National Bolshevism: A future alternative?

[----]

I don’t wish to divert the extant Communism thread, so I started a new thread regarding National Bolshevism.

 

I was inspired by this post: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/19067-tell-me-how-communism-is-bad/?p=317047

 

To summarise, National Bolshevism claims to adopt the 'positives’ of the Soviet communist system (such as anti-capitalism) while excluding its 'negatives’ (state atheism and internationalism). Unlike Marxism-Leninsm/Maoism, there has never been an officially National Bolshevist/Fourth Positionist state.

 

An introductory Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

 

Also, in conjunction with National Bolshevism, what is your opinion of Eurasianism? Any discussion of National Bolshevism must also consider the Eurasianist programme.

 

An introductory Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism

 

Let the discussion begin.

 

 

 

[Aragorn]

>Hates Capitalism

>Is in t$

[----]

>Hates Capitalism

>Is in t$

Save your snide remarks for the Orbis sections.

 

First, this thread does not concern in-game affairs. 

Second, I never voiced any support for National Bolshevism or Eurasianism. I only wanted to start discussions regarding a relatively unknown ideology. I offered information to facilitate this discussion. 

[The Internationalist]

National Bolshevism combines radical Nationalism and Anti-Capitalist Rhetoric, what could possibly go wrong?

 

Also, most leftist circles call National Bolshevists CommuNazis, and with good reason too.

[----]

National Bolshevism combines radical Nationalism and Anti-Capitalist Rhetoric, what could possibly go wrong?

 

Also, most leftist circles call National Bolshevists CommuNazis, and with good reason too.

What could possibly go wrong? Economic isolation and autarky ala Juche. But then again, powerful national fervour combined with a 'material' nationalism might also yield interesting results. Most national movements focus on 'blood and honour' and other similar nonsense, while ignoring the basic fact that culture stems from the materially induced relations between persons. A national movement recognising this material reality is quite rare, and its results could be spectacular.

 

As for the left, I take any leftist critique with a grain of salt. These leftists are the same people who label as 'fascists' any persons deviating from whatever factional orthodoxy is considered 'true leftism.' Look at all the Trotskiyist nonsense spewing from the Leninist-Marxist movement.

 

The only reason I myself would hesitate to call NatBol 'NazBol' is due to the absence of an overtly racist political programme in the NatBol ideology. Nationalism itself does not necessarily equate to racism.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Klemens Hawicki

[The Internationalist]

What could possibly go wrong? Economic isolation and autarky ala Juche. But then again, powerful national fervour combined with a 'material' nationalism might also yield interesting results. Most national movements focus on 'blood and honour' and other similar nonsense, while ignoring the basic fact that culture stems from the materially induced relations between persons. A national movement recognising this material reality is quite rare, and its results could be spectacular.

 

As for the left, I take any leftist critique with a grain of salt. These leftists are the same people who label as 'fascists' any persons deviating from whatever factional orthodoxy is considered 'true leftism.' Look at all the Trotskiyist nonsense spewing from the Leninist-Marxist movement.

 

The only reason I myself would hesitate to call NatBol 'NazBol' is due to the absence of an overtly racist political programme in the NatBol ideology. Nationalism itself does not necessarily equate to racism.

First of all, you are conflating liberals with leftists.

• Liberals => Slightly left => Everything I don't like is a Nazi.
• Leftists => Far left = Can actually tell the difference between conservatism ans Nazism.

Secondly, At least with the leftist's I know, this is mostly unfounded. (My circle of leftists contains: Anarcho-Communists, Libetarian Socialists, Utopian Socialists, Lenin-Marxists, Trotskyists and regular Socialists, and they all seem to get on fine.)

 

Thirdly, Trotskyism and Leninist-Marxism are conflicting ideologies, what do you expect.

 

Forth(ly?), National Bolshevism has historically allied itself with Nazism, like in the 1930's where the German Communist Party (National Bolshevists) tried to ally the Nazis with The Soviet Union.

 

Finally, yes there are two kinds of nationalism: Ethno-Nationalism and Civic-Nationalism. National Bolshevism most definitely fit into the former category. (To be honest, almost all kinds of nationalist ideology fit into the former category)

[----]

I know very well the difference between liberals (bourgeois) and leftists. I was commenting on leftists' infamous factionalism (curbed by heroes like Ramón Mercader). Your list of acquaintances, with the plethora of ideological names, itself attests to this factionalism (no matter how mitigated by polite interaction). In the past, these groups were literally at each others' throats, through purges, ideological denunciations, and party expulsions. Early NatBol ideologues were KPSS members, eventually denounced by Lenin as deviationists. To summarise my point, each leftist faction claims to practise/promote 'true' communism/socialism, while claiming that other similarly-named factions are not 'true' communists/socialists as defined by their respective orthodoxy.

[ComradeMilton]

It's fun how everyone appears to be ignoring how fractured the right is while denouncing people for believing in leftism of any kind. Bravo on the hypocrisy.

[The Internationalist]

I know very well the difference between liberals (bourgeois) and leftists. I was commenting on leftists' infamous factionalism (curbed by heroes like Ramón Mercader). Your list of acquaintances, with the plethora of ideological names, itself attests to this factionalism (no matter how mitigated by polite interaction). In the past, these groups were literally at each others' throats, through purges, ideological denunciations, and party expulsions. Early NatBol ideologues were KPSS members, eventually denounced by Lenin as deviationists. To summarise my point, each leftist faction claims to practise/promote 'true' communism/socialism, while claiming that other similarly-named factions are not 'true' communists/socialists as defined by their respective orthodoxy.

What you are referring to is the authoritarian/libertarian split. It is present in right-wing politics too.

 

It's fun how everyone appears to be ignoring how fractured the right is while denouncing people for believing in leftism of any kind. Bravo on the hypocrisy.

This.

[----]

It's fun how everyone appears to be ignoring how fractured the right is while denouncing people for believing in leftism of any kind. Bravo on the hypocrisy.

I never claimed that the right is less factional. I only pointed out leftists’ diminished ability to honestly criticise other left movements.

 

In political matters, truth is found only in strength and numbers, not ideological correctness. If the Leninists should constitute the strongest and most numerous self-proclaimed left movement, then the dissenting/non-Leninist left is deviationist. Same rule for right-wing movements. 

 

Anyway, as far as I can sense, the left’s primary opposition to NatBol arises from NatBol’s rejection of internationalism. Frankly, the whole internationalist tendency reeks of liberal-bourgeois sentiments/influence. This would be hardly surprising considering the cultural origins of most Anglo-American 'leftists.'

[ComradeMilton]

I never claimed that the right is less factional. I only pointed out leftists’ diminished ability to honestly criticise other left movements.  Where have you been looking? Half the reason the left has such difficulty getting things done as efficiently as the right is that the criticism is so powerful. 

 

In political matters, truth is found only in strength and numbers, not ideological correctness. If the Leninists should constitute the strongest and most numerous self-proclaimed left movement, then the dissenting/non-Leninist left is deviationist. Same rule for right-wing movements.  I believe the prevailing faction is Marxist. 

 

Anyway, as far as I can sense, the left’s primary opposition to NatBol arises from NatBol’s rejection of internationalism. Frankly, the whole internationalist tendency reeks of liberal-bourgeois sentiments/influence. This would be hardly surprising considering the cultural origins of most Anglo-American 'leftists.' What with the quotation marks? Pretty goofy.

[The Internationalist]

I never claimed that the right is less factional. I only pointed out leftists’ diminished ability to honestly criticise other left movements.

Then what point are you making. The left is fractured and criticizes each other, the right is fractured and criticizes each other.

In political matters, truth is found only in strength and numbers, not ideological correctness. If the Leninists should constitute the strongest and most numerous self-proclaimed left movement, then the dissenting/non-Leninist left is deviationist. Same rule for right-wing movements.

Leftists can work together when the need arises (depending on the topic). While left unity is difficult to achieve an example of it working would be ANTIFA, people who range from Anarchists to Stalinists banded together.

Anyway, as far as I can sense, the left’s primary opposition to NatBol arises from NatBol’s rejection of internationalism. Frankly, the whole internationalist tendency reeks of liberal-bourgeois sentiments/influence. This would be hardly surprising considering the cultural origins of most Anglo-American 'leftists.'

The main things that leftists reject about National Bolshevism its radical ethno-nationalism, and its authoritarian nature. (Well except for other authoritarian leftists, like Stalinists which don't have as much a problem with it).

(Also internationalism isn't a 'liberal-bourgeois' idea. From Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin, they all acknowlaged that the revolution would have to be made global at some point. Stalin just wanted to establish Russia as a powerbase for the revolution in the beginning.)

[----]

The main things that leftists reject about National Bolshevism its radical ethno-nationalism, and its authoritarian nature. (Well except for other authoritarian leftists, like Stalinists which don't have as much a problem with it).

I am surprised, however, that you have not discussed Duganist (after Aleksandr Dugin) National Bolshevism and its Eurasianist tendancies. While prewar NatBol certainly found ground among the ethno-nationalists (such as your German example), I would hardly consider NatBol’s Eurasianist tendencies to be ethno-nationalist in the strict sense.

Eurasianism, at its bare minimum, calls for European and Asian integration under Russian control. It’s basically what would have taken place after the Second World War if the USSR’s westward march had not been blocked by the Western Allies.

 

Plus, I would also like more discussion from the right-wing regarding NatBol and Eurasianism. I don’t want this thread to become another 'what is communism thread.’ The reason I wanted to discuss NatBol is its theoretical encompassment of both the right and left. On the one hand, we have radical an anti-capitalist/socialist programme (left appeal), and on the other, a rejection of internationalist workers’ policies (right appeal). Is this ideological merger perhaps the face of future political discourse?   

[Auctor]

I suspect the current mainstream ideological forms of most western countries already do represent the simplest and most workable syntheses of right and left ideas. If this were more palatable for some reason, it would likely be in place already.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Auctor

[----]

I suspect the current mainstream ideological forms of most western countries already do represent the simplest and most workable syntheses of right and left ideas. If this were more palatable for some reason, it would likely be in place already.

 

Just because something is more palatable it does not mean that it will take place. Keep in mind that both left and right mainstream western political movements accept/promote market economics and generally support individualist social policies. In short, they are all liberal and merely differ in the degrees of application of the liberal programme.   

[Auctor]

It's a pretty good indication that it will get sufficient support to be brought to fruition. I'm not sure how this is supposed to gain traction unless you're suggesting some well equipped minority is willing to force everyone else to live with it. If that's the route it has to take, the desirability of it as a system becomes extremely questionable.

[----]

It's a pretty good indication that it will get sufficient support to be brought to fruition. I'm not sure how this is supposed to gain traction unless you're suggesting some well equipped minority is willing to force everyone else to live with it. If that's the route it has to take, the desirability of it as a system becomes extremely questionable.

Remember, those in power (present-day liberal governments) will do anything to keep themselves in their positions. It’s a fact as old as mankind. Any ideas that threaten this power will first be discredited by the press (controlled directly or indirectly through financial means, etc.). If that fails, the leaders of a movement are placed into compromising situations or scandal is manufactured. I can go on, but I think that you get the gist of this tendency, namely that the masses can be/are manipulated by those in power, no matter how benevolently the leaders present themselves.

 

In short, an ideology’s duration/leaders’ retention of power does not necessarily indicate popular support or desirability. More likely, the masses are apathetic and this apathy is maintained through the marginalisation of truly different ideas, even those that might solve lingering national/societal problems. 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Klemens Hawicki

[ComradeMilton]

It'd probably be helpful if you clarified you mean liberal in the European sense of the word, not the American. Otherwise really good posts.

[Auctor]

If the masses truly just don't care about the politics of the day, it's hard to believe they're suddenly going to be animated by the prospect of some grand new system that they are secretly out there caring about. I'm as skeptical of the press as the next guy, but really see nothing here that would appeal to a silent majority. Indeed, having to describe its appeal as being something that would somehow appeal to the hard left and the hard right shows exactly how small the audience would be for something along these lines. Why would a hard left person accept the hard right aspects of this and not just go for a purely hard left system? Why would a hard right person decide to go for this and not something that would be purely hard right? "fragmentation" among both of these extremes aside(I suspect this is less of some kind of intractable conflict and reflects more about the basic idea of individual thought to begin with), I don't see something in this that really gives a coalition like that something to be enthused for when it's the ideological equivalent of King Solomon cutting a baby in half.

[Katie]

no

[----]

If the masses truly just don't care about the politics of the day, it's hard to believe they're suddenly going to be animated by the prospect of some grand new system that they are secretly out there caring about. I'm as skeptical of the press as the next guy, but really see nothing here that would appeal to a silent majority. Indeed, having to describe its appeal as being something that would somehow appeal to the hard left and the hard right shows exactly how small the audience would be for something along these lines. Why would a hard left person accept the hard right aspects of this and not just go for a purely hard left system? Why would a hard right person decide to go for this and not something that would be purely hard right? "fragmentation" among both of these extremes aside(I suspect this is less of some kind of intractable conflict and reflects more about the basic idea of individual thought to begin with), I don't see something in this that really gives a coalition like that something to be enthused for when it's the ideological equivalent of King Solomon cutting a baby in half.

 

I am less concerned with popular appeal per se, than with the underlying principle of NatBol, namely ideological pragmatism. The far right and far left in their 'pure’ forms have been discredited in a practical sense (WWII defeat of fascism/national socialism and the collapse of the USSR/Chinese reforms). I don’t wish to discuss whether the Soviet and Chinese system was really communist etc. (there is another thread discussing this topic). All that I have noted is that modern-day NatBol takes what it believes were the strongest points of the left, leaves out the less popular aspects, while filling the void with more popular, strong right tendencies. The liberal tendency is similar, expect that liberalism takes the weakest (least radical) aspects of the left and right in order to avoid disturbing the present order. So my general question should be, is NatBol an example of future radical politics? Considering a general popular rejection of the far left and far right for the aforementioned reasons, is NatBol’s pragmatic merger the beginning of the next big radical idea?

 

It’d probably be helpful if you clarified you mean liberal in the European sense of the word, not the American. Otherwise really good posts.

 

And yes, I am referring to liberal in the European sense. I have also observed that more and more American discourse is also using the term in this manner (such as certain American news sources).  

[Auctor]

I imagine anything is possible, I just very much doubt this utopian idea says much to the kind of people that support utopian ideas in general. The people you'd have to appeal to to put in place a more authoritarian system are naturally fragmented among themselves. This might be more appealing to people in a less developed country with fewer freedoms to begin with than I suspect it would be to others, although that begs the question of who exactly would have an interest in supporting this kind of system in that country and who would have a geopolitical interest in a system there that might favor them more.

[ComradeMilton]

I don't believe they offer themselves as a utopia or anything. Unless National Bolshevism is much different from like straight Marxism it requires an advanced, developed country and doesn't work in developing ones.

[Auctor]

Makes the determination even easier if that's the case. An authoritarian system without some kind of aspirational utopian end goal doesn't even appeal to the average know nothing kook.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Auctor

[ComradeMilton]

Why would it be authoritarian, exactly? It appears to appeal to a decent number of people. If it doesn't interest you you're welcome to stop posting.