A revolutionary front

Coach wrote:The old ruling class traditions are slavery and oppression. The new ruling class ways are slavery and oppression. Your pissed about this nasty form of slavery and oppression that convinces the masses that they are really free, but actually it is more like a social bribe in exchange for accepting the political and economic status quo. Shit's fucked up---ah, might as well lighten up, do drugs, drink, get laid, blast rap music, veg in front of a screen for hours doing nothing (and not just TV screens), 'cause that's all life under modern capitalism still has to offer you if you are wealthy; the bribe is that you can still be 'free' to temporarily please the flesh a little bit as a diversion in between the grind of exploitative and socially/politically alienated reality. Conservatives raise their hands against that very last little bit of temporary pleasure-seeking capability and the illusion of freedom it also us to decive ourselves with; in exchange it gives us slavery and oppression in every arena of life, and most of the time this is done by functionally combining 'church' with the state of the ruling class (thereby determining and enforcing its 'traditions').
Try living in a really religious community where you would get humiliated, shunned, fired, beaten and/or jailed for just these examples you complained about in "modern culture" today. I've lived in such Christian Taliban traditional type places. "God" is now telling you what you can and can't do with your body, can and can't do with your eyes, can and can't do with your ears, can and can't do with your tongue, etc. Most people think that shit only happens in strict Islamic society. No, it happens anywhere 'tradition' is strictly upheld and enforced. You can ferret out about 800 oppressive commandments from the Christian Bible alone, in such a way that certainly no human being would be capable of living without violating this 'tradition'. In America, THAT is what is really meant by 'tradition' by almost all those who crusade for 'tradition' here. Start talking about 'tradition' with 'traditionalist' Americans, and you will almost certainly get to the God Squad argument that "America is a Christian nation". If we don't take that seriously, we ignore it at our own peril; that can only really mean one thing, which is slavery and oppression under "in God we trust" wrapped up in the Stars and Stripes banner. Ironically, these are some of the same assholes who will loudly and persistently shout that 'communism' is directly in contradiction to 'human nature', without showing the slightest hint of reflection upon the fact that their 'tradition' EXPLICITLY DEMONIZES and CRIMINALIZES 'human nature' by anyone's definition (i.e., you could successfully prosecute everyone on Earth under Biblical law). And of course, just as back in 'traditional' past times, there is always one rule for the ruling class and another distinctly stricter oppressive standard and applied law for the masses. They won't be burning rich folks at the stake for watching porn or doing drugs or fornicating out of wedlock or listening to the devil's music or any of that stuff, you know...they'll just demand a bigger contribution from the wealthy to the 'church' in exchange for looking the other way, and the ruling class will tend dominate the leading bodies and officers of that 'church' anyway, so don't expect their 'justice' to be blind and equal.

What should irritate you about people allowing themselves to be reduced to nothing but that shitty bribe of being 'free' to please their flesh temporarily in the more base ways in exchange for accepting exploitation and powerlessness and not making trouble for the ruling class is that it is not objective necessary for them to live in such limited ways with such limited 'freedom' and so little real power. We shouldn't be wagging our fingers to shame people for a lot of the baser bullshit they do just to make by under current conditions, but rather we should be pointing our fingers toward a future of our collective self-emancipation from exploitative and oppressive society altogether, and toward our collective self-determination and proletarian-democratic self-rule over society.

For those of you who still cling to "Whiteness" and 'tradition' what does it really mean to impose your standards? Who get criminalized? Who gets dispossessed and disenfranchised for violations? Who gets tortured, imprisoned, forced into involuntary servitude or executed (read: murdered) for violations? Who are not sufficiently 'White" enough to live? You might feel a bit shy discussing this, but every WN I've met had a long laundry list of groups of people they'd love to see lynched, gassed, machine gunned, forced into slave labor, imprisoned, beaten in public, mutilated and tortured in private, forced from their homes and deported, conquered/nuked, etc. And the broader conservative/traditionalist Right feels much the same way and have much overlap with the WNs' hit-list, give or take a few most-hated groups of people; usually the broader Right aren't so directly up-front about their desire to harm these groups of people when speaking publicly, but every now and then they let slip and reveal how they really like to express their hatreds against these targeted-groups of people. The more 'traditional' they were, the longer and more extensive that list was, until the logical extreme conclusion is arrived at where everyone but themselves really deserved to be punished. What is really being reflected by this? No, it's not that they individually (or groups of people ethnically related to these folks) are the moral equivalent of devil's spawn on Earth, like the faux-Left would pretend. They are expressing the evil nature of exploitative society, driven to the further inhuman extremes by modern capitalism. Their appeal to 'tradition' is an excuse to dispossess, subjugate and/or slay their competition (i.e., those groups of people on their long laundry lists of scapegoats) to "get ahead" under capitalism. 'Traditionalists' NEVER actually fundamentally abolish capitalist relations root and branch, because nothing scares them more that abolishing class distinctions and real mass proletarian democracy in power over all of society; they know that all of their 'tradition' would be swept up like rotten rubbish and tossed in the dustbin of history forever after that.
There really is no 'third position': either we live under exploitative/oppressive society (class society), or we live as liberated human beings in socialist society.

Coach wrote:How so? What part of the defining characterizations and delineations of today's recognized nations is not originating straight from "ruling ideas and values"?

When Marx and Engels said that workers have no countries, this meant that not a single one of these countries (in their day) was a dictatorship of the proletariat based on socialized property relations. As such, these countries didn't belong to the workers and thus deserved no loyalty or obedience. It is self-deception to pretend that the United States belong to American working class citizens. The USA has never been ours. I can't think of any mainstream characteristic about the USA that is genuinely ours, and certainly nothing good that wouldn't be manifold times better expressed by independent self-determined proletarian-ruled nations.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:
Most Nations ( definitely in the case of European ones) existed long before Capitalism was even heard of.

Isakenaz wrote:Really did the nation of Hungary along with other European nations exist prior to capitalistic imperialism? Most 'nations' were formed with, or without in most cases, the agreement of the rulers of smaller nations which then became states or counties within the greater 'Nation'. Germany for example existed as a collection of independant states prior to Bismark's enlargement of the Prussian State to encompass their neighbours in a Germany. France was likewise a collection of autonomous states prior to it becoming 'France', even Britain had a prior existance as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and you can continue to subdivide them. 'Nations' as we know them, did not exist prior to the great age of imperialist expansion, and what was made can be unmade or made again.

Coach wrote:Before capitalism was feudalism and theocracy, and I think that's what a lot of the European 'traditionalist' types long for when they look back to "the good old days"

Did the working people invent 'old' Hungary, or was it invented by monarchs and clergy and landowners then imposed on the laborers and peasants that they were now 'Hungarian', and their rulers' definition is what a 'Hungarian' is, and their rulers' idea of culture is what 'Hungarian' culture is, and their ruler's religion is what the 'Hungarian' church and religious standards are, etc?

Celtiberian wrote:It certainly is. In fact, one of Julius Evola's main criticisms of bourgeois society was that it enabled far too much class mobility for his taste. Evola, the idol of many contemporary European traditionalists, subscribed to a reactionary Platonic view of humanity, in which people were born into the caste where they belonged.

"Revolutionary Traditionalists," like Troy Southgate, essentially believe in establishing a leftist economic order, but coupling with it certain social institutions and mores that are considered "traditional" by some (e.g., prohibiting women from entering the workforce, support for patriarchal marriages, outlawing abortions, an increased role for religion in society, etc.) They're slightly better than your run-of-the-mill fascist, insofar as their economic doctrine is concerned, but they're almost as backward culturally.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:You are confusing Nation with Country. When I speak of Nation I speak of a People. For example, the Flemish Nation is the Flemish People. Most Nations ( definitely in the case of European ones) existed long before Capitalism was even heard of. Therefore to imply ( like you did) that present day Nations exist due to " ruling class ideas and values" is complete and utter rubbish, that Cosmopolitan Socialists love to repeat.

I understand your proposal regarding the American Nation and I have nothing against it. What you ( or other Nations) do is none of my business. However my Nation is a rather old one that is clearly defined. I do not want my Nation to vanish due to ( as you write) proletarians abandoning their national identities and creating new ones. What I want is for all Hungarians to recognize that Capitalism is against the interests of the whole Nation and to replace it with a Hungarian version of Socialism.

Coach wrote:I haven't gotten the sense that Third Positionists advocate a proletarian-based socialist economics either. They seem to advocate class-collaborationist 'joint labor-management' corporative schemes (with a more convincing populist flair) and they are very keen for and/or soft on petty bourgeois interests.

I know they claim not to stand toe-to-toe with Hitlerites, but where's their 'beef' demonstrated in class struggle in recent decades?

I don't claim to know all the history behind latter day Third Positionist groups like NF, but what did they ever do to advance class struggle? Did they ever intervene and help lead striking workers forward in their struggles, for instance?

There is a reason they get lumped in with fascists. Deeds speak loudly.

Isakenaz wrote:Really did the nation of Hungary along with other European nations exist prior to capitalistic imperialism? Most 'nations' were formed with, or without in most cases, the agreement of the rulers of smaller nations which then became states or counties within the greater 'Nation'. Germany for example existed as a collection of independant states prior to Bismark's enlargement of the Prussian State to encompass their neighbours in a Germany. France was likewise a collection of autonomous states prior to it becoming 'France', even Britain had a prior existance as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and you can continue to subdivide them. 'Nations' as we know them, did not exist prior to the great age of imperialist expansion, and what was made can be unmade or made again.

Coach wrote:Exactly. Before capitalism was feudalism and theocracy, and I think that's what a lot of the European 'traditionalist' types long for when they look back to "the good old days". Did the working people invent 'old' Hungary, or was it invented by monarchs and clergy and landowners then imposed on the laborers and peasants that they were now 'Hungarian', and their rulers' definition is what a 'Hungarian' is, and their rulers' idea of culture is what 'Hungarian' culture is, and their ruler's religion is what the 'Hungarian' church and religious standards are, etc?

When have working people ever had real decisive independent collective self-determination of what our nations are and what interests they serve and what ideals we aspire for? Complying with the wishes of our masters isn't the same thing.

Rev Scare wrote:You assume that some homogeneous "nation" of unified people exists within the geopolitical confines of any country. The truth is that the elite have never shared any cultural relationship with the exploited classes apart from the most superficial. What we consider "nations" today are in fact diverse constructs bound by the historical power relationships that have given rise to and shaped them. The bourgeoisie knows no nation unless it meets its ends. The same has applied to rulers throughout history.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: Like I wrote before the Hungarian Nation came into existence in Dark Ages Europe. Back then there was no Hungarian clergy, no Hungarian monarchy, no nothing. The same can be said of other Nations as well. The Poles, for example, existed before there was such a thing as a Polish clergy, a Polish monarchy, and even a Polish nobility in the medieval sense of the term. Therefore your claim that the ruling class created todays Nations is ahistorical and false.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Doesnt a more or less homogenous group of politically unified people called the Irish exist within the boundaries of a country called Ireland? Doesnt a more or less homogenous group of politically unified people called the Japanese exist within the boundaries of a country called Japan? I am not defending Capitalism here. I am just merely stating the truth ( which should be obvious) that present day Nations did not come about due to Capitalism ( in fact I know of no such example).

Rev Scare wrote:No, a "more or less" homogeneous Irish nation does not exist and never has. The same applies to the Japanese. Only in a relative sense does one describe any bourgeois state a "nation," in that the indigenous population displays a greater proportion of traits that superficially distinguish it from other populations. However, it is ludicrous to think that the aristocracy of old shared any relevant cultural commonalities with the peasantry or that the contemporary bourgeoisie can be culturally connected to the proletariat. To be honest, I find it ever more difficult to apply an "ethnic" identity to a particular group of people without appending qualifiers. What we carelessly describe as "ethnic" groups are in fact not so easily discernible.

Ireland and Japan, for example, emerged out of a history replete with internal contradictions, and it is untenable to claim that the upper classes in both countries have ever harbored solidarity with their lower class majorities. The inhabitants of these alleged "nations" share neither a "common" language (compare the language of the elite to that of the common folk), culture (compare the folklore of feudal peasants and that of the nobility or of the working class and that of the bourgeoisie), religion (double standards of morality), nor even endogamy; indeed, the only "common heritage" that the people of any modern "nation" possess is a common heritage of exploitation, repression, and domination. We cannot simply dismiss this reality by eliminating the ruling classes because to do so would be to ignore the fundamental role that these social divisions have played in the origins of countries and the actual nations which inhabit them.

Isakenaz wrote:I suppose you could add the many tribes of indigenous Amerindians, after all don't they refer to themselves as 'nations', and the Magyars, along with many of the 'pre-civilised' tribes, may have referred to themselves as a nation, but the idea of a national territory was a very unsubstantial thing.

There is a reason its called the 'Dark Ages', owing to the fact that once in the period between the fall of Rome and the rise of the church, no one really has any idea of what was happening. How many 'tribes' rode the lands now called Hungary in that period, and how many of them considered their 'nation' to be pre-eminate? And how many of them disapeared into the mists of history?

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Oh come on are you being serious? Are you honestly suggesting that a Capitalist and a Proletarian cannot speak the same language, cannot share the same ancestry, etc?

There were and have been German Capitalists and German proletarians, Indian Capitalists and Indian proletarians, Australian Capitalists and Australian Proletarians, and so on. It is useless ( and might I say ridiculous) to deny this fact.

Also your claim that an indigenous population only possesses superficial traits that distinguish it from another is untrue. There are major cultural and often genetic differences between the various Nations of the world. A mere glance at a decent book that deals with anthropology or genetics can prove so.

Coach wrote:So what if they do speak a similar language and look somewhat similar to us? Would you consider a man who kidnapped and tortured women and sold them into sexual slavery to be part of your nation, just because he looks somewhat similar and speaks the same language too? Where do you draw the important lines of distinction? I draw the line against exploitation and oppression, and based upon the independent self determined will of self-identifying national communities.

Coach wrote:One could argue about the common ancestry bit, since mating pools has tended to be socially restricted along class lines. Cinderella stories happened rarely. One could argue that in pre-bourgeois class society, there was a branching of nations along class lines. The "nobility" and slave owners were not the same nation as their serfs and slaves. Where did most of the bourgeois class elements come from? From the previous pre-bourgeois ruling classes. We poor folks weren't "in their league". And neither were we really included parts of their class-nations. The only times they have ever pretended that we belonged to a common nation with the ruling class was when they were looking to screw us harder and/or put down rebellions.

So what if they do speak a similar language and look somewhat similar to us? Would you consider a man who kidnapped and tortured women and sold them into sexual slavery to be part of your nation, just because he looks somewhat similar and speaks the same language too? Where do you draw the important lines of distinction? I draw the line against exploitation and oppression, and based upon the independent self determined will of self-identifying national communities.

Admin wrote:With respect to National Anarchist groups, they too appear to be a rather heterogeneous lot. The Bay Area National Anarchists (or BANA), for example, espoused views and engaged in activities that were fundamentally reactionary in nature. Moreover, there are a number of aspects to National Anarchism itself that strike me as particularly dubious. For example, the embrace of "radical traditionalism" is especially disconcerting. (Perhaps you could shed some light on this question.)

Anti-Trotsky wrote:The embrace of so called "radical traditionalism" by these people I am convinced comes down to aesthetics, watch the lecture on Juilus Evola by Jonathon Bowden Troy Southgate's new best mate and its clear as day that he has barely read a page of that writer, or Tom Sunic's lecture on Carl Schmitt where it very soon becomes clear that he hasnt read a particularly important book by that man and is just waffling from what he has picked up on wiki.

That said how was the Political Soldier National Front in its hey day Imperialist outside of its support for Ulster Loyalism?