Best for our current situation: a modern Socialist state or a modern Nationalist state?

A hypothetical debate recently came to my mind which I think many on here would agree with me on, that should a home-grown, revolutionary movement assume complete power over a Western country, would it be more convenient for that nation that it would be exclusively socialist or exclusively nationalist?

>By nationalist I mean that which includes the typical tenets of modern nationalism: pride in one's race/culture, feeling need to emphasize that particular race/culture (thus obviously rooting out whatever possible of a foreign race/culture); and, as a consequence of strife toward racial solidarity, sympathy for other nations that are merely racially similar.

>>Should there be a racialist movement in power, it may end up deteriorating. They will end up balkanizing the nation further on ethnic lines, instead of demanding that all members of the state must cooperate as a people or be forced to leave. But instead of doing the latter, they'll insist all non-whites leave which will waste time for social improvement and divide the nation where not necessarily important to divide. Where will they insist the ethnicities they kick out who just want to work and get by go? How will a "race war" be progressive for a nation, in a revolutionary context or post-revolution context?

>With a genuine, young socialist country in the West we can rightfully assure it will be nationalistic by default anyway, on the basis that it achieved in overthrowing the capitalist system and neighboring nations' governments hate their society for it.

>>Out of the two instances, I'd say a socialist state would be the most beneficial, the most worth-while, both from the socialist (internationalist brand or otherwise) and the racial camp. It would react and deal with problems and conflicts in better ways than a racialist state would. A US-NATO invasion of, or interference in a European socialist country would mean potential uprisings by fed-up anti-cappies in many nations, seeing a socialist nation that's trying to build itself up be attacked by war mongers again; and White Nationalists as well, seeing another sickening and genocidal attack on Europe's people. We should hope that these two factions will unite for that country's survival and make a change, instead of being enemies. So, quite literally, a great phalanx will stand with that nation which loves its people and upholds the freedom and liberation that is our socialism.

I would furthermore like to add that my racialism goes as far as simply preserving the white race and making it better. I believe all races and cultures can cooperate, and there is no reason why the leaders of each cannot find the competence in their own to do so. I would like to see a socialist country adopt racial policies and ambitions once they have the means to. The new man, a postulate used to express the need for mankind to rise above itself and its modern incompetence should be the paramount importance of race - not so much about preserving something only because it's been there for a long time. New ideas need to be formed. New men need to be made.

Despite this post being almost a year old now I spent a few minutes typing out a response, but I see that was a waste of energy; I can't take you too seriously with a Goebbels quote in your signature. Your best bet would be to joint Stormfront instead of wasting your thoughts on the idea of racial nationalism as a prelude to a true socialist movement.

There is also a quote from a NSDAP song, "Brüder in Zechen und Gruben." It is pointless that there be an email notification to this thread for someone who simply criticized the content of my sig rather than what I actually wanted to discuss nearly a year ago. I've wasted my time on Stormfront and I've wasted my time on here. This site will eventually balkanize once there are many posters with different visions and conceptions. At the time of registering, I realized this forum consisted of materialists interested in purely economic dogma.

The revolutionaries here will always be in a constant debate amongst conceptions of socialism and the state. There will be the nationalists who feel the state more-or-less embodies the collective entity of the citizens - the people; and there will be the Marxists who feel the state is a tool for one class against another.. These debates aren't wrong to be held, but while you're suggesting SF as the supposedly appropriate place for my ideas (some of which have evolved since the posting of this thread.. Hitler was right - a man should enter into politics at the age of 30!) I'll bring up the problems with this forum which are similar to SF's.

Sure everyone on here can complain about Capitalism and talk about how the world can be better without it and such.. But precisely how to arrive at a better condition, especially weighing in the spiritual dimensions of such a revolution, will be a crazy debate.. Look at how primitive and materialistic Che Guevara's thinking was on Marxist ideas on social consciousness and human liberation: "man truly reaches his full human condition when he produces without being compelled by physical necessity to sell himself as a commodity." Really? Is that how man arrives at his full human condition? No doubt man is treated as a commodity, yet should not be treated as such. But a slave is not good just because the slave master is bad. Man, when not compelled by physical necessity to sell himself as a commodity, can easily and willingly do so when he gives himself away to other dangerous and deadly aspects of his life and Nature. Ignoble and unrighteous acts can still exist. Social consciousness can be effected and improved on the basis of productive changes, but on what plane? to what degree? In this regard the racial quality (or the greater social consciousness) of the people is determined insofar as how man is not treated, either by the bourgeoisie, or its tool - the state...

Besides, all of this can be achieved without the eternal class conflict dogma of well-to-do intellectuals and non-proles (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, ex). What's funny is how it took these men to enlighten the proletarians, rather than the proletarians (the people!) themselves to arise to this thinking.

As the great spiritual leader, Srila Prabhupada said, "The mass of people is not communist. They cannot become communist. It is not possible."

Ghost Wolf wrote:This site will eventually balkanize once there are many posters with different visions and conceptions.

As all forums do—that's what makes them interesting. Though I'm pleased that most of our members are typically in agreement over issues of critical importance, I certainly wouldn't like if the Socialist Phalanx were to be reduced to yet another dogmatic online echo chamber. (That's not to say I'm in favor of petty sectarianism, however.)

At the time of registering, I realized this forum consisted of materialists interested in purely economic dogma

It's not that we, as individuals, are interested solely in materialist "economic dogma"—we are actually interested in a wide variety of subjects, from music and cinema to history and the philosophy of science—but rather that, as revolutionaries who adhere to the scientific socialist approach pioneered by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, we stress the importance of applying a material analysis to current events in order to better guide activism.

The revolutionaries here will always be in a constant debate amongst conceptions of socialism and the state. There will be the nationalists who feel the state more-or-less embodies the collective entity of the citizens - the people; and there will be the Marxists who feel the state is a tool for one class against another..

I realize that this was just meant as an example, but it's a false dichotomy nonetheless. Those of us who identify as left-wing nationalists, for instance, view the state as neither the embodiment of "the collective entity of the citizens" nor as a mere instrument of class domination.

Sure everyone on here can complain about Capitalism and talk about how the world can be better without it and such.. But precisely how to arrive at a better condition, especially weighing in the spiritual dimensions of such a revolution, will be a crazy debate..

It's really not that complicated. Either a combination of material forces (e.g., the increasing immiseration of the proletariat) and radical activism will succeed in developing class consciousness and revolutionary fervor within the masses, or it won't. The only alternative is pure idealism, which would likely prove incapable of convincing an adequate portion of any population to emancipate itself from the false consciousness capitalism imbues in them, let alone inspire the people to revolutionary action.

Look at how primitive and materialistic Che Guevara's thinking was on Marxist ideas on social consciousness and human liberation: "man truly reaches his full human condition when he produces without being compelled by physical necessity to sell himself as a commodity." Really? Is that how man arrives at his full human condition?

There's nothing "primitive" about Guevara's views on human liberation (which were derived from Marx's writings on alienation). Free, creative labor is an essential element of mankind's Gattungswesen, and it's currently stifled and debased by bourgeois social relations. Overcoming the commodification of labor and production for exchange would undoubtedly improve our psychological state as well as our quality of life. The precise extent is unknowable, but surely ending the insecurity, exploitation, warfare, and ecological devastation capitalism is responsible for is a worthy pursuit regardless.

But a slave is not good just because the slave master is bad. Man, when not compelled by physical necessity to sell himself as a commodity, can easily and willingly do so when he gives himself away to other dangerous and deadly aspects of his life and Nature. Ignoble and unrighteous acts can still exist.

No one has ever claimed that socialism or communism is a panacea, from which people will magically be transformed into saints, or what have you. As the Marxist geneticist J. B. S. Haldane once said, "there are two reasons why humans do not turn into angels: moral imperfection and a body plan that cannot accommodate both arms and wings." Benjamin Tucker (whom I disagree with on quite a lot) summarized the view of most socialists well when he wrote, "I have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection, only that its results are vastly more preferable to those that follow authority." In other words, to claim that "ignoble and unrighteous acts" will persist under communism isn't a particularly provocative statement to anyone with a semblance of intelligence.

Besides, all of this can be achieved without the eternal class conflict dogma of well-to-do intellectuals and non-proles (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, ex).

This "class conflict dogma" to which you refer wasn't concocted ex nihilo. Karl Marx was describing an objective phenomena which inevitably emerges when the substructure of society is fundamentally based on two classes whose interests are diametrically opposed to one another. That you are unable to recognize something so apparent illustrates the profound extent by which you've allowed idealism to interfere with your ability to think critically.

What's funny is how it took these men to enlighten the proletarians, rather than the proletarians (the people!) themselves to arise to this thinking.

And yet Marx and Engels weren't required to "enlighten" the proletariat to class consciousness. The bourgeoisie had been engaged in a brutal class war with the working class since it began inclosing on the lands peasants cultivated in common in the 18th century—research the history of primitive accumulation. Violent labor disputes long preceded Marx's writings, and it was intuitively obvious to early proletarians that wage labor differed from chattel slavery only insofar as the former is a temporary relationship.

I don't subscribe to the Leninist notion that, absent a revolutionary vanguard, the working class would fail to develop anything beyond a "trade union consciousness." On the contrary, I agree with Mikhail Bakunin's belief in mankind being endowed with an "instinct for freedom" which can only truly be satiated under conditions of self-management. The task of radical activism, in my opinion, is merely to unleash that instinct and assist in directing it toward actions which will lead to the formation of a liberatory mode of production.

As the great spiritual leader, Srila Prabhupada said, "The mass of people is not communist. They cannot become communist. It is not possible."

Spare me the inane, reactionary Hindu nonsense.

I find it increasingly amusing, yet nonetheless frustrating, that individuals who seem to understand very little of Marxist theory so self-righteously spurn its conclusions. It is rendered all the more tasteless due to the fact that they pursue such diatribes by employing the same idealist nonsense Marxism seeks to combat. If you venture to discredit Marxism, Ghost Wolf, at least attempt to seriously comprehend the logic of its content without resorting to petty straw man arguments.

As far as "wasting your time" here is concerned, I was not aware that you were in any way bound to this forum, nor is it necessary for you to inform us of your baseless discontent after hardly participating for months. You are free to utilize your precious time for whatever sterile activities available to you.