[The Immortal Goon]

You said earlier you support open borders immigration. Now you claim you’re just an impotent passive observer and just submit to whatever the bourgeoisie does.

I claimed neither, specifically. I support the working class having the same access to each other and to the market as the bourgeoisie allows for itself. But this is a day dream—so long as there is a bourgeois class they would never allow it.

This does not make me, "an impotent passive observer [that] just submit[s] to whatever the bourgeoisie does," but someone that recognizes reality and acts accordingly.

I say: I see what some bourgeois are doing, concerning migration, and I believe that, in destroying nationhood, they are destroying one of the fundamental sources of solidarity in any society (as evidenced by the pervasive of tension in all multiethnic societies and the failure of leftists to create racial equality in any society.

The mythical connotation of nationhood itself, as we understand it, is a bourgeois concept. They are using it accordingly.

In the past, if you were a peasant in France, you may have been under a British lord and part of the British nation (for lack of a better word) before the 100 Years War. Later, if the Germans came rushing in during the Thirty Years War, you could have been ceded to Germany. Your own identity would not have changed because, as a peasant, you were part of the land. The lord of the land would have simply been passed back and forth. It's not at all the idea of an innate nationality that developed with capitalism.

The state abolishes, in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions, when it proclaims, without regard to these distinction, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the nation from the standpoint of the state. Nevertheless, the state allows private property, education, occupation, to act in their way – i.e., as private property, as education, as occupation, and to exert the influence of their special nature. Far from abolishing these real distinctions, the state only exists on the presupposition of their existence; it feels itself to be a political state and asserts its universality only in opposition to these elements of its being.

...The perfect political state is, by its nature, man’s species-life, as opposed to his material life. All the preconditions of this egoistic life continue to exist in civil society outside the sphere of the state, but as qualities of civil society. Where the political state has attained its true development, man – not only in thought, in consciousness, but in reality, in life – leads a twofold life, a heavenly and an earthly life: life in the political community, in which he considers himself a communal being, and life in civil society, in which he acts as a private individual, regards other men as a means, degrades himself into a means, and becomes the plaything of alien powers. The relation of the political state to civil society is just as spiritual as the relations of heaven to earth. The political state stands in the same opposition to civil society, and it prevails over the latter in the same way as religion prevails over the narrowness of the secular world – i.e., by likewise having always to acknowledge it, to restore it, and allow itself to be dominated by it. In his most immediate reality, in civil society, man is a secular being. Here, where he regards himself as a real individual, and is so regarded by others, he is a fictitious phenomenon. In the state, on the other hand, where man is regarded as a species-being, he is the imaginary member of an illusory sovereignty, is deprived of his real individual life and endowed with an unreal universality.

The construction of the nationality as you understand it is part of capitalism; but at the same time the destruction of the national identity that you imagine is also part of capitalism.

You have a very strange ideology. Sometimes you claim to be plotting a revolution. Other times you assert you will just passively accept everything. I guess you aren’t really doing anything but fantasizing.

If I were plotting a revolution, I certainly wouldn't get on the internet and tell strangers about it! Though I am far more armchair now than I used to be.

But don't confuse action with understanding. I never said I, "passively accept everything," but there are realities that it's silly to deny. I could argue all day that the sky is green; or make plans to take action based upon the green sky.

But why? The sky is plainly blue, and it's fine to simply accept this as fact.

And then another bizarre evasion: you specifically referred to a “brown shirt” fitting me, that is obviously a Nazi reference – now you claim to have made no Nazi reference.

I never said that I made "no Nazi reference."

I disputed the quotes you seemed to have attributed to me in your haste to identify yourself as a Nazi:

So that is obviously not a qualification for "Nazism." For you it seems, the word "Nazi" is simply a synonym for "heretic," for deviance from a few ideological taboos that you have been indoctrinated your entire life to accept, in a culture which is godless and nihilist in every other way.

[Decky]

In the past, if you were a peasant in France, you may have been under a British lord and part of the British nation (for lack of a better word) before the 100 Years War.

English TIG. You have made this mistake before, Britain was not a thing politically at this point just geographically. What kind of historian are you?

[noemon]

It must be overthrown.

By pretending that the Left is not supporting open borders? How do you figure?

It all seems like a huge fest of virtue-signalling and nothing substantive.

The working class resents the immigrants when she is unhappy, jobless and without welfare.

This can be solved immediately by simply fighting in the present for more humane budgets instead of ranting for all eternity about some dead people. And in this you will find support from the petite bourgoisie and it is well within your reach. How about focusing in immediate reality to alleviate the troubles that are plaguing not just some non-sense categories that some people came up with a couple of centuries ago but are plaguing a huge amount of people in the world today by actively supporting those who do?

I could argue all day that the sky is green; or make plans to take action based upon the green sky.

Well you did try to argue for quite a while that the Left is not globalist but nationalist and you have also been trying to pretend that such a thing even exists and is accessible for us in the here and now.

The mythical connotation of nationhood itself, as we understand it, is a bourgeois concept. They are using it accordingly.

That is incorrect, the nation-state and nationalism are the results of the effort of the Jacobins, who were not bourgeoisie but petite-bourgeoisie, composed of professionals, artisans & shopkeepers, the Jacobins are also the self-ascribed godfathers of the marxists as well.

[The Immortal Goon]

English TIG. You have made this mistake before, Britain was not a thing politically at this point just geographically. What kind of historian are you?

Of course, you are correct.

There's no good excuse. But I tend to live in two worlds, and the Irish are too quick to use, "British," and the Americans too quick to use, "English."

---

Well you did try to argue for quite a while that the Left is not globalist but nationalist and you have also been trying to pretend that such a thing even exists and is accessible for us in the here and now.

I'm not sure that I argued that the global left was nationalist; nor that we should live in a dream world...

That is incorrect, the nation-state and nationalism are the results of the effort of the Jacobins, who were not bourgeoisie but petite-bourgeoisie, composed of professionals, artisans & shopkeepers, the Jacobins are also the self-ascribed godfathers of the marxists as well.

I'm not sure you're exactly right about that. The American experiment, if nothing else, was certainly a movement of bourgeois nationalism; and I would argue that the English Civil War was an attempt to do the same.

The Jacobins being petite-bourgeoisie is fudging a little bit. Today they'd be petite-bourgousie, but it was Marx, after all, who said:

Thus, gentlemen, you see that history was moved forward. What was then Jacobinism has today become liberalism, and in its most moderate form at that.

Regardless, the petite-bourgousie are not an independent class in the way the bourgeoisie or the proletariat are so far as they are dependent upon one or the other in the dialectic of history. The creation of the liberal state is bourgeois.

[noemon]

The creation of the liberal state is bourgeois.

The French revolutionaries were not bourgeois, but petite-bourgeois.

Regardless, the petite-bourgousie are not an independent class in the way the bourgeoisie or the proletariat are so far as they are dependent upon one or the other in the dialectic of history.

So the bourgeois are not dependent on the others and the proletariat are not either?

Just because you want to either blame the middle-class for fascism or render her irrelevant in your dialectic of history it does not mean she actually is.

Marx in his speech you linked, also claims that the Jacobine is the communist of today:

The Jacobin of 1793 has become the communist of our day.

[Donna]

It must be overthrown.

How?

A few weeks ago you wrote that "The harsh indifference of the capitalist free market simply reflects the harsh indifference of the natural order of things," which would suggest that universal proletarian emancipation, as a possibility, is enough removed from reality that we might as well consider it irrational or utopian. If that is the case, which I think that it is, then the working class is better off reading Augustine than Marx.

[Rugoz]

I see what some bourgeois are doing, concerning migration, and I believe that, in destroying nationhood, they are destroying one of the fundamental sources of solidarity in any society (as evidenced by the pervasive of tension in all multiethnic societies and the failure of leftists to create racial equality in any society.)

Frankly you are overly obsessed with ethnicity. It seems you have no trust in France as a "Willensnation", which I find rather depressing.

As Hegel put it, "All that is real is rational." What he meant by that was that rationality means acting in accordance with our given social and natural environment. Capitalism is real; it exists. It is therefore rational for the working classes to resent the working class immigrants into their nation who will compete with them for jobs and social services. Does this mean it is right and proper for this to happen? No, it simply means that the real, existing system which makes such behaviour rational must be made unreal. It must be overthrown.

And then you just replace it with another economic system where the laws of economics hold equally. It doesn't really matter. Additional people with no productive value will always be a material burden.

[The Immortal Goon]

The French revolutionaries were not bourgeois, but petite-bourgeois...Just because you want to either blame the middle-class for fascism or render her irrelevant in your dialectic of history it does not mean she actually is...Marx in his speech you linked, also claims that the Jacobine is the communist of today:

The latter are aspects of the former.

The Enreges would be the aspect of the French Revolution that would probably best reflect the socialist of today, but the times were different.

We are not talking about some static view of unmoving history, the heart of Marxism is that the dialectic works and is a component of moving and living history.

To see one aspect of Jacobinism forever enshrined as an eternal totem is to miss the entire point. At various times in the development of capitalism, different movements become progressive and reactive. For instance:

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

The petty bourgeois, here, are not an eternal religious totem of whatever you are trying to imagine—but an aspect of the dialectic and material conditions that create material reality.

Jacobinism is not a supra-social ‘revolutionary’ category, but an historical product. It is the apogee of the tension of revolutionary energy in the period of self-emancipation of bourgeois society. It is the high point of radicalism that could be produced by bourgeois society, not through developing its own contradictions but by they stifled appeal to the rights of the abstract man and citizen; in practice, the guillotine. History had to halt for the Jacobins to keep power, for every forward movement opposed to each other the various elements supporting them and thus undermined the revolutionary will at the head of which stood the Montagne.

Which is, precisely, what I have been saying in this thread. Ye are acting as if history is a dead creature to be examined instead of a living and breathing process.

So the bourgeois are not dependent on the others and the proletariat are not either?

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but there are two active historic classes in capitalism: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

The concept of the petite-bourgeoisie seems to escape you, so let's use a more blunt example: The Queen of England.

To which class does she belong?

She is not proletarian, but she does not own the means of production either. So where does she stand? Does the royal aristocracy now, because a queen sits on the throne, present a historic class that will usher in feudalism?

Certainly not. The material conditions do not allow for it, and yet this remnant of a class remains. It is powerless to exert itself and recreate feudalism on Earth, so what does it do?

Any cursory glance at history will show that it is drawn into the orbit of the bourgeoisie, even if it attempts to sometimes mask itself as a friend of the proletariat at one or two stages in history.

Such is the petite-bourgousie. It does not own its means of production, and yet it is not selling its labour to those who do (on a surface level). It is damned between the struggle of the proletariate and the class to which it is part—the haute-bourgousie.

It is mostly in its interest to side with the bourgeoisie, and sometimes die for it in the sake of fascism, but it can be flipped for its own advantage in some times and places:

The democratic struggle is waged by the workers [in Russia a century ago] together with a section of the bourgeoisie, especially the petty bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the socialist struggle is waged by the workers against the whole of the bourgeoisie. The struggle against the bureaucrat and the landlord can and must be waged together with all the peasants, even the well-to-do and the middle peasants. On the other hand, it is only together with the rural proletariat that the struggle against the bourgeoisie, and therefore against the well-to-do peasants too, can be properly waged.

Calling them both, "bourgeoisie" is not a clever name. It is descriptive. It is, as Lenin implied, a dead class without the haute-bourgeoisie.

[noemon]

Ye are acting as if history is a dead creature to be examined instead of a living and breathing process.

Ye are acting like you can define anything you like however you prefer at any given moment just so you can defend some totems of a non-sensical religion you ascribe to.

The Jacobins were professional tradesmen, craftsmen and artisans, not bourgeoisie like your Queen of England example which is as wrong as it gets because the Queen of England is not only the kind of class whom the Jacobins fought but also currently a historical curiosity like communism.

[The Immortal Goon]

Ye are acting like you can define anything you like however you prefer at any given moment just so you can defend some totems of a non-sensical religion you ascribe to.

You seem not to understand the movement of history, let alone dialectics or materialism.

The Jacobins were professional tradesmen, craftsmen and artisans, not bourgeoisie like your Queen of England example which is as wrong as it gets because the Queen of England is not only the kind of class whom the Jacobins fought but also currently a historical curiosity like communism.

1. The Queen of England is not bourgeoisie.

2. The Jacobins fought against the French monarch, the Girondins, and the Enrages—amongst others. What class do you imagine the Enrages were?

Hint: The Enrages were led by a Catholic priest, a civil engineer, a college graduate, and an actress.

What about the Girondins?

The French Monarchy since you seem to believe the Queen of England is bourgeoisie?

You don't need to answer this because the answer should be readily apparent.

The petite-bourgousie are aspects of the bourgeoisie—not a magical class that happens to have almost the exact same name.

As I said and you ignored:

Any cursory glance at history will show that it is drawn into the orbit of the bourgeoisie, even if it attempts to sometimes mask itself as a friend of the proletariat at one or two stages in history.

Such is the petite-bourgousie. It does not own its means of production, and yet it is not selling its labour to those who do (on a surface level). It is damned between the struggle of the proletariate and the class to which it is part—the haute-bourgousie.

It is mostly in its interest to side with the bourgeoisie, and sometimes die for it in the sake of fascism, but it can be flipped for its own advantage in some times and places:

[noemon]

You seem not to understand the movement of history, let alone dialectics or materialism.

I certainly do not have troubles with understanding basic terms:

the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen

Such were the Jacobins. The Jacobins were not what you today would classify under Goldman Sachs bankster, Trump real estate, Gate's Microsoft and VW's factory.

History has changed, and it is not like Marx predicted, the petite bourgeoisie did not vanish, but became what today is called middle-class and in our service-based economies it is the largest and most conscious class of all.

[AFAIK]

And, again this ignores history. Again, what happened when the AFL led attacks against Chinese and Irish immigrant workers?

The Chinese and Irish workers became cheaper, as unrepresented labour, and open for more dangerous work. They got all of the work.

What happened when the Exclusion Acts stopped labour from coming in at all?

Production moved to China and Mexico.

What about trying to ban moving work out of the country?

We need raw materials, imperialism, and thus foreign work. Even the US, with its vast resources, needs Aftican minerals.

So do we follow the utter failure of old policies that created this mess as ye propose?

Or do you recognize that capitalism is an international system and act accordingly?

Wouldn't workers in the 1st world benefit from the 3rd scenario- importing energy, minerals and other commodities, adding value and then exporting them?

Would a European worker benefit more from fascism than communism?
It seems it would boost both their material conditions and their social status.

[The Immortal Goon]

Such were the Jacobins. The Jacobins were not what you today would classify under Goldman Sachs bankster, Trump real estate, Gate's Microsoft and VW's factory.

Nobody said that they were.

This does not mean that the French Revolution was magically not bourgeois in character though. That France is a petite-bourgousie state that somehow excluded the bourgeoisie that the petite-bourgousie are dependent upon from power. Nobody claims that.

History has changed, and it is not like Marx predicted, the petite bourgeoisie did not vanish, but became what today is called middle-class and in our service-based economies it is the largest and most conscious class of all.

Even accepting this, it would not mean that the petty bourgeois class can somehow magically operate independently of the haute-bourgeoisie. It would be like setting up a shop in your garage without any way to get items for your shop and declaring yourself king as a result. It simply wouldn't make any sense.

Wouldn't workers in the 1st world benefit from the 3rd scenario- importing energy, minerals and other commodities, adding value and then exporting them?

Would a European worker benefit more from fascism than communism?
It seems it would boost both their material conditions and their social status.

See above. The fascist, even if successful, would essentially have a country with nothing in it and no way to make it but declaring itself king anyway. At the end of the day, the rest of the world would exist. The way that they would interpret the world would remain. The prices, the commodities needed, everything else would remain. You may have an Oskar Schindler that is sort of a decent industrialist in the scheme of things, but you'd still have your captains of industry like him doing the exact same things for the exact same reasons. Unless you wanted Jewish slave labour, you'd still be stuck with the same problems outlines above: You need people to make things. Targeting immigrants, exporting the problem, all these things simply do not work while capitalism is there as they all serve to make a class of people that will work for less than the precious white or native workers that you seek to empower. The profit motive and structure of power is simply too strong for people to simply disregard.

[AFAIK]

So a fascist state would be corrupted by the bourgeoisie in pursuit of cheap labour?

Are there different factions of worker?
Would industrial workers benefit from policies that are harmful to those in the primary sector- farmers, miners, etc.

[Ombrageux]

I don’t believe the nation is a purely mythical concept, although there is an element. The nation is indeed a conventional concept, that is an ideal or a simplification, comparable to how we define together particular notions of the family or divide the color spectrum arbitrarily. I do not necessarily believe in an absolutely unbroken and perfectly discrete historical continuity of nationhood.

What I do believe in is a few objective markers, especially language and genetics. Any society without one common language for all is not a nation in the modern sense.

In practice, we find that groups in a given society who are divided by language or race (defined here as a inter-continental genetic distance) simply don’t identify with one another as part of the same nation. That as an empirical reality, whether we like it or not.

Put another way, a nation is, like an organism, a process. A society’s degree of nationhood itself evolves over time. In the French case, we can identify traces of a common identity at least as far back as Roman Gaul. On the eve of the French Revolution, there was a common culture to much of the territories and most spoke similar dialects of langues d’oc and langues d’oïl. There was however than a conscious republican and Napoleonic project to cultivate this nationhood, through socialization to a common norm (e.g. by serving in the army) and spreading a common language. Thus, France attained a higher degree of nationhood and her model was emulated by countless emerging nation-states, because it was so powerful. French nationhood perhaps peaked in the 1960s and, in any case, it is clear she is disintegrating. If nothing is done, our grandchildren will be reduced to minorityhood, vulnerable to the worst civil war and persecution, comparable perhaps to the Christians of Lebanon. I hope we can avoid that fate.

Frankly you are overly obsessed with ethnicity. It seems you have no trust in France as a "Willensnation", which I find rather depressing.

To quote Disraeli: “Race is everything.” As a practical matter: how do you propose anything like a "French nation" will exist when Africans, Muslims, and others become the majority? Perhaps the native French will assimilate the newcomers?

I do not find my own observations depressing. If we respect reality and its laws, we can all live in harmony. But if we live in denial of them, then we will be enervated and neurotic, and Nature, always, will take her revenge.

AFAIK: Actually containing materialist and sentimental impulses towards allowing some immigration would be a significant challenge. I put a lot of faith however in two forces: the systematic education of the people in a evolutionarily-conscious ideology and the equally systematic cultivation of patriotism in the people, including a sense of sacred duty. I do not demand a utopia, humans will always be flawed. But I believe these two forces, ideology and patriotism, could achieve much of what we need and want.

[Rugoz]

To quote Disraeli: “Race is everything.” As a practical matter: how do you propose anything like a "French nation" will exist when Africans, Muslims, and others become the majority? Perhaps the native French will assimilate the newcomers?

I do not find my own observations depressing. If we respect reality and its laws, we can all live in harmony.

- I'm sure France can assimilate Africans and Muslims, as long as the inflow is limited (obviously France has not obligation to do so).

- I'm Swiss and my actual reality differs from your hypothetical reality.

[Atlantis]

I don’t believe the nation is a purely mythical concept, ...

The nation state is a fairly recent invention. There is nothing to suggest that it is the best form of government for all eternity or that it is capable of dealing with the issue of globalization.

Moreover, in the short span of its existence, the nation state has already done more harm than good.

The national identity is a myth in that there are many different groups of people in a country which really don't have anything in common, while there are people in other countries with whom one shares a common outlook. Today, the social fabric is much stronger in countries with a federal structure like Germany, which unite different groups, than centralist countries like France or the UK, which try to perpetuate the myth of national identity.

French nationhood perhaps peaked in the 1960s and, in any case, it is clear she is disintegrating.

That was when France lost its colonies. You clearly identify French nationhood with the French colonial empire which you cannot now resuscitate. So, what are you going to do? Dream on? Face reality?

Perhaps the native French will assimilate the newcomers?

Exactly, newcomers only truly arrive when they are assimilated, before that they are outsiders. Considering the dismal state of the Muslim world, I have no doubt about who will assimilate who.

China has grown less by military conquest than by assimilation of different ethnic groups inside and outside its territory. Even though China assimilated innumerable ethnic groups, the Chinese as the dominant cultural carriers were never in danger of disappearing, not even when China was ruled by a warrior class of Mongol or Manchu leaders. The Chinese with their superior culture always reasserted themselves. In the competition between different social models, the best model will win. Resisting this is an exercise in futility.

If we respect reality and its laws, we can all live in harmony. But if we live in denial of them, then we will be enervated and neurotic, and Nature, always, will take her revenge.

Agreed, with the proviso that the interpretation of reality is subject to ideological bias. (Pre-)conceptions of reality need to be questioned without cease just like we breath in and out.

[Rugoz]

Today, the social fabric is much stronger in countries with a federal structure like Germany, which unite different groups, than centralist countries like France or the UK, which try to perpetuate the myth of national identity.

That presumes Germany doesn't have a national identity, which is of course nonsense.

Clearly a common identity (national of whatever you call it) is a prerequisite for common political institutions, at least in a democracy.

[The Immortal Goon]

So a fascist state would be corrupted by the bourgeoisie in pursuit of cheap labour?

Are there different factions of worker?

Eventually, no matter what form it took, it would need to reconcile with the capitalist world in which it exists. This is not unique to fascism, one could argue that the failure of the international socialist revolution damned the USSR, opened Chinese communist factories up to capitalists, and is currently building Hiltons in Cuba. Capitalism itself is the problem that must be rectified.

Look, for instance, at fascist Spain, which half-heartedly limped into the EU common market as a capitalist parliamentary monarchy after Franco died. There was no violent revolution, but a shuffling of posts and policies to reconcile title to reality.

The fascist, petite-bourgeois in origin, is tied to the bourgousie despite his rhetorical rebellion in the service of the bourgeoisie.

Please do excuse the long quote that follows, but it does do a remarkable job of underlining the gist of the last page. The whole piece in general, really...

On the plane of politics, racism is a vapid and bombastic variety of chauvinism in alliance with phrenology. As the ruined nobility sought solace in the gentility of its blood, so the pauperized petty bourgeoisie befuddles itself with fairy tales concerning the special superiorities of its race. Worthy of attention is the fact that the leaders of National Socialism are not native Germans but interlopers from Austria, like Hitler himself, from the former Baltic provinces of the Czar’s empire, like Rosenberg; and from colonial countries, like Hess, who is Hitler’s present alternate for the party leadership. [5] A barbarous din of nationalisms on the frontiers of civilization was required in order to instill into its “leaders” those ideas which later found response in the hearts of the most barbarous classes in Germany.

Personality and class – liberalism and Marxism – are evil. The nation – is good. But at the threshold of private property this philosophy is turned inside out. Salvation lies only in personal private property. The idea of national property is the spawn of Bolshevism. Deifying the nation, the petty bourgeois does not want to give it anything. On the contrary, he expects the nation to endow him with property and to safeguard him from the worker and the process-server. Unfortunately, the Third Reich will bestow nothing upon the petty bourgeois except new taxes.

In the sphere of modern economy, international in its ties and anonymous in its methods, the principle of race seems unearthed from a medieval graveyard. The Nazis set out with concessions beforehand; the purity of race, which must be certified in the kingdom of the spirit by a passport must be demonstrated in the sphere of economy chiefly by efficiency. Under contemporary conditions this means competitive capacity. Through the back door, racism returns to economic liberalism, freed from political liberties.

...German fascism, like Italian fascism, raised itself to power on the backs of the petty bourgeoisie, which it turned into a battering ram against the organizations of the working class and the institutions of democracy. But fascism in power is least of all the rule of the petty bourgeoisie. On the contrary, it is the most ruthless dictatorship of monopoly capital. Mussolini is right: the middle classes are incapable of independent policies. During periods of great crisis they are called upon to reduce to absurdity the policies of one of the two basic classes. Fascism succeeded in putting them at the service of capital Such slogans as state control of trusts and the elimination of unearned income were thrown overboard immediately upon the assumption of power. Instead, the particularism of German “lands” leaning upon the peculiarities of the petty bourgeoisie gave way to capitalist-police centralism. Every success of the internal and foreign policies of National Socialism will inevitably mean the further crushing of small capital by large.

The program of petty-bourgeois illusions is not discarded; it is simply torn away from reality, and dissolved in ritualistic acts. The unification of all classes reduces itself to semisymbolic compulsory labor and to the confiscation of the labor holiday of May Day for the “benefit of the people.” The preservation of the Gothic script as opposed to the Latin is a symbolic revenge for the yoke of the world market The dependence upon the international bankers, Jews among their number, is not eased an iota, wherefore it is forbidden to slaughter animals according to the Talmudic ritual. If the road to heaven is paved with good intentions, then the avenues of the Third Reich are paved with symbols.

Reducing the program of petty-bourgeois illusions to a naked bureaucratic masquerade, National Socialism raises itself over the nation as the worst form of imperialism. Absolutely vain are hopes that Hitler’s government will fail today or tomorrow, a victim of its internal inconsistency. The Nazis required the program in order to assume power; but power serves Hitler not at all for the purpose of fuming the program. His tasks are assigned him by monopoly capital.

[Nonsense]

Some will say its immigration & islamification thats feeding the rapid rise of the right all over the world, but I have another theory. I believe its the lefts unwillingness to debate ,their condemnation without argument , their overuse of the racist & bigot words & their violent protests against all opinons they dont agree with. The left is driving the masses away from their idioligy. If the left is to regain their popularity they need to engage in sensible debate . Come up with sensible arguments & stop the violent protests , the mask wearing, missile throwing , car burning lefties have gone too far . It looks more like tantrum throwing because they are not geting their own way.

I have to agree with nearly everything that you say above.

The 'problem' is,the 'Left',as depicted, is really 'Conservative' in nature, incapable of change, because, in the 'democratic' countries where they are a force in politics, they are in reality, NOT the 'Internationalist' that they portay themselves as,but merely 'anti-traditionalist, 'anti-nationalist' , 'anti-indiginous','anti-male','anti-pensioners','anti-disability' & 'anti-working-class'.
They are, in fact, Sans everything,the complete grouping of a nihilistic bunch of ignorant,subversive dullards,that know the value of every soul in the world,save that of their own countryman.

Not only the above, they are also political hypocrites, they condemn creaping privatisation of the NHS by the TORIES,yet,NEVER oppose the measures the TORIES practice, in parliament.

They condemned the fraud on pension pensioners annual rises being taken straight back by Tory budgets from the 2010-11 Budget increase of VAT to 20% from 17.5%, but have never stood up in parliament to oppose it, indeed, they have said that they will keep VAT at the 20%.

Again, it was LABOUR that created the Foreign Aid situation that the Tories ran with, that currently cost £12 BILLION per annum,but, it's not the 'rich' or 'better-off' that are paying that money in taxes.
Oh! NO, it's created from 'welfare reform', straight out of the benefit system claimants pockets, into the hands of American companies that run many welfare 'projects', which failed to get people back into work & the 'savings' end up in the 'Aid' account, ready to 'disappear' down the proverbial 'black-hole',with, not a 'squeak' from the 'Left' or 'Right' within the ranks of the 'Labour' Party.
They are,it is true, generous to 'foreigners'(with our taxpayers-or 'borrowed' money), people,who, by & large have everything to take from us- but nothing to 'give'.

Gordon BROWN, like Tony BLAIR, are practiced LIARS, found out & kicked out by the electorate.

What happened to 'Labour' is now going to happen to the TORIES in 2020, will UKIP 'reform' itself, widen it's policies-public appeal, or will it end up dying, because it becomes exposed as a 'TORY' Front on the face of UK politics?

No political party has continuous momentum that has an 'appeal' to match, on the contrary, our politics has become homogenised to the point of being indistinguishable from one party to the next.

This is the point when 'popular' democracy exerts a 'corrective' force or 'realignment' away from the meddling-middle ground that has turned 'representative' democracy into an 'elitist' dysfunctional ruling class of politicians with a 'sense-of-entitlement' that leaves any benefit claimant agog at the width- depth of this systemic corruption of our TAX & BENEFIT system.

As an example, let me use UNIVERSAL CREDIT to illustrate the sense of entitlement that the 'elite' have become so imbibed with, for both themselves at Westminster, but also for their peers outside in the country.

Most of the income-related benefits in this country,arose from Barbara Castle's, 'In place of Strife' , set amounts from the welfare budget goes to the various 'benefit' department accounts, these are usually awarded increases annually at the time of the budget & were once 'automatically' increased each year according to the RPI in September.

That used to be the case until OSBORNE decided to 'shrink' the welfare state,benefits have reduced in 'real' terms-NOT because there is less money, NO, but because of the population increase from mass migration, so, OSBORNE simply 'freezes' benefits for 3 then four years 7 the money 'saved' is moved accross to pay the benefits ofthe migrants.

The result is a lower rate of increase in public spending on welfare,but,as so often is the case with government spending, you 'squeeze' here & it inflates somewhere else.
In this case, housing, health,lower wages(incomes for the working class),education & dare I say it-BREXIT.

With Universal Credit,which is a 'capped' system of income guarantee, funded out of the welfare budget,BUT, this is the IMPORTANT point, UC ONLY affects those on LOW incomes & is 'capped' at £30Kp.a,
The TAX system on the other hand, unlike the BENEFIT system, gives 'DISCOUNTS', 'TAX BREAKS',' RELIEFS' ALL THE WAY UP THE INCOME SCALE- FUNDED BY BASIC RATE TAXPAYERS,BUT, WHICH ONLY BENEFIT THE 'RICH' & 'BETTER-OFF'.

That is grossly unfair, the TAX system REQUIRES IT'S OWN REFORM,SO THAT ANYONE EARNING OVER,SAY £55K .p.a NO LONGER GETS 'TAX FREE' PAY ALLOWANCES OR ANY 'RELIEFS', 'BREAKS','DISCOUNTS' OR 'ALLOWANCES' , BECAUSE THEY SHOULD PAY THEIR TAXES IN 'FULL' & NOT GET FUNDED THROUGH OTHER TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR THEIR NICE 'LITTLE-EARNERS'.

'Labour' & the 'Left' are incapable of RECTIFYING WHAT THEY HAVE CREATED & SUSTAINED ALONG WITH THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS,that's why we are ALL 'screwed'.

'BREXIT' was ' ONLY' the FIRST stage in an ongoing socio-political 'revolution' of our time,the next stage will 'probably' be in 2020, when, as I have intimated before, the 'nuclear' option of electing a political group OUTSIDE of 'mainstream' Westminster political circles 'dominates' the political agenda at Westminster.

Do I see the average potential elector as having it under their bonnet to see, or indeed 'seize' the opportunity for the country,well! it happened once(BREXIT), let's just wait & see?