Occupy London Stock Exchange

Oh come on guys are you really getting into this stuff again? I mean honestly its really unnecessary to repeat this Strasserist vs Anti Strasserist argument in more than one thread. But hey do what you want, I think Ill just get back to banging my head now.

TheocWulf wrote:it would also reduce the British forum by 50% if I didnt post probably leaving just one member in it and then only yourself posting as the only UK member on the entire forum.

No problem, I'll stop posting then there will be just you (a situation I'm sure that you as a Strasserite are quite familiar with)

Isakenaz wrote:No problem, I'll stop posting then there will be just you (a situation I'm sure that you as a Strasserite are quite familiar with)

Perhaps but id imagen as a social nationalist your doing the same arnt you? Ive yet to see all the converts from the traditional left flocking to the cause.

Look, people, I'm more of a forum lurker than a forum poster, but when I see something like this, I can't help keeping my mouth shut.

This going on, back and forth, about Strasserism is pointless. I once entertained the notion that perhaps Strasserism could succeed where Hitlerism had failed, but no, it isn't going to happen.

The simple matter of the fact is that Strasserism is useless as a revolutionary ideology because of its historical associations with fascism. Moreover, Strasserism is a foreign ideology, and there is reason to believe that the mostly nationalistic working class will never have anything to do with it.

On another point, I would really appreciate it if certain people actually bothered to use proper spelling and grammar in their posts.

Bladridigan wrote:Look, people, I'm more of a forum lurker than a forum poster, but when I see something like this, I can't help keeping my mouth shut.

This going on, back and forth, about Strasserism is pointless. I once entertained the notion that perhaps Strasserism could succeed where Hitlerism had failed, but no, it isn't going to happen.

The simple matter of the fact is that Strasserism is useless as a revolutionary ideology because of its historical associations with fascism. Moreover, Strasserism is a foreign ideology, and there is reason to believe that the mostly nationalistic working class will never have anything to do with it.

On another point, I would really appreciate it if certain people actually bothered to use proper spelling and grammar in their posts.

And I could use that same argument for Communism couldnt I

TheocWulf wrote:And I could use that same argument for Communism couldnt I

As Rebel Warrior 59 said about calling himself a national syndicalist, I don't actually call myself a communist in public. When people ask me what I am, I simply reply 'socialist'.

Bladridigan wrote:As Rebel Warrior 59 said about calling himself a national syndicalist, I don't actually call myself a communist in public. When people ask me what I am, I simply reply 'socialist'.

Are you communist or not then?

TheocWulf wrote:Perhaps but id imagen as a social nationalist your doing the same arnt you? Ive yet to see all the converts from the traditional left flocking to the cause.

Very true, and we won't as long as we harbour failed racist crap like the Strasserites.

Isakenaz wrote:Very true, and we won't as long as we harbour failed racist crap like the Strasserites.

Nice try but im not a racist I stand for National freedom,Social justice and the preservation of the indigenous folkway of the English (and other home nations if they so wish) people and freedom and autonamy for those outside of of the above.

In TheocWulf's defense, I don't think he is a "racist". He simply said that those people weren't of his tribe, and he is partly correct. (Partly because I don't see why teachers or anything would be a problem..?). I don't believe he directly said he wouldn't work with them, in fact, I am sure he would as long as left wing nationalism is understood between both parties. I also hold the view that ethnic separation is necessary for tribal (just another word for race or ethnicity) preservation; but I am not adverse to working with other ethnic/racial groups at all. I think what he was trying to imply was that his friends would definitely not work with someone outside of their "tribe" (like the people listed). People are allowed to disagree with their friends, in fact earlier he said he tries to convince them of Left Wing Nationalism.

As for Strasserism, it may have associations with fascism, but like CeltIberian said earlier many communists and NSDAP members collaborated together in demonstrations before. It isn't as if TheocWulf started throwing around **** Heils and 14/88s.

Pantheon Rising wrote:As for Strasserism, it may have associations with fascism, but like CeltIberian said earlier many communists and NSDAP members collaborated together in demonstrations before. It isn't as if TheocWulf started throwing around **** Heils and 14/88s.

They "collaborated" insofar as they shared a greater common cause, which behooved both parties to become favorably inclined toward the demonstrations. The NSDAP and the German Communists were most certainly never on favorable terms.

I believe that certain members on this forum are becoming increasingly frustrated with the presence of a small number of posters who propound worthless philosophies that they can scarcely defend in any competent fashion.

There is truly little reason for any genuine socialist nationalist to advocate on behalf of any national socialist doctrine—no matter how "heterodox" one claims it to be. Revolutionary socialism and left-wing nationalism are appropriate descriptions which one can utilize; anything else requires the loose interpretation of fundamentally reactionary ideologies.

Rev Scare wrote:They "collaborated" insofar as they shared a greater common cause, which behooved both parties to become favorably inclined toward the demonstrations. The NSDAP and the German Communists were most certainly never on favorable terms.

I believe that certain members on the forum are becoming increasingly frustrated with the presence of a small number of posters who propound worthless philosophies that they can scarcely defend in any competent fashion.

There is truly little reason for any genuine socialist nationalist to advocate on behalf of any national socialist doctrine—no matter how "heterodox" one claims it to be. Revolutionary socialism and left-wing nationalism are appropriate descriptions which one may utilize; anything else requires the loose interpretation of fundamentally reactionary ideologies.

How have I not defended myself there is an entire thread on Strasserism?

Hey its your forum and who ever from the admins/mods wants the Strasserist gone thats up to yous at the end of the day.

As for your last statement I didnt realise you held the authority on peoples tendancys and how they can describe them for example I dont consider Strasserism as national socialism as I feel whatever it started out as its now a reactionary right wing dominated ideoligy.Id call Strasserism ethnic or folk socialism.

TheocWulf wrote:Are you communist or not then?

For me, communism is simply another word for socialism. As any historian of politics knows, the terms are very flexible in their application.

TheocWulf wrote:How have I not defended myself there is an entire thread on Strasserism?

You have defended it, but note the adjective "competent" in my previous sentence.

Hey its your forum and who ever from the admins/mods wants the Strasserist gone thats up to yous at the end of the day.

As for your last statement I didnt realise you held the authority on peoples tendancys and how they can describe them for example I dont consider Strasserism as national socialism as I feel whatever it started out as its now a reactionary right wing dominated ideoligy.Id call Strasserism ethnic or folk socialism.

I do not want you to leave, but I do encourage you to seriously reconsider the tradition that you choose to affiliate yourself with. For one, the core tenets of Strasserism are inherently reactionary, which was sufficiently explained to you in other threads. Two, you seem to have abandoned much or most, if not all, of the doctrine's prescriptions already, opting for a far more liberal (and rather incoherent) interpretation. Three, your attempts to disassociate Strasserism from national socialism are thoroughly unconvincing and bespeak an underlying insecurity with your position's internal consistency. Four, why would you wish to continue to associate yourself with a movement whose beliefs you must largely reject and which often contradict your left leaning nationalism and socialism? Lastly, the very term itself carries negative connotations, which I assume is something that you care to avoid. If you truly consider yourself a proponent of left-wing nationalism and revolutionary socialism, then you should simply abnegate Strasserism altogether; this does not necessitate that you could no longer draw inspiration or understanding from certain positive facets of the philosophy.

I do not hold the (sole) authority to dictate acceptable tendencies, and I was not attempting to pretend that I do. In my hurry to respond (I am finishing a project here) in a timely manner, I employed an incorrect verb ("may" instead of "can"), but you will find that I have now corrected that in my earlier post.

Rev Scare wrote:

TheocWulf wrote:How have I not defended myself there is an entire thread on Strasserism?

You have defended it, but note the adjective "competent" in my previous sentence.

Hey its your forum and who ever from the admins/mods wants the Strasserist gone thats up to yous at the end of the day.

As for your last statement I didnt realise you held the authority on peoples tendancys and how they can describe them for example I dont consider Strasserism as national socialism as I feel whatever it started out as its now a reactionary right wing dominated ideoligy.Id call Strasserism ethnic or folk socialism.

I do not want you to leave, but I do encourage you to seriously reconsider the tradition that you choose to affiliate yourself with. For one, the core tenets of Strasserism are inherently reactionary, which was sufficiently explained to you in other threads. Two, you seem to have abandoned much or most, if not all, of the doctrine's prescriptions already, opting for a far more liberal (and rather incoherent) interpretation. Three, your attempts to disassociate Strasserism from national socialism are thoroughly unconvincing and bespeak an underlying insecurity with your position's internal consistency. Four, why would you wish to continue to associate yourself with a movement whose beliefs you must largely reject and which often contradict your left leaning nationalism and socialism? Lastly, the very term itself carries negative connotations, which I assume is something that you care to avoid. If you truly consider yourself a proponent of left-wing nationalism and revolutionary socialism, then you should simply abnegate Strasserism altogether; this does not necessitate that you could no longer draw inspiration or understanding from certain positive facets of the philosophy.

I do not hold the (sole) authority to dictate acceptable tendencies, and I was not attempting to pretend that I do. In my hurry to respond (I am finishing a project here) in a timely manner, I employed an incorrect verb ("may" instead of "can"), but you will find that I have now corrected that in my earlier post.

At the end of the day we can only live by our own personal truths.

Strasserism is the ideology that brought me away from the the reactionary right his writeings and actions for me speak to my Folk spirit as strasserism is folkish in nature.Ive read bits of Marx Lenin ect but it just feels stale almost uncareing to me its almost methodical if you like.

Its true ive disregarded parts of strasserism but its more true that I dont agrea with many members critic of it in many places and who know perhaps I will drop that tag,Ive often thatught of putting my tendancy as Folk Socialism as im comeing more into a syndicalist midset but even in a sydicalist England id still like to see defence,Industry,Criminal law and other things vital for national life being under control of the state and the stae being run by a Witan of elected idividuals from each syndicate.What that is I have no idea?

Until im squared with the above them ill keep my current label.

Celtiberian wrote:just because you may happen to dislike some of the participants in a given protest is no reason to abandon the demonstration provided it's a cause you also believe in. Even the Nazi's union (NSBO) were pragmatic enough to ally with the German Communists in a number of protests during the Weimar regime—e.g., the Berlin Transport Workers' Strike of 1932.

I joined the SF Socialists group and then migrated here when everyone was banned. On SF, the nationalist side of things seemed to be being promoted as much as the socialist aspects, which was good. With the new forum, it seems that nationalism has taken very much a back seat. Which is, imo, bad because the whole idea of fusing nationalism with left wing ideology was what was exciting. Take away the nationalism, and it's nothing new at all, just the usual left-wing socialism.

I do support the protesters' cause but the make-up of the protesters IS a genuine problem. I've been involved with the "far-right" in the UK for a number of years and I've encoutered these protesters and their ilk on the streets. While we may share some ideological viewpoints, anti-capitalism etc., we clash majorly on the subject of internationalism and ethnicity. If any left-wing nationalist were to turn up at these events, and got into a debate with these protesters, said leftist nationalist would be beaten senseless. I've dealt with these people person to person and there is no getting through to them.

What are termed "reds" are the sort of people who are members of Unite Against Fascism in the UK and populate the RevLeft forum. They are dogmatic to the point of being virtual Moonies and will NEVER accomodate anyone who deviates from their worldview.

So I do think that there should be differentiation between these sorts of socialists and what the SF Socialists were trying to aim at. But it seems that we here are prepared to accomodate these "reds" while there is no hope in hell of them every touching us with a barge-poll because we support (do we still support this, by the way?) the rights of indigenous peoples (including whites, which is a problem for them) to manage their own affairs and are against multiculturalism and mass immigration. (Again, I take it that we are still against these things here?)

TheocWulf is entirely correct in saying that the protesters are viewed by the working classes as being totally alien to them. Because they are. They are almost entirely made up of the middle-class and many workers, including myself, find it highly offensive that these people, who know nothing of what it's like to actually be a working class person in modern Britain, can pontificate about my life and patronise me. To the majority of these protesters, it's a bit of a hobby. To the people they think they are addressing, the working class, it's real life.

A prime example of how out of touch these people are was a recent Unite Against Fascism rally in one of the most deprived parts of the UK, a place in Wales that suffers from chronic unemployment. These insensitive middle-class morons thought it would be a great idea to foster working class solidarity by having a rally that called for more immigration into the area!

And as much as I support the main theme of the protests, I find it a bit pointless joining the ranks of such people because by their internationalism, they are actually promoting capitalism. How can they be against capitalism yet support mass immigration which puts British workers on the dole in favour of cheaper foreign workers and slashes working conditions and workers rights. They're doing the bosses work for them. They're the stormtroopers of globalisation.

So I think we do need to address exactly how much we have in common with these dogmatic, internationalist socialists. Is it really worth trying to accomodate them when it's a futile effort because they detest us? Or should we carry on with what I hope was the original point of this whole exercise, building a new ideology that fuses socialism and nationalism.

I agree with you Red & White. Nationalism didn't take any back seat for me, but what i think happened was an over reaction from some members to try to distance themselves from the whole reactionary side of the fence as much as they could.

Red & White wrote:I joined the SF Socialists group and then migrated here when everyone was banned. On SF, the nationalist side of things seemed to be being promoted as much as the socialist aspects, which was good. With the new forum, it seems that nationalism has taken very much a back seat. Which is, imo, bad because the whole idea of fusing nationalism with left wing ideology was what was exciting. Take away the nationalism, and it's nothing new at all, just the usual left-wing socialism.

When folks use "nationalism" as a weapon to use against others in the working class, this becomes a problem.
Take away all forms of "nationalism" that can be used as a weapon against others in the working class, and we are left with the right of the proletarians of every nationality to self-determination, as well as the ability to express a consistent international revolutionary solidarity and aid to proletarians of all nations in our common struggle to abolish all systems of exploitation and oppression. That is the point.
We're not looking for racial or 'national' revenge. We're not trying to snatch a few crumbs from the exploiters' table away before proletarians of other nationalities can stuff the crumbs in their mouths, or vice versa. This whole world, and everything in it, should belong the the proletarians of all countries...so why do we settle for a pathetic competition crumbs where we are all mutually assured to lose in the long term? Why do we settle for this society in which we are reduced to a bunch of propertyless powerless nothings and are tricking into fighting each other over crumbs from the table of the masters of the system of wage-slavery?

I do support the protesters' cause but the make-up of the protesters IS a genuine problem. I've been involved with the "far-right" in the UK for a number of years and I've encoutered these protesters and their ilk on the streets. While we may share some ideological viewpoints, anti-capitalism etc., we clash majorly on the subject of internationalism and ethnicity. If any left-wing nationalist were to turn up at these events, and got into a debate with these protesters, said leftist nationalist would be beaten senseless. I've dealt with these people person to person and there is no getting through to them.

First off, it makes a difference what you understand to be the problem. There are a bunch of Stormfronters who are jumping into the OWS-type protests to turn it into a Jew-baiting mass movement rather than a more consistently and generally anti-capitalist movement, and to undermine/attack "reds" involved in the OWS movement. They know that a sizable chunk of their potential "base" is present in the OWS movement: white middle class folks who are about to get shafted further and left utterly disappointed and feeling betrayed by Dems, union bureaucrats and faux-Leftists misleaders. So the fascists are positioning and intervening. If they succeed to any degree, we will be witnessing a "Stormfront in the streets" in the near future. If you only care about being "pro-white" that might please you, at least at first, because you ain't looking far enough at the big picture and down the road to see another 'night of long knives' coming. In other words, after you think you've done so well hacking up all those minorities and "reds" who did white people so wrong, after you've help radically resolve the current crisis facing the bourgeoisie with your organized "pro-white" thuggery, your own knives will be plunged into your backs by "pro-whites' serving the capitalist class.
They have to do so, just in case people like you start taking your 'socialism' too seriously when the leaders of your 'pro-white' movement don't deliver. Of course, there won't be anybody left to advocate for the working class, since your fascist friends will have smashed them all (in the name of the white race and of your imperialist 'nation' and probably also of 'doing the work of the Lord', no less).
Surely you know the saying about those who don't learn from history. Don't allow yourself to be seduced into blindness and make the same damn mistake. Always ask, 'who benefits?'

What are termed "reds" are the sort of people who are members of Unite Against Fascism in the UK and populate the RevLeft forum. They are dogmatic to the point of being virtual Moonies and will NEVER accomodate anyone who deviates from their worldview.

So I do think that there should be differentiation between these sorts of socialists and what the SF Socialists were trying to aim at. But it seems that we here are prepared to accomodate these "reds" while there is no hope in hell of them every touching us with a barge-poll because we support (do we still support this, by the way?) the rights of indigenous peoples (including whites, which is a problem for them) to manage their own affairs and are against multiculturalism and mass immigration. (Again, I take it that we are still against these things here?)

How about you say EXACTLY what your beef is against "these sorts of socialists", so we know where you're coming from?
What do you think is the real reason "these sorts of socialists" take the positions they have (and here, I'm mainly asking about the reasons/motivations of their leaderships, rather than their rank-and-file members/supporters)? Just try looking at it and thinking about it from a class perspective. Who are these people and thus what are their interests, from a class standpoint? You know the answer. The same petty bourgeois class that also dominates the fascist movement! Workers, stop letting the middle class wannabe-bourgeoisie play us for fools, ride upon our backs, and use us as stepping stones! When you look at the classes dominating today's 'Left' and 'Right', it should become apparent that working people need to break from these class collaboration schemes (whether promoted as 'Left' or 'Right') that are ruining us and keeping us proletarians in our chains.
Yes, to hell with the faux-Left, but do you really understand what the problem is? Don't be too impressed with their rhetoric and phony public postures...they don't even believe in such things.
And don't be so naively impressed and easily seduced because right-wing bourgeois and petty bourgeois forces start talking "nationalist" or even "pro-white", or they "name the Jew". Since when did white capitalists starting giving a damn about working people and decide to stop exploiting us? What sort of 21st Century do you really think they'd like to forge, and what do you suppose that would mean for working people (white and otherwise)?
At least Marxism, which many faux-Leftists (falsely) claim to represent, actually convicts "these sorts of socialists" you are complaining about. Hold them consistently to their claims to ostensible represent 'Marxism', call them out on their deviations and vacillations, and watch what happens! Pull the halos off the heads of those bourgeois and middle class Leftie fake-saviors, burn off their phony populist camouflage with the hot spotlight of exposure, then all will be able to see what their 'anti-white' bullshit and their betrayals of the struggles of the working class is motivated by...and it sure ain't Marxism or any supposed determination to liberate all of the workers and oppressed of the world. Even noticed how ironic it is that if you go to most working class and oppressed peoples' neigborhoods, you will very rarely see evidence of 'these sorts of socialists' doing any real work of mobilizng/organing these communities (and when you do see them in working class areas on rare occasions, it's usually to do with attempts to influence the current elections in favor of bourgeois liberal 'progressives"!).

TheocWulf is entirely correct in saying that the protesters are viewed by the working classes as being totally alien to them. Because they are. They are almost entirely made up of the middle-class and many workers, including myself, find it highly offensive that these people, who know nothing of what it's like to actually be a working class person in modern Britain, can pontificate about my life and patronise me. To the majority of these protesters, it's a bit of a hobby. To the people they think they are addressing, the working class, it's real life.

Yes, their leaderships and much of those brought in to participate in OWS protest events are mainly middle class, and some are even proper bourgeoisie. That's the chief source of the problem, and explains their politics and practices. Know this, keep it in the forefront of your mind at all times, and it might keep you from barking up the wrong tree.

A prime example of how out of touch these people are was a recent Unite Against Fascism rally in one of the most deprived parts of the UK, a place in Wales that suffers from chronic unemployment. These insensitive middle-class morons thought it would be a great idea to foster working class solidarity by having a rally that called for more immigration into the area!

And as much as I support the main theme of the protests, I find it a bit pointless joining the ranks of such people because by their internationalism, they are actually promoting capitalism. How can they be against capitalism yet support mass immigration which puts British workers on the dole in favour of cheaper foreign workers and slashes working conditions and workers rights. They're doing the bosses work for them. They're the stormtroopers of globalisation.

True! Remember the classes which are hegomonic on the 'Left', that they are NOT against capitalism, that they are NOT genuinely interested in the self-emancipation of the proletariat of ANY nationality. They want better positions and a bigger piece for themselves, just like the classes which that dominate the 'Right' do. The middle class 'Left' and middle class 'Right' use different approaches and political justifications to arrive at similar beneficial results...for themselves. Expose and slam them with THAT TRUTH next time you are confronted with system-defending prole-dividing Leftie-liberal PC bullshit. Just as 'nationalism' must not be used as a weapon against other proletarians, neither should we allow 'internationalism' to be used as a weapon against us! Our class enemies can play either and both sides of this coin against us, IF WE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.

So I think we do need to address exactly how much we have in common with these dogmatic, internationalist socialists. Is it really worth trying to accomodate them when it's a futile effort because they detest us? Or should we carry on with what I hope was the original point of this whole exercise, building a new ideology that fuses socialism and nationalism.

Here's a better idea: to hell with the exploiting classes and their lackeys! Working people need our own independent political mass movement, based upon and rooted in our class, composed of those from our class, standing up and fighting for our independent class interests, and spreading our working class movement to mobilize and organize proletarians through ALL layers and substrata of our class. This working class mass movement must be governed by real grassroots mass workers' democracy 'from below'. I'm actually talking about forming independent class-based workplace committees, neighborhood workers' councils, organizations for workers' mass self-defense, and other local proletarian mass organizations. From that point on, there is no "Left' but our working class "Next Left" movement.
Such an independent class-based mass movement enables us to organize the unorganized working class and really unite all who could be united to mobilize our masses to exercise our collective proletarian class power for our interests. At the same time, because it is an independent mass movement of workers' democracy, surely you can envision the ability of those workers and oppressed who feel the need---to the extent they feel the need--- to exercise their right to collective self-determination.
For example, working people of Pakistani heritage in predominately Pakistani neighborhoods may decide that their own special concerns and interests are better represented through their own independent self-determined organizations. Of course, this is fine and we defend their right to such self-determination. We will still insist that they consistently and actively unite with the rest of the working class to fight and abolish this system, and insist that they not give even one inch for reaction. We will still insist that they maintain strict class independence from the exploiting classes. For our class, the principle is still 'an attack on any one of us is an attack on all'; they watch our 6 and we'll watch theirs. If their leaders start betraying our struggle and our class, we will call them out, and demand that these Pakistani workers recall and replace the traitors, just like we'd call out treacherous union bureaucrats and demand their recall and replacement...but the final decisive act must be done through the self-determined Pakistani workers' democratic will.
Does this really sound like the sort of thing that the faux-left actually advocates and attempts to apply in practice?
Why not, if this is consistent with Marxism?!

You say you want a liberated nation? Well, what do you really mean by that? What is the purpose and vision motivating your nationalism? And why socialism? What does "socialism" mean to you?
Tell it in your own words, rather than quoting and name-dropping others. That's the only way to get to the real heart of this discussion. We'll get nowhere if you don't use your own brain.

Red & White wrote:I joined the SF Socialists group and then migrated here when everyone was banned. On SF, the nationalist side of things seemed to be being promoted as much as the socialist aspects, which was good. With the new forum, it seems that nationalism has taken very much a back seat. Which is, imo, bad because the whole idea of fusing nationalism with left wing ideology was what was exciting. Take away the nationalism, and it's nothing new at all, just the usual left-wing socialism.

I do support the protesters' cause but the make-up of the protesters IS a genuine problem. I've been involved with the "far-right" in the UK for a number of years and I've encoutered these protesters and their ilk on the streets. While we may share some ideological viewpoints, anti-capitalism etc., we clash majorly on the subject of internationalism and ethnicity. If any left-wing nationalist were to turn up at these events, and got into a debate with these protesters, said leftist nationalist would be beaten senseless. I've dealt with these people person to person and there is no getting through to them.

What are termed "reds" are the sort of people who are members of Unite Against Fascism in the UK and populate the RevLeft forum. They are dogmatic to the point of being virtual Moonies and will NEVER accomodate anyone who deviates from their worldview.

So I do think that there should be differentiation between these sorts of socialists and what the SF Socialists were trying to aim at. But it seems that we here are prepared to accomodate these "reds" while there is no hope in hell of them every touching us with a barge-poll because we support (do we still support this, by the way?) the rights of indigenous peoples (including whites, which is a problem for them) to manage their own affairs and are against multiculturalism and mass immigration. (Again, I take it that we are still against these things here?)

TheocWulf is entirely correct in saying that the protesters are viewed by the working classes as being totally alien to them. Because they are. They are almost entirely made up of the middle-class and many workers, including myself, find it highly offensive that these people, who know nothing of what it's like to actually be a working class person in modern Britain, can pontificate about my life and patronise me. To the majority of these protesters, it's a bit of a hobby. To the people they think they are addressing, the working class, it's real life.

A prime example of how out of touch these people are was a recent Unite Against Fascism rally in one of the most deprived parts of the UK, a place in Wales that suffers from chronic unemployment. These insensitive middle-class morons thought it would be a great idea to foster working class solidarity by having a rally that called for more immigration into the area!

And as much as I support the main theme of the protests, I find it a bit pointless joining the ranks of such people because by their internationalism, they are actually promoting capitalism. How can they be against capitalism yet support mass immigration which puts British workers on the dole in favour of cheaper foreign workers and slashes working conditions and workers rights. They're doing the bosses work for them. They're the stormtroopers of globalisation.

So I think we do need to address exactly how much we have in common with these dogmatic, internationalist socialists. Is it really worth trying to accomodate them when it's a futile effort because they detest us? Or should we carry on with what I hope was the original point of this whole exercise, building a new ideology that fuses socialism and nationalism.

Thank you comrade for reading my mind

Coach wrote:When folks use "nationalism" as a weapon to use against others in the working class, this becomes a problem.
Take away all forms of "nationalism" that can be used as a weapon against others in the working class, and we are left with the right of the proletarians of every nationality to self-determination, as well as the ability to express a consistent international revolutionary solidarity and aid to proletarians of all nations in our common struggle to abolish all systems of exploitation and oppression. That is the point.

Totally agree. This is why I found the SF Socialist group to such a breath of fresh air, because of it's melding of nationalism and socialism.

Coach wrote:First off, it makes a difference what you understand to be the problem. There are a bunch of Stormfronters who are jumping into the OWS-type protests to turn it into a Jew-baiting mass movement rather than a more consistently and generally anti-capitalist movement, and to undermine/attack "reds" involved in the OWS movement. They know that a sizable chunk of their potential "base" is present in the OWS movement: white middle class folks who are about to get shafted further and left utterly disappointed and feeling betrayed by Dems, union bureaucrats and faux-Leftists misleaders. So the fascists are positioning and intervening. If they succeed to any degree, we will be witnessing a "Stormfront in the streets" in the near future. If you only care about being "pro-white" that might please you, at least at first, because you ain't looking far enough at the big picture and down the road to see another 'night of long knives' coming. In other words, after you think you've done so well hacking up all those minorities and "reds" who did white people so wrong, after you've help radically resolve the current crisis facing the bourgeoisie with your organized "pro-white" thuggery, your own knives will be plunged into your backs by "pro-whites' serving the capitalist class.
They have to do so, just in case people like you start taking your 'socialism' too seriously when the leaders of your 'pro-white' movement don't deliver. Of course, there won't be anybody left to advocate for the working class, since your fascist friends will have smashed them all (in the name of the white race and of your imperialist 'nation' and probably also of 'doing the work of the Lord', no less).

Not quite sure if your use of the terms "you" and "your" in reference to me was just a turn of phrase as opposed to a bit of massive assumption about my beliefs. Hopefully it's the latter!

What you say is generally true but then my whole point is that we shouldn't go the other way either. If the dogmatic, robotic left "succeed to any degree", do you really think their Brave New World is going to be any better? Gawd no! And this is why we need to stop following the dream that we can have common cause with the mainstream left. They don't want us and we shouldn't want them.

It would do the OWS movement a world of good to have some nationalist input because nationalism is mostly made up, at grass roots level, of the working class. As opposed to leftism, which is almost totally populated by the upper middle-class.

And don't lump all SF's together. This is an aspect of what I was talking about originally. The vast majority of people on there are good folk and don't forget, if it wasn't for SF, this forum, and the whole RSF, would probably not exist. I don't just care about being pro-white, but again, let's not go the other way of just being socialists. The whole idea of the RSF would to fuse the two, both ideologies being complementory.

Coach wrote:How about you say EXACTLY what your beef is against "these sorts of socialists", so we know where you're coming from?
What do you think is the real reason "these sorts of socialists" take the positions they have (and here, I'm mainly asking about the reasons/motivations of their leaderships, rather than their rank-and-file members/supporters)? Just try looking at it and thinking about it from a class perspective. Who are these people and thus what are their interests, from a class standpoint? You know the answer. The same petty bourgeois class that also dominates the fascist movement! Workers, stop letting the middle class wannabe-bourgeoisie play us for fools, ride upon our backs, and use us as stepping stones! When you look at the classes dominating today's 'Left' and 'Right', it should become apparent that working people need to break from these class collaboration schemes (whether promoted as 'Left' or 'Right') that are ruining us and keeping us proletarians in our chains.
Yes, to hell with the faux-Left, but do you really understand what the problem is? Don't be too impressed with their rhetoric and phony public postures...they don't even believe in such things.

My example of the reds insulting campaigning in Wales is exactly what the problem is, which is as you say, petty-bourgeois hobbyists using the working classes as a bit of a pastime until they leave university and take the job with daddy's firm in the city.

The traditional left are woefully out of touch with the actual workers, who would be receptive to left-wing ideas as long as you don't peddle them the patently absurd idea that multiculturalism and mass immigration is a good thing for them. And this is where we should step in. But to do this we really need to distance ourselves from the mainstream left who the workers have rightly seen as having sold them out and being more interested in the leftist obsession with minorities as the expense of the majority.

Coach wrote:Yes, their leaderships and much of those brought in to participate in OWS protest events are mainly middle class, and some are even proper bourgeoisie. That's the chief source of the problem, and explains their politics and practices. Know this, keep it in the forefront of your mind at all times, and it might keep you from barking up the wrong tree.

Not quite sure why would I be barking up the wrong tree?

Coach wrote:True! Remember the classes which are hegomonic on the 'Left', that they are NOT against capitalism, that they are NOT genuinely interested in the self-emancipation of the proletariat of ANY nationality. They want better positions and a bigger piece for themselves, just like the classes which that dominate the 'Right' do. The middle class 'Left' and middle class 'Right' use different approaches and political justifications to arrive at similar beneficial results...for themselves. Expose and slam them with THAT TRUTH next time you are confronted with system-defending prole-dividing Leftie-liberal PC bullshit. Just as 'nationalism' must not be used as a weapon against other proletarians, neither should we allow 'internationalism' to be used as a weapon against us! Our class enemies can play either and both sides of this coin against us, IF WE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.

Coach wrote:Here's a better idea: to hell with the exploiting classes and their lackeys! Working people need our own independent political mass movement, based upon and rooted in our class, composed of those from our class, standing up and fighting for our independent class interests, and spreading our working class movement to mobilize and organize proletarians through ALL layers and substrata of our class. This working class mass movement must be governed by real grassroots mass workers' democracy 'from below'. I'm actually talking about forming independent class-based workplace committees, neighborhood workers' councils, organizations for workers' mass self-defense, and other local proletarian mass organizations. From that point on, there is no "Left' but our working class "Next Left" movement.

Damn right!

Coach wrote:For example, working people of Pakistani heritage in predominately Pakistani neighborhoods may decide that their own special concerns and interests are better represented through their own independent self-determined organizations. Of course, this is fine and we defend their right to such self-determination. We will still insist that they consistently and actively unite with the rest of the working class to fight and abolish this system, and insist that they not give even one inch for reaction. We will still insist that they maintain strict class independence from the exploiting classes. For our class, the principle is still 'an attack on any one of us is an attack on all'; they watch our 6 and we'll watch theirs. If their leaders start betraying our struggle and our class, we will call them out, and demand that these Pakistani workers recall and replace the traitors, just like we'd call out treacherous union bureaucrats and demand their recall and replacement...but the final decisive act must be done through the self-determined Pakistani workers' democratic will.

But try telling this to the protesters on the OWS demos and you'll be lucky to get out with both your legs still working as this smacks of going against internationalism. Ironically, they'd probably be fin with pakistanis forming along racial lines, but suggest that white people might want to do likewise and you'll definitely get a slap around the chops.

Coach wrote:You say you want a liberated nation? Well, what do you really mean by that? What is the purpose and vision motivating your nationalism? And why socialism? What does "socialism" mean to you?
Tell it in your own words, rather than quoting and name-dropping others. That's the only way to get to the real heart of this discussion. We'll get nowhere if you don't use your own brain.

Mate, I'll give a bit more info about my beliefs but I really must insist that someone who classifies themself, on a Socialist Nationalist forum, as a "revolutionary trotskyist" goes first!

Red & White wrote:If any left-wing nationalist were to turn up at these events, and got into a debate with these protesters, said leftist nationalist would be beaten senseless. I've dealt with these people person to person and there is no getting through to them.

So why are we here then, or more to the point, why are YOU here? If as you say we left-wing nationalists are unwelcome at 'right wing' protests, and we are according to some not welcome at left-wing protests. What point is there then to this, both 'wings' hate us so are we to lurk in the shadows masturbating over the illusionary 'Third Position', licking at the plate of whoever needs us at the time?

Perhaps you'd like us to bury this dead horse and return to the reactionary fold? A political 'prodigal son' worthy of a fatted calf perhaps? Although I get the feeling that some of the members here are more likely to become the 'fatted calves' for the like of many reactionaries to feast on.

Isakenaz wrote:So why are we here then, or more to the point, why are YOU here? If as you say we left-wing nationalists are unwelcome at 'right wing' protests, and we are according to some not welcome at left-wing protests. What point is there then to this, both 'wings' hate us so are we to lurk in the shadows masturbating over the illusionary 'Third Position', licking at the plate of whoever needs us at the time?

Perhaps you'd like us to bury this dead horse and return to the reactionary fold? A political 'prodigal son' worthy of a fatted calf perhaps? Although I get the feeling that some of the members here are more likely to become the 'fatted calves' for the like of many reactionaries to feast on.

perhaps we should reach out to those from our roots politicaly,Those from the right originally try and bring some over and those from the left originally try and bring some over and then reach out to the indigenous working class.Easy for me to say Im from the right originally and id say they are far more receptive to left wing nationalism than the traditional left.

Isakenaz wrote:So why are we here then, or more to the point, why are YOU here? If as you say we left-wing nationalists are unwelcome at 'right wing' protests, and we are according to some not welcome at left-wing protests. What point is there then to this, both 'wings' hate us so are we to lurk in the shadows masturbating over the illusionary 'Third Position', licking at the plate of whoever needs us at the time?

Perhaps you'd like us to bury this dead horse and return to the reactionary fold? A political 'prodigal son' worthy of a fatted calf perhaps? Although I get the feeling that some of the members here are more likely to become the 'fatted calves' for the like of many reactionaries to feast on.

No need for the rather insulting tone, Isakenaz. I haven't said anything to warrent that. I'm just putting some ideas and opinions up for discussion. Keep it civil comrade!

I didn't mention anything about left-wing nationalists being unwelcome at right-wing protests. Although even as left-wing nationalists, they would be far more welcome at right-wing events than at leftist do's. Some would call them reds, but a lot of nationalists are working class and so are receptive to left of centre ideas and many nationalists are at least au fait with the idea of left-nationalism through hearing about things like Strasserism.

My whole point is the opposite isn't true. A nationalist, however left-wing, as long as he promotes some form of nationalism, be it ethno, racial etc., or even just vague anti-cosmopolitan views, will never be welcome at a meeting of the mainstream left. Never the twain shall meet.

So is there a point to any of us being here, as you say? I sincerely hope there is. But there isn't if we're just going to morph into your average, normal left-wing group. The thing that seperates us is that we support national self-determination and it is this that means we need to stop thinking that we can ally ourselves with other cosmopolitan socialists.

And should we even want to? The nationalism side of things should be just as important as the socialism because the two are indivisable. You can't have one without the other. The dogmatic leftists will never get this, so their "brand" of socialism/syndicalism is always going to be at odds with ours.

What we should do is stop trying to be all things to all people. We don't want the dogmatic, internationalist left anymore than we want the reactionary right. What we should be doing is working on the ideology of revolutionary syndicalism and leave the other two opposing wings to fight amongst themselves.

I think the ideas on this forum, of revolutionary syndicalism, have legs and have a future because they will actually appeal to the working classes. From the right, we are telling the workers that cosmopolitanism is NOT a good thing, as their leftist "champions" tell them (contrary to what workers see with their own eyes) and from the left we are telling them that capitalism will always shaft them and needs to be done away with.

So there is a point to us all being here I think, just that we need to go it alone and stop pandering to those who don't, and never will, share our radical ideology.

You know I personally think that everyone should start taking themselves a little more lightly. I mean whatever happened to a nice old debate that was civil?. Seriously if your pissed off then its best to just log off and drink whiskey or do whatever until you can reply without accusing someone of being a reactionary or insulting them.

Sure some people might write questionable things from time to time but that doesnt mean you should immediately pounce on them and go " Hey you fucking Reactionary how dare you write that"! or " Shut up you goddamn Cosmopolitan". Just try to ask them what they mean by that. Theres no need to get into a whole purge mentality. Some people on here tend to focus more on Nationalism, others more on Socialism, really its all good as long as they believe in both ideas at the same time. This is a plural forum after all and not everyone here is an RSF member, therefore you shouldnt think that the person you intensely disagree with is going to be watching your back in some future revolution. Ive done plenty of stupid things on forums in the past ( and yes Ive also wrote a few dumb things on here as well) so Im not trying to pretend Im above stuff like this, but really it would be great if everyone could just try to be civil so that dramas like this wont happen again. Anyways just my two cents here and I hope things will get better soon enough.

Oh and just one more thing Id like to add: Why is it so hard to just simply reject both the Capitalist Nationalists and the Cosmopolitan Socialists? I mean why try to cater to either side? Both of them suck. I mean " Fuck the National Capitalists and Goddamn the Cosmopolitan Socialists" is an excellent ( and street savvy) motto.