without recourse to instituting a burdensome state apparatus.

Class politics have lost a lot of their relevance in the political scene here, whereas before it used to be the bread and butter of debate. Due to this development, the left has either had to adapt or die and I believe a key aspect of its adaption should be overcoming its inherent squeamishness around ideas of tradition and nation.

You, on the other hand, look at socialism from an academic, theoretical perspective with a universalist undertone that socialism must be the same thing to all nations and peoples (i.e. an indiscriminate acceptance of Marxist theory) and anyone who doesn’t share in the belief of the class war is not a bona fide socialist and therefore a “reactionary.”

unlike yours, we don’t believe it’s ok to let insurance companies directly murder our people (yet) and our government has a long history of instituting enlightened welfare policies. While these accolades are being assaulted form every direction and since the 1980s we’ve been edging closer and closer towards an American-style neo-liberal political economy, they are nonetheless part of our national tradition which is why traditionalist socialism has already gained some traction here.

Your belief that traditionalist socialism is absurd probably stems from the fact that in your nation tradition is the preserve of gun-toting, bible-bashing, free market fellating, neo-cons so you believe socialism has to be achieved in spite of tradition.

Dismissing the Labour Party as bourgeois is fine in theory when you’re not interested in working with anyone towards any kind of practical goal, but since I’m committed to achieving socialism in some practical way, this precludes me from making my own “movement” because I’ve seen the outcome of such ventures so many times from both the left and right and they’re always disappointing.

This is because these “organizations” are never the product of any serious consideration or prior activism, but just ego-fuelled whims. Ridiculous, mickey-mouse groups like your pitiful RSF are the prime example of this.

Anyway, you want to talk about fetishists? What about your bizarre Soviet Fetish which looks like it’s based on a 12 year olds understanding of what communist Russia was like with the Cyrillic lettering in the menu and the excessive use of red stars and hammers and sickles?

But I suppose it’s not surprising since you’ve likely never left that swampy armpit of a state let alone the good ol’ US of A.

Rebel Warrior 58 wrote:You have been fairly respectful to me personally Celt, but thats not the point here. More than one of the most active members of this forum have written arrogant and condescending posts now and in the past. Take a look at Ghostwolf and that Valjean guy, their posts certainly weren't as colorful as mine yet they still got a bunch of snooty replies. Your side has as much blood on its hands as your opponents when it comes to posting arrogant high and mighty writings.

All the stuff you have read could be a pack of lies. I mean how do you know the economy works like you say it does? " Oh I read several books by Professors so and so" And how do they know ? " Well they compiled a list of evidence in the references page" And how does the list of evidence know? " Well because its evidence, I mean it must be right because of that" The truth is all you think you know could be wrong. All the evidence in those references could be made up. I mean were you standing right behind Professor so and so when he was collecting the evidence for his book? The point is nobody knows anything for certain and that's why y'all have no reason to think that your beliefs are as watertight as you make them come across in your posts.

Rev Scare wrote:Rebel Warrior, all that you tell us could be a pack of lies. Think about it: how do you know anything you know? You don't. You don't even know whether we exist. We could be figments of your imagination. What is reality anyway? How do you know anything you type makes any sense to us? We don't share your mind. There is an unbridgeable chasm between us mentally and philosophically. What is philosophy, anyway? It is a human construct. What is humanity anyway? It is merely a thought construct. Does humanity validate the thought or does the thought validate humanity? Can they validate each other at the same time? What is thought? Thought is thought. Must there be a duality between mind and matter? Why can't they just get along? That is not sufficient. What is sufficiency? What are constructs anyway? They are merely aspects of consciousness. What is consciousness anyway? Nobody really knows. What is nobody? Who is nobody? What does it mean to be nobody? How can I prove what nobody can prove to nobody? What is the point of having a point? What are points? Are they mathematical or physical? What is the difference? Is there a difference? How could we prove there is a difference? We can't prove there is a difference because everything is made up. Or is it? Who are we? Do we even inhabit the same plane of existence? Do I exist? Do you exist? What does it mean to exist? I think you exist, but if I exist, does it mean we both exist? Perhaps not, perhaps yes. What is perhaps? Think about it, everything you tell us could be dead wrong. Everything dead wrong could be interpreted by us as dead right. Where would we stand then? What is the difference between wrong and right? Who is Ghost Wolf? Does Ghost Wolf exist? Think about it, guy: Ghost Wolf is an anonymous "person" on the internet. Actually, "his" posts were on the internet. Ghost Wolf could have been a troll. YOU could be Ghost Wolf for all you know. We never know anything for certain, remember. I could be Ghost Wolf. What is the internet? Is the internet us? Was it developed by people or did it exist before? It couldn't have existed before because barbarians existed before. But did they? Couldn't barbarians and the internet coexist? What would that entail? Where is the evidence, I ask. What does it mean to be a ghost and a wolf? Does it presuppose the existence of ghosts or wolves or both? Must one exist before the other? What is the point of naming yourself Ghost Wolf? What about Rebel Warrior? There is no way to convey any of this to anybody but yourself, so why not live in your head? Or is your head already everything? Perhaps it is everything and nothing at the same time. Paradox. What is paradox? para + dox. Is there even a reason to label? Who gets labeled by what and how? How do I know that you know what you don't know that I know? Does that sentence make sense? Think about it carefully: DOES IT MAKE SENSE? To whom? To what end? What is an end and a whom? Can we even agree upon terminology? Who are "we" to begin with? I don't know that you're real, RW. You post, but that doesn't mean anything. Is that real? Are your posts real? CAN I take your posts for granted? Is any of the above true? How can any of us know? Is "us" a categorical certainty or a description of transient phenomena? is there a difference between the two? I challenge you, RW, to challenge yourself to challenge your views to challenge the challenge of your views to yourself. You cannot be certain of anything, RW, not even the certainty of whether this statement is certain. Does this mean that you can in fact be certain? Surely you can be certain that nothing is certain at least. Or can you? Paradox. Para + dox.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Exactly if you use this ( its called solipsist I think ) sort of questioning then you will find nothing is absolutely certain. Which is why there's no reason for y'all ( yes I can use you all but y'all is shorter) to be so confident about the rightness of your beliefs. That was my point. Also Ill go on official record here writing that Im not sure at all that my opinions are absolutely true.

Allright well Ive already wrote what I wanted to say and Im not in the mood for arguing over the details of who was arrogant so Im gonna let Revocity be the king of this thread ( its about his forum anyways) . Come to think of it I need to seriously catch up on arguing for my views on other forums from Stormfront to the Phora. Being the defender of mystical, idealist, romantic, warlike, rebellious, outlaw, and blue collar barbarism on the Internet will be my new goal from now on.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Being the defender of mystical, idealist, romantic, warlike, rebellious, outlaw, and blue collar barbarism on the Internet will be my new goal from now on.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Being the defender of mystical, idealist, romantic, warlike, rebellious, outlaw, and blue collar barbarism on the Internet will be my new goal from now on.

Balkan Beast wrote:http://www.nationalshield.org/index.php?/topic/46-the-official-socialist-phallus-thread/I think some guise be butthurt :3

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Being the defender of mystical, idealist, romantic, warlike, rebellious, outlaw, and blue collar barbarism on the Internet will be my new goal from now on.

Celtiberian wrote: the RSF understands it in material terms, and you view it as an idealist "project."

(The historical record indicates that corporativism is only adopted when the bourgeoisie feel especially threatened by the class consciousness and organization of the proletariat.)

First of all, I don't consider individuals who reject class struggle as being inherently reactionary, they simply have a difficulty accepting reality. If they should advocate on behalf of a qualitatively different mode of production, characterized by collective ownership and management of the means of production, I would have no hesitancy whatsoever in considering them a comrade

Turning to universalism, since the possible ways to organize production are finite, the problems and solutions are going to be comparable throughout the world. The development of information technology and transportation which have accompanied capitalism also universalized production and its implications in profound ways

One need only apply a material analysis to the history of the British welfare state to understand why it materialized and why it's currently being eroded. Even bourgeois historians are honest enough to now admit that the impetus behind its ascendency was the European elites' anxiety toward the prospect of Sovietism spreading westward, following the Second World War. As a result, popular concessions were permitted in order to pacify the masses. But now that the Soviet threat has receded and organized labor has been eviscerated, the bourgeoisie are preparing to further increase their hegemony by dismantling extant social programs.

There isn't some sort of longstanding ethical difference in the fabric of North American and European society that explains the United States' lack of a robust welfare state.”

but you're delusional if you think any tangible results will follow from your efforts.

On the contrary, the RSF is the product of "serious consideration," and we're anything but "ego-fuelled."

Apparently reactionaries are forced to resort to petty aesthetic quibbles when debating with the members of this forum.. Nevertheless, it's self-evident that our forum exceeds yours in both design and member quality. Nothing more needs to be said on the matter

Rev Scare wrote:Did something transpire in your personal life to leave you in such a slum state, dear Isa? Wifey leave you for a foreigner?

Revocity wrote:You should be careful using such unsophisticated language otherwise you might get put in the doghouse by our eloquent friends.

Well you say that but I haven’t seen evidence of any kind of practical activism from this Revolutionary Syndicalist Front (or is it Federation?). The preponderance of information about it on here and on its webpage comes down to “will update later, stay tuned” and that’s from almost a year ago. This is what almost all vanity groups do – say they’re ironing out “theoretical issues” and eventually only get as far as putting a website up with obnoxious paragraphs of text which nobody will ever read. This is in spite of the fact that most people don’t care about theoretical consistency or immaculate political doctrines.

You might be every bit as clever as you think you are, but you can spend decades building a critique of society, reading James Connolly et al, and honing your understanding of revolutionary thought, and still not be in any better position to actually implement your ideas. Such is why your allegations of idealism on my part don’t make any sense when I have already said I am attempting to work with what I’ve got.

You, on the other hand, presumably seek political change through an organisation that has no power, influence, or resources whatsoever. The advantage of this is you have full control over its ideological content but that’s where the advantages stop.

Even if you had resources and a sizable support base your methodology for gaining power, which is presumably revolutionary in character, is utterly impractical and you are the one who’s delusional if you honestly believe that you’re going to generate enough backing to establish a worker’s state in America by sheer popular will. We both know more Americans would sooner shoot you in the face than support your workers revolution. This is why I said you weren’t focused on the practical aspects of achieving socialism, something which I didn’t actually expect you to disagree with.

In any case, objectively speaking, my aim of reconnecting a historically socialist party with its traditional roots is a lot more practical than whatever you have in mind; which I can only assume is an American proletarian revolution.

The historical record indicates no such thing.

Corporativism, as espoused by yours truly, is a philosophy of organising society dating back to the bible

long before the alleged simplification of class antagonisms into the bourgeoisie-proletariat dichotomy.

While it was revived to some extent in the 19th and 20th centuries to reckon the conflict between capital and labour in the national interest, or “class collaboration” as you would call it, it’s not simply reactive to an upsurge in class consciousness. When capital maintains a monopoly on the use of force, it has no need of an elaborate system of compromise which is why in many national contexts, even the when the bourgeoisie has felt especially threatened, nothing even close to corporative system has ever emerged.

Your attitude towards me indicates otherwise. I reject the idea of class struggle but I believe in the collective ownership of the means of production, only that the state should not take charge of all production and distribution and that the activity of occupational corporations should be coordinated in the common interest of the nation.

This is in recognition of the fact that the anarchy of capitalist production can only be overcome by a system of authoritative organisations with powers of compulsion. The contradiction, of course, is that the reorganisation of production along socialistic lines is not in the interest of capital so how can we reject the concept of class war? Simply put, the overcoming of capitalist hegemony in the 21st century is not a matter of class, but an issue of national sovereignty against economic and cultural imperialism the weapons against which are i) nationalism and ii) tradition.

This is internationalist nonsense. The problems capitalism causes might be comparable between different national contexts, but the solution to these problems must be furnished by self-determining nations acting in accordance with their interests and not part of a “new globalism.” The solution to capitalism is nationalistic as much as it is socialistic. The socialist movements in each country trying to prescribe to each other the “true path” will simply swap one set of problems for another.

Utter tripe which shows complete disrespect and disregard for differences between various European national contexts and the struggles of the British labour movement. One only need look at history to know there was no real possibility of communism taking hold in Britain in the wake of the Second World War and that social programmes materialised to aid post-war reconstruction which wasn’t some nefarious bourgeois plot but a prerogative of national recovery. Moreover, after the national struggle against Germany, there was a strong commitment to the ideal of “the public interest” and this patriotic sentiment was channelled into socialistic policies.

Ahem? Culturally, the differences in the evaluation of socialism are enormous. In Europe we’ve never really seen the sheer amount of anti-statist paranoia about the power of the “guvment” which forms a large part of American political culture. You are living proof of this tendency as “American radicals have generally been more sympathetic to libertarianism and to syndicalism than to state collectivism” and “unlike Scandinavian social democracy, Fabian bureaucratic socialism, and Soviet communism, American radicalism has been permeated by suspicion, if not hostility, toward centralized power.” (Lipset and Marks, 2001)

This is why you lack a robust welfare state; because your political culture detests state power and your “socialists” are just red libertarians.

Evidence?

It’s not an aesthetic quibble. It’s simply evidence of your fetish for Red Alert–esque mock-Soviet design.

Isakenaz wrote:I may have a colourful history on this forum and I can rightly be accused of changing my position often. In my defence its simply because I keep looking for an answer and each time I think I've found it the same old bullshit quickly raises it head -Internationalism.

Do you honestly think that the British or European worker, or even the American for that, gives a flying F*** about the plight of some peasant in Asia.

Nationalism concerns the nation, Internationalism does not. The only difference between your Internationalism and that which you call Cosmopolitanism is that they are spelt different, both offer nothing more than global exploitation wearing a different coat.

Isakenaz wrote:I may have a colourful history on this forum and I can rightly be accused of changing my position often. In my defence its simply because I keep looking for an answer and each time I think I've found it the same old bullshit quickly raises it head -Internationalism.
Do you honestly think that the British or European worker, or even the American for that, gives a flying F*** about the plight of some peasant in Asia. Their main concern is their family and their lives. Socialism for the world - yes, but first in my country. Nationalism concerns the nation, Internationalism does not. The only difference between your Internationalism and that which you call Cosmopolitanism is that they are spelt different, both offer nothing more than global exploitation wearing a different coat.
Since it would seem that you have been accepted by the Revleft 2 lot, it would appear that you have finaly joined the chosen of the next revolution.

GF wrote:Considering workers' first concerns are their families and their lives I imagine they don't care considerably more for their nation than the nation of another people.