National Bolshevism- A New Definition

There are many things that I would like to address regarding National Bolshevism. Of the many things that come to mind regarding National Bolshevism, one is that “National Bolshevism” is just the name of the Ideology and not the Political party or parties. Names of the parties following this Ideology, can be left to convenience and the needs of the political parties to come up with something that not only forms a good impression on the majority of the electorate, but also does not create an atmosphere of fear of radicalism, confusion about violent and non-violent means to win the election and acquires the general trust of the civilians. Of course, regarding Ideology, it can be National “Bolshevism” or National “Revolutionary”, as felt necessary by the leaders of the Political party or a referendum by the Party workers. Names actually don’t matter, as far as Ideology is concerned. The name of the Political party does matter, because of the reasons given above. For Ideology, it is only practice that must be given importance.

Now, I want to clear up several matters concerning National Bolshevism, as conceived by the old leaders and thinkers who contributed to its emergence. Firstly, this new form of National Bolshevism that I am proposing does not require the formation of a Greater Russian Empire. This form of National Bolshevism, will have Russia playing a major role, however, there will be no territorial acquisitions by Russia, no act of conquest against Nations in Eastern Europe or its immediate Nations, no race based notions of Slavic Unity or Brotherhood- so no Russian/Slavic ethnocentrism, no nostalgic looking back to Imperial Russia and even though Russia will play an important role in this new conceptualization of National Bolshevism, Russia will not have precedence in matters of Policy, etc. In this new version of National Bolshevism that I am proposing, the word 'National' or the concept of Nationalism will not translate to belligerence and acts of aggression against foreign nations. Although, the rise of Nationalism will play an important role in this ideology of National Bolshevism, aggression towards other nations or any form of hatred towards other cultures, races or people will be strictly frowned upon and highly discouraged. The love for the Nation or homeland will be encouraged, but any form of racist feelings or notions of superiority will be totally shunned and removed altogether from this new Ideology. Thus, nationalistic feelings, will not translate into hostile feelings and other aggressive or negative believes about others, even if love and devotion to one's homeland is practiced.

Secondly, regarding the meddling of the US Empire in Islamic nations, acting as the agent of Israel, something concrete needs to be formulated. Being a solution seeker by cooperating with other people and giving cognizance to their needs, it is my understanding that for the benefit of its own people, for the sake of modernization, if not westernization and for the good of the future generations, Islam needs to be softened or modernized. Islamic clerics who are young, peace-seeking and who want to better the lot of their Islamic brethren need to do something tangible regarding the present state of Islam. The divide between Shia and Sunni Muslims must be erased and conciliation brought between them, since Allah and the Koran is more important, than bickering about Shia-Sunni divide, different religious practices, etc. Now, you might ask exactly what is the role of National Bolshevism, in bringing reforms in Islam and why I am mixing a political Ideology with a religion. Well, as long as the US and the NATO Alliance continue to be the Global Policing agents, they will continue to intervene in the Islamic nations of the Middle East and elsewhere. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the displacement of a secular dictator such as Gaddafi in Libya were all about stealing their oil and placing puppet regimes which would be obedient to the US. The oil deals after the Libyan crisis and the presence of Companies such as Halliburton in Iraq prove the real agenda. The main goal of National Bolshevism, as an Ideology is a Coalition of Countries, in opposition to the NATO Alliance. If, a such as strong coalition is to form, as a deterrent to further invasions of these Islamic Nations, then a reform in Islam is needed. When the secular dictators of these Islamic Nations are replaced, then the people or groups coming to replace them have shown themselves to be Orthodox Islamists with anachronistic beliefs, obscurant social practices and sometimes unwillingness to recognize the state of Israel and the previous peace deals with Israel. Of course, I myself am a fervent supporter of the Palestinian cause and feel very sorry for the exploitation of their people by militant Zionists. But, what I am saying is that if the Nations of Egypt with its Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, the Libyan State, Iran, etc. if they don’t recognize the State of Israel and vocally make some extreme comments such as they will destroy or nuke Israel egged on by Salafist or other Orthodox strains of Islam, then that will bring more military interventions from the US, Israel and the NATO Countries. Therefore, even though people who know the history of the formation of Israel will side with the Palestinians, however, in realpolitik if an Islamic Nation’s leader(S) is vocal in its denunciation of Israel in extreme ways, then unfortunately that will result in more Middle East wars and devastation. By coaxing the Islamic clerics and leaders to be more reform minded, one can bring greater peace to the Middle East and that will benefit not only the Muslim people, but people everywhere who are fed up with the US-NATO Imperialistic Alliance.

Thirdly, to clear up any assumptions of the exact nature of the term “National” in National Bolshevism. If you read the second paragraph, you will see that in this Ideology there are no notions about any kind of ethnocentrism. Now, if the past forms of National Bolshevism had anything to do with anti-Semitism, then this new form I am proposing is totally against it. This current Ideology is very much opposed to Zionist expansionist policies or any militaristic act of aggression by the State of Israel which is unprovoked. However, National Bolshevism has nothing against the Jewish people. As Vladimir Lenin said, “It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations”. I have known a lot of Jewish people, most of them are from Russia and they are thoroughly against the Zionists and their militaristic aggrandizement. Of course as I said in the previous paragraph, if one thinks realistically, we must all accept the State of Israel, as it stands today. Of course, morally speaking and thinking of the Palestinian people, if the State of Israel increases beyond its current borders, only then it is a source of concern. However, as much as one dislikes the displacement of the Palestinian people, one must not have destructive thoughts towards Israel. Political realism demands Israel be recognized, but if possible only through peaceful, legal and of course by means which produce results, rather than just words, one must oppose its expansion.

Fourthly, I want to clear up the misconception of National Bolshevism of being favorable to Fascism. Remember, this is a new form that I am proposing, so this Ideology of National Bolshevism might have nothing in common with the negative aspects of the older form. If one knows the characteristics of Fascism, then let me tell you that National Bolshevism has no need to find political scapegoats to get rid of. It does not want to put up a one man dictatorship. It has zero tolerance for any notions of racial superiority or any kind of racial intolerance towards ethnic minorities. Unlike Fascism, National Bolshevism does not seek to invade other nations. So, even though it would against the NATO Alliance, it would certainly not seek to attack them. However, unlike Orthodox Communism, this form of National Bolshevism does not oppose religion. We would not believe in State Atheism, like the Communists, but we would believe in having a State sponsored religion. Knowing the hypocrisy of Christianity, the militancy of Islam, but at the same time recognizing the need of the masses to believe in something higher than them, I propose having a State approved religion. But this won’t be an attempt towards religious authoritarianism; neither will it be a theocracy. People will have complete freedom of religion, they will be free to be Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc., however they will have to recognize the ultimate authority of the Sate sponsored religion which will take precedence in all religious matters in terms of State policy. So, people will have complete Freedom to worship their own version of God or be total Atheists, but in matters of public policy or matters of the state, the precepts of the State sponsored Church will take precedence. The good thing about this State Church will be that, it will be quite secular, in fact more secular, liberal, lenient and advanced than the personal beliefs of the people.

Fifthly, I will talk about governance, economy and world relations. The form of government that I am formulating working with the Ideology of National Bolshevism is a Technocracy, where the leaders will be highly educated like modern day Communist China. Fear Not! This isn’t giving into the so-called bourgeoisie or the business elite. Highly educated people with Masters and PhDs would be in charge of the party like scientists, engineers and IT people, who have knowledge, expertise or skills, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists. Private property will be allowed, but the people owning them will owe the State a certain sum of money depending upon how they made their wealth. Taxes will be decided by income. The name for this system is Dirigisme. It will be highly state controlled capitalism. For example, say in agriculture, the State could tell the farmers to farm barley instead of wheat, depending upon the economic needs concerning trade interests. Like China, it will be a cabinet of people, who are highly accomplished who will rule. This kind of technocracy will also have characteristics of a welfare state, such as a Public Healthcare, employment insurance, etc. Of course capitalism is not what National Bolshevism is about. National Bolshevism is ideologically opposed to Capitalism. Therefore, let me assure you by saying that this kind of state controlled capitalism or dirigisme is quite temporary. Taking lessons from the fall of the Soviet Union, I feel that once the State following the Ideology of National Bolshevism has completely overcome its dependence on trade and economic ties with the US and NATO Alliance countries, it can successful bring about a transformation to Socialism. By remembering the policies of Ronald Reagan who brought down the USSR by an arms race and huge spending, I have to realize that if a Nation has National Bolshevism as its Ideology, then just as the USSR, it is quite difficult to sever trade, diplomatic and economic bonds with the NATO countries. A Nation must play the diplomatic game for some time before the full and successful transformation into a truly Socialist state. Otherwise, through Economic means the NATO will resort to cripple the nations which follow National Bolshevism and are totally anti-capitalist.

Regarding world relations, I would like to say that other than Russia, no Nation towards the eastern Non-NATO side has a National Bolshevik party. However, by reading the above paragraphs, you will find that my conception of National Bolshevism is quite different from that. In fact, it is so different, that it might well be a new Ideology! Maybe, you will think that this is not National Bolshevism or name National Bolshevism is not appropriate for these ideas that I have proposed. Well, people are left to think for themselves what they will. The old thinkers, writers and revolutionaries who wrote about this creed of National Bolshevism are long dead and it has been proven by history that people who have conceived of or tried to propagate National Bolshevism by spreading or trying to vocalize the same old ideas have repeatedly failed in elections and failed to win the support of the people. That is why the National Bolshevik party is in the Other Russia group, along with a medley of others. Vladimir Putin has clearly proved to be the Greatest and most Successful Leader of Russia and his well accomplished United Russia party has always won the majority in the elections and most Russians support him. Not so with National Bolshevism. In its multiple attempts to win, the National Bolshevik party of Russia has appeared to be extreme in its views, violent, on the fringe and totally unsuccessful. It has failed because it has not changed from the past. It has failed because it lingers upon old thinkers. It has failed because it has not adapted to politics and thinking of today’s day and time. It has failed because it did not win the hearts and minds of the people.

Parties which follow the Ideology of National Bolshevism must come into existence in several Non-NATO countries. By starting small and first winning in the provinces and states within a nation and then slowly winning the hearts and minds of its people and taking charge of the various Nations, is what National Bolshevism must achieve. Parties which follow this Ideology must first be created with people who are realistic about today’s situation in the International Political arena. They must start from the grassroots, from the 99%, but not forgetting the ground realities and by not being too ideologically dogmatic, by being flexible to change, by embracing the Youth, but not by avoiding the older generations. People might live in Western, NATO countries, but they must be aware of the impending disaster awaiting these continuous wars, more financial collapse and a steady moral decline as the God of Money has no limits. Of course, realistic goals are important in life, like a job, income, food on the table, but serious minded people must realize the great ideological divide they live in and try to come to terms with it.

This is quite long, so I apologize beforehand for any grammatical mistakes, as MS Word cannot be trusted completely in its Review.
[justify]

If you are opposed to NATO, then why are you against attacking them openly? NATO/Other groups would more than likely attempt to topple countries that embrace this Ideology by either: Air Strikes, Supplying reactionaries, and embargoes. Why is it that you are opposed to fighting against capitalist countries, aside for economic reasons(although it is quite possible the mere formation of such a state would result in it being embargoed)? Are you opposed to the tactics used by China/USSR, funding revolutionary movements in other countries as well? Or is this strictly restricted to conventional warfare?

I cannot say I agree with your other views either, but they are at least not like the other Nazbol's that have came here preaching the version that was formed in Russia.

Vladimir Putin has clearly proved to be the Greatest and most Successful Leader of Russia and his well accomplished United Russia party has always won the majority in the elections and most Russians support him.

As for this though... No... Just no...
He is certaintly not the greatest, nor most successful leader of russia.
His party has been able to win elections by rigging those elections and muscling people to vote for him. There has been a lot of evidence that has shown that but nothing is to be done about it.

AntiScrooge wrote:one is that “National Bolshevism” is just the name of the Ideology and not the Political party or parties.

It's also important to note that National Bolshevism itself is a heterogeneous ideology. There are significant differences between the theories espoused by Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim, and those of Ernst Niekisch, for example. The former were simply nationalistic council communists who believed that conditions in the Weimar Republic were such that a national revolution (which they understood as being cross-class) was emerging; whereas the latter was a Marxist who (unfortunately) became influenced by the so-called "Conservative Revolutionary" philosophy, thereafter establishing his own theory and model of socialism.

Although, the rise of Nationalism will play an important role in this ideology of National Bolshevism, aggression towards other nations or any form of hatred towards other cultures, races or people will be strictly frowned upon and highly discouraged. The love for the Nation or homeland will be encouraged, but any form of racist feelings or notions of superiority will be totally shunned and removed altogether from this new Ideology. Thus, nationalistic feelings, will not translate into hostile feelings and other aggressive or negative believes about others, even if love and devotion to one's homeland is practiced.

If you're attempting to establish a new ideology, why use the title "National Bolshevism"?

Secondly, regarding the meddling of the US Empire in Islamic nations, acting as the agent of Israel

Accusing the United States of "acting as the agent of Israel" is a gross simplification. Both countries use one another to advance their perceived interests.

The main goal of National Bolshevism, as an Ideology is a Coalition of Countries, in opposition to the NATO Alliance.

Such geopolitical theories are anachronistic. They may have made sense during the Cold War, but international capitalism is hegemonic today. In order for socialism to be sustained in the 21st century, it requires that proletarian revolutions succeed in each of the major geopolitical states (e.g., the United States, Western Europe, Russia, and China).

Political realism demands Israel be recognized, but if possible only through peaceful, legal and of course by means which produce results, rather than just words, one must oppose its expansion.

The international community is virtually unanimous in the belief that Israelis be returned to the June '67 borders, and a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital be allowed to from. Of course the United States enables Israel to continue to defy international law, but, should socialism materialize in North America and Europe at some point in the future, the situation will undoubtedly change in favor of the Palestinians.

However, unlike Orthodox Communism, this form of National Bolshevism does not oppose religion.

'Marxism-Leninism' is a more appropriate term to use when addressing the ideology which promoted state atheism. Karl Marx never endorsed such a policy and instead believed that religion would gradually dissolve as the material factors which gave rise to it (ignorance, poverty, etc.) were eradicated. Many communists (myself included) share Marx's opinion on the matter.

We would not believe in State Atheism, like the Communists, but we would believe in having a State sponsored religion. Knowing the hypocrisy of Christianity, the militancy of Islam, but at the same time recognizing the need of the masses to believe in something higher than them, I propose having a State approved religion. But this won’t be an attempt towards religious authoritarianism; neither will it be a theocracy. People will have complete freedom of religion, they will be free to be Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish etc., however they will have to recognize the ultimate authority of the Sate sponsored religion which will take precedence in all religious matters in terms of State policy. So, people will have complete Freedom to worship their own version of God or be total Atheists, but in matters of public policy or matters of the state, the precepts of the State sponsored Church will take precedence. The good thing about this State Church will be that, it will be quite secular, in fact more secular, liberal, lenient and advanced than the personal beliefs of the people.

If you believe in the freedom of religion, why is a state-sanctioned church necessary? Why should religion be of any relevance to state policy?

The form of government that I am formulating working with the Ideology of National Bolshevism is a Technocracy, where the leaders will be highly educated like modern day Communist China. Fear Not! This isn’t giving into the so-called bourgeoisie or the business elite. Highly educated people with Masters and PhDs would be in charge of the party like scientists, engineers and IT people, who have knowledge, expertise or skills, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists.

This is inexcusable. Not only would such a technocratic form of governance suffer from all the problems associated with dictatorships (e.g., nepotism, corruption, and human rights violations), but the history of 20th century state socialism has conclusively demonstrated that socialism cannot be maintained under such conditions. Moreover, what makes you think that it's ethically acceptable to allow unaccountable elites to make decisions which will affect the entire nation?

Private property will be allowed, but the people owning them will owe the State a certain sum of money depending upon how they made their wealth. Taxes will be decided by income. The name for this system is Dirigisme. It will be highly state controlled capitalism.

I have critiqued dirigisme elsewhere, but am willing to debate the matter further, if you're interested. Simply put, it does absolutely nothing to redress the central injustices of capitalism.

Therefore, let me assure you by saying that this kind of state controlled capitalism or dirigisme is quite temporary. Taking lessons from the fall of the Soviet Union, I feel that once the State following the Ideology of National Bolshevism has completely overcome its dependence on trade and economic ties with the US and NATO Alliance countries, it can successful bring about a transformation to Socialism.

First of all, what makes you think that this entrenched technocratic elite would allow such a transformation to occur? Secondly, why do you think that foreign trade necessitates maintaining the capitalist mode of production?

By remembering the policies of Ronald Reagan who brought down the USSR by an arms race and huge spending, I have to realize that if a Nation has National Bolshevism as its Ideology, then just as the USSR, it is quite difficult to sever trade, diplomatic and economic bonds with the NATO countries. A Nation must play the diplomatic game for some time before the full and successful transformation into a truly Socialist state.

Where exactly are you envisioning this hypothetical National Bolshevik country? The degree of concessions required to maintain trade relations with bourgeois states is more dependent on a nation's resource endowments than its ideology—which is why an oil-producing, socialistic country like Venezuela isn't suffering from trade embargoes.

Vladimir Putin has clearly proved to be the Greatest and most Successful Leader of Russia and his well accomplished United Russia party has always won the majority in the elections and most Russians support him.

I second Balkan Beast's criticism of this statement.

It has failed because it did not win the hearts and minds of the people.

Socialism cannot be achieved by way of parliamentarism, so it's not advisable for organizations to spend time and resources on such futile pursuits. As for winning "hearts and minds," people only become amenable to radical viewpoints when material forces have exposed the inherent weaknesses of the system. Until such a time, false consciousness will pervade in the working class.

Isnt national-bolshevism more of an art-form? A form of performance-art?

The founder was into punk and poetry, and when he formed the party, he advocated Russian expansion into Europa, in order to create a Eurasian empire. He was probably inspired by Orwell, as well as the wave of irony that became the trendiest from of humor in the 1990s.

I might add that this type of irony often mixes it self into politics. Adbuster might be a good example. Making fun of commercials, they started out primarily as pranksters in the early 1990s. And they still are? Their magazine seems to have become more emo-oriented lately.

My best guess, is that Nazbol made fun of the Soviet-elite, and the new capitalism at once. A mix of nostalgia and pranks, and all kinds of weird stuff.

Confusion wrote:Isnt national-bolshevism more of an art-form? A form of performance-art?

No.

The founder was into punk and poetry,

I highly doubt that the original National Bolsheviks such as Ernst Niekisch were into the punk subculture.

and when he formed the party, he advocated Russian expansion into Europa, in order to create a Eurasian empire.

Eduard Liminov, the modern day head of the NBP, is quick to espouse Russian expansionism, but Aleksandr Dugin's theory of Eurasian is meant to be anti-imperialistic (keeping my own opinions of Eurasian theory to the side).

This is the guy:

Eduard Limonov

People who take it seriously are pranked.

Or is there one irony-crew, and one that is serious and dangerous? Also within national bolshevism? I know Russia is home to some of the most dangerous nazi-gangs in the world, as well as the pranksters.

Confusion wrote:This is the guy:

Eduard Limonov

People who take it seriously are pranked.

Or is there one irony-crew, and one that is serious and dangerous? Also within national bolshevism? I know Russia is home to some of the most dangerous nazi-gangs in the world, as well as the pranksters.

I happen to agree that Eduard Liminov is a joke, and people who follow him are being pranked. He is hardly the only National Bolshevik though, and he is rather insignificant outside of Russia where as Aleksandr Dugin has support outside of Russia as well. Not to mention a century of history before Liminov, when a form of National Bolshevism was being developed in the Weimar period to combat the growing tide of reactionary nazism.

I exhibit evidence number two:

**** to the new Tsar!

I don't know much about the German national Bolsheviks though. But the comedians need places to draw inspiration, so if there has been something serious going on at another place at another time, that does not immediately legitimize something here and now as equally serious.

I think maybe this is something similar, even if the artist (a film-director) is more Putin-friendly:

Manifesto, submitting dignified to authoriithy, something

Whose the pranksters, and whose serious?

Thank you all for your replies and posts.

I will now take the time to address each of your concerns, objections and clarifications.

First of all concerning the name of this new Ideology which I am proposing. I am really at a loss of words as to what name to come up with for this new Ideology and will seriously require your combined help to produce a proper name for it. However, since this new Ideology appears to be at odds with the old National Bolshevism, I do agree that a new name for this Ideology is needed. But, regarding the exact name of this amalgamation of ideas, I need your help.

Secondly, let me address the issue regarding the diplomatic, political and economic relationship with the NATO Alliance and the location of the countries, where this new Ideology should establish itself. The main point I want to stress regarding the diplomatic relation with the NATO countries is that it is not a hostile or aggressive relationship. These countries where this Ideology will find followers are not opposed to the NATO Alliance, just because it is something different or because capitalist countries are its members. So, let me be clearer. The National Bolshevik (you can suggest a different name later) countries are not against NATO because it’s a military alliance of countries following a different Ideology. These countries will also not object to NATO’s military buildup [this issue is further explained in the 4th paragraph] and they don’t necessarily have to object to NATO’s intervention in Middle-Eastern or other countries. The difference lies in the Nationalistic sentiments of this new Ideology. So, the nations or parts of the nations’ embracing this new Ideology will have some kind of separationist or secessionist goals. And, this kind of separationist mentality, combined with nationalism will be promoted and encouraged in the NATO nations, so they will place their national identity above some kind of military coalition, following the dictates of the US. Now, we see the European Union on the brink of dissolving and breaking up and several Eurosceptic parties coming up and making their presence felt in the nations of the EU. If you know of some of these groups, two are- Europe of Freedom and Democracy and European National Front. Don’t be shocked if you find that one is center-right, conservative populist and another is anti-communist, nationalistic and third positionist [typically called Far-Right]. You see, the object is to break up the NATO Alliance, first by promoting these European parties which make up either group, by making them realize that the NATO or other American dominated alliances are against their nationalistic interests, encouraging the breakup of the EU and actively being against any future coalition of European nations, by being against any large group which has the potential of making European Nations more European and less themselves [French, German, Spanish, Italian, Greek, etc. but not European], by promoting separationist groups and moreover, showing that an Alliance with America either military or economical means being subservient to US Imperialism. By promoting nationalism, separatism, by being against large coalitions, one can achieve either the breakup of NATO or its decline.

The way it will be different from Communism as seen in the USSR, is that this new Ideology will be opposed to forming a huge ‘landmass’ coalition. What I mean is that this Ideology will not have a geopolitical coalition of Nations banded together like the Soviet Union. To be clearer, what I mean is that unlike the USSR which was a huge physical/geographical entity following the Socialist Ideology as a whole, National Bolshevism (or some other name) will be against such a large physical coalition or geographically united entity. Rather, this Ideology will support nations being separate as individual entities or sovereign states which will be allied with other similar nations, but will not be buffer states to a larger political entity like the Eastern European nations were to the Soviet Union. Neither, will they be subservient to a different and larger political entity similar in Ideology with them [Which is different from the Socialist Republics uniting and making the USSR].

Now, I had said in the second paragraph,” These countries will also not object to NATO’s military buildup. And they don’t necessarily have to object to NATO’s intervention in Middle-Eastern or other countries”. Addressing the first line, let me say that I favor all capable nations on Earth having Nuclear weapons. Once, gradually all nations which are scientifically capable, start producing Nuclear weapons, following the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, each nation will be deterred from not only using nukes, but all forms of conventional warfare will be brought to a halt when nations will fear retribution by nukes. When, these nations will realize the huge potential for massive civilian death by the use of such destructive arms, they will cease engaging in normal combat as well, since the fear of retaliation will be there. Having nuclear weapons, will also deter other nations launching pre-emptive strikes, since the opposing nations and their allies will have nuclear weapons to counter the initial attack. Regarding the second line of not objecting to NATO involvement, I meant not being physically involved in that sort of crisis. When the nations of Eastern Europe, some of the African states, the South American nations have the capability of producing Nuclear weapons, their diplomatic ties within the global patchwork of nations, will decide if by use of diplomatic force, such Western backed interventions, can be deterred or not.

Regarding Israel, yes I agree that the US and Israel have a mutually symbiotic relationship and Israel does not necessarily have precedence in foreign affairs of the US. Although, Israel’s nuclear capability and because it has military superiority, somehow making it go back to the 1967 borders, doesn’t seem realistic.

Regarding Technocracy, State Religion, State controlled capitalism vs. a totally Socialist state not looking after the interests of the business class, I will argue later, as soon as the above paragraphs have been debated. But, I will say two things, one is that I have to learn much more about Economics in order to argue about theories such as dirigisme, or a socialist economy with no traces of capitalism [the presence of which has to be more clearer so as to explain the virtual disappearance of the business class which has a stranglehold on today’s economy] and two, regarding religion, leftist ideologies have always been opposed to religion as a whole, and even though we have seen the tides of secularism sweep the world, the complete disappearance of something [religion] that not only has significance in people’s lives, but also because through the ages people have placed faith in symbols and rituals, which [if the harmful elements are removed] might reveal itself as a form of psychological relief from the daily hassles, and troubles that plague humanity; is not possible or might take generations.
[justify]

AntiScrooge wrote: Now, I had said in the second paragraph,” These countries will also not object to NATO’s military buildup. And they don’t necessarily have to object to NATO’s intervention in Middle-Eastern or other countries”

Bhuuu! What about poor Gadaffi, and poor Assad?! And all those people being harassed by Al-Qaida and other NATO-sponsored villains? This seems like an even more rightwing version of Putin, not even objecting to the military buildup. I personally hope Europe goes bankrupt and crashes, so that we will loose our armies instead. Everything will be fine as long as Russia doesn't attack us while muddling through the ruins and rebuilding some humble brick-houses for shelter. (I don't think Putin or a leftwing government would do such a thing, but Nazibolsh? Impossible to know what they want, or if they even want anything at all)

way it will be different from Communism as seen in the USSR, is that this new Ideology will be opposed to forming a huge ‘landmass’ coalition. What I mean is that this Ideology will not have a geopolitical coalition of Nations banded together like the Soviet Union. To be clearer, what I mean is that unlike the USSR which was a huge physical/geographical entity following the Socialist Ideology as a whole, National Bolshevism (or some other name) will be against such a large physical coalition or geographically united entity. Rather, this Ideology will support nations being separate as individual entities or sovereign states which will be allied with other similar nations, but will not be buffer states to a larger political entity like the Eastern European nations were to the Soviet Union.

But why not team up? Huge military alliances between friendly partners is so cozy. And think about the generals! They can go on military-tourism! Inspecting each others armies! There are off course also strategic reasons for teaming up: The nations who share the same goals gets stronger by supporting each other, and by maintaining the capability of joint-operations, like the one NATO did in Libya (in order to do this, one have to train together). This evil raid-of-destruction would not have been possible by the way, had Libya been a part of a military alliance.

Regarding Israel, yes I agree that the US and Israel have a mutually symbiotic relationship and Israel does not necessarily have precedence in foreign affairs of the US. Although, Israel’s nuclear capability and because it has military superiority, somehow making it go back to the 1967 borders, doesn’t seem realistic.

This too, might be a bit too right winged for my taste. There is something about UN-treaties being broken way back, so the least we can do is to be angry and keep reminding Israel that they have broken, and continues to break international law. Israel is simply way bigger than initially agreed upon.

Thank you for your reply.

I would like to address your first paragraph, by pointing to this line in my 4th paragraph- “When the nations of Eastern Europe, some of the African states, the South American nations have the capability of producing Nuclear weapons, their diplomatic ties within the global patchwork of nations, will decide if by use of diplomatic force, such Western backed interventions, can be deterred or not. “

Therefore, the above mentioned groups of countries are where this Ideology has the potential of developing. But even more important than the growth and spread of this Ideology, is that the nations of Eastern Europe, the African nations and the South American countries, must try their very best to develop nuclear weapons, as soon as possible. After those accomplishments, deterring the US from intervening in other nations (as you said poor Gaddafi, poor Assad, etc.) will be more possible, since these new Nuclear Nations can together put diplomatic pressure on such military missions undertaken by the US or its Allies. As it stands today, only Russia and China have nuclear weapons and are part of the UN Security council, as permanent, veto-issuing Nations [along with France, UK and USA]. Perhaps, Russia and especially China [by giving less importance to territorial disputes with India] can somehow support India’s entry into the Security Council as a permanent member. After that or in the meantime, if the Eastern European countries can make nuclear weapons and become nuclear capable, along with the developed nations of Africa and South America, then these individual nations can combine diplomatically [but not geographically] and deter these foreign interventions. Also, taking care of terrorists like the Al-Qaida or any extremist groups can be done by a joint collaboration among Nations or by individual nations, if they feel they can do so, without the support of likeminded Nations.

As far as the State of Israel is concerned, I read the Palestine Chronicle (palestinechronicle.com) to form and develop my views on the Israel Palestine issue.

AntiScrooge wrote: Therefore, the above mentioned groups of countries are where this Ideology has the potential of developing. But even more important than the growth and spread of this Ideology, is that the nations of Eastern Europe, the African nations and the South American countries, must try their very best to develop nuclear weapons, as soon as possible. After those accomplishments, deterring the US from intervening in other nations (as you said poor Gaddafi, poor Assad, etc.) will be more possible, since these new Nuclear Nations can together put diplomatic pressure on such military missions undertaken by the US or its Allies.

Why not devolope bad-ass killer-robots instead? They should have red-glowing eyes, and be shaped as human skeletons in order to look like complete nightmares

Run yankees! Run! BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

I am so certain this will work that I even post this "how to survive a robot-uprising" video:


Everyone needs a fighting chance, don't you agree? But now that I have given away the survival-guide, we might want to add a nuclear-holocaust on top, just to increase the difficulty a bit. Everybody loves a challenge!

AntiScrooge wrote:First of all concerning the name of this new Ideology which I am proposing. I am really at a loss of words as to what name to come up with for this new Ideology and will seriously require your combined help to produce a proper name for it. However, since this new Ideology appears to be at odds with the old National Bolshevism, I do agree that a new name for this Ideology is needed. But, regarding the exact name of this amalgamation of ideas, I need your help.

Your ideology shares much in common with traditional Italian corporativism, particularly its use of dirigisme as a transitional stage toward socialism—though the early corporativists (e.g., Arturo Labriola and Angelo Olivetti) soon abandoned that position and came to view corporativism as a desirable end in itself. Whatever you decide on naming your ideology, you're correct to disassociate it from National Bolshevism, since most of the policy proposals associated with that term historically share little in common with what you've described here thus far.

Although, Israel’s nuclear capability and because it has military superiority, somehow making it go back to the 1967 borders, doesn’t seem realistic.

It obviously doesn't seem realistic at the moment, but that's because Israel is currently in a position to defy international law. That is why I qualified my statement by essentially saying that a change in the Israeli-Palestinian situation requires a radical shift in the world's power dynamics, i.e., international socialism needs to replace international capitalism.

But, I will say two things, one is that I have to learn much more about Economics in order to argue about theories such as dirigisme, or a socialist economy with no traces of capitalism [the presence of which has to be more clearer so as to explain the virtual disappearance of the business class which has a stranglehold on today’s economy

Well, I certainly encourage you to learn more about economic theory before endorsing a specific economic model. There is a wealth of information on this forum which can assist you in that, just browse through our Education sub-forum.

regarding religion, leftist ideologies have always been opposed to religion as a whole

Incorrect. There have been numerous socialist, communist, and anarchist religious thinkers throughout history. I can cite specific examples, if necessary.

and even though we have seen the tides of secularism sweep the world, the complete disappearance of something [religion] that not only has significance in people’s lives, but also because through the ages people have placed faith in symbols and rituals, which [if the harmful elements are removed] might reveal itself as a form of psychological relief from the daily hassles, and troubles that plague humanity; is not possible or might take generations.

If people require "psychological relief" from their "daily hassles," they're perfectly free to practice whatever religion appeals to them in their personal lives. Endorsing a state religion is a separate matter, and you've not yet made a coherent argument in favor of that position. You're perfectly free to try, though I seriously doubt that you (or anyone else, for that matter) can make a persuasive argument in favor of such an archaic and potentially harmful concept.

(You'll notice that I didn't respond to most of your geopolitical theories. I intentionally ignored them because they're speculative, not particularly interesting, and completely irrelevant to what I, as a revolutionary syndicalist and left-nationalist, require to assist the working class in the struggle to end the dictatorship of capital.)

Thank you for your response.

As regards the State Religion, it will be highly hedonistic, very secular, but it will take precedence in State matters, by dictating whether a military act, passing a particular or set of laws or any other action(s) undertaken by the State are moral or not. So, it won’t be anachronistic or based on past traditions as the previous historic instances of State Religions were. When, the civilian population, practicing and espousing the obscurant and potentially harmful religions of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. find that the State Religion is very modern, secular, liberal in various socially conservative issues, forward looking and much less restrictive than their own religions are, they will gradually and quite readily accept the State Religion, which will be the One Religion of the region, eventually. If my readers have been smart enough to understand what I meant by the first line of this paragraph, they will understand that this State Religion is actually Deism or deism and an assortment of symbols and other rituals to make it look like a religion in the traditional sense, like Christianity or Islam. Also, the State Religion will take precedence in ruling out the morality of various actions taken by the State; it will in essence take precedence over the personal faiths of all the people in the land. So, as you see, this State Religion is nothing harmful or parochial as the theocracies of the ages gone by or what we see now.

AntiScrooge wrote:As regards the State Religion, it will be highly hedonistic, very secular, but it will take precedence in State matters, by dictating whether a military act, passing a particular or set of laws or any other action(s) undertaken by the State are moral or not.

Your ideal society is sounding increasingly like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.. With respect to state violence, a combination of human rights legislation and functioning democratic institutions are sufficient enough to ensure that abuses of power aren't committed.

If you're genuinely concerned with the population becoming more secular, the proven means to achieving that are reducing poverty, providing decent educational opportunities to everyone, and restructuring work so as to be more stable and secure. In other words, assisting in the development of a socialist mode of production will do far more toward that end than some sort of state-sanctioned pseudoreligion.

Sorry for taking so long to reply.

Here is an article which will help clarify my position on National Bolshevism- http://evrazia.org/article/1872.