14 THESIS OF THE GERMAN REVOLUTION

A contreversial subject on this forum,But hey everyday is a school day
14 THESIS OF THE GERMAN REVOLUTION

The meaning of the Great War? German Revolution! That mighty revolution of the twentieth century, of which the "World War" was only the first act, of which all "putsches," "rebellions," "battles" are only parts, in which fate tests and discards different solutions in order to find the solution.

On both levels of life - the spiritual, the intellectual - mighty changes are going on, confused in expression, fragmented in form, and yet filled with the same melody, advancing toward the same goal!

But this goal is the German Revolution, the revolution of conservatism, by which the great French Revolution, that victory of liberalism, will be overthrown, overcome, set aside! It is the revolution of the soul against the mind, of nationalism against individualism, of socialism against capitalism, and when we try to announce its overwhelming content in a schematic way, we set down:

THE FOURTEEN THESES OF THE GERMAN REVOLUTION

I

The German Revolution denies before God and the world and obligation toward the "peace treaties" of Versailles and Saint-Germain, treaties based on the lie of Germany;s guilt and instituted through brute force, The German Revolution wages ceaseless and fanatic war, with all means, until it brings about the complete abrogation of these dictated treaties and all agreements based on them.

II

The German Revolution proclaims the freedom of the German nation in a strong German state which embraces all the German peoples of central Europe, and which, from Memel to Strassburg, from Eupen to Vienna, embraces Germans of the motherland and of the unredeemed territories, and because of its greatness and ability, for,s the backbone and the heart of white Europe.

III

The German Revolution refuses to rule over and exploit foreign peoples and nations. It wants no more and no less than sufficient living space for the young nation of Germans, and insofar as the fulfillment of this deepest natural right of life conflicts with the same right of other peoples and nations, the German Revolution recognizes the decision of war as the will of fate.

IV

The German Revolution declares that it is the sole purpose of the state to gather together all the forces of the nation and to employ them uniformly in guaranteeing the life and the future of this nation. It accepts every means which furthers his purpose an denies every means which hinders it.

V

The German Revolution therefore demands the harshest use of a strong central authority against all disruptive or disturbing organizations, whether political, party, or religious. The centralized state of the German nation binds together in the most powerful unity those forces which grow out of regional and particularist traditions.

VI

As an appropriate extension of the high tasks of the state, the German Revolution gives free scope for the development to the forces of occupational self-government, which have been inhibited and suppressed by a lifeless liberal system. It values the living organization in professional and occupational chambers above an artificial parliamentarism, just as in anything and everything, it values the personal responsibility of leadership over the irresponsibility of an anonymous mass.

VII

The German Revolution proclaims that the German nation is a community of fate. But it is aware that a community of fate is not only a community of need but also a community of bread and therefore affirms all of the demands which follow from this recognition according to the fundamental principle: "The common good before the individual good."

VIII

The German Revolution therefore rejects the individualistic economic system of capitalism; and the overthrow of capitalism is the prerequisite to the success of the German Revolution. With the same decisiveness of the German Revolution affirms the corporative economic system of socialism, processing from and concluding with the knowledge that the purpose of any economic system is solely the satisfaction of the needs of the nation, not riches or gain.

IX

The German Revolution therefore declares its superior property right in all land and mineral rights. Landowners are only leaseholders of the nation, and are accountable to the nation and to the state, because the nation as a whole defends the property.

X

On the basis of the same right, the German Revolution proclaims the right of all workers to share in ownership, profit and management of the economy of the nation, which every folk comrade serves. His personal share in property, profit and management id either earned or limited by increased output, greater responsibility. The German Revolution knows ad recognizes the motive force of personal interest, but incorporates this force into a larger machinery for the good of the nation.

XI

The German Revolution sees this good of the nation neither in the accumulation of material goods, nor in a limitless improvement of the standard of living, but exclusively in the recovery and maintenance in the health of that God-given organism, the Nation. Only thus can this German nation fulfill the task entrusted to it by fate.

XII

The German Revolution sees this task as the full development of the unique folkish character and therefore fights with every means against racial degeneration or foreign influence in culture, and for folkish renewal and purity, for German culture. This fight applies particularly to the Jews, who, in combination with the international powers of freemasonry and ultra-Montanism, are destroying, partly compelled by their nature, partly internationally, the life of the German soul.

XIII

The German Revolution therefore also fights against the rule of Jewish Roman law and for a German law which has the German and his honor as its axis and consciously affirms and values the inequality of man. This German law recognizes as citizens only folk comrades and measures all according to the good of the whole.

XIV

The German Revolution overthrows the world view of the great French Revolution and shapes the face of the twentieth century. It is nationalistic - against the enslavement of the German people; it is socialist - against the tyranny if money; it is folkish - against the destruction of the German soul - but it is all of these only for the sake of the nation. And for the sake of those nation for the German Revolution recoils from no battle, finds no sacrifice too great, no war too bloody, for Germany must live!

Thus we youths feel the heartbeat of the German Revolution pounding, thus we front soldiers see the face of the near future before us and experience, humble-proud, the role of the chosen ones, to fight, to win the battle of the twentieth century, satisfied to see the meaning of the war, the Third Reich.

Good post, I am not a Stasserite but I admire the Strasser brothers.

Now I know this isnt a Strasserite forum and its your train set so fair enough its your decision at the end of the day but Ive had a read through the guidlines and FAQ and I must say in my opinion that above post has not broken any rules so I see no reason why its in the Reactionary thread?.

TheocWulf wrote: Now I know this isnt a Strasserite forum and its your train set so fair enough its your decision at the end of the day but Ive had a read through the guidlines and FAQ and I must say in my opinion that above post has not broken any rules so I see no reason why its in the Reactionary thread?.

Not necessarily that I agree with the moving of the thread to the reactionary section, but probably because the document references Jews, in specific, as being a problem.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Not necessarily that I agree with the moving of the thread to the reactionary section, but probably because the document references Jews, in specific, as being a problem.

Yea fair one ill take that one on the chin It could be taken in a recationary context by some but in my opinion that sentiment may have been justified AT THE TIME and of course has no relevence to modern Strasserism or social nationalism as a whole.

TheocWulf wrote: Now I know this isnt a Strasserite forum and its your train set so fair enough its your decision at the end of the day but Ive had a read through the guidlines and FAQ and I must say in my opinion that above post has not broken any rules so I see no reason why its in the Reactionary thread?.

The reason I placed this thread in the Reactionary sub-forum is because, as Pantheon Rising noted, it violates forum policy by promoting antisemitism. Its content is reactionary in other aspects as well. For instance, Strasser explicitly promoted a form of lebensraum in this work:

"The German Revolution refuses to rule over and exploit foreign peoples and nations. It wants no more and no less than sufficient living space for the young nation of Germans, and insofar as the fulfillment of this deepest natural right of life conflicts with the same right of other peoples and nations, the German Revolution recognizes the decision of war as the will of fate."

It's obviously not identical to the Hitlerian conception of lebensraum, since it rejects colonialism, but it's reactionary nonetheless.

Then consider his vague, and relatively mild, socialist proposal:

"On the basis of the same right, the German Revolution proclaims the right of all workers to share in ownership, profit and management of the economy of the nation, which every folk comrade serves. His personal share in property, profit and management is either earned or limited by increased output, greater responsibility."

This question begging and can be interpreted mean any number of things, but particularly troubling is the prospect that Strasser's "German Socialism" can merely represent workers "sharing ownership, profit, and management" with the bourgeoisie. Such an economic system would be nothing more than a form of corporativism, and it clearly bears no resemblance to the revolutionary socialism advocated on this forum.

Celtiberian wrote:The reason I placed this thread in the Reactionary sub-forum is because, as Pantheon Rising noted, it violates forum policy by promoting antisemitism. Its content is reactionary in other aspects as well. For instance, Strasser explicitly promoted a form of lebensraum in this work:

"The German Revolution refuses to rule over and exploit foreign peoples and nations. It wants no more and no less than sufficient living space for the young nation of Germans, and insofar as the fulfillment of this deepest natural right of life conflicts with the same right of other peoples and nations, the German Revolution recognizes the decision of war as the will of fate."

It's obviously not identical to the Hitlerian conception of lebensraum, since it rejects colonialism, but it's reactionary nonetheless.

Well like you said the above points are open to interpretation but id say he said no such thing.Id say the Nation of Germans would include the Sudaten Land, Alsas Danzig ect In fact in Nemisis Strasser describes drawing up new boundries with France,Poland and Czechoslovakia with these nations getting land in return or reperations.

Then consider his vague, and relatively mild, socialist proposal:

"On the basis of the same right, the German Revolution proclaims the right of all workers to share in ownership, profit and management of the economy of the nation, which every folk comrade serves. His personal share in property, profit and management is either earned or limited by increased output, greater responsibility."

This question begging and can be interpreted mean any number of things, but particularly troubling is the prospect that Strasser's "German Socialism" can merely represent workers "sharing ownership, profit, and management" with the bourgeoisie. Such an economic system would be nothing more than a form of corporativism, and it clearly bears no resemblance to the revolutionary socialism advocated on this forum.

I disagrea Corporativism was a fairly well known concept and many figures includeing Mosley and Mussolini used it to.If that was the case the Strassers would have just said so.And it also says nothing about the workers "sharing ownership, profit, and management" with the bourgeoisie.

Why wouldnt everbody in the nation be a Folk Comrade the bourgeoisie will be taken down but they will still be there unless you plan to liquidate them or move them outside of your boundries some may go on to be managers again but they will never be in a posistion to exploit the workers or become super rich and super powerfull again.

Also while hitler was in prision the brothers recruitied many more socialists to the party and even invited the entire National Bolshevik movement to the party including Fredrich Niekisch And also was in contact with Niekisch and other including György Lukács,Karl Wittfogel and Friedrich Hielscher in the study of the Russian planned econamy (ARPLAN).

TheocWulf wrote:I disagrea Corporativism was a fairly well known concept and many figures includeing Mosley and Mussolini used it to.If that was the case the Strassers would have just said so.And it also says nothing about the workers "sharing ownership, profit, and management" with the bourgeoisie.

Why wouldnt everbody in the nation be a Folk Comrade the bourgeoisie will be taken down but they will still be there unless you plan to liquidate them or move them outside of your boundries some may go on to be managers again but they will never be in a posistion to exploit the workers or become super rich and super powerfull again.

Also while hitler was in prision the brothers recruitied many more socialists to the party and even invited the entire National Bolshevik movement to the party including Fredrich Niekisch And also was in contact with Niekisch and other including György Lukács,Karl Wittfogel and Friedrich Hielscher in the study of the Russian planned econamy (ARPLAN).

TheocWulf, in this document, the author does mention corporativism, in the second part of the eighth thesis:

Otto Strasser wrote:With the same decisiveness of the German Revolution affirms the corporative economic system of socialism, processing from and concluding with the knowledge that the purpose of any economic system is solely the satisfaction of the needs of the nation, not riches or gain.

Apparently, he believed socialism was somehow 'corporativst', perhaps Celtiberian could clarify that issue.

That all aside, I find the rest of your post very interesting.

Perhaps but certainly not teh same corperatism as facism
the owners of a factory for example would own 49% of the factory 41% percent owned by the state and the final 10% by the workers.Decison makeing is taken by an advisory board mae up of these three groups so in effect one group can stop another or both groups exploiting one another.Not traditional marxism ill agrea but hey works for me.

TheocWulf wrote:Perhaps but certainly not teh same corperatism as facism
the owners of a factory for example would own 49% of the factory 41% percent owned by the state and the final 10% by the workers.Decison makeing is taken by an advisory board mae up of these three groups so in effect one group can stop another or both groups exploiting one another.Not traditional marxism ill agrea but hey works for me.

While the specific details may indeed differ, the corporativism is still glaringly obvious. Capital is maintained, yet subordinated to a cooperative function alongside the state and labor. This was Mussolini's vision, as well as the vision of many other fascists.

Exploitation would still transpire, due to the fact that capital would still be siphoning off its own portion of the surplus. (The only difference would be that labor would have to further consent to this exploitation via participation in some planning/bargaining functions, etc.) The fact that the state would have a larger stake in the collective ownership than labor would also be problematic under this model. Given the maintenance of the bourgeoisie, the state would consequentially be vulnerable to the same sorts of financial influence inherent to all capitalist societies — thus undermining its supposed impartiality in relations between labor and capital.

You can call that model whatever you'd like, but I wouldn't recommend calling it socialism.

Admin wrote:Exploitation would still transpire, due to the fact that capital would still be siphoning off its own portion of the surplus. (The only difference would be that labor would have to further consent to this exploitation via participation in some planning/bargaining functions, etc.) The fact that the state would have a larger stake in the collective ownership than labor would also be problematic under this model. Given the maintenance of the bourgeoisie, the state would consequentially be vulnerable to the same sorts of financial influence inherent to all capitalist societies — thus undermining its supposed impartiality in relations between labor and capital.

Well the same could be said of a society where only the workers and the state exist,it all relise on people being very forthright.
Strasser said that the surplus capital would be used to benifit of the communiy as a whole,the bourgeoisie dont get to hoard it and could not as the state and the workers are partners in work place and of course know the figures.

You can call that model whatever you'd like, but I wouldn't recommend calling it socialism.

Ill call it Ethnic or at a push national socialism

TheocWulf wrote:Well like you said the above points are open to interpretation but id say he said no such thing.Id say the Nation of Germans would include the Sudaten Land, Alsas Danzig ect In fact in Nemisis Strasser describes drawing up new boundries with France,Poland and Czechoslovakia with these nations getting land in return or reperations.

Regarding warfare over living space, Strasser was unambiguous in this particular document: he supported it as being the "will of fate." I'm well aware that his views on the matter subsequently changed, but I was explaining the reactionary features of The Fourteen Theses of the German Revolution, not of his entire political career.

I disagrea Corporativism was a fairly well known concept and many figures includeing Mosley and Mussolini used it to.If that was the case the Strassers would have just said so.

As Bladridigan pointed out, he explicitly refers to his "German Socialism" as being a form of corporativism in the document (Thesis VIII). The only significant difference between Mussolini's conception of corporativism and Strasser's is that the former's was applied to an industry-wide process of labor and capital management with state mediation, while the latter's was a firm-based version which also featured a provision for profit sharing.

And it also says nothing about the workers "sharing ownership, profit, and management" with the bourgeoisie.

Indeed, it fails to mention co-management and profit sharing with the bourgeoisie in this particular document. However, elsewhere (namely in Germany Tomorrow and Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser) Strasser actually advocates establishing an economic order which does precisely that—as you yourself noted, representatives of labor, capital, and the state would manage each firm, with profit being apportioned on a 10%, 49%, and 31% basis, respectively.

This economic model cannot legitimately be called "socialism," as such proposals leave the bourgeoisie intact. So long as a class of individuals exists which derive their wealth from the of mere ownership of capital assets, capitalism has not been transcended.

Why wouldnt everbody in the nation be a Folk Comrade the bourgeoisie will be taken down but they will still be there unless you plan to liquidate them or move them outside of your boundries some may go on to be managers again but they will never be in a posistion to exploit the workers or become super rich and super powerfull again.

On the contrary, it appears as though Strasserism enables exploitation to persist by virtue of maintaining the bourgeoisie.

In an actual socialist mode of production, you'd be correct: the bourgeoisie would be re-assimilated into the working-class—whether it be in a managerial position or not would obviously depend upon the former capitalist's inclination, as well as on a firm's workers' council hiring s/he and appointing them to management.

Also while hitler was in prision the brothers recruitied many more socialists to the party and even invited the entire National Bolshevik movement to the party including Fredrich Niekisch

Comrade, I'm intimately familiar with the history of Strasserism, I assure you. However, I never read of Gregor and Otto Strasser inviting Ernst Niekisch to join the NSDAP. I recall learning of Joseph Goebbels's attempt to get Oswald Spengler to join the party (which was to no avail), but this is literally the first time I ever heard that Niekisch was asked to join. (Do you have a source for this, by chance?)

Well the same could be said of a society where only the workers and the state exist,it all relise on people being very forthright.

Absolutely not. There are very significant moral hazard problems which society has do endure as a result of maintaining a bourgeois class, which wouldn't exist under socialism. For example, let's say the state enacted laws which regulated safety standards within firms. The workers would have a direct incentive to follow said regulations, whereas capital would view those same regulations as being a burdensome cost of production and—since capitalists are not directly affected by the safety standards their workers face—would, consequently, have an incentive to evade, and even attempt to overturn them.

People cannot be expected to behave in a forthright manner when institutional pressures exist which completely undermine collective interests. As the Admin said, Strasser's economic vision is clearly susceptible to rent-seeking and regulatory capture.

Strasser said that the surplus capital would be used to benifit of the communiy as a whole,the bourgeoisie dont get to hoard it and could not as the state and the workers are partners in work place and of course know the figures.

Strasser insisting it wouldn't happen, and actually attempting to ensure it doesn't in practice, are worlds apart. The history of dirigisme is replete with examples which should cause any proponent of thoroughly regulating the bourgeoisie some pause.

Ill call it Ethnic or at a push national socialism

I'd call it a form of state capitalism.

Celtiberian wrote:Regarding warfare over living space, Strasser was unambiguous in this particular document: he supported it as being the "will of fate." I'm well aware that his views on the matter subsequently changed, but I was explaining the reactionary features of The Fourteen Theses of the German Revolution, not of his entire political career.

Fate is in -escapeable

As Bladridigan pointed out, he explicitly refers to his "German Socialism" as being a form of corporativism in the document (Thesis VIII). The only significant difference between Mussolini's conception of corporativism and Strasser's is that the former's was applied to an industry-wide process of labor and capital management with state mediation, while the latter's was a firm-based version which also featured a provision for profit sharing.

Id say more Coopretive than corporative

Indeed, it fails to mention co-management and profit sharing with the bourgeoisie in this particular document. However, elsewhere (namely in Germany Tomorrow and Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser) Strasser actually advocates establishing an economic order which does precisely that—as you yourself noted, representatives of labor, capital, and the state would manage each firm, with profit being apportioned on a 10%, 49%, and 41% basis, respectively.

This economic model cannot legitimately be called "socialism," as such proposals leave the bourgeoisie intact. So long as a class of individuals exists which derive their wealth from the of mere ownership of capital assets, capitalism has not been transcended.

They dont own it
1. DISTINCTION FROM CAPITALISM

a. There Is no private property in the means of pro-
duction. They can neither be bought nor sold, so that
even though there may be persons who possess large
quantities of commodities or money ('wealth 9 in this
sense being both possible and permissible), nothing like
^capitalism' can come into existence.

b. The staff of workers and the State are equally privi-
leged partners with the manager, who is not a Capitalist*,
but merely a fief-holder.

c. The need for economic and systematic production
is enforced upon the manager because his partners out-
number him.

d. Every German citizen is one of the joint possessors
of the entire German economy.

On the contrary, it appears as though Strasserism enables exploitation to persist by virtue of maintaining the bourgeoisie.

In an actual socialist mode of production, you'd be correct: the bourgeoisie would be re-assimilated into the working-class—whether it be in a managerial position or not would obviously depend upon the former capitalist's inclination, as well as on a firm's workers' council hiring s/he and appointing them to management.

2. DISTINCTION FROM MARXISM

a. The personal initiative of the responsible managers
is preserved, but it is incorporated into the needs of the
community*

b. Within the systematically planned management of
the whole national economy by the State (organically
safeguarded by the equal third of influence which the
State has in every industrial enterprise) the wholesome
rivalry of the individual enterprises is maintained.

c. The treatment of State and economic enterprise,
that is to say of official and industrial manager, on an
equal footing is avoided; so is the arbitrary power of the
State which deprives the worker of his rights.

d. Everyone engaged in an enterprise is, in virtue of
his being part-possessor as a citizen, one of the immediate
and influential possessors of his enterprise, his c workshop 5 ,
and can exert this possessive right in full measure on the
supervisory council of the concern.

The form of the factory fellowship, founded upon the
legal idea of the fief, and vivified by the great self-
governing body of the workers 3 and employees 5 councils,
on the one hand, the industrial and trades 5 councils, on
the other, constitutes the new economic system of Ger-
man socialism, which is equally remote from western
capitalism and eastern bolshevism, and nevertheless
complies with the requirements of large-scale industry.
Strasser Otto Germany tommorow pp.165-6

Comrade, I'm intimately familiar with the history of Strasserism, I assure you. However, I never read of Gregor and Otto Strasser inviting Ernst Niekisch to join the NSDAP. I recall learning of Joseph Goebbels's attempt to get Oswald Spengler to join the party (which was to no avail), but this is literally the first time I ever heard that Niekisch was asked to join. (Do you have a source for this, by chance?)

Its alluded to in Troy Southgates Otto Strasser the life and times of a German socialist but there is no source for it in the work.
However ive got a source on Ottos feelings on Niekisch and other NazBols

The books and writeings of these men were the beacons and signals of a revolution which was already fermenting in the depths,but of which nothing was seen,unless it was deliberately ignored by those on the surface,for instance the "Intelligentsia" which had grouped round the Jewish publishing houses of Mosse and Ullstien and had fitted itself with blinkers
Strasser Otto history in my time p.201

Absolutely not. There are very significant moral hazard problems which society has do endure as a result of maintaining a bourgeois class, which wouldn't exist under socialism. For example, let's say the state enacted laws which regulated safety standards within firms. The workers would have a direct incentive to follow said regulations, whereas capital would view those same regulations as being a burdensome cost of production and—since capitalists are not directly affected by the safety standards their workers face—would, consequently, have an incentive to evade, and even attempt to overturn them.

Of course but nobody owns the means of production
Yes but only if they own it

People cannot be expected to behave in a forthright manner when institutional pressures exist which completely undermine collective interests. As the Admin said, Strasser's economic vision is clearly susceptible to rent-seeking and regulatory capture.

Strasser insisting it wouldn't happen, and actually attempting to ensure it doesn't in practice, are worlds apart. The history of dirigisme is replete with examples which should cause any proponent of thoroughly regulating the bourgeoisie some pause.

show me a socialist system that has practiced what it has preached?

I'd call it a form of state capitalism

Id call it Ethnic or National Socialism

TheocWulf wrote:Fate is inescapeable

If one promotes a sociopolitical system that lends itself toward imperialism, then one can hardly claim that the disastrous consequences that inevitably follow are the result of the "will of fate." This strikes me as but another dishonest attempt at justifying repression and oppression.

Id say more Coopretive than corporative

Remember that our use of terminology on this forum is extremely important due to the delicate meaning that political and economic movements and schools of thought have attached to themselves throughout history. A cooperative system is one in which workers own the means of production and govern a business democratically; there is no indication that this was at all what Strasserism envisioned.

They dont own it
1. DISTINCTION FROM CAPITALISM

a. There Is no private property in the means of pro-
duction. They can neither be bought nor sold, so that
even though there may be persons who possess large
quantities of commodities or money ('wealth 9 in this
sense being both possible and permissible), nothing like
^capitalism' can come into existence.

b. The staff of workers and the State are equally privi-
leged partners with the manager, who is not a Capitalist*,
but merely a fief-holder.

c. The need for economic and systematic production
is enforced upon the manager because his partners out-
number him.

d. Every German citizen is one of the joint possessors
of the entire German economy.

This is all vague to the extent where it only reinforces that the Strassers espoused some form of corporativism in my mind. Why are fief-holding managers a requisite component of the economy? Why is the state allowed to appropriate surplus above the will of the workers? What does it mean for the staff of workers to be "equally privileged" with managers?

2. DISTINCTION FROM MARXISM

a. The personal initiative of the responsible managers
is preserved, but it is incorporated into the needs of the
community*

b. Within the systematically planned management of
the whole national economy by the State (organically
safeguarded by the equal third of influence which the
State has in every industrial enterprise) the wholesome
rivalry of the individual enterprises is maintained.

c. The treatment of State and economic enterprise,
that is to say of official and industrial manager, on an
equal footing is avoided; so is the arbitrary power of the
State which deprives the worker of his rights.

d. Everyone engaged in an enterprise is, in virtue of
his being part-possessor as a citizen, one of the immediate
and influential possessors of his enterprise, his c workshop 5 ,
and can exert this possessive right in full measure on the
supervisory council of the concern.

The form of the factory fellowship, founded upon the
legal idea of the fief, and vivified by the great self-
governing body of the workers 3 and employees 5 councils,
on the one hand, the industrial and trades 5 councils, on
the other, constitutes the new economic system of Ger-
man socialism, which is equally remote from western
capitalism and eastern bolshevism, and nevertheless
complies with the requirements of large-scale industry.
Strasser Otto Germany tommorow pp.165-6

First of all, this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism. Secondly, the model described is dangerously close to state capitalism. It risks not only the perpetuation of the bourgeoisie via "fief-holding" managers, but subjects society to even greater stratification in the form of a rigid coordinator class. Trades and "employees" councils, for example, presuppose an alienated working class which must bolster its position through collective bargaining. What Strasserism loosely promised, it seems, was to increase the participatory and leveraging power of workers—something that all corporativist theories have proclaimed.

TheocWulf wrote:Fate is in -escapeable

But warfare over living space isn't inescapable, as Otto Strasser himself later came to realize. However, in this particular work, Strasser is guilty of casually stating that it's inevitable for two populations to go to war for land without taking any effort whatsoever to qualify the statement. I find this to be inexcusable. Waging wars over resources is archaic, undesirable, and (most importantly) unnecessary.

Id say more Coopretive than corporative

We needn't get hung up on semantics.

They dont own it

In Strasser's scheme, a firm's managerial staff is entitled to 49% of the revenue generated therein. (I apologize for stating in my previous post that the bourgeoisie would be retained in German Socialism, as that wasn't what Strasser suggested.) Even if the firm would technically be public property, if these managers were to be unaccountable to labor and yet derive their income from the surplus value generated by their firm's workers, such would constitute a form of exploitation akin to the bourgeoisie's theft of the surplus value the proletariat produces under capitalism.

The staff of workers and the State are equally privileged partners with the manager, who is not a Capitalist, but merely a fief-holder.

And yet this so-called "fief-holder" is automatically entitled to a higher share of the surplus value than both the state and labor? Why? Who determines how much these managers are entitled to? If I recall correctly, Strasser is rather vague about such information in Germany Tomorrow.

DISTINCTION FROM MARXISM

a. The personal initiative of the responsible managers is preserved, but it is incorporated into the needs of the community

b. Within the systematically planned management of the whole national economy by the State (organically safeguarded by the equal third of influence which the State has in every industrial enterprise) the wholesome rivalry of the individual enterprises is maintained.

These are nonsensical "distinctions from Marxism." Marxism is a method by which to analyze capitalism's laws of motion, it's not an economic ideology. Communism, on the other hand, is a mode of production. While Marx and Engels were self-identified communists, they purposely avoided writing much about the subject—they didn't like speculating about how future economies would function. Moreover, one can be a Marxist (i.e., someone who accepts and employs Marx's analysis of capital) while also supporting competitive firms, personal initiative, and so forth.

The Strasser brothers frequently created false dichotomies in their philosophy, of which the quotes you posted are a prime examples.

show me a socialist system that has practiced what it has preached?

The historical failure of state socialism is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how best to organize a socialist economy.

Celtiberian wrote:But warfare over living space isn't inescapable, as Otto Strasser himself later came to realize. However, in this particular work, Strasser is guilty of casually stating that it's inevitable for two populations to go to war for land without taking any effort whatsoever to qualify the statement. I find this to be inexcusable. Waging wars over resources is archaic, undesirable, and (most importantly) unnecessary.

Of course Comrade im not of personally advocateing that.I perhaps should have been more clear you ever seen two people/groups fight for no reason short of just dislikeing one another id say thats fate when two groups/people scrap for no reason what so ever.

We needn't get hung up on semantics.

Fair one

In Strasser's scheme, a firm's managerial staff is entitled to 49% of the revenue generated therein. (I apologize for stating in my previous post that the bourgeoisie would be retained in German Socialism, as that wasn't what Strasser suggested.) Even if the firm would technically be public property, if these managers were to be unaccountable to labor and yet derive their income from the surplus value generated by their firm's workers, such would constitute a form of exploitation akin to the bourgeoisie's theft of the surplus value the proletariat produces under capitalism.

Like you said it relise on them being unaccountable

And yet this so-called "fief-holder" is automatically entitled to a higher share of the surplus value than both the state and labor? Why? Who determines how much these managers are entitled to? If I recall correctly, Strasser is rather vague about such information in Germany Tomorrow.

Well the Fellowship would

These are nonsensical "distinctions from Marxism." Marxism is a method by which to analyze capitalism's laws of motion, it's not an economic ideology. Communism, on the other hand, is a mode of production. While Marx and Engels were self-identified communists, they purposely avoided writing much about the subject—they didn't like speculating about how future economies would function. Moreover, one can be a Marxist (i.e., someone who accepts and employs Marx's analysis of capital) while also supporting competitive firms, personal initiative, and so forth.

The Strasser brothers frequently created false dichotomies in their philosophy, of which the quotes you posted are a prime examples.

yea ill accept that

The historical failure of state socialism is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how best to organize a socialist economy.

True that

Rev Scare wrote:If one promotes a sociopolitical system that lends itself toward imperialism, then one can hardly claim that the disastrous consequences that inevitably follow are the result of the "will of fate." This strikes me as but another dishonest attempt at justifying repression and oppression.

I think I was literally refering to fate

\Remember that our use of terminology on this forum is extremely important due to the delicate meaning that political and economic movements and schools of thought have attached to themselves throughout history. A cooperative system is one in which workers own the means of production and govern a business democratically; there is no indication that this was at all what Strasserism envisioned.

The workers state owns it

First of all, this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism. Secondly, the model described is dangerously close to state capitalism. It risks not only the perpetuation of the bourgeoisie via "fief-holding" managers, but subjects society to even greater stratification in the form of a rigid coordinator class. Trades and "employees" councils, for example, presuppose an alienated working class which must bolster its position through collective bargaining. What Strasserism loosely promised, it seems, was to increase the participatory and leveraging power of workers—something that all corporativist theories have proclaimed.

Granted for your first point, the bourgeoisie cant be perpetuated as the state and the workers can counter them as part of the factory fellowship

Celtiberian wrote:Comrade, I'm intimately familiar with the history of Strasserism, I assure you. However, I never read of Gregor and Otto Strasser inviting Ernst Niekisch to join the NSDAP. I recall learning of Joseph Goebbels's attempt to get Oswald Spengler to join the party (which was to no avail), but this is literally the first time I ever heard that Niekisch was asked to join. (Do you have a source for this, by chance?)

In refrence to your question on Ernst Niekisch and Strasser I just came across this

began to assemble around himself an elite corps of bohemian, eccentric intellectuals who would meet regularly on Friday evenings. This group included some of the most interesting personalities of the Weimar period. Among them were the Freikorps veteran Ernst von Salomon, Otto von Strasser, who with his brother Gregor led a leftist anti-Hitler faction of the Nazi movement, the national-Bolshevik Niekisch, the Jewish anarchist Erich Muhsam who had figured prominently in the early phase of the failed leftist revolution of 1918, the American writer Thomas Wolfe and the expressionist writer Arnolt Bronnen. Occasionally, Joseph Goebbels would turn up at these meetings hoping to convert the group, particularly Jünger himself, whose war writings he had admired, to the Nazi cause. These efforts by the Nazi propaganda master proved unsuccessful. Jünger regarded Goebbels as a shallow ideologue who spoke in platitudes even in private conversation

Ernst Jünger
A Portrait of an Anarch
By Keith Preston

No definative source on the situation in question I know but if I find one ill post it up.But we could certainly speculate what Niekisch and Strasser talked about at these meeting.
Here is a link for the meetings between Ernst and strasser
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=v-g6K85Xo20C&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=ernst+junger%2Botto+strasser&source=bl&ots=Hcacmzte4D&sig=e5uR-ye7Lmvy23VTDzQSiY-XUj4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-EkPT4a0J8aBhQfCve2XAg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ernst%20junger%2Botto%20strasser&f=false

TheocWulf wrote:[No definative source on the situation in question I know but if I find one ill post it up.But we could certainly speculate what Niekisch and Strasser talked about at these meeting.

I appreciate you finding and posting that quote, though I generally don't take what the Keith Preston writes too seriously—I've heard him make several factually inaccurate statements in the past, and that has led me to be skeptical of his credibility on such matters. I don't doubt the possibility of the Strasser brothers having met Ernst Niekisch at some point during the interwar Weimar period, I've just never read anything to the effect that they invited him to join the NSDAP.