Jump to content

National Bolshevism: A future alternative?


----
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

I have to agree. I think this threads been derailed in a sense. Look at the topic

Thank you for returning to sanity. If you want to discuss the merits of communism, return to the other thread.

 

Here is the big question; How important is the destruction of the bourgeoisie and its capitalist system/liberal order?

 

NatBol (using Soviet-style abbreviations) seeks this goal. Its end however, is neither egalitarian, internationalist proletarianism (communism), nor racial/ethnic social-darwinism (fascism), meaning that it doesn't require commitment to as many theoritcal abstractions as the plethora of communisms and fascisms that we have seen in the past.

 

People like Milton et al. demonstrate the fundamental weakness of previous movements; an obsession with theoretical purity preventing co-operation with others seeking the most inportant first goal, the destruction of the liberal-capitalist order. This obsession delays any real revolution and plays right into the bourgeois plan to divide and conquer. NatBol is simply a pragmatic modification designed to unite more fronts against the bourgeoisie and to prevent the return of the bourgeois order.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NatBol (using Soviet-style abbreviations) seeks this goal. Its end however, is neither egalitarian, internationalist proletarianism (communism), nor racial/ethnic social-darwinism (fascism), Fascism has no requirement for racial stuff. The term for that is Nazi. meaning that it doesn't require commitment to as many theoritcal abstractions as the plethora of communisms and fascisms that we have seen in the past.

 

People like Milton et al. demonstrate the fundamental weakness of previous movements; an obsession with theoretical purity preventing co-operation with others seeking the most inportant first goal, the destruction of the liberal-capitalist order. This obsession delays any real revolution and plays right into the bourgeois plan to divide and conquer. NatBol is simply a pragmatic modification designed to unite more fronts against the bourgeoisie and to prevent the return of the bourgeois order. If you want to call something communist (especially Marxist) you need to follow directions. If you don't, it's not communism, but something else. That something else is fine, but improperly identified as communism which is just stupid.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a communism thread. This is the National Bolshevism/Eurasianism thread. Talk about how the great Milton, apparently wiser than Marx and Lenin, knows the true meaning of communism on another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for returning to sanity. If you want to discuss the merits of communism, return to the other thread.

 

Here is the big question; How important is the destruction of the bourgeoisie and its capitalist system/liberal order?

 

NatBol (using Soviet-style abbreviations) seeks this goal. Its end however, is neither egalitarian, internationalist proletarianism (communism), nor racial/ethnic social-darwinism (fascism), meaning that it doesn't require commitment to as many theoritcal abstractions as the plethora of communisms and fascisms that we have seen in the past.

 

People like Milton et al. demonstrate the fundamental weakness of previous movements; an obsession with theoretical purity preventing co-operation with others seeking the most inportant first goal, the destruction of the liberal-capitalist order. This obsession delays any real revolution and plays right into the bourgeois plan to divide and conquer. NatBol is simply a pragmatic modification designed to unite more fronts against the bourgeoisie and to prevent the return of the bourgeois order.

 

Uniting more fronts against the bourgeoisie is fine, but I disagree with the notion that National Bolshevism does that. It's a radically nationalist ideology and nationalism is in many ways a dividing force that pits the proletariat of one country against that of another. It doesn't always have to be but very often it is. Lack of egalitarianism and class society is fundamentally dividing as well. And I won't go too much into it but:

 

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

 

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.."

 

There is no reason to allow the bourgeoisie to exist in the aftermath of a successful revolution. Prevention of the return of the bourgeoisie order is not enough, it must be completely dismantled so that a new order can rise. If you have a disease and you know how to cure it, you don't try to keep the disease in check, you just get rid of it. 

Edited by Big Brother

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uniting more fronts against the bourgeoisie is fine, but I disagree with the notion that National Bolshevism does that. It's a radically nationalist ideology and nationalism is in many ways a dividing force that pits the proletariat of one country against that of another. It doesn't always have to be but very often it is. Lack of egalitarianism and class society is fundamentally dividing as well. And I won't go too much into it but:

 

There is no reason to allow the bourgeoisie to exist in the aftermath of a successful revolution. Prevention of the return of the bourgeoisie order is not enough, it must be completely dismantled so that a new order can rise. If you have a disease and you know how to cure it, you don't try to keep the disease in check, you just get rid of it. 

 

When I mentioned preventing a bourgeois return, I meant the creation of a new order (I thought that 'preventing the bourgeois order from returning’ means exactly that).

 

There are, historically, two currents of National Bolshevism, German and Russian.

German National Bolshevism indeed was a component of the early NSDAP (Straßer’s ideas) and was definitely a nationalist movement. However, Russian National Bolshevism is somewhat more complicated. For example, the National Bolshevik Front (anti-Limonov) is heavily Eurasianist. Some do apply (and describe) Eurasianism as merely Russian nationalist chauvinism. In reality, Eurasianism is more about unifying the European and former Soviet landmasses as a bulwark against the throroughly capitalist West, articulated as ‚Atlantis’ by one of the more prolific (and eccentric) Eurasianists, Aleksandr Dugin. In other words, this National Bolshevism is merely an extension of ‚socialism in one country’ to ‚socialism in many countries.’

But the more important distinction between German (Straßerist) and Russian National Bolshevism is the latter’s acceptance of the Marxist class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. In fact when described as a National Bolshevik, Aleksandr Solżenitsyn quickly denounced the movement precisely on the basis of its acceptance of the aforementioned Marxist thought pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I mentioned preventing a bourgeois return, I meant the creation of a new order (I thought that 'preventing the bourgeois order from returning’ means exactly that).

 

There are, historically, two currents of National Bolshevism, German and Russian.

German National Bolshevism indeed was a component of the early NSDAP (Straßer’s ideas) and was definitely a nationalist movement. However, Russian National Bolshevism is somewhat more complicated. For example, the National Bolshevik Front (anti-Limonov) is heavily Eurasianist. Some do apply (and describe) Eurasianism as merely Russian nationalist chauvinism. In reality, Eurasianism is more about unifying the European and former Soviet landmasses as a bulwark against the throroughly capitalist West, articulated as ‚Atlantis’ by one of the more prolific (and eccentric) Eurasianists, Aleksandr Dugin. In other words, this National Bolshevism is merely an extension of ‚socialism in one country’ to ‚socialism in many countries.’

But the more important distinction between German (Straßerist) and Russian National Bolshevism is the latter’s acceptance of the Marxist class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. In fact when described as a National Bolshevik, Aleksandr Solżenitsyn quickly denounced the movement precisely on the basis of its acceptance of the aforementioned Marxist thought pattern.

 

But unifying the European and former Soviet landmasses as a bulwark against the thoroughly capitalist West is by itself dividing. The proletariat in the capitalist West, in all the of world's countries, are not the enemies of the proletariat in Eurasia. The struggle against the bourgeoisie, against capitalism, is by nature an international struggle because the conditions that bear this struggle into fruition is found globally. To set up distinctions between the Eurasian proletariat and the rest of the world's proletariat is to create divides. Socialism in many countries is not enough, socialism in all countries is what is required for a viable future and new order.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But unifying the European and former Soviet landmasses as a bulwark against the thoroughly capitalist West is by itself dividing. The proletariat in the capitalist West, in all the of world's countries, are not the enemies of the proletariat in Eurasia. The struggle against the bourgeoisie, against capitalism, is by nature an international struggle because the conditions that bear this struggle into fruition is found globally. To set up distinctions between the Eurasian proletariat and the rest of the world's proletariat is to create divides. Socialism in many countries is not enough, socialism in all countries is what is required for a viable future and new order.

 

 

One can deprive the global bourgeoisie of control without mimicking its structures. Unity of idea doesn’t imply unity of structure. Just look at the organisation of the Orthodox Churches. They believe the same things (7 councils, etc.) and practise the same liturgy, but each major Church (Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, etc.) is autocephalous, meaning ‚self-headed.’ The same principle can be applied to this 'world revolution.’ The working class of Eurasia has its revolution, the other regions can have their own. The end is the same. After all, the ends do justify the means. Procedural idealism kills effectiveness and achieves nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can deprive the global bourgeoisie of control without mimicking its structures. Unity of idea doesn’t imply unity of structure. Just look at the organisation of the Orthodox Churches. They believe the same things (7 councils, etc.) and practise the same liturgy, but each major Church (Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, etc.) is autocephalous, meaning ‚self-headed.’ The same principle can be applied to this 'world revolution.’ The working class of Eurasia has its revolution, the other regions can have their own. The end is the same. After all, the ends do justify the means. Procedural idealism kills effectiveness and achieves nothing.

 

I disagree that the end is the same. There should be a single global revolution, not many separate ones. The nature of the proletariat is that they are fundamentally the same, they experience the same conditions wherever they are. I see what you suggest, the many separate revolutions, as something that could lead to a world like the dystopian world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, where you do have separate "successful" revolutions, with English Socialism or INGSOC in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia and Obliteration of the Self in Eastasia. Keeping the revolutions artificially separate means that global society is unable to pass into statelessness because the existence of separate entities as a result of separate revolutions will demand that the state continues to exist in order to safeguard itself and its revolution against these other existing states. The revolution must not diverge, it must be unified. The potential for division, for corruption, for conflict to arise within states and between states is not a risk one should take if there's no real reason to divide the proletariat by separate revolutions.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that the end is the same. There should be a single global revolution, not many separate ones. The nature of the proletariat is that they are fundamentally the same, they experience the same conditions wherever they are. I see what you suggest, the many separate revolutions, as something that could lead to a world like the dystopian world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, where you do have separate "successful" revolutions, with English Socialism or INGSOC in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia and Obliteration of the Self in Eastasia. Keeping the revolutions artificially separate means that global society is unable to pass into statelessness because the existence of separate entities as a result of separate revolutions will demand that the state continues to exist in order to safeguard itself and its revolution against these other existing states. The revolution must not diverge, it must be unified. The potential for division, for corruption, for conflict to arise within states and between states is not a risk one should take if there's no real reason to divide the proletariat by separate revolutions.

 

Remember, Eric Blair was Social Democrat. Social Democrats, by their opposition to revolution, are traitors to the Working Class. It would make sense that his fictional depiction of simultaneous revolutions would be negative given his ideological animosity for revolutionary movements.

 

If the people of Eurasia (Russia and Europe) feel ready for their revolution, let them have it. Nothing should prevent this. In fact, if Eurasia (or any other region) undergoes a revolution, the proletarians of other regions will likely flee to that region, thereby starving the remnant bourgeoisie of its labour force.

 

Keep in mind that the culture in the transatlantic West (North America, Britain, etc.) is so atomised, so individualistic, that a collective anti-capitalist movement is almost impossible, certainly within the next 100 years. Furthermore, if a revolution is to smash and replace the liberal capitalist order, then it must also curtail the reach of its oppression. The idea of the ‚global society’, decried in the Manifesto as a worsening of the proletarian condition, is a symptom of an ever expanding bourgeoisie seeking ’that single unconscionable freedom - Free trade.' As the proletarians have been divided and conquered, the same means of division to weaken can be applied to the bourgeoisie by preventing the formation of a global state.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.