As early as 1930 ,the fervent Chandra Bose first expressed his support for a fusion of socialism and fascism: “... I would say we have here in this policy and program a synthesis of what modern Europe calls Socialism and Fascism. We have here the justice, the equality, the love, which is the basis of Socialism, and combined with that we have the efficiency and the discipline of Fascism as it stands in Europe today.”
In years that followed, the brilliant, eclectic Bengali would occasionally modify this radical doctrine, but would never abandon it entirely. For example, in late 1944 , almost a decade and a half later, in a speech to students at Tokyo University, he asserted that India must have a political system "of an authoritarian character. . . To repeat once again, our philosophy should be a synthesis between National Socialism and Communism." In India, though, Bose is regarded as a national hero, in spite of his repeated praise (as will be shown) for autocratic leadership and authoritarian government, and admiration for the European fascist regimes with which he allied himself.
‘Fascist’?
The Indian Struggle: 1920-1934, which was first published in 1935, accurately represent the views he held throughout most of his career.
Bose predicted in The Indian Struggle that out of a "Left-Wing revolt there will ultimately emerge a new full-fledged party with a clear ideology, program and plan of action." The program and plan of action of this new party would, wrote Bose.

Program outlined.

“1. The party will stand for the interests of the masses, that is, of the peasants, workers, etc., and not for the vested interests, that is, the landlords, capitalists and money-lending classes.
“2. It will stand for the complete political and economic liberation of the Indian people.
“3. It will stand for a Federal Government for India as the ultimate goal, but will believe in a strong Central Government with dictatorial powers for some years to come, in order to put India on her feet.
“4. It will believe in a sound system of state-planning for the reorganization of the agricultural and industrial life of the country.
“5. It will seek to build up a new social structure on the basis of the village communities of the past, that were ruled by the village "Panch" and will strive to break down the existing social barriers like caste.
“6. It will seek to establish a new monetary and credit system in the light of the theories and the experiments that have been and are current in the modern world.
“7. It will seek to abolish landlordism and introduce a uniform land-tenure system for the whole of India.
“8. It will not stand for a democracy in the Mid-Victorian sense of the term, but will believe in government by a strong party bound together by military discipline, as the only means of holding India together and preventing a chaos, when Indians are free and are thrown entirely on their own resources.
“9. It will not restrict itself to a campaign inside India but will resort to international propaganda also, in order to strengthen India's case for liberty, and will attempt to utilize the existing international organizations.
“10. It will endeavor to unite all the radical organizations under a national executive so that whenever any action is taken, there will be simultaneous activity on many fronts.”

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

Very interesting! I have mixed feelings about #1, because that language reminds me of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, but otherwise, he sounds like a fascinating fellow!

Not one of 'hogans heroes' in my opinion. If your opponents within the independance movement are a professional class of Indian civil servants who want to institute parliamentry democracy (which in power terms lets them keep their positions), it makes sense then to have a platform of rabble rousing national populism to overthrow the liberal class. It looks more like Cynicism than sincerity.

What's "Hogan's Heroes" got to do with it?

A more strained and convoluted piece of logic I've not yet come across.

How else can I put it; The British raj partly administed by a large, educated class of indian civil servants which formed the leadership of the independance movement. This is incidently why India became a democracy; the leadership wanted to maintain the same power structure because they were running the country. Chandra Bose fell out with the independance movement and so engaged in a campaign of violent populism against liberal democracy and capitalism, which meant attacking his opponents in the independance movement as well as the british. Isn't this a fair point?

This is all very surprising seeing as on our last encounter you made your excuses and left the discussion claiming you "had a world to win". Bored were you?

Bored, No. This place is boring by comparison but I still feel the need to offer my two cents now and again, to me politics forum is sort of like a public urinal I can vomit words over; an opinion is just an opinion and that comes easily. What I felt 'was' doing wrong and what I do not plan on doing again, was wasting a huge amount of my time having to explain things (that do not require explanation) to holier than thou smart arses incapable of amending or defending their position.

As you seem so interested, I have been using my time productively instead and this time it has paid off; People (of importance) are being met, stuff is trying to get published, some astronomically epic win is going down, some young people are doing things, and on top of that a whole bunch of occurrences MIGHT lead to an incredible something of international and historical proportions. Although there is some doubt about the last part, we are involved in it none the less and we are actually engaged in something constructive.

So yeah, we are pretty much doing fine thanks, so take your best shot. Everything will speak for itself in time.

Yes, but you said all this three years ago.

I didn't say any of that three years ago. Three years ago I was in a society with no asperations of power and whose sole remit was to write short essays and make youtube video's. Two years ago We decided to try and form a party, which up to this point consisted of ground work. I had some high hopes for the future but I did not promise anything other than future prospects, so thats another lie. The fact is that what we are doing now could not have even been envisioned two to three years ago. What we are doing now and the friends we have made are a reality. regardless we rose above your criticism some time ago.

OK Benjamin, two years ago then. But I have heard all this before. My word you certainly talk a good campaign. But to this day I have seen nothing of this project that you yourself could not have created singlehandedly. I want to be wrong, believe me.

You are wrong, I am telling you. Although in all fairness this difference of opinion stems from the fact we have a different understanding of how an aspiring group becomes a realistic political party. If you are asking me; Ben You are student who is full of it, you are not leading a political party that is running in elections so how can you possibly say you are making progress? then I would say you were right, but what you are not appreciating is there is no basis in this society for such a movement, and there is more to a movement than just a political party. It is a revision of this question which has taken years of sustained thought in some respects, but we have devised a new approach. The work I have been doing which you would not otherwise consider having engaged in hard politics has a real life effects. It has also excited the community which has led to the possibility of greater future prospects which could not be realised otherwise. I don't think I am being overly ambitious because I think my aims are entirely realistic and my efforts in the last few months have proved more fruitful than everything we have done in the past few years. The path you would expect me to go on; This is why people on the radical right are either dreadfully pessimistic like yourself, or insane optimists like Norman Lowell.

Good answer.
-Yet still nothing.

That is total BS and even you know it.

No Benjamin, I don’t consider that a political force is invalid if it is not running in elections. But where exactly are you planning to exert yourselves? In what area? Making in impression with Messrs Bowden, Boulter,Southgate and Guy Morose ( or whatever the name is) isn’t quite the start of the National Revolution. What is the constituency of people on which you hope to ride to prominence?

I am not going to disclose all my plans specifically, I have been vague for a reason; I am not just going to up and out my ideas (which would be very much to my detriment) just for my own self gratification of telling you to prove a point, I am not that egotistical. Everything everyone needs to know about our new direction and our new approach is in the new Journals. Part of that new approach is to cease all these grandiouse plans and pretentious self seriousness which to my mind causes most of these internal disputes. meeting and talking with important and established groups and personalities (and working with what exists is mandatory for any such 'revolution') offers future prospects but there are lots of other things to be exited about. Given that i am now working full time for the party I just think it is incredibly unfair to say we are making no progress whatsoever when that is so clearly not the case.

OK then. But don't knock grandiosity, it can be a revolutionary act itself. Just look at Laibach's use of it in the artistic area.

Bose, the man who asked Hilter to edit 'Mein Kampf'.

I meant grandness of design and intent. to use your point, Laibach were probably the most vague and inexplicable cultural force of the radical right to the extent that even today nobody has any idea what they are supposed to represent with supporters ranging from Zizeck to the 'Friends'. Obviously our work is a celebration of vitalism and all the rest of it, thats the entire point. Look, It may not look like it but I really hate self promotion, but because it is relevant I have to ask; do you know about ATTACK? We have gained at least 10 new contributors since we started. It would explain the strangeness of this discussion.

Yes I know Attack, you'll remember as "Metropolitus" I electronically sent you a copy of the front of a Social Credit publication of the same name, you admired both the uniforms and the name I recall, perhaps even a little inspiration. I have since read all copies . I wouldn't have read them or still be a bit of a pain in the arse to you if I wasn't really quite interested in the project's development.
However, as you know there are fundamental ideological differences between you and I, so any involvement in the Integralist party on my behalf would obviously be a fraud.

No,
1. I remember as 'Euafrica' you posted a social credit publicaion come on, the greenshirts! which was a small booklet.
2. I was the one who found attack (including other unrelated publications also called attack).
3. I never commented on the uniforms
4. yes you could say that by starting a thread you indirectly-indirectly inspired me, but why boast about it if you think that the publication amounts to a literal nothing.
5. as far as I can tell we don't have any fundamental ideological disagreements that would prevent you working with us, the reason you are not working with us is because of the following of some combination and degree; a)You have chosen not to b) you are lazy c) You do not like me or the way I think d) you are too stubborn e) you are hard to communicate with f)I react badly to your attitide.

That is my view to put it bluntly.