Re: Iron March Forum

[Celtiberian]

What led you to believe that?

The fact he repeatedly states throughout Germany Tomorrow that the managers' "share in possession and profits must [be] comparatively large" (p. 163), and, in Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser and the Black Front, explicitly sets the figure at 49%—as compared with a meager 10% for non-managerial workers.

Not everyone wants to do certain jobs though.

Obviously. But there are certain jobs which can be classified as onerous or rote, and are widely perceived of as undesirable, and others which are clearly empowering. In order to establish genuine classlessness, the corporate division of labor must be transcended.

The only monopoly on skills is however much a member of the folk is willing to learn and put time into training for. For example an electrical construction firm that does both fiber optic cabling and residential house wiring. One takes little training the other takes years of practice and training if someone doesn't want to go through all the practice, that is fine and dandy more power to them, but why in the world should there be some sort of rotation then?

The rotation would entail an equal balance of empowering and disempowering work. Not every worker at a car manufacturing plant would be forced to spend part of his or her time learning to be an automotive engineer, for example, but automotive engineers would be required to spend part of their work lives sweeping the shopfloor. Every laborer involved in rote or onerous work would also have an opportunity to partake in managerial roles.

He says workers get a say in management; however the fellowship manages itself through a collective democratic basis. "Worker's self management" is hardly the only socialist economic model.

If the "fellowship" operates on the basis of one worker/one vote, as you claim it would under your desired system, then it would be practicing workers' self-management. Workers' self-management doesn't require the abolition of markets or that the corporate division of labor be ended, only that capitalists and private shareholders do not exist in the firm and management is held democratically accountable to labor. What I've been discussing (balanced job complexes and remunerative justice) are simply ideas which can be incorporated into workers' self-management.

And I fully acknowledge that workers' self-management isn't the only model of socialism. It is, however, the most effective and just form of workplace decision-making that can be implemented within a socialist mode of production.

It can easily correspond to Strasser's ideas when looking at the quote:

I have castigated and repudiated the liberal illusion of human equality, I nevertheless ardently champion the doctrine that equality of opportunity is essential.

Workers' self-management is predicated more on equality of authority than on equality of opportunity.

[Rev Scare]

The managers are by no means part of the state.

Right, much like China's preferred captains of industry merely receive state "assistance" and nothing more.

The state simply steps in to settle disputes such as the labor courts I mentioned.

How exactly would this be accomplished?

Furthermore, Strasser and Strasserism in general is opposed to the monopoly rule of one party and a party system at all; one prime
feature setting it apart from Hitlerism.

One party systems are not necessarily negative. The distinction lies between authoritarian and democratic government. In general, single party states tend toward authoritarianism, but this is not necessarily so. The state may be democratically governed through a single party or no parties at all, depending on one's perspective.

More importantly, Strasserism hardly distinguishes itself as upholding (or seeking to arrange such) a democratic ideal.

In accordance with this plan in the modern world I would like to see big time bourgeois corporations decentralized and managers elected back on the local level;

Why not eliminate bourgeois enterprise in toto?

the owner taking no managerial function unless agreed upon by the workers of said enterprise.

Why do you find private ownership necessary and desirable at all?

So, no it is not state capitalism, and in fact Strasser makes it quite clear in his economic plan that National Socialism repudiates state socialism.

The repudiation of State capitalism and State socialism is one of the most marked characteristics of German socialism - Otto Strasser, Germany Tomorrow Page 148.

Selective quotations aside, the fact of the matter is that I have yet to be presented with a convincing rationale for viewing Strasserism as anything other than a syncretic nightmare. What little is expounded on its proposed economic policies simply fails to set it apart from other state capitalist ideologies.

[Pantheon Rising]

The fact he repeatedly states throughout Germany Tomorrow that the managers' "share in possession and profits must [be] comparatively large" (p. 163), and, in Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser, explicitly sets the figure at 49%—as compared with a meager 10% for non-managerial workers.

The numbers can be adjusted according to time and place though; there is absolutely no reason why Strasser's exact numbers need to be implemented especially considering he was writing a plan for the Germans at that specific point in time. Secondly, just because the manager makes more doesn't imply he holds a monopoly on anything, including skills.

Obviously. But there are certain jobs which can be classified as onerous or rote, and are widely perceived of as undesirable, and others which are clearly empowering. In order to establish genuine classlessness, the corporate division of labor must be transcended.

I completely agree, though in these certain cases it should be up to the workers themselves how to dish out who does what.

The rotation would entail an equal balance of empowering and disempowering work. Not every worker at a car manufacturing plant would be forced to spend part of his or her time learning to be an automotive engineer, for example, but automotive engineers would be required to spend part of their work lives sweeping the shopfloor. Every laborer involved in rote or onerous work would also have an opportunity to partake in managerial roles.

I agree that rotation must take place however, again, when being a manager requires that you have certain skills why should someone without the skills to do so rotate to the spot of manager?

If the "fellowship" operates on the basis of one worker/one vote, as you claim it would under your desired system, then it would be practicing workers' self-management. Workers' self-management doesn't require the abolition of markets or that the corporate division of labor be ended, only that capitalists and private shareholders do not exist in the firm and management is held democratically accountable to labor. What I've been discussing (balanced job complexes and remunerative justice) are simply ideas which can be incorporated into workers' self-management.

Sure, but it is merely a mater of semantics. I prefer the term collective management.

Workers' self-management is predicated more on equality of authority than on equality of opportunity.

I would say mine/the Strasserist model is about both.

[Pantheon Rising]

Right, much like China's preferred captains of industry merely receive state "assistance" and nothing more.

Speculate all you will, it goes without saying that everywhere, including China, Marxist "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" has been implemented it resulted in new forms of bureaucracy and class oppression.

How exactly would this be accomplished?

The setting up of labor courts to settle disputes between a manager and other workers. The manager is not an employee of the state.

One party systems are not necessarily negative. The distinction lies between authoritarian and democratic government. In general, single party states tend toward authoritarianism, but this is not necessarily so. The state may be democratically governed through a single party or no parties at all, depending on one's perspective.

We Strasserists recognize the authoritarian tendencies associated with a one party system; such as the Hitler system or the Bolshevik one, and prefer no party at all.

More importantly, Strasserism hardly distinguishes itself as upholding (or seeking to arrange such) a democratic ideal.

Certainly it does. Those members who broke away from the NSDAP were especially disenfranchised by ideas such as Fuhrerprinzip. In "Hitler and I" it is claimed that the National Socialists are free and democratic men. What we have a problem with is liberal democracy and parliamentarism. "Capitalist democracy". Nothing but a system where the needlessly rich bribe off a couple bureaucrats to do their will.

Why not eliminate bourgeois enterprise in toto?

The decentralization would include workers owning a share of the enterprise on a local level. The capitalist bureaucrats either enter the enterprise to work back on a local level or are employed elsewhere.

Why do you find private ownership necessary and desirable at all?

I don't and I never hinted at such.

Selective quotations aside, the fact of the matter is that I have yet to be presented with a convincing rationale for viewing Strasserism as anything other than a syncretic nightmare. What little is expounded on its proposed economic policies simply fails to set it apart from other state capitalist ideologies.

Than you lack comprehension skills.

[Celtiberian]

The numbers can be adjusted according to time and place though

Of course they can be. The question is, does this revision represent a departure from Strasserism? I believe it does. Otto Strasser was quite insistent upon the 'necessity' of managers earning significantly more than non-managerial staff. Remuneration on the basis of effort and sacrifice—the only ethical method of remunerating, in my opinion—hasn't any precedence in Strasserist theory.

There is really nothing original in Strasserist doctrine. Market socialism dates back as early as Thomas Hodgskin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's writings, i.e., the mid 18th century; federalism was also a theory long supported by socialists, notably Proudhon; his approach to national minorities is reminiscent of the Austromarxist theory of national personal autonomy; and even his ridiculous "Conservative Revolutionary" philosophy was earlier propounded by the likes of Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Oswald Spengler, and Ernst Jünger. I don't understand why people uphold Gregor and Otto Strasser as ideological visionaries. Perhaps the world would have been better off if the Strasserist faction of the NSDAP had controlled the party, but it's just idle speculation. It appears as though a cult of personality has been established around the Strasser brothers, which I find troubling. (I'm not accusing you of being among those involved in that personality cult, however.)

there is absolutely no reason why Strasser's exact numbers need to be implemented especially considering he was writing a plan for the Germans at that specific point in time.

Even when considering the context within which he wrote, his figures made no sense.

Secondly, just because the manager makes more doesn't imply he holds a monopoly on anything, including skills.

It's not that people aren't provided with an equal opportunity to learn managerial skills—any society which features publicly subsidized higher education provides that opportunity—it's that there are a finite number of positions in an economy which consist of managerial, and other creative and empowering, work. Consequently, within the standard corporate division of labor, a relatively small percentage of the population (roughly 20%) holds a monopoly over these positions. The only way to overcome this unjust monopoly over empowering work, and prevent a non-capitalist class division from forming, is to implement a policy of rotating jobs, so as to balance empowering and disempowering work for every citizen.

I completely agree, though in these certain cases it should be up to the workers themselves how to dish out who does what.

Workers should influence decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected by them, yes.

I agree that rotation must take place however, again, when being a manager requires that you have certain skills why should someone without the skills to do so rotate to the spot of manager?

The only way for them to establish these skills is to work beside the specialist until they can adequately perform the task themselves, thereafter being competent enough to rotate. If they're incapable of performing a managerial task, the worker involved in rote or onerous work can instead rotate tasks with a clerical or another administrative worker. Exceptions can, of course, be made for the mentally unfit (who represent a small percentage in any population).

Sure, but it is merely a mater of semantics. I prefer the term collective management.

That's fine, but it can be confusing since it's a rather obscure term.

I would say mine/the Strasserist model is about both.

Perhaps. But workers' self-management isn't an entire model of socialism, it's merely a non-exploitative method to administer workplace decisions which can be incorporated into a broader socialist mode of production. I doubt anyone would disagree with the notion of equality of opportunity.

[Pantheon Rising]

Of course they can be. The question is, does this revision represent a departure from Strasserism? I believe it does. Otto Strasser was quite insistent upon the 'necessity' of managers earning significantly more than non-managerial staff. Remuneration on the basis of effort and sacrifice—the only ethical method of remunerating, in my opinion—hasn't any precedence in Strasserist theory.

There is really nothing original in Strasserist doctrine. Market socialism dates back as early as Thomas Hodgskin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's writings, i.e., the mid 18th century; federalism was also a theory long supported by socialists, notably Proudhon; his approach to national minorities is reminiscent of the Austromarxist theory of national personal autonomy; and even his ridiculous "Conservative Revolutionary" philosophy was earlier propounded by the likes of Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Oswald Spengler, and Ernst Jünger. I don't understand why people uphold Gregor and Otto Strasser as ideological visionaries. Perhaps the world would have been better off if the Strasserist faction of the NSDAP had controlled the party, but it's just idle speculation. It appears as though a cult of personality has been established around the Strasser brothers, which I find troubling. (I'm not accusing you of being among those involved in that personality cult, however.)

I agree with the conservative revolutionary doctrine, though how can you say he was not original when Thomas Hodgskin and Pierre Joseph Proudhon were not nationalists? Were Arthur Moeller van der Bruck, Oswald Spengler, and Ernst Junger revolutionary socialists? I do not think so. National Socialism, as it was by the early NSDAP and later expanded on by Otto Strasser is the perfect synthesis of both Nationalism and Socialism. It is not nationalism with socialistic policies nor is it socialism "with a policy of self determination among nations" (as those here espouse) it is true, 100%, National Socialism.

Secondly, in my opinion, changing the numbers around slightly to fit the material and economic needs of a people does not represent a departure from the doctrine of Strasserism.

Lastly, there is no real cult of personality around the Strasser brothers. People mainly call themselves Strasserists when they want to avoid the Hitler conversation. Saying National Socialist usually invokes images of Hitler. What I find more disturbing is the cult of personality around Marx, a man who spent the majority of his life in a library, and had the audacity to try and want to save people from the "idiocy" of a rural existence.

Even when considering the context within which he wrote, his figures made no sense.

I disagree.

It's not that people aren't provided with an equal opportunity to learn managerial skills—any society which features publicly subsidized higher education provides that opportunity—it's that there are a finite number of positions in an economy which consist of managerial, and other creative and empowering, work. Consequently, within the standard corporate division of labor, a relatively small percentage of the population (roughly 20%) holds a monopoly over these positions. The only way to overcome this unjust monopoly over empowering work, and prevent a non-capitalist class division from forming, is to implement a policy of rotating jobs, so as to balance empowering and disempowering work for every citizen.

You are over-complicating the issue. If someone doesn't want or have the aptitude to hold a managerial position than they shouldn't hold one. Especially when in a socialist society schooling for such a position can be made easy and available.

The only way for them to establish these skills is to work beside the specialist until they can adequately perform the task themselves, thereafter being competent enough to rotate. If they're incapable of performing a managerial task, the worker involved in rote or onerous work can instead rotate tasks with a clerical or another administrative worker. Exceptions can, of course, be made for the mentally unfit (who represent a small percentage in any population).

Again, if a workplace really wants to organize themselves like that than it is up to the individuals in that enterprise. I know that I, personally, do not want a managerial position anywhere. I hate sitting at a desk and prefer physical labor. Many workers would agree with me, and many would prefer a managerial position. Obviously in a cooperative workplace this is much easier to work out with your fellow workers and manager himself. If they want to rotate managerial positions the salaries should be worked out too, but the elected manager should not be forced to rotate if he does not wish it. If the laborers do not agree with him they can fire him and elect a new one.

[Celtiberian]

I agree with the conservative revolutionary doctrine, though how can you say he was not original when Thomas Hodgskin and Pierre Joseph Proudhon were not nationalists?

I claimed they were the progenitors of market socialism (an economic model), not socialist nationalism (a political theory).

Were Arthur Moeller van der Bruck, Oswald Spengler, and Ernst Junger revolutionary socialists? I do not think so.

Ernst Jünger actually had briefly considered endorsing an authoritarian form of socialism (not unlike North Korean Sŏn'gun). Nevertheless, I stated that Otto Strasser merely derived his philosophical worldview from those men.

National Socialism, as it was by the early NSDAP and later expanded on by Otto Strasser is the perfect synthesis of both Nationalism and Socialism.

Actually, it is not. The founder of the NSDAP, Anton Drexler, was not what you or I would consider a socialist. Having read his pamphlet My Political Awakening, I can unequivocally state that his economic views extended no further than Hitler's own policy proposals for after the war. The most radical reform he demanded was the socialization of credit (not unlike the early Falangists).

"Amidst all the shouting 'Down with capitalism,' not a single black curly hair of stock market and loan capital has been harmed. Should one not come up with the idea that the curly-haired and their 'German' helpers meant by the slogan: 'Down with the capitalism!,' namely the German, English, Russian, French, American, Italian and up with the Jewish in the whole wide world? They want to dominate all non-Jews with their capitalism.'

It has already been stated in this publication that this development did not first set in during the war or after the revolution, rather that already much earlier one allowed this capitalism unprecedented power. Yes, Wilhelm II directly bred it. The unscrupulous money 'earners' enjoyed the greatest prestige and not the most honest and most upright. Capitalism is indispensable, but it must be a healthy one. And precisely the healthy capitalism, which stems from its own folk, was neglected and hindered, because nothing was to be gained from it."
Anton Drexler, My Political Awakening: From the Journal of a German Socialist Worker (Fairbury: Third Reich Books, 2010), pp. 51-52 (emphasis added).

Likewise was true of Gottfried Feder, another founding member of the party, who assisted in the drafting of the 25 Point Program. Gregor and Otto Strasser were really the first in the party to introduce the notion of large scale nationalizations.

It is not nationalism with socialistic policies nor is it socialism "with a policy of self determination among nations" (as those here espouse) it is true, 100%, National Socialism.

How do you define nationalism?

Secondly, in my opinion, changing the numbers around slightly to fit the material and economic needs of a people does not represent a departure from the doctrine of Strasserism.

There's nothing "slight" about the adjustments that should be made to the Strasserist method of remuneration.

What I find more disturbing is the cult of personality around Marx, a man who spent the majority of his life in a library, and had the audacity to try and want to save people from the "idiocy" of a rural existence.

Unlike the Strasser brothers, Karl Marx actually contributed to the study of political economy in profound ways. His analysis of capitalism remains unsurpassed and his class analysis provides socialists with the most useful sociological method to structure political activism around. Marx and Engels deserve respect, but not idolatry (which no one is worthy of).

I disagree.

In what sense did the sociopolitical situation of Germany in the mid 20th century necessitate managers being given a flat rate of 49% of all profits generated in their firm?

You are over-complicating the issue.

You're failing to appreciate the significance of the issue.

If someone doesn't want or have the aptitude to hold a managerial position than they shouldn't hold one.

You're ignoring the influence exogenous preferences have in decision making. Many people truly believe that they don't possess the aptitude for certain positions in the economy because they've spent an appreciable portion of their lives performing rote work. Moreover, it's not about ensuring everyone is competent in managerial roles exclusively, but that everyone's work life is balanced so as to ensure each citizen has a comparable combination of empowering and disempowering tasks.

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion by further debating of the merits or deficits of balanced job complexes, so I ask that we drop the issue.

[Rev Scare]

Speculate all you will, it goes without saying that everywhere, including China, Marxist "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" has been implemented it resulted in new forms of bureaucracy and class oppression.

I was referring specifically to modern China and its practice of state capitalism. There is nothing inherent to the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat that necessitates an authoritarian political structure. The Marxist conception of "dictatorship" is rooted in class, not in the Roman dictatura. There exist historical reasons for the authoritarian policies enacted by followers of Marxism-Leninism once they attained power, largely attributable to the underdevelopment of the nations in question and Western aggression faced by the respective vanguard parties.

The setting up of labor courts to settle disputes between a manager and other workers. The manager is not an employee of the state.

What rights would workers retain with the state in the purported position of mediator? The "managerial" class would constitute the largest shareholder ipso facto; the state would claim a vast proportion. Combined, this state capitalist establishment would wield enormous directive influence.

"1) There will come into being, in contradistinction to the extant “class” of Capitalist, an “estate” of managers, which, regardless of wealth or origin, will constitute a functional aristocracy that, thanks to the very methods of its selection, may be said to be made up of “captains of industry” or “commissioned officers of economic life.”

2) The dispossessed “class of proletarians” will vanish, its place being taken by an “estate” of fully privileged workers, directly and indirectly participating in and therefore interested in their “workshop”. They will no longer be objects of the economy, but its subjects.

3) The relations between State and economic life will be radically altered. The State will not be the “night-watchman and policeman” of Capitalism, nor will it be a dictator whose bureaucracy cracks the whip that drives the workers to the bench and spurs them to their tasks; but it will be a trustee of the consumers, and as such it will have much influence, but only within and beside the self-determination of the working producers, namely of the management and the staff of workers (consisting in appropriate proportions of clerical and other intellectual workers, on the one hand, and manual operatives, on the other)."
Germany Tomorrow

The above is hardly a repudiation of capitalist organization. The capitalist class merges directly into the managerial class, and the state exerts greater authority. The "radical" change here consisting of the bolstered state and curtailment of finance capital. The "commissioned officers of economic life" are fief holders, and the ordinary worker receives but a sliver of surplus value and empty platitudes about "the self-determination of the working producers"—in like manner as all other 20th century reactionary nationalist movements.

Certainly it does. Those members who broke away from the NSDAP were especially disenfranchised by ideas such as Fuhrerprinzip. In "Hitler and I" it is claimed that the National Socialists are free and democratic men. What we have a problem with is liberal democracy and parliamentarism. "Capitalist democracy". Nothing but a system where the needlessly rich bribe off a couple bureaucrats to do their will.

Strasserism requires considerable imposition from the top in order to be implemented at all. Otto Strasser's envisioned political framework was pseudo-democratic federalism at best, with tremendous power vested in the executive branch. Given the class contradictions which Strasserism maintains, I would not grant such a system credibility nor any long-term stability.

The decentralization would include workers owning a share of the enterprise on a local level. The capitalist bureaucrats either enter the enterprise to work back on a local level or are employed elsewhere.

Allowing workers to receive minor returns on stock is hardly a novel concept. It is not altogether uncommon in bourgeois societies, particularly in the West. Failing to radically transform the workplace by instituting complete self-management (e.g., no "functional aristocracy" of managers), common ownership and appropriation of surplus value (ergo, all remuneration is democratically decided), and (as far as possible under market limitations) rotating job complexes should be viewed as unacceptable from the standpoint of 21st century revolutionary socialists.

[Admin]

There will come into being, in contradistinction to the extant “class” of Capitalist, an “estate” of managers, which, regardless of wealth or origin, will constitute a functional aristocracy that, thanks to the very methods of its selection, may be said to be made up of “captains of industry” or “commissioned officers of economic life.”

[RedSun]

What rights would workers retain with the state in the purported position of mediator? The "managerial" class would constitute the largest shareholder ipso facto; the state would claim a vast proportion.

Sharing power between workers, coordinators with most of the power/control of surplus, and state officials? Unless I've misunderstood this discussion, this sounds awfully familiar.

[Egalitarian]

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/548-fake-national-socialists/

Stormfront has nothing to do with both true, patriotic and genuine revolutionary, progressive, socialist, anticapitalist and antibourgeois Fascism and National-Socialism, it's just a site for phony neonazi retards, reactionary and conservative skinheads, zionists in disguise, clerical fundamentalists and pro-capitalist scum. National Socialism is a not a right-wing nor is it a pan-european and christian movement. Enough is enough. I'm sick of the American/British Neo-nazi/Skinhead rats infested with tattoes, earings, beer drinkers and drug users claiming to be National SOCIALISTS or the phony Right-wing White internationalist cosmopolitical idiots that favor the judeo-christian religion and worship the Jewish-Middle eastern non-white Jesus christ, along with the Libertarian Conservative ron-paul lovers and Reactionary Republican-Party /Tear party supporters. These mongrels have nothing in common with National Socialism. As for the phony Right-wing pro-capitalist "Neo-Fascists" such as FascistCapitalist. Those people are no fascists, they are rightwing scum who called themselves "neo-fascists" but they never studied and never understood Mussolini's writings and teachings. The Duce never called himself a rightwinger, nor his own movement, but he always consider himself as a socialist and his Fascism the "italian way to socialism", therefore a socialist-nationalist movement. To sum-down what National Socialism is in the short way possible, read what is below.

National Socialism is the worship and Germanization of Nordic Aryan Man within a SOCIALIST State. Bormann, Speer and Breker knew the truth. National Socialism is a biological, socialistic and revolutionary movement with a liability to Neoclassicism and Germanism. Only an adamantine combination of anti-bourgeois and racial Nationalism, Pan-Germanism, economically leftist and revolutionary, anti-capitalistic Socialism, and a classless ethnic community as well as anti-christian and biological Nietzscheism, Wagnerism, Caesarism, Germanization, superior aryan technology, Darwinian racial laws and the eugenic teachings of Madison Grant, de Gobineau and H. S. Chamberlain is National Socialism. Thus a NEW MAN will rise! A godless, pitiless and fearless Man whose only god is himself. The plan to destroy the economic system of private interest and profit (Capitalism) and replace it with an economic system of communal interest and profit (Socialism) for the benefit of the whole racial community (National Socialism). That is what occured in 1933 Germany: the gradual displacement of Jewish and gentile Capitalism by German Socialism, where class divisions are removed, where ability determines ones type of work in the community (not wealth as with Capitalism), where the means of production and the banks are divested out of the control of selfish private interests. Thus Nazism equals the political, economic and social control of the State by the Proletaryan. National Socialism is a combination of the two concepts of Nationalism and Socialism, which represent the biological and anti-capitalist aspects of the doctrine (Nation=Race). Nazism is Socialism (the supplantation of Capitalism) applied to the further economic and social development of the Race. This is the only logical method of securing the survival and prosperity of the race as a whole, since all other political-economic systems only lead to the dominance of a selfish oligarchy over the interests of the people / race. One must not disregard the "Socialism" of Nazism, in fact that is just as important as its "Nationalism" (its genetics), for without first and foremost an orderly and rational political-economic base the race will eventually be exploited and come to ruin, as is transpiring today throughout the White Nations. If the State is not governed by Aryans inspired with socialist ideals, then it will be ruled by Aryans, who are indifferent to the welfare of the Race, or by international plutocrats. Volksgenosse

Literally almost everything is wrong with those two paragraphs...

[Celtiberian]

Literally almost everything is wrong with those two paragraphs...

Excluding his contention that "National Socialism is the worship and Germanization of Nordic Aryan Man."

[Rev Scare]

Excluding his contention that "National Socialism is the worship and Germanization of Nordic Aryan Man."

In a word, horseshit.

[Celtiberian]

In a word, horseshit.

Indeed. "Horseshit" summarizes National Socialism quite nicely.

[TotalitarianSocialist]

Cool forum. That FascistCapitalist guy is hilarious. He even called the Strasser brothers communist.

[Celtiberian]

Cool forum.

Their incessant whining about the "modern world" and "liberal degeneration," blind faith in tradition and hierarchy, rewriting of history, and militarist fetishism is not "cool" in the slightest. Iron March is almost as pathetic and annoying as Stormfront.

[Angry]

Iron march are dirt-people, that absolute lowest scum it is possible to find, they are a subhuman species of shit, they represent a low-point of human evolution.

No person with any self-esteem, moral or esthetic standards what so ever would use the kind of profile-pictures that the forum moderators on that forum use.

Why debate with that shit? The thing with stormfront is that they are proper racists. Iron March are hypocritical in their attempt at pretending to no be racialists, as they allow nazies and people with swastikas in their profiles to post there.

It is basically just a worse looking and more cowardly version of Stormfront.

Nobody should take traitor-shit like that lightly. Some day people like that (people with no fixed values, just hot air and excuses for being subhumans) will get money from oilcampanies in order to spread "Freedom" and whatever in Europe, the same way Al-Qaida is used in Libya and Syria. How will you like it when a bunch of oh-so-patriotic psycopats blows up your house because Shell wants them to?

Absolute trash! Absolutely worthless!

[TotalitarianSocialist]

I have decided to only post in opposing views from now on if I even continue to post at all. This forum is far more socialist then Nationalist and to libertarian IMO. There are international socialists on this forum and they are more libertarian then the George Bernard Shaw type. I would prefer a bourgeois nationalist regime to that of an internationalist one unless it was a George bernard Shaw type. There are some Strasserites and Third Positionists but I do not think I have ever seen another totalitarian or even authoritarian on this forum. I don't even think I have seen a Stalinist/Maoist. I can at least acknowledge you guys are amongst the more decent leftists, not the wimps on revleft. I would have been a leftist during the French revolution a rightist during the Russian revolution and right now I am called "far-right" by liberals. I am a Socialist(though many here would say I am not) because of my Nationalism and a Nationalist because of my Socialism. My plan is to have a state that shuns bourgeois values and transition into a state that is without the bourgeois. I am an anti-communist as pure communism will be ineffective. I say: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work". Hard work, not bourgeois exploitation. I do not consider myself revolutionary and not "reactionary" but maybe deep down I am. I think I am more suited for IronMarch. I already have an account there and have for a while.

[Celtiberian]

I have decided to only post in opposing views from now on if I even continue to post at all.

Very well.

This forum is far more socialist then Nationalist and to libertarian IMO.

The truth of the matter is that our conception of nationalism simply differs from your own. Revolutionary socialists do advocate for the construction of democratic institutions, so in that sense I suppose you could consider us libertarian.

There are international socialists on this forum and they are more libertarian then the George Bernard Shaw type.

George Bernard Shaw's "socialism" was authoritarian state socialism—what Karl Marx referred to as "barracks communism." He was merely a vulgar elitist, albeit a witty one. I, for one, am pleased that there are so few authoritarians on this forum.

As for internationalism, I plead guilty. (Any socialist who seriously believes that socialism can be maintained in complete geopolitical isolation is clearly ignorant of the history of the 20th century.) Moreover, there is a significant difference between internationalism and cosmopolitanism, the former of which is entirely compatible with left-wing nationalism.

I would prefer a bourgeois nationalist regime to that of an internationalist one unless it was a George bernard Shaw type.

That's quite telling. A confession worthy of a level II restriction, perhaps.

There are some Strasserites and Third Positionists but I do not think I have ever seen another totalitarian or even authoritarian on this forum.

Actually, most of the Strasserist-types fled to the Iron March forum around the time you decided to join that forum. It's an understandable enough decision for them to have made.

I don't even think I have seen a Stalinist/Maoist.

That's because there are very few Stalinists and Maoists on the contemporary Left in general.

I would have been a leftist during the French revolution a rightist during the Russian revolution

How do you rationalize that?

My plan is to have a state that shuns bourgeois values and transition into a state that is without the bourgeois.

'Shunning values' does nothing to alter a mode of production; to believe it can is to indulge in idealist fantasy.

I am an anti-communist as pure communism will be ineffective. I say: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work". Hard work, not bourgeois exploitation.

Distribution on the basis of need will be within the realm of possibility at some point in human history. In the interim, distribution on the basis of effort is a far more equitable form of remuneration, and I believe it's a viable option.

I think I am more suited for IronMarch. I already have an account there and have for a while.

Okay.

[TotalitarianSocialist]

I will continue posting in opposing views.

George Bernard Shaw's "socialism" was authoritarian state socialism—what Karl Marx referred to as "barracks communism."

I would say the same about every communist state ever. There have been and there still are libertarian communist communities but they are anti-statist.

As for internationalism, I plead guilty. (Any socialist who seriously believes that socialism can be maintained in complete geopolitical isolation is clearly ignorant of the history of the 20th century.) Moreover, there is a significant difference between internationalism and cosmopolitanism, the former of which is entirely compatible with left-wing nationalism.

I support an international revolution but this revolution be be almost entirely Eastern and Southern European. I can also see it being a factor in the Arab world. If certain nations want to live under a capitalist system and it is there choice. I am South African and the local revolution I support is one that establishes a Volkstaat and turns it into a National Socialist dictatorship.

That's quite telling. A confession worthy of a level II restriction, perhaps.

A more liberal Third Positionism, Peronism or Stalinism over bourgeois national capitalist regime eg Pinochet's Chile.

How do you rationalize that?

I like Robespierre and his religious ideas(Cult of the Supreme Being) are interesting. The French leftists supported nationalism more so then the monarchy did. The communists promoted internationalism. I also believe in the "theory" of Jewish-Bolshevism. Sure the anti-communists supported a more bourgeois nationalism but it is better then internationalism. I consider myself a Pan-Nationalist, I support others international and want an international revolution but I am far more concerned with my own nation and put it first.

'Shunning values' does nothing to alter a mode of production; to believe it can is to indulge in idealist fantasy.

I want a state run model of production with as little private business as possible. Bourgeois values will be attacked with state directed propaganda.

[Celtiberian]

I would say the same about every communist state ever.

But you're continuously failing to make a crucial distinction: The socialist nations of the 20th century were largely established on the periphery of the geopolitical order. Immediately upon the formation of the Soviet Union, the bourgeois states sought to undermine and even overthrow the emerging socialist countries.This hostile geopolitical climate inevitably led to the necessity of implementing relatively strict domestic policies and a military able to keep pace with those of the bourgeois states (hence why the arms race and nuclear development was held to such a high priority). The Marxist-Leninist doctrines of single-person management (edinonachalie) and democratic centralism—applied after the revolution—also had the consequence of centralizing authority too strongly in the party and planning apparatuses. Communist and socialist philosophy, however, has always advocated the expansion of democratic control and self-management of the working class. And even at their most authoritarian points, the state socialist nations still believed (or at least claimed to believe) that they were working toward that end—late stage nomenklatura notwithstanding.

What you're advocating, conversely, is the formation of an autocratic dictatorship with no aspiration whatsoever of transcending such a form of governance. This is likely why you feel such an affinity toward fascism and all manner of dictatorial governing structures.

There have been and there still are libertarian communist communities but they are anti-statist.

Of course they are (and were) anti-statist.

I support an international revolution but this revolution be be almost entirely Eastern and Southern European.

I don't understand why you would arbitrarily select Southern and Eastern Europe as your ideal locations. That would keep in place the largest obstacles to socialist development, namely: the United States, China, England, Germany, and France.

If certain nations want to live under a capitalist system and it is there choice.

Apparently you don't appreciate the force of the materialist dialectic. It doesn't matter if certain members of the nation "want" to live within a capitalist state, the particular class dynamics which capitalism engenders are what threatens the continued reproduction of capital.

I am South African and the local revolution I support is one that establishes a Volkstaat and turns it into a National Socialist dictatorship.

Which is a perfect example of why you're restricted.

A more liberal Third Positionism, Peronism or Stalinism over bourgeois national capitalist regime eg Pinochet's Chile.

Third Positionism, as I often contend, is inclusive to the point of being a meaningless term; Peronism was a form of national capitalism; and Pinochet's regime most certainly could not be considered "national" is any sense of the word—Chile's economic system was incorporated into the global capitalist order upon his assumption of power.

The French leftists supported nationalism more so then the monarchy did.

The monarchy, in fact, didn't support nationalism at all.

The communists promoted internationalism.

As does any socialist or communist serious about maintaining a non-capitalist mode of production within their respective nations.

I also believe in the "theory" of Jewish-Bolshevism.

How predictable.

Sure the anti-communists supported a more bourgeois nationalism but it is better then internationalism.

In your reactionary opinion, it is.

I support others international and want an international revolution but I am far more concerned with my own nation and put it first.

People naturally identify with their own nation first, and any movement which seeks a revolutionary transformation of society understands that basic fact.

I want a state run model of production with as little private business as possible.

State socialism necessitates centralized economic planning. Nationalized industries operating within the context of a market economy distort the market in such a way that it hinders the functionality of the system. Moreover, aside from the abolition of the bourgeoisie, one of the most admirable aspects of state socialism is that production is orientated around use, as opposed to exchange. Alienation, however, is not transcended under such a system, nor are exploitative management structures.

Bourgeois values will be attacked with state directed propaganda.

Which is meaningless. Bourgeois values will continue to exist until socialism has replaced capitalism in its entirety.

[Balkan Beast]

Just thought I'd post my opinions after looking at a few threads on Iron March.

I may be wrong since I looked at about 10 threads, but here is my assumption so far.

Basically all the ones which I have seen are overwhelmingly reactionary and hope to restore their country's lost glory(I can sympathize with restoring national honour), and just want a ultranationalist, and more extreme form of Capitalism that is controlled by their ethnic group rather than foreigners.

I had no doubt I would see ultranationalism I have no problem with that, but not only this there are also lots of posts relating to Holocaust Denial.
I doubt these people form a majority though, there are also plenty of comments that are in opposition to denial, and share a similar stance to my own(It happened, but is heavily exaggerated for propaganda purposes)
I had hoped that I would see reasonable people on iron march that are simply ideologically opposed to us, instead I've simply stumbled onto a group that is little different than stormfront.

Even seen a thread there talking about lots of fascists having insomnia, which leads me to believe that fascism is a mental illness

[Confusion]

Even seen a thread there talking about lots of fascists having insomnia, which leads me to believe that fascism is a mental illness

Could this be the reason behind their fascination with zombies? Their artwork seems to be filled with it zombies and dead people. Could be because they are dead-tired from insomnia?

When the modern world collapses... They will rise from their graves.... and eat brain

Must.... Eat..... Brain.......

To bad they will have to take of their gas-masks first. (Cough! Cough! Choke!)

[Admin]

I do find it amusing how fascism and other expressions of reactionary nationalism attract so many individuals who fall outside of the 'nations' such movements purport to represent.

[Egalitarian]

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/1290-stalinism-red-fascism/page__p__32700#entry32700

..Yet another reason why I firmly believe that Iron March is one of the most ideologically incoherent assemblies of individuals on the net. How can the members there honestly call themselves fascists with straight faces when they 'adopt' the belief systems of Stalin and Lenin (who are showcased on the site but probably misinterpreted by the majority of them)? Some of the persons on there sound a lot more like socialists than fascists.

Even the clown of their league (FascistCapitalist) has to teach them essential fascistic economy in these embarrassing threads:

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/1289-when-fascism-was-still-on-the-left/page__p__32606#entry32606

http://ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/1285-in-what-sense-is-corporatism-socialist/page__p__32414#entry32414

[Sponsored content]