Right Wing Marxism? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14870347
Is it possible to be a right-wing Marxist? I've been called this, though I don't consider myself a Marxist and definitely don't consider myself right-wing.

Because I advocate for rural America, common folk, the peasantry, I am called "reactionary" and "right wing". I don't adhere to Marx's view that urban people will lead the revolution and that rural people are lumpenproletarians who contribute nothing of value.

But because I advocate for an end to exploitation while promoting a form of left nationalism, social justice, wealth redistribution and total nationalization/collectivization I am called a "Marxist" (by people who have no clue as to what Marxism actually is).

I have no real political label that fits - no party, no political home.

I feel the greatest enemy of the rural, fly-over-country types is the republican party because they exploit their values (and lack thereof), beliefs and reactionism for political advancement while doing nothing to help these people. I don't understand how rural people could ever be right-wing. I can't tell you how badly I hate the right-wing for their deregulation, pro-corporation, and aggressively capitalistic policies and rhetoric.

I despise the democrats for exploiting minority urban people and social minorities while doing nothing to help these people. I don't understand how social minorities could ever be "liberal".

I despise urban and suburban white people for their smugness and gross over-privilege; they virtue signal from their ivy league schools and gated white enclaves; so-called "intellectuals" have established themselves as "moral vanguards", and are rife with self-importance while producing nothing of actual value. They have entrenched themselves in culture, the arts, education, media, entertainment, and the bureaucratic establishments. They control the narratives - they disseminate identity politics by which division is perpetuated among proletarian ranks. And they attack working class whites, call them "privileged" by which they implicate all whites with themselves (as a shield for themselves..."we're in this together - we're all privileged") - which forces the white commoner on the defensive and pushes them even further into reactionism. No, YOU'RE privileged. All whites need not be overcome - it's nowhere near that difficult you self-righteous, non-producing cretins. You'll find no safety in numbers here; only YOU need be overcome.

It is my sincerist hope that one day rural whites lay aside their reactionism and wake up, join forces with the urbane non-whites and other social minorities, and bring justice to these urban and suburban types who perpetuate privilege and injustice and love the smell of their own flatulence.

You can call me a "right-wing Marxist" if you want. For a time I called myself a "left-nationalist" and still prefer that term. I am not concerned with being labeled, or changing my views in adherence to a tribe or faction. But I would like to find those of similar passions, to have a political "home", so to speak. A party to support - even in another country.
Last edited by LeftNationalist on 12 Dec 2017 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
#14870356
@LeftNationalist,

You sound like a modified Marxist to me....but being born and raised in the rural rust-belt from a family that has lived there for over 200 years, I am intrigued about your views and sympathies for my people, but let me ask you a few questions for clarification.

1. Do you believe in the international liberation of the proletariat as a goal, or just the elevation of the working classes at the national level for our own advantage over other nations?

2. What are your views on immigration in general and Islamic immigration specifically?

3. What are your views on trade and foreign imports and how such relate to domestic manufacturing.

4. What are you views on ethno-cultural pride and chauvenism?

5. What are your views on the relation between the sexes and the nature of gender and orientation.

6. What is your view of Christianity, Christian morality, and the concept of Christendom as a cultural identity?

7. How would you solve the joblessness and resultant heroin-addiction and alcoholism epidemics in our communities?
#14870362
Potemkin wrote:You're a Maoist. :)


You might actually be not too far off, but I read Mao's philosophy book and I do not think he was in any sense a traditionalist. I cannot conceive of being "Right" without some sense of traditionalism, nor can I conceive of Nationalism without some sense of protectionism.

Maybe he is like the young Alexsandr Dugin and Nationalist Bolshevism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

I am curious about our new poster.... ;)
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14870364
I read Mao's philosophy book and I do not think he was in any sense a traditionalist.

Mao described himself as a 'Legalist', which was a school of Chinese philosophy which dates back more than two millennia. Is that 'traditionalist' enough for you, VS? :)
#14870374
Potemkin wrote:Mao described himself as a 'Legalist', which was a school of Chinese philosophy which dates back more than two millennia. Is that 'traditionalist' enough for you, VS?


hmmmm., I guess I would have to read the tenants of that school of thought in comparison to his actual reforms and philosophy of reform. I don't define traditionalist as just "believing in old shit."

Traditionalism is tied specifically to ethno-religious and cultural pride and chauvinism and social conservatism; especially, on gender. If you are anti-religious, opposed to historic rituals and traditions, and believe social values, such as those that emphasize a delineation of gender roles and fecundity ought to be abandoned or significantly reformed, I cannot call you a traditionalist in any meaningful sense.

Epicureanism is really old, but it is not traditionalist....see what I mean?

Got any follow up info on all that with Mao? i'm open to being corrected, but I discussed the nationalist tendencies of China with TIG recently and he argued that Mao was not nationalist and reformed China away from such tendencies....
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14870380
LeftNationalist wrote:I feel the greatest enemy of the rural, fly-over-country types is the republican party because they exploit their values (and lack thereof), beliefs and reactionism for political advancement while doing nothing to help these people. I don't understand how rural people could ever be right-wing. I can't tell you how badly I hate the right-wing for their deregulation, pro-corporation, and aggressively capitalistic policies and rhetoric.

I despise the democrats for exploiting minority urban people and social minorities while doing nothing to help these people. I don't understand how social minorities could ever be "liberal".


Eh...maybe you should work on that.
#14870422
Thank you @Victoribus Spolia , along with everyone else, for responding.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:@LeftNationalist,

You sound like a modified Marxist to me....but being born and raised in the rural rust-belt from a family that has lived there for over 200 years, I am intrigued about your views and sympathies for my people, but let me ask you a few questions for clarification.

1. Do you believe in the international liberation of the proletariat as a goal, or just the elevation of the working classes at the national level for our own advantage over other nations?

2. What are your views on immigration in general and Islamic immigration specifically?

3. What are your views on trade and foreign imports and how such relate to domestic manufacturing.

4. What are you views on ethno-cultural pride and chauvenism?

5. What are your views on the relation between the sexes and the nature of gender and orientation.

6. What is your view of Christianity, Christian morality, and the concept of Christendom as a cultural identity?

7. How would you solve the joblessness and resultant heroin-addiction and alcoholism epidemics in our communities?


1. I believe socialism must occur nationally, while on the other hand, I believe that actual communism can only ever be international. I believe that international liberation is a long term goal - but the only way to work towards such a goal is with an emphasis on socialism at the national level.

2. I have no problems with immigration, save for exploitative and insidious motives behind it; I believe it's done to get cheap labor, create more infighting among workers of different races, and bring in more consumers. I believe that as much as immigration is a reality, it should be done in the interest of both the immigrants and the natives.

I don't believe in singling out Muslims. But I don't know if it's wise to bring in more religious people - any of any religion. Some cultures are also less conducive to class-consciousness. I would only support immigration from such societies for humanitarian reasons.

3. I don't believe in selling out the workers in one's country in order to line one's pockets. Though I would not necessarily be against it provided it was mutually beneficial and absent a profit motive.

4. Ethnic pride is not for me - but provided it's not accompanied by a belief in any sort of innate superiority over other groups, especially towards the end of believing by right of that superiority, the domination and subjugation of these other groups is justified.

As for chauvinism, I'm against it. The same strings pulled to exploit people in order to win political power are the same strings pulled to goad a country into a war; excessive patriotism is but one of the many ways (along with race, religion, etc) that poor people have been duped into taking up arms to kill other poor people so the rich can further enrich themselves. A good example of this is when the Confederacy used excessive patriotism (Hail Dixie), race (white man is threatened), and religion (curse of Ham) to get poor whites to pick up arms and fight so the rich could keep their slaves. This is true of all wars - chauvinism always has a role to play into getting the poor to die, along with other useless abstractions.

Put simply, one's patriotism and $1.50 will get them a bus ticket to the welfare offices.

5. I believe that there are often biological differences between the sexes that transcend their respective genitalia more often better suited to certain tasks and vice versa. But there are exceptions and people should keep this in mind.

As for gender identity and orientation, I believe people should mind their own business, and the individual should have protections up until the extent that society as a whole is being collectively harmed, and there's no evidence whatsoever that society is being collectively harmed by these "issues".

6. I consider myself a Christian - at the very least culturally, and I have no issue with personal beliefs and/or spirituality (or the lack of these things). I believe this is a personal issue. With that said, I see organized religion as a force for evil.

7. A correlation between joblessness and drug addiction doesn't surprise me. In the mean time, I think the government could manufacture certain goods for the purpose of offering more affordable alternatives, keeping prices low, and offering a job to the most vulnerable members of our society. As for how I would handle drug users under socialism? I don't believe in sending them to prison! In fact, I don't believe in prison for anyone. I believe in hospitals and rehabilitation centers for all so-called "criminals". If a person commits a horrible act and qualified doctors feel that rehabilitation is unlikely (or that the act was so significant that reintroducing that person into society would cause more problems for everyone else - such as with mass murderers), then I believe in human euthanasia. I don't believe in retribution or penalties on any level for any thing as imposed by the State.

As for certain drugs specifically, provided there is no threat to the collective good, individuals would have the right to use whatever drug they wish. Those who become addicted, and wish it, would be given treatment.
Last edited by LeftNationalist on 12 Dec 2017 23:49, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14870424
Got any follow up info on all that with Mao? i'm open to being corrected, but I discussed the nationalist tendencies of China with TIG recently and he argued that Mao was not nationalist and reformed China away from such tendencies....

I have to respectfully disagree with TIG on this one. Communism and nationalism are not necessarily contradictory ideologies; once the fate of the ideology is tied to the fate of the nation-state, then it becomes not only possible but inevitable that being a good communist and being a good nationalist are the same thing. After all, did Stalin discourage Soviet patriotism? Did Mao discourage Chinese patriotism against the USA or India or Vietnam? This is not to say that the communists encouraged national chauvinism; on the contrary, as multi-ethnic and multinational states, both the Soviet Union and China depended for their national integrity and continued existence on maintaining good relations between the main ethnic group and the minority groups. In those sorts of societies, multiculturalism is the same thing as nationalism.
#14870444
This comes down to an interpretation on Lenin.

Instead of being a phase:

Lenin wrote:Russia will become mighty and abundant if she abandons all dejection and all phrase-making, if, with clenched teeth, she musters all her forces and strains every nerve and muscle, if she realises that salvation lies only along that road of world socialist revolution upon which we have set out. March forward along that road, undismayed by defeats, lay the firm foundation of socialist society stone by stone, work with might and main to establish discipline and self-discipline, consolidate everywhere organisation, order, efficiency, and the harmonious co-operation of all the forces of the people, introduce comprehensive accounting of and control over production and distribution—such is the way to build up military might and socialist might.


In which Lenin specifically mentioned that the Soviet Union wasn't close to being socialistic:

Lenin wrote:I have no illusions about our having only just entered the period of transition to socialism, about not yet having reached socialism. But if you say that our state is a socialist Republic of Soviets, you will be right. You will be as right as those who call many Western bourgeois republics democratic republics although everybody knows that not one of even the most democratic of these republics is completely democratic. They grant scraps of democracy, they cut off tiny bits of the rights of the exploiters, but the working people are as much oppressed there as they are everywhere else. Nevertheless, we say that the bourgeois system is represented by both old monarchies and by constitutional republics.

And so in our case now. We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road, and our words will riot be empty words.
...
The character of this war between the bourgeois and imperialist Great Powers would not change a jot were the military-autocratic and feudal imperialism to be swept away in one of these countries. That is because, in such conditions, a purely bourgeois imperialism would not vanish, but would only gain strength. It is for that reason that our paper, issue No. 47, declared, in Thesis 9,[1] that the party of Russia’s proletariat will not defend, in the present war, even a fatherland of republicans and revolutionaries, whilst they are chauvinists like Plekhanov, the Narodniks, Kautsky, the Nashe Dyelo people, Chkheidze, the Organising Committee, etc.

We are a revolutionary working-class contingent that has advanced to the forefront, not because we are better than other workers, not because the Russian proletariat is superior to the working class of other countries, but solely because we were one of the most backward countries in the world. We shall achieve final victory only when we succeed at last in conclusively smashing international imperialism, which relies on the tremendous strength of its equipment and discipline. But we shall achieve victory only together with all the workers of other countries, of the whole world.


Lenin wrote:Complete and final victory on a world scale cannot be achieved in Russia alone; it can be achieved only when the proletariat is victorious in at least all the advanced countries, or, at all events, in some of the largest of the advanced countries. Only then shall we be able to say with absolute confidence that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first objective—the overthrow of capitalism—has been achieved.

We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task is to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states.


Lenin wrote:Everyone knows the difficulties of a revolution. It may begin with brilliant success in one country and then go through agonising periods, since final victory is only possible on a world scale, and only by the joint efforts of the workers of all countries.


Lenin wrote:When speaking of the political results and lessons of our activities, the Soviet Republic’s international position naturally takes first place. Both prior to October and during the October Revolution, we always said that we regard ourselves and can only regard ourselves as one of the contingents of the international proletarian army, a contingent which came to the fore, not because of its level of development and preparedness, but because of Russia’s exceptional conditions; we always said that the victory of the socialist revolution, therefore, can only be regarded as final when it becomes the victory of the proletariat in at least several advanced countries. It was in this respect that we experienced the greatest difficulties.

Our banking on the world revolution, if you can call it that, has on the whole been fully justified.


Lenin wrote:But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism—that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism. We are still alone and in a backward country, a country that was ruined more than others, but we have accomplished a great deal.


Lenin wrote:Socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries. As you know we have done very much in comparison with the past to bring about this condition, but far from enough to make it a reality.

The second condition is agreement between the proletariat, which is exercising its dictatorship, that is holds state power,and the majority of the peasant population


[url=
]Lenin[/url]"]But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile power of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism.[/quote]

[quote="Lenin wrote:
It may be that fate has even heavier sacrifices in store for us. Even if they can crush one country, they can never crush the world proletarian revolution, they will only add more fuel to the flames that will consume them all.


Lenin wrote:It is self-evident that final victory can be won only by the proletariat of all the advanced countries of the world, and we, the Russians, are beginning the work which the British, French or German proletariat will consolidate. But we see that they will not be victorious without the aid of the working people of all the oppressed colonial nations, first and foremost, of Eastern nations. We must realise that the transition to communism cannot be accomplished by the vanguard alone. The task is to arouse the working masses to revolutionary activity, to independent action and to organisation, regardless of the level they have reached; to translate the true communist doctrine, which was intended for the Communists of the more advanced countries, into the language of every people; to carry out those practical tasks which must be carried out immediately, and to join the proletarians of other countries in a common struggle


This was, of course, keeping consistent with Marx:

Marx wrote:Lassalle, in opposition to the [img]Communist%20Manifesto[/img] and to all earlier socialism, conceived the workers' movement from the narrowest national standpoint. He is being followed in this -- and that after the work of the International!

It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle -- insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states. Every businessman knows that German trade is at the same time foreign trade, and the greatness of Herr Bismarck consists, to be sure, precisely in his pursuing a kind of international policy.

And to what does the German Workers' party reduce its internationalism? To the consciousness that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples" -- a phrase borrowed from the bourgeois League of Peace and Freedom, which is intended to pass as equivalent to the international brotherhood of working classes in the joint struggle against the ruling classes and their governments. Not a word, therefore, about the international functions of the German working class! And it is thus that it is to challenge its own bourgeoisie -- which is already linked up in brotherhood against it with the bourgeois of all other countries -- and Herr Bismarck's international policy of conspiracy.

In fact, the internationalism of the program stands even infinitely below that of the Free Trade party. The latter also asserts that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples". But it also does something to make trade international and by no means contents itself with the consciousness that all people are carrying on trade at home.

The international activity of the working classes does not in any way depend on the existence of the International Working Men's Association. This was only the first attempt to create a central organ for the activity; an attempt which was a lasting success on account of the impulse which it gave but which was no longer realizable in its historical form after the fall of the Paris Commune.

Bismarck's Norddeutsche was absolutely right when it announced, to the satisfaction of its master, that the German Workers' party had sworn off internationalism in the new program.


And Engels:

Engels wrote:Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.


Then Stalin decided that Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all lying.

So, you know, it depends on the socialist ;)
By Sivad
#14870473
LeftNationalist wrote:Is it possible to be a right-wing Marxist? I've been called this, though I don't consider myself a Marxist and definitely don't consider myself right-wing.

Because I advocate for rural America, common folk, the peasantry, I am called "reactionary" and "right wing". I don't adhere to Marx's view that urban people will lead the revolution and that rural people are lumpenproletarians who contribute nothing of value.

But because I advocate for an end to exploitation while promoting a form of left nationalism, social justice, wealth redistribution and total nationalization/collectivization I am called a "Marxist" (by people who have no clue as to what Marxism actually is).

I have no real political label that fits - no party, no political home.



Doesn't sound like wingnut ideology to me, sounds like good sense. I don't know how all the weirdo factions take you, but based on this I'd call you a brother in the struggle.
#14870477
LeftNationalist wrote:...I have no real political label that fits - no party, no political home.

I feel the greatest enemy of the rural, fly-over-country types is the republican party because they exploit their values (and lack thereof), beliefs and reactionism for political advancement while doing nothing to help these people. I don't understand how rural people could ever be right-wing. I can't tell you how badly I hate the right-wing for their deregulation, pro-corporation, and aggressively capitalistic policies and rhetoric.

I despise the democrats for exploiting minority urban people and social minorities while doing nothing to help these people. I don't understand how social minorities could ever be "liberal".

I despise urban and suburban white people for their smugness and gross over-privilege; they virtue signal from their ivy league schools and gated white enclaves; so-called "intellectuals" have established themselves as "moral vanguards", and are rife with self-importance while producing nothing of actual value...


My initial reaction is that your argument is not with Marxism, but with liberalism (as embodied by the Clintons, Romeny, Obama, and Bushes). The technocratic elitism and anti working class orientation of the Democrats dovetails perfectly with the billionaire boy's club autocracy of the Republicans. This absurd duopoly has left us with a permanent underclass, eroding the vaunted American "middle class" from below. This kind of toxic politics seems to me a product of a failing liberal consensus, not of any Marxist influence (which is negligible anyway).

So, go ahead and investigate Marxism, and don't worry too much about forcing your views into prefabricated boxes.
By Decky
#14870490
Because I advocate for rural America, common folk, the peasantry, I am called "reactionary" and "right wing". I don't adhere to Marx's view that urban people will lead the revolution and that rural people are lumpenproletarians who contribute nothing of value.


Marx didn't argue this. The peasantry and the lumpenproletariat are not the same class and nobody ever claimed they are, you are grossly misrepresenting Marx here.

With that out of the way, you are definitely a Maoist.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14870636
The Immortal Goon wrote:Then Stalin decided that Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all lying.


I suppose Stalin thought the centrally planned Soviet economy could outcompete the free markets in the West, which, as we all know, was a pipe dream.
By B0ycey
#14870641
@LeftNationalist, I am quite impressed with this thread and most notably your responses to VS in regards to the questions he posed. I wouldn't suggest you are a Maoist at all. Your ethical position on rights of your fellow human and perhaps lack of complete nationalism would suggest this is not a fit for you. I wouldn't even complicate it at all. You are a liberal leaning socialist but most definitely not a libetarian. Your only right-wing position is your stance on euthanasia on unrepenting criminals.
#14870642
I suppose Stalin thought the centrally planned Soviet economy could outcompete the free markets in the West, which, as we all know, was a pipe dream.

It wasn't a pipe dream while Stalin was in charge of the Soviet Union. During the 1930s and 1940s at least, the Soviet economy vastly outperformed the moribund capitalist economies. So much so that when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, not all of the productive capacity of the Nazi Empire (which comprised most of continental Europe at that time) was able to overcome the Soviet wartime production. Even Hitler admitted this in conversation with Mannerheim in 1942:
Hitler: “(unintelligible)…we ourselves were not completely sure of this, how monstrous this strong armament was.”

Mannerheim: “We had not suspected this, in the Winter-War, in the Winter-War we had not suspected this, of course we had a (one unintelligible word) that they were well armed, but so as they had been in fact, and now there is no doubt at all what they had planned (‘was sie hatten in ihrem Schild’)”

Hitler: “It is evident…evident. They have the most monstrous armament that is humanly conceivable (‘menschendenkbar’)…so…if anybody had told me that one state…(footsteps)…if anybody had told me that one state can line up with 35.000 tanks (Hitler uses the word ‘tank’), I had said ‘you have gone mad’…

Unidentified: “Thirty-five…”

Hitler: “35.000 Panzer (now he uses the word ‘Panzer’)…we have more than, we have at the time more than 34 Pan…thousand Panzer destroyed. If somebody had told me this to…had said: you…if one general of mine had declared, that a state here had 35.000 tanks, I had said, Mister (‘Mein Herr’), you are seeing everything double… or tenfold, this is crazy, you are seeing ghosts…I had not thought this possible…If somebody had told me that…I have told this just before, we have found industrial plants…one of this in (unintelligible: Kalanuskaja?) for example, that was under construction two years ago…and we had no idea…and today there is a tank production facility that…that…in the first shift a bit over 30.000 and in full development should have employed more than 60.000 workers…one single tank production facility…we have occupied it…a gargantuan facility…lots of workers who nevertheless live like animals and such…”

Unidentified: “An amazing region…”

Another Unidentified (Hitler?): “An amazing region…”

Link: https://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13647
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14870650
Potemkin wrote:It wasn't a pipe dream while Stalin was in charge of the Soviet Union. During the 1930s and 1940s at least, the Soviet economy vastly outperformed the moribund capitalist economies. So much so that when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, not all of the productive capacity of the Nazi Empire (which comprised most of continental Europe at that time) was able to overcome the Soviet wartime production. Even Hitler admitted this in conversation with Mannerheim in 1942:


Eh...have a look at wartime production:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... rld_War_II

Given the large population (~170m) compared to the US (~131m) or Germany (~87, including Austria and Czech Republic) it didn't do particularly well.
#14870651
Given the large population (~170m) compared to the US (~131m) or Germany (~87, including Austria and Czech Republic) it didn't do particularly well.

But those were fully developed economies, with centuries of capitalist development behind them. The Soviet Union started more or less from scratch in 1921, after what little industry which existed under Tsarism had been destroyed by years of the Great War followed by civil war. But in just two decades, the Soviet economy could slug it out with Nazi Germany and win. Even Hitler was shocked by the rapid development of Soviet industry, which he had never suspected before Operation Barbarossa.
#14870668
Rugoz wrote:I suppose Stalin thought the centrally planned Soviet economy could outcompete the free markets in the West, which, as we all know, was a pipe dream.


There plenty to criticize Stalin for, but central planning is not one of them.

The Soviet Union went from a largely feudal country to having fully automated space travel. I don't know if we can really comprehend this jump.
#14870676
LeftNationalist wrote:1. I believe socialism must occur nationally, while on the other hand, I believe that actual communism can only ever be international. I believe that international liberation is a long term goal - but the only way to work towards such a goal is with an emphasis on socialism at the national level.

2. I have no problems with immigration, save for exploitative and insidious motives behind it; I believe it's done to get cheap labor, create more infighting among workers of different races, and bring in more consumers. I believe that as much as immigration is a reality, it should be done in the interest of both the immigrants and the natives.

I don't believe in singling out Muslims. But I don't know if it's wise to bring in more religious people - any of any religion. Some cultures are also less conducive to class-consciousness. I would only support immigration from such societies for humanitarian reasons.

3. I don't believe in selling out the workers in one's country in order to line one's pockets. Though I would not necessarily be against it provided it was mutually beneficial and absent a profit motive.

4. Ethnic pride is not for me - but provided it's not accompanied by a belief in any sort of innate superiority over other groups, especially towards the end of believing by right of that superiority, the domination and subjugation of these other groups is justified.

As for chauvinism, I'm against it. The same strings pulled to exploit people in order to win political power are the same strings pulled to goad a country into a war; excessive patriotism is but one of the many ways (along with race, religion, etc) that poor people have been duped into taking up arms to kill other poor people so the rich can further enrich themselves. A good example of this is when the Confederacy used excessive patriotism (Hail Dixie), race (white man is threatened), and religion (curse of Ham) to get poor whites to pick up arms and fight so the rich could keep their slaves. This is true of all wars - chauvinism always has a role to play into getting the poor to die, along with other useless abstractions.

Put simply, one's patriotism and $1.50 will get them a bus ticket to the welfare offices.

5. I believe that there are often biological differences between the sexes that transcend their respective genitalia more often better suited to certain tasks and vice versa. But there are exceptions and people should keep this in mind.

As for gender identity and orientation, I believe people should mind their own business, and the individual should have protections up until the extent that society as a whole is being collectively harmed, and there's no evidence whatsoever that society is being collectively harmed by these "issues".

6. I consider myself a Christian - at the very least culturally, and I have no issue with personal beliefs and/or spirituality (or the lack of these things). I believe this is a personal issue. With that said, I see organized religion as a force for evil.

7. A correlation between joblessness and drug addiction doesn't surprise me. In the mean time, I think the government could manufacture certain goods for the purpose of offering more affordable alternatives, keeping prices low, and offering a job to the most vulnerable members of our society. As for how I would handle drug users under socialism? I don't believe in sending them to prison! In fact, I don't believe in prison for anyone. I believe in hospitals and rehabilitation centers for all so-called "criminals". If a person commits a horrible act and qualified doctors feel that rehabilitation is unlikely (or that the act was so significant that reintroducing that person into society would cause more problems for everyone else - such as with mass murderers), then I believe in human euthanasia. I don't believe in retribution or penalties on any level for any thing as imposed by the State.

As for certain drugs specifically, provided there is no threat to the collective good, individuals would have the right to use whatever drug they wish. Those who become addicted, and wish it, would be given treatment.


Thank you for your response. Below I will be giving my formal answer to the OP based on my assessment of the answers you gave to my questions.

I would neither label you a Nationalist (at least in the popular sense) nor would I see you as on the Right in any sense (others seem to be confirming this as well on here). You are a Marxist of a specific branch, the exact species of which I will leave to @The Immortal Goon, and @Potemkin, to properly identify.

My Reasons:

1. The nationalism you advocate for is not an end in itself, thus I cannot consider you a nationalist in the common use of the term. You advocate for a socialist state at the national level as a means of eventually accomplishing international communism. This is a common position within Marxism, and is almost definitional of it, so it seems to be a misuse of terms to define you as a Nationalist. it would be a misnomer that creates equivocation. Its just too bad you can't change your name, because it will leave you in a state of perpetually confusing people as to your views.

2. I further support the above point based on your views of immigration and foreign trade. You seem open to tariffs, etc, but only as a means of protecting the domestic proletariat from the international bourgeois. This is not nationalism, this is Bernie Sanders. Nationalism wants to boost domestic production as a means-in-itself to both reinvigorate the former sense of self-worth among the domestic worker (out of an admittedly romantic view of the past) and with having zero problem in enriching the domestic bourgeois so long as the workers still have "decent" livelihoods. The goal of tariffs for the true nationalist, is not the liberation of the working class but Autarky.

Likewise, your views of immigration are too pragmatic for the nationalist ( I do not mean this as an insult to nationalists). Nationalism is not opposed to immigration because it is inefficient or needs reformed, it is opposed to immigration because it threatens the native culture. Soft-Nationalists do not want foreigners in their country taking their jobs that they feel they have a right of access-to because of their birth in that country. Moderate-Nationalists do not want foreigners to maintain a religio-cultural identity that is contrary to the religio-cultural identity of the native population (thus requiring strict integration), and Hard nationalists, agree with both of the former positions but would add ethnicity to their criteria.

You do not seem to hold to either the Soft, Moderate, or Hard Nationalisms mentioned above, so you cannot be a Nationalist.

Seeking the well-being of your nation over others does not make you a nationalist as almost every political system claims to do that except only the most shameless of internationalists (which are rare).

3. I do not consider you on the RIGHT in any sense whatsoever. You oppose institutional religion, without qualification. You are skeptical of patriotism, you oppose Moderate and Hard Nationalism as described above which are almost prerequisite to being on the Right in any sense, you do not believe in a traditional system of hard justice, and though you allow for gender distinctions that are biologically undeniable as possible in informing role distinctions, you see this as a liberty rather than an essential aspect of society (some old-school Marxists are even harder on these points than you), and you oppose ethno-cultural chauvenism of any kind, only allowing for a limited sense where people are permitted to take pride in their own heritage.

These views as stated, in my opinion, utterly disqualify you from being on the Right. You are not Right Wing at all.

4. Regarding Your Support of Rural Peoples.

Let me just say, your espousing to defend the rural proletariat is something I admire, it is noble.

However, your stated views are not rural values and it is rural values that keep rural people from supporting Marxism. Rural people, of which I am proud to be, are religious, patriotic, ethno-cultural chauvenists that are also patriarchal, self-reliant, simple, unsophisticated, anti-intellectual, and tend to judge people not merely based on whether they do work, but on the kind of work they do (white collar folks are almost by definition effeminate).

Rural folks in the rust-belt oppose anything that threatens such values and traditions as mentioned above. These people once supported Marxist leaning unions and liberal parties only when such groups did not expressly oppose these values. Union workers in coal mines in western pennsylvania may have been "socialists" on paper, but they were married, sometimes with 10 kids cause they were Irish-catholic, were dedicated church goers with pictures of Mary on their mantels who opposed Chinese immigrants working in the mines with their fellow whites. These rural peoples voted democrat only because the democrats supported the unions which protected them from (admitted) exploitation.

However, this support of Democrats and Liberalism was only ever because when it comes to people who share their values who are pro-rich v. pro-working class, they will pick pro-working class., but if it is pro-rich v pro-working class, but the pro-working class are anti-religious, feminists who are pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-immigration. They will vote for the pro-rich party even if means they will lose out economically.

But....if you get a guy who claims to be pro-working class and shares their values? You get the election in 2016, or Adolf Hitler, etc.

My point is only to say, that as far as rural folks would be concerned, if you were to express your stated values to them, they would not consider you as one of them ideologically and therefore not trust, however genuine, your claims to be advocating for them.

The rural working class does not divorce its values from its identity. In sum, If you do not claim to protect their values, they will find your claim to be protecting them as unintelligible.

The link and quote has been posted. As well as li[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]