National Bolshevism

I wish to cut to the quick and offer a reply to Celitiberian''s last post based on three basic questions:

(1) does he or does he not accept (as Engels did – see the first Michael Hudson article referred to below) that had he lived a bit longer, Marx would no longer have been so optimistic about the role of finance capital in serving and promoting the growth of industrial capital?
(2) does he or does he not agree that from a Marxist perspective the relation of industrial capital to finance capital has now completely reversed, with the latter totally dominant over and parasitic on the former?
(3) If he does not agree – then what exactly is his analysis of the current ‘Eurocrisis’ and global financial crisis???

In the context of the first two questions I would strongly recommend he read a very important article by the Marxist economist Michael Hudson –From Marx to Goldman Sachs. http://michael-hudson.com/2010/07/from-marx-to-goldman-sachs-the-fictions-of-fictitious-capital1

Indeed I would recommend reading all articles of his (and Ellen Brown) that can be found at the www.globalresearch.ca site. All Hudson's can be found at the link below:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Michael&authorName=Hudson

The Financial Road to Serfdom and Debt and Democracy: Has the Link Been Broken? (on the history of the relation between usury and political rulers) would be good ones to begin with - besides From Marx to Goldman Sachs.

Finally, let me take the opportunity to apologise for any offence or misunderstandings regarding the Niekisch symbol I found and adopted from this site. I had long been looking for a red and black version of this symbol, but was totally unaware that it had been modified for use specifically by the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front. Learning from a recent post that this was the case I have now removed the symbol from my new site www.nationalbolshevism.org (it was never used on my National People's Party site).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Michael&authorName=Hudson

Nazbols are morons. The NBP is anti-German, when Marx and Engels were Germans, and the Hitlerist part of Nazbols (including their flag) was meant for Germans back in history at first. Also, Nazbols are anti-semites, when Marx was a jew and they are anti-mixing, when Stalin was mixed. They mix Hitlerism and Stalinism. As for the NBF, they are anti-slavs and Latins, and think Marx is a German Nationalist (the leader of the NBF is a slav himself). Nazbols are SHIT

It's worth here noting that the actions of the NBP and NBF in Russia are pretty far removed from National Bolshevism. Or socialism in general, in many cases. They are also the only ones who use the Hitleresque flag. Wilberg is presently trying to find a different emblem for his NPP for that reason, and if you go to nationalbolshevism.org you will find his explanation of the difference, and the reason why he adopted the abbreviation 'NatBol' to differentiate real National Bolsheviks from the punks in Russia.

Loki wrote:Nazbols are morons. The NBP is anti-German, when Marx and Engels were Germans, and the Hitlerist part of Nazbols (including their flag) was meant for Germans back in history at first. Also, Nazbols are anti-semites, when Marx was a jew and they are anti-mixing, when Stalin was mixed. They mix Hitlerism and Stalinism. As for the NBF, they are anti-slavs and Latins, and think Marx is a German Nationalist (the leader of the NBF is a slav himself). Nazbols are SHIT

People in glass houses and I say that as someone whos tendancy is 90% Strasserism

natbol wrote:(1) does he or does he not accept (as Engels did – see the first Michael Hudson article referred to below) that had he lived a bit longer, Marx would no longer have been so optimistic about the role of finance capital in serving and promoting the growth of industrial capital?

I don't understand your question. In what respect was Marx "optimistic" about finance capital promoting the growth of industrial capital? I think Marx understood that the relationship between the two has always been contentious.

(2) does he or does he not agree that from a Marxist perspective the relation of industrial capital to finance capital has now completely reversed, with the latter totally dominant over and parasitic on the former?

Throughout this thread I've conceded that the relative strength of finance has eclipsed that of industrial capital in recent decades.

(3) If he does not agree – then what exactly is his analysis of the current ‘Eurocrisis’ and global financial crisis???

Marxists don't abstract finance from capitalism, we analyze the system as a totality. The interests of merchants, financiers, industrialists, and landlords aren't congruent with one another, and those conflictual relationships represents one of capitalism's internal contradictions. If the problem of finance were to be hypothetically solved, either by stringent regulations or outright nationalization, there would still be a myriad of contradictions within the system capable of producing crises.

And, again, I find it utterly counterproductive for radical organizations to emphasize the disastrous and unjust nature of private finance while ignoring or marginalizing the larger issue of wage slavery.

Finally, let me take the opportunity to apologise for any offence or misunderstandings regarding the Niekisch symbol I found and adopted from this site. I had long been looking for a red and black version of this symbol, but was totally unaware that it had been modified for use specifically by the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front.

It's quite all right. No hard feelings.

I'm not even sure why this argument is occurring. Both the RSF and the NPP are social nationalists. Both of them agree that global international capitalism is the enemy. Both of them see nationalised banking as a part of the solution. It seems to me you're both arguing on the same side

RedSun wrote:I'm not even sure why this argument is occurring. Both the RSF and the NPP are social nationalists. Both of them agree that global international capitalism is the enemy. Both of them see nationalised banking as a part of the solution. It seems to me you're both arguing on the same side

Our differences have to do with the specific policies we feel radical organizations should advocate for, and the tactics those organizations should be utilizing at this time. It's not that I dislike Mr. Wilberg or the National People's Party, I'm just offering some constructive criticism.

Now that we have an actual National Bolshevik here, who probably knows a hell of a lot more of what he's talking about than I ever did, I'd like to ask him some questions about it.
-What economic system does NazBol promote?
-How strong is the imagined state?
-How does the nationalism manifest itself?
-How much of your ideas are directly from Niekisch, and how many of them come from later philosophers like Dugin?

RedSun wrote:-What economic system does NazBol promote?

Socialism. Direct democracy through councils, complete de-proletarianization of the people, everyone has a share and management in their enterprise. Universal healthcare. All abolition of wage slavery and landlordism. State sponsored programs for the development of eco-friendly energy.

-How strong is the imagined state?

The State is as strong as it needs to be to perform its tasks of economic planning when needed. The State is single party, the party representing the highest Ideal - the Ideal of the nation and its folk (people).

-How does the nationalism manifest itself?

See the Juche definition of Nationalism. Nations transcend economic division, and it is based on both ethnicity/bloodline/history as well as a common culture.

-How much of your ideas are directly from Niekisch, and how many of them come from later philosophers like Dugin?

I would say the majority of ideology comes from Dugin, however it is worthwhile to note the influence that Gaddaffi's Green Book has had on American National Bolsheviks.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Socialism. Direct democracy through councils, complete de-proletarianization of the people, everyone has a share and management in their enterprise. Universal healthcare. All abolition of wage slavery and landlordism. State sponsored programs for the development of eco-friendly energy.The State is as strong as it needs to be to perform its tasks of economic planning when needed. The State is single party, the party representing the highest Ideal - the Ideal of the nation and its folk (people).

So do you favour worker control or state socialism? I always got the impression that NazBol was state socialist.

I would say the majority of ideology comes from Dugin, however it is worthwhile to note the influence that Gaddaffi's Green Book has had on American National Bolsheviks.

I only know Dugin for his espousal of Eurasianism. Can you suggest any of his earlier writings on National Bolshevism?

RedSun wrote:So do you favour worker control or state socialism? I always got the impression that NazBol was state socialist.

Worker control with the State acting as a coordinator. Dugin himself emphasized the need to keep National Bolshevism "More communal and cooperative than administrative".

I only know Dugin for his espousal of Eurasianism. Can you suggest any of his earlier writings on National Bolshevism?

I would mainly suggest his most early work "Fascism: Borderless and Red", as well as "Knights Templar of the Proletariat". Those are honestly the best ones I have read, English translations of Dugin are harder than you think to come by.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Worker control with the State acting as a coordinator. Dugin himself emphasized the need to keep National Bolshevism "More communal and cooperative than administrative".

I have to ask, then: why use the term "Bolshevism"? I think it ties you pretty inextricably to the Marxist-Leninists of the early Soviet Union and the policies thereof.

I would mainly suggest his most early work "Fascism: Borderless and Red", as well as "Knights Templar of the Proletariat". Those are honestly the best ones I have read, English translations of Dugin are harder than you think to come by.

It doesn't surprise me at all, to be honest. I'm going to start expanding my knowledge of languages soon, and Russian is definitely on the list.

RedSun wrote:I have to ask, then: why use the term "Bolshevism"? I think it ties you pretty inextricably to the Marxist-Leninists of the early Soviet Union and the policies thereof.

It's a misnomer when applied to the theories espoused by Aleksandr Dugin. Contemporary Russian National Bolsheviks simply use the term because they wish to identify with the historical epoch of Bolshevik rule, especially Stalin's administration. However, this identification extends no further than to what they perceive as being the nationalistic qualities the Bolsheviks possessed. Dugin rejects Marxian theory in its entirety and instead follows in the "Conservative Revolutionary" philosophical tradition. Lately, Dugin rarely discusses anything aside from his nonsensical geopolitical theories.

The original German National Bolsheviks (e.g., Fritz Wolffheim, Heinrich Laufenberg, Ernst Niekisch, Karl Otto Paetel, and Harro Schulze-Boysen), conversely, descended from the Marxist tradition and incorporated elements of reactionary nationalism into their ideology, to varying degrees. They used the term "Bolshevism" because they sought to replace German capitalism with a centrally planned economy à la Stalin's Soviet Union. Some consider Ernst Niekisch to have been a Conservative Revolutionary thinker, which is somewhat accurate for part of his political career. However, Niekisch started his political career as a Marxist (slowly becoming more heterodox as he aged) and ended it as a staunchly orthodox Marxist—having completely abandoned reactionary nationalism.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Dugin himself emphasized the need to keep National Bolshevism "More communal and cooperative than administrative".

Yes, but that's incredibly vague. What would it mean in practice, exactly? He offers no clues.

Dugin considers the economic views espoused by the Hitlerists and early fascists to have been "socialist," so I see no absolutely reason to take what he writes seriously.

RedSun wrote:I have to ask, then: why use the term "Bolshevism"? I think it ties you pretty inextricably to the Marxist-Leninists of the early Soviet Union and the policies thereof.

Well, National Bolshevism is out growth of Marxism-Leninism much like Juche was. Furthermore, we agree with with the ideal of a one party state while rejecting Hitlerism/Nazism for lacking real socialism, the closest historical precedent being the Soviet Union, especially under Stalin.

Celtiberian wrote:It's a misnomer when applied to the theories espoused by Aleksandr Dugin. Contemporary Russian National Bolsheviks simply use the term because they wish to identify with the historical epoch of Bolshevik rule, especially Stalin's administration. However, this identification extends no further than to what they perceive as being the nationalistic qualities the Bolsheviks possessed.

I disagree. Perhaps some Russians just like the image of Stalin and the fancy Hammer and Sickles for cultural/geographical reasons, but the National Bolsheviks I know are revolutionary Socialists.

Dugin rejects Marxian theory in its entirety and instead follows in the "Conservative Revolutionary" philosophical tradition. Lately, Dugin rarely discusses anything aside from his nonsensical geopolitical theories.

While I agree he should spend less time on those theories, I don't see a problem with his rejection of Marxian theory.

The original German National Bolsheviks (e.g., Fritz Wolffheim, Heinrich Laufenberg, Ernst Niekisch, Karl Otto Paetel, and Harro Schulze-Boysen), conversely, descended from the Marxist tradition and incorporated elements of reactionary nationalism into their ideology, to varying degrees. They used the term "Bolshevism" because they sought to replace German capitalism with a centrally planned economy à la Stalin's Soviet Union.

I don't see how it is any different today. A certain theory can originate in Marxism and grow into something completely different.

Yes, but that's incredibly vague. What would it mean in practice, exactly? He offers no clues.

He also mentions that it is more rural than proletarian, hinting at support of "back to the land movements" that Conservative Revolutionary thinkers have espoused. Honestly by that statement I think he is just trying to distance himself and his ideology away from orthodox Marxism.

Dugin considers the economic views espoused by the Hitlerists and early fascists to have been "socialist," so I see no absolutely reason to take what he writes seriously.

Actually, this is false. In his essay "Fascism: Borderless and Red" he makes it clear that reactionaries like Hitler, Franco, Salazar, and Mussolini compromised with the bourgeoisie of their respective nations.

Pantheon Rising wrote:the National Bolsheviks I know are revolutionary Socialists.

Very well, but the National Bolshevik writings out of Russia which I've encountered suggest no such thing. Certain Russian individuals who consider themselves National Bolsheviks may well be revolutionary socialists, but figures like Aleksandr Dugin and Eduard Limonov most certainly are not. In fact, I've yet to find a single website of a Russian (or non-Russian, for that matter) National Bolshevik organization which has drafted a legitimately revolutionary socialist program.

I don't see a problem with his rejection of Marxian theory.

I knew you wouldn't. I only mentioned it to indicate to those of us who are Marxists that his writings are from a daft philosophical perspective.

I don't see how it is any different today.

It's different because the classical National Bolsheviks were advocating for a transformation of society along Soviet lines, whereas people like Dugin favor something quite different; more in the vein of Strasserism.

A certain theory can originate in Marxism and grow into something completely different.

Absolutely. The history of fascism attests to that.

He also mentions that it is more rural than proletarian, hinting at support of "back to the land movements" that Conservative Revolutionary thinkers have espoused. Honestly by that statement I think he is just trying to distance himself and his ideology away from orthodox Marxism.

Perhaps. Why anyone would find the Conservative Revolutionary notion of agrarianism more appealing than the Marxian idea of a more even (and ecologically sensitive) development across urban and agricultural areas is beyond me, but then the Conservative Revolutionary mind is an enigma.

Actually, this is false. In his essay "Fascism: Borderless and Red" he makes it clear that reactionaries like Hitler, Franco, Salazar, and Mussolini compromised with the bourgeoisie of their respective nations.

Correct, but he also states that "On the economic level, fascism is characterized rather by socialist or moderately socialist methods which subordinate personal, individual economic interests to the principles of national welfare, justice, [and] brotherhood." Moderate, indeed! Anyone who has ever read the early fascist manifestos understands that there was never a time wherein fascism espoused revolutionary socialist views. At best, the early fascists promoted economic policies akin to what social democrats implemented.

Dugin also openly acknowledges that his National Bolshevism (a term he seldom uses) shares much in common with National Socialism. In fact, as the essay title suggests, he feels quite comfortable associating his ideology with fascism: "In analogy to National Socialism which was often called simply 'German socialism,' one can speak of Russian fascism as 'Russian socialism.'" To their credit, the aforementioned original German National Bolsheviks were positively adamant in their opposition to fascism—which they, like most Marxists, recognized as the national capitalist abortion it truly was.

I do not mean to interject with a triviality, but it must be said: "Conservative Revolutionary" is a contradiction in terms. It is absolutely nonsensical. It only underscores the fact that such a pseudo-philosophical movement was founded upon the bunk theories of crackpots. Traditionalists who seek to impede progress are known as conservatives, and out of this group, those who wish to revert to a prior status quo (often desiring to regress by a number of centuries) are known as reactionaries. That is the standard definition of those terms. Of course, as revolutionary socialists, we understand all who oppose the emergence of a socialist order or incorporate anti-socialist elements into their ideology to be reactionary.

Celtiberian wrote:more appealing than the Marxian idea of a more even (and ecologically sensitive) development across urban and agricultural areas

This is a bit off topic, but I hadn't heard about this. How does this work?

Rev Scare wrote:I do not mean to interject with a triviality, but it must be said: "Conservative Revolutionary" is a contradiction in terms. It is absolutely nonsensical. It only underscores the fact that such a pseudo-philosophical movement was founded upon the bunk theories of crackpots. Traditionalists who seek to impede progress are known as conservatives, and out of this group, those who wish to revert to a prior status quo (often desiring to regress by a number of centuries) are known as reactionaries. That is the standard definition of those terms. Of course, as revolutionary socialists, we understand all who oppose the emergence of a socialist order or incorporate anti-socialist elements into their ideology to be reactionary.

The whole point of the Conservative Revolutionary movement was to repudiate the assertion that conservatism is reactionary. "Conservative Revolutionary" covers a lot of ideological territory when one considers its descendants, but I'd certainly consider myself a conservative and a revolutionary. I see nothing about conservative social values (sanely conservative, not religious fanaticism) that contradicts the need for social revolution. The Conservative Revolutionaries didn't want to revert to a previous age; they wanted to use traditional values to make sure progress was occurring in the right direction. The topic about libertine "socialists" gives an example of how this can be beneficial.

Celtiberian wrote:Very well, but the National Bolshevik writings out of Russia which I've encountered suggest no such thing. Certain Russian individuals who consider themselves National Bolsheviks may well be revolutionary socialists, but figures like Aleksandr Dugin and Eduard Limonov most certainly are not. In fact, I've yet to find a single website of a Russian (or non-Russian, for that matter) National Bolshevik organization which has drafted a legitimately revolutionary socialist program.

Liminov is an entirely different question, and is definitely not seen as an inspiration in my eyes for his various anti-German sentiments.

Dugin, however, is indeed a revolutionary Socialist and (has) supported the various Socialist regimes around the world. I don't believe you have been looking around enough. The American New resistance is an NB group with a revolutionary Socialist manifesto.

It's different because the classical National Bolsheviks were advocating for a transformation of society along Soviet lines, whereas people like Dugin favor something quite different; more in the vein of Strasserism.

I disagree. I feel advocating anything because it was "Soviet" is fetish nonsense, especially because we are in the modern day United States. Nonetheless, I feel National Bolshevism is to the left of Strasserism economically and actually to the right in terms of its nationalism. (To use the terms which I dislike).

Absolutely. The history of fascism attests to that.

Fair enough, though NB drifts away from both Fascism and Marxism and even discards the term "Third Position" as it is plagued by reaction.

Perhaps. Why anyone would find the Conservative Revolutionary notion of agrarianism more appealing than the Marxian idea of a more even (and ecologically sensitive) development across urban and agricultural areas is beyond me, but then the Conservative Revolutionary mind is an enigma.

Mainly because ConRevs glorify primitive, honest, hard work and at the same time glorify the blood and soil attachments the agrarian peasant has to their fatherland. It is about elevating the peasant and their work. What does the Marxist idea of development across agricultural areas look like?

Correct, but he also states that "On the economic level, fascism is characterized rather by socialist or moderately socialist methods which subordinate personal, individual economic interests to the principles of national welfare, justice, [and] brotherhood." Moderate, indeed! Anyone who has ever read the early fascist manifestos understands that there was never a time wherein fascism espoused revolutionary socialist views. At best, the early fascists promoted economic policies akin to what social democrats implemented.

Yes, he does say that, I actually think calling himself a Fascist was a mistake and as far as I know he no longer refers to himself as such. The side of Fascism that does appeal to NBs is the German concept of Gemeinschaft over Gesellschaft. We want a Gemeinschaft, where individual interests are subordinated to that of the group and nation as a whole, based on close knit folk communities, while at the same time we advocate for revolutionary Socialist program based on general welfare and social justice (not to mention economic democracy).

Dugin also openly acknowledges that his National Bolshevism (a term he seldom uses) shares much in common with National Socialism. In fact, as the essay title suggests, he feels quite comfortable associating his ideology with fascism: "In analogy to National Socialism which was often called simply 'German socialism,' one can speak of Russian fascism as 'Russian socialism.'" To their credit, the aforementioned original German National Bolsheviks were positively adamant in their opposition to fascism—which they, like most Marxists, recognized as the national capitalist abortion it truly was.

Conceded, I do admit Fascism was a poor term to use and I do believe the essay was written earlier in his ideological career (prior- or post- Liminov I am not sure). I myself, am opposed to Fascism, even non-Marxists like Otto Strasser were.

Rev Scare wrote:I do not mean to interject with a triviality, but it must be said: "Conservative Revolutionary" is a contradiction in terms. It is absolutely nonsensical. It only underscores the fact that such a pseudo-philosophical movement was founded upon the bunk theories of crackpots. Traditionalists who seek to impede progress are known as conservatives, and out of this group, those who wish to revert to a prior status quo (often desiring to regress by a number of centuries) are known as reactionaries. That is the standard definition of those terms. Of course, as revolutionary socialists, we understand all who oppose the emergence of a socialist order or incorporate anti-socialist elements into their ideology to be reactionary.

Well, besides playing with semantics Conservative Revolutionary isn't a contradiction in terms. One has to actually believe history has been one long progression in order to think that.

RedSun wrote:This is a bit off topic, but I hadn't heard about this. How does this work?

In short, it would work by allocating capital to regions on a per capita basis, as opposed to the market criteria of investing only where it's most profitable. This would enable agrarian regions to develop to a humane level—I'm not sure if you've traveled widely in this country, but I can assure you that virtually every rural area is highly underdeveloped and impoverished—and incentivize urban areas to become more ecologically sustainable.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Dugin, however, is indeed a revolutionary Socialist and (has) supported the various Socialist regimes around the world.

Where's the evidence to verify this assertion? Where has Dugin ever explicitly stated that he supports workers' self-management and the collectivization of the means of production? The "cooperative and communal," rural fascism he praises in Fascism: Borderless and Red strikes me as sharing far more in common with Distributism than revolutionary socialism.

As for his support for "socialist regimes," there are very few socialist states worth seriously supporting today. Moreover, his support for regimes owes more to his inane geopolitical theories than it does to any sense of socialist internationalism.

The American New resistance is an NB group with a revolutionary Socialist manifesto.

The group which quotes Julius Evola approvingly, admires the absolute worst qualities of Juche, appears to take Dugin's geopolitical nonsense seriously, and uses the color green as a sign of respect to Muammar Gaddafi? Yes, they may uphold a platform which appears to advocate socialist policies, but they also possess lingering reactionary qualities. And where exactly have they claimed to be National Bolshevik?

I feel advocating anything because it was "Soviet" is fetish nonsense, especially because we are in the modern day United States.

The original National Bolsheviks didn't advocate central planning merely because it was Soviet, they did so because they felt it corresponded well with what their understanding of nationalism and socialism was. I'm not suggesting that Americans, or any other nationality, seek to replicate the Soviet model, far from it. What I've been trying to describe are the immense differences between National Bolshevism as it was originally conceived, and the contemporary Russian bastardization of it.

I feel National Bolshevism is to the left of Strasserism economically

The original German National Bolsheviks certainly were, the current Russian ones are not.

What does the Marxist idea of development across agricultural areas look like?

See above.

I actually think calling himself a Fascist was a mistake

Not if he identifies with the tenets of early fascism, which he clearly suggests in Fascism: Borderless and Red.

while at the same time we advocate for revolutionary Socialist program based on general welfare and social justice (not to mention economic democracy).

I don't understand why you use the term "we" in this context. What you espouse is not necessarily shared amongst all self-proclaimed National Bolsheviks today. Furthermore, anyone can claim to stand for "general welfare and social justice"—even libertarian capitalists use such populist rhetoric occasionally—but it remains empty sloganeering absent concrete explanations of the economic and political institutions one advocates. In Fascism: Borderless and Red, Dugin claims that classical fascism upheld principles of "social justice," but anyone who has read early fascist literature knows that the ideology was never genuinely revolutionary in its aspirations. In other words, our (i.e., revolutionary socialists') conception of social justice is radically different from his own.

It seems to me that the "conservative revolutionaries" of the past were merely fascists hoping to break away from the typical mold of fascism.

They rejected materialism in favor of an organic view of society (in typical fascist fashion) and were authoritarian opponents of democracy. They believed their volkish state would overcome any class conflicts that would arise, apparently. It is obvious that these conservative revolutionaries subscribed to the "iron law of oligarchy" theory, which speaks for itself. They were indeed bigoted and aristocratic.

I would hesitate to call myself a "conservative revolutionary", if I were you, because their movement was not revolutionary in the slightest. They are straight out of Orwell's 1984 and completely sh*t on the name of socialism.

Altair wrote:It seems to me that the "conservative revolutionaries" of the past were merely fascists hoping to break away from the typical mold of fascism.

They rejected materialism in favor of an organic view of society (in typical fascist fashion) and were authoritarian opponents of democracy. They believed their volkish state would overcome any class conflicts that would arise, apparently. It is obvious that these conservative revolutionaries subscribed to the "iron law of oligarchy" theory, which speaks for itself. They were indeed bigoted and aristocratic.

I would hesitate to call myself a "conservative revolutionary", if I were you, because their movement was not revolutionary in the slightest. They are straight out of Orwell's 1984 and completely sh*t on the name of socialism.

My objection to Rev Scare's comment in this case was more about the idea that a conservative cannot under any circumstances be a revolutionary.
Also, I think the conservative revolutionaries predated fascism, or at least developed alongside it, but I don't know.

RedSun wrote:My objection to Rev Scare's comment in this case was more about the idea that a conservative cannot under any circumstances be a revolutionary.
Also, I think the conservative revolutionaries predated fascism, or at least developed alongside it, but I don't know.

I don't see how you don't understand that there is a plain contradiction in terms here. Conservative means the view that things should stay as they are. Revolutionary means the view that things should fundamentally change. Reactionary is wanting to revert to a previous state. How, specifically, could you reconcile Conservativism and Revolutionary Theory? The only thing that I think that you could be doing is changing the term revolutionary into a superlative of 'very'. Is this what you're doing because that's the only thing that I can think of? If it is, please recognize that you can't switch definitions to make sense of a contradiction.

About allowing traditional values to guide the revolution, do you not think that the changing material conditions of a revolution will lead to new ideas about family and culture to arise?

Red Aegis wrote:About allowing traditional values to guide the revolution, do you not think that the changing material conditions of a revolution will lead to new ideas about family and culture to arise?

I realize this question wasn't directed to me, but I felt compelled to offer my own perspective on the matter.

To an extent, a change in material conditions will adjust how we view the family unit and culture, for example, but it's not as though the adjustments in our mental conceptions will necessarily be extreme. For example, the family unit has undergone changes over the millennia, but it has always existed in some form or another. Likewise, religious rituals can be traced as far back as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Material factors certainly adjust how religious views manifest themselves (e.g., relatively poor countries tend to be somewhat dogmatic about their faith(s), whereas secularism pervades in nations with a robust welfare system) but it's unlikely to end notions of an afterlife altogether. Personally, I believe the origin of religion mainly rests with man's ability to be cognizant of his own mortality; the immense anxiety this causes inevitably generates comforting thoughts about eternity.