National Bolshevism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Preston Cole
#13362164
Possibly the most obvious visual theme to indicate that these "National Bolsheviks" are quite a diverging strand of a basically peculiar sort of Bolshevism (for the sake of accurate political reading, I'll use the term "Bolshevism" to describe their base ideology instead of outright Communism, which is a highly debatable point of doctrine for this group) is the glaring use of the Nazi flag as their party symbol. A Nazi flag... with a hammer and sickle in the white circle. I don't know whether they opted for this representation out of sympathy for the National Socialists, the fact they consider themselves ultra-nationalist socialists (which is a generally sound description for them), or their rumored affinity towards Strasserism, an ideology that comes much closer to the concept of working-class nationalism, and thus, organically suitable to consider a sister ideology to their own.

Some websites label the National Bolsheviks as a new addition to the neo-fascist tendency, and Aleksander Dugin, the leader of the National Bolshevik Party himself, once wrote an article praising left-wing Fascism for its durability throughout history and its strong connection to Stalinism. The fact remains that this group is outwardly very fascistic in choice of symbolism and propaganda material; you can determine that by simply skimming through the visuals section of their website. Coupled with what I've heard is an anti-Semitic component to their ideology, their so-called Bolshevism strays very far away from Leninist Bolshevism.

We could call this a different form of Bolshevism, or Socialism, altogether. One that is militantly working-class oriented with some concessions to small business, "petty bourgeoisie," in the spirit of Lenin's New Economic Policy, but comprising a more or less significant racialist-nationalist character as well. That latter component invalidates most of the non-racialist, non-nationalist doctrine pursued by orthodox Marxists and hardline socialists since their first public writings. My first impression is that they'd like to follow in the early path of the National Socialists, preserving a decidedly working-class, semi-racialist and ultra-nationalist program. Certainly, their appearance as well as their ideological goals stand up to that description. Yet, their past adherence to backwater left-wing groups, and their denouncement of Fascist affiliations, speaks against a holistic comparison to the Nazis.

My question is - since I'm very new to this forum and only beginning to comprehend the larger mechanisms of ideological and pragmatic components in party politics from extremely well-read people - what would you think of this party and ideology? Specifically, do you believe it should more appropriately be called far-right Fascist, proto-Fascist, or left-wing nationalist of the far-left?

Best regards.
By Benjamin Noyles
#13362240
In my view National Bolshevism is not a concise ideology, it is just a label for a form of fascism that employs revolutionary socialism. There have been lots of National Bolshevisms’, e.g. the National Bolshevism of Ernst Niekisch who coined the phrase, really bears little resemblance to Eduard Limonovs National Bolshevik Party (actually it should not be underestimated the extent of such ideas in the past, in my view National Bolshevism had its golden age in the fifties), but 'in principle' they are the same; fascists that utilise socialism. Something cannot be communist if it repudiates those aspects of the ideology on which it is based; egalitarianism, internationalism, break down of social norms, ect. Well in theory at least, in reality fascists contend that because communism is based on a false understanding of the world, that which is natural will come through and transmogriphy the ideology into its most appauling adversary. It is a piece of historical irony that Modern Russians think of Stalin as a national hero and that their national identity was partly realised under bolshevism. Even the fathers of the ideology have their faults due to the scientific and social norms of the times, as figures like Kai Murros rightly point out one can be both a racialist and quite an orthodox Marxist (though obviously not a modern Marxist).

Politically Russian national bolshevism is an extension of European 'new right' neo-fascism (the adoption of Evola as an ideological father for instance), which is actually making some waves as it goes back into the west. I would not take the Russian NBP to seriously, it is a mostly arty students based movement which is why it is so visually orientated and features X million wartime SS posters with hammer and sickles Photoshopped in, on their websites. This is why they use the German tricolour, it is visually shocking and signifies they are conceptual fascists who advocate state socialism. Alexander Dugin was never the leader of the national Bolshevik party although he convinced its Limonov to enter politics and originally backed the party. Dugin has his own eurasianist type movement, which again is part of a sort of generic fascism.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13363350
Image

:eek:

We need posters like this, talk about wanting to fraternize with the enemy...

To get back on point, though, I'm not aware of the NazBol's being racialist, but as part of the Eurasianist movement, and particularly the ultranationalism and fondness of Strasserism, it's hard not to argue it's atleast somewhat fascist in nature. It's better not to get too focused in labels, though; there are large variants in right-wing, authoritarian ideologies that generally resemble eachother.
By Benjamin Noyles
#13363651
I'm not aware of the NazBol's being racialist,

Well they are not white nationalists in the western tradition, but they are ethnically aware. i was just providing an example of how socialism can endorse alllegedly contruary ideologies. That said Eduard Limonov was in talks to merge the NBP with Russian National Unity a few years ago (which would have been a very strange mixture). The NBF also has a large break away movement called the national bolshevik front which are well rather hardcore racisalists. There is also National Bolsheism outside of russia, Kai is a good example of this, as is the german Constantin von Hoffmiester.

but as part of the Eurasianist movement, and particularly the ultranationalism and fondness of Strasserism, it's hard not to argue it's atleast somewhat fascist in nature. It's better not to get too focused in labels, though

Indeed that is why I am reffering to a generic fascism with a small 'f' defined by Roger Griffin as 'palingenetic ultranationalism', which simplifies things greatly whilst keeping the distinction between authoritarian regimes and revolutionary fascist states.
By Francis Drakeleigh
#13366135
National Bolshevism ……is just a label for a form of fascism that employs revolutionary socialism.

It doesn’t “employ” revolutionary Socialism, it recognises Socialism to be in the very essence of real Fascism, as did the early Italian fascists and later again the key thinkers of the Salo Republic ,such as Nicola Bombacci. Niekisch certainly represented a central current in the set of ideas, but so did Ernst Junger.

they are ethnically aware

You ignore Francis Parker Yockey, perhaps the key thinker in post-war National Bolshevism.
"Race is not group anatomy.
Race is not independent of the soil.
Race is not independent of the Spirit of History.
Race is not classifiable, except on an ability basis.
Race is not a rigid, permanent, collective characterization of human beings, which remains always the same throughout history."
From Imperium by Francis Parker Yockey - I recommend it to you, you may find it interesting.

Hofmeister is not a National Bolshevist.
User avatar
By telluro
#13368430
Bah, like the New Right, the National Bolsheviks have been hijacked by racists. Most of the major thinkers are not racists or supremacists - for example, Junger or Thiriart or Dugin, but the majority of supporters are, and actively insert racist comments into these thinkers.

[youtube]itHdrgu29Iw[/youtube]


As I said elsewhere, I admire the futurist elements within national Bolshevism, but these futurists are confused and conflated with organicist and back-to-nature elements.
By Benjamin Noyles
#13368456
It doesn’t “employ” revolutionary Socialism, it recognises Socialism to be in the very essence of real Fascism, as did the early Italian fascists and later again the key thinkers of the Salo Republic ,such as Nicola Bombacci. Niekisch certainly represented a central current in the set of ideas, but so did Ernst Junger.

That is their argument. but like you they are more than happy to reinterpret history to accomidate fascist groups into their ideology that are otherwise not National Bolshevik. The manifesto of the Fasci di combatimento was not state socialist although it had lots of former followers of the left, and its principle of existance was to stamp out the bolshevik(or more realistically 'Menshevik') threat. And the social republic!??! Why not mao's china, or north korea as some national bolshevik groups have indicated. Infact though the great deal of National Bolshevik literature I have come across there is scant mention of anything Italian save for Julius Evola.

You ignore Francis Parker Yockey, perhaps the key thinker in post-war National Bolshevism.

Well I was speaking about national bolshevism in context of modern manifestations of the movement, though even within the post war 'new right' there is a rejection of race, but a mainatined position on the limitation of ethnic groups within their historical specificity. If I remember rightly Yockey was very hosltile to the soviet union and Russians. As I was saying National Bolsevism did come into its own in the post war as a principle of collaberation; that the Soviet Union was a bulwurk against liberal decay and would in time be suceptable to the fascist credo. The Socialist Reich Party for instance with (former) general Ernst Remer which recieved soviet funding at a time the communists did not.

Hofmeister is not a National Bolshevist.

Isn't he? He is a supporter of the former DDR, and was against the NSDAP which i think is pretty radical even for a NB.
By Francis Drakeleigh
#13369289
And the social republic!??!

Only one answer to that - How's Carter Bickles? :lol:

but a mainatined position on the limitation of ethnic groups within their historical specificity.

Racism in other words.

As for the so-called manifestations of National Bolshevism in Russia, one lot are clowns the other lot old- fashioned racists. Neither express the N.B. ideal.

but like you they are more than happy to reinterpret history to accomidate fascist groups into their ideology

Like you distorting Mosley's ideas to suit you're own purposes.
By Benjamin Noyles
#13369774
Only one answer to that - How's Carter Bickles?

What is that even meant to mean? On second thoughts perhaps it is better if I don't know

Racism in other words

If you are going to view it in such absolute terms then that is partly my point, you are out of step with the movement.

As for the so-called manifestations of National Bolshevism in Russia, one lot are clowns the other lot old- fashioned racists. Neither express the N.B. ideal

That is quite a sweeping statement to paint serious organisations with thousands of members, actually I think you will find the standard is defined by the norm, not just in Russia but for National Bolsheviks all over the world. Every self professed National Bolshevik I have come across (with the apparent exception of yourself) is of this mind and, neither is there anything ‘old fashioned’ about them (to imply they profess ancient hatred, whilst your ideas represent progress and the enlightenment). The fusion of the New right with the socialist tradition is a very recent development, but is the standard worldwide. I don't think you can claim to profess to be the 'true' anything when you deny categorically the integrity of everyone but yourself, if that is the standard then I don’t see any reason why this closed mindedness should not be reciprocated.

Like you distorting Mosley's ideas to suit you're own purposes.


You like to make unsubstantiated allegations like that one. Perhaps if you addressed people’s arguments rather than constantly insulting them or attacking their political integrity, then you might in your own mind reach some solid conclusions and not keep recycling the same hot air.
By Francis Drakeleigh
#13370006
Quote:
Racism in other words

If you are going to view it in such absolute terms then that is partly my point, you are out of step with the movement

What movement? I have never considered myself part of this "New Right", and National Bolshevism is not the excuse for racism you propose. No, you have changed and are trying to edge towards racism incrementally now that your main priority in impressing your New Right friends, Mr Bowden and this Kay Morris or whatever the name is.

I don't think you can claim to profess to be the 'true' anything when you deny categorically the integrity of everyone but yourself,
On the contrary, I do not deny the integrity of everyone except myself, I would suggest that PCN-NCP truly embody the ideals of European National Bolshevism. Even Robert has integrity, I may not see eye to eye with him on everything, but I’ve never thought he lacked integrity.

As for the distorting of Mosley’s ideas, my thoughts on this matter are mentioned elsewhere in this forum and I didn’t see fit to go over it all again. I’m not the only one who thinks so BTW.

“constantly insulting” ............"not keep recycling the same hot air.”
Well, what can I say?
By Benjamin Noyles
#13370141
No dummy, National Bolshevism (I swear you don't read a single one of my posts)
Were you not just talking to me about the National Bolshevik Ideal?
Did you not run a group on yahoo called National Bolsheviks of Great Britain?
Are you not at this present time for all intents an purposes a self identifying (of your own definition) National Bolshevik?

If that is indeed the case then I was attempting to inform you that your narrow perceptions put you at odds with the standard, for all the reasons I set out.

Oh but instead of getting a sensible answer I got an unwarranted torrent of abuse, just as I predicted. Thanks for that, although to be honest with you I just find these attacks confusing rather than insulting. Acknowledging the existence of new right ideas as the basis of virtually the entirety of post war fascist intellectuality is not a sordid gesture to the London new right circle formed a few years ago, it is a factually correct viewpoint. But as you mentioned them you may well want to know that until recently its chairman was Jonothan Boulter who also claims to be a National Bolshevik. What you are failing to grasp is there are allot of people like him who share his views, a great deal many actually. With you on the other hand. virtually nobody is up to your standards except yourself.
By Francis Drakeleigh
#13370167
Oh Dummy, that's nice.
My point was you have perverted the idea of National Bolshevism towards racism, which is wrong!

You also don't read my posts because I did mention people who meet my standards.
By Benjamin Noyles
#13370224
My point was you have perverted the idea of National Bolshevism towards racism, which is wrong!

But not incompatible, it is a matter of how you define racism. People would say you are a racist Dale. You claim that certain national Bolsheviks are racists, therefore I claimed that National Bolshevism itself must be intrinsically ‘racist’ because they set the standards of the movment. My argument really is you cannot take the viewpoint of the National Bolsheviks and not in some way (albeit through a politically correct viewpoint) reduce it to race. For example; would you agree NB: ‘Immigration is a calculation of the global capitalist economy designed to keep wages low at the bottom end of the economy’
Liberal; ‘so you are against foreigners coming to your country, then this is a race issue, you are a racist’
NB: ‘If that is the case I am a racist in your view, I will not withdraw my argument’

What I find with virtually all National Bolsheviks is that they are disillusioned Socialists who take on the values of the existing radical right which even in high intellectuality appears to be racial; History, stability, culture, religion, civilization, ect these are all reducible to race which is simple to understand, especially for somebody getting to grips with a new viewpoint. It is certainly very hard to say 'I discount race entirely' because it contradicts the newfound nationalist perspective and the socialist one. What is special about National Bolshevism is it allows one to be an orthodox socialist and a strict nationalist simultaneously within its own understanding without any sense of innate contradiction.

This is why I think it is hard to separate National Bolshevism and Racial mindedness of some sort (even if it is a defensive urge to protect one ethnicity it still exists as a form or 'racism'). It differs from allegations of racism directed at the radical right as it is argued on a socialist trajectory; the class struggle becomes interchangeable with the nationalist struggle, which even in terms of dialectical materialism is linked to nationality; certain people of a certain ethnicity advanced capitalism and industrialisation further than any other group. Why is egalitarianism necessary? One group is clearly superior, why must act in a manner which is technically speaking counter revolutionary by trying to advance more primitive peoples rather than taking a hierarchical position in the natural order?

Just to remind you so you don’t get carried away;
In an odd way I am playing devils advocate
I am no longer a National Bolshevik

You also don't read my posts because I did mention people who meet my standards

Yes I saw that after I had posted, I did read it, I am pretty sure that was an edit.
This National communist European party thing is completely new to me although it has Thiriart as its founder so that gives me something sort of tangible, however it is not like I can test it to get under the surface a bit more.
By Francis Drakeleigh
#13370926
What happened to all that stuff you used to go on about in your Integralist party on "civic nationalism" as opposed to racial nationalism? Is the Integralist Party now defunct or is it amalgamating with the BNP?
How about Carter Michaels, you told me he was mixed race? Have you split with him, did he exist in the first place, was he not mixed race (like Obama I think you mentioned)? I know you think I'm a dummy, but help me out here I'm just so confused.
User avatar
By Dave
#13370937
Right-wing movements that are not grounded in race are without purpose. The problem with the NazBols is not their focus on race, which is proper and necessary, but their cartoonish image and appropriation of symbols from Russia's mortal enemies.
User avatar
By telluro
#13371335
Like Fascism, National-Bolshevism is not a right-wing movement.

Further, do not underestimate the importance of Soviet nationalist symbols and myth for contemporary Russian nationalists, regardless of Communism, even though there has been a long German-Russian tradition of national Bolshevism or national Communism from Junger onwards. I think one of the reasons you see them as cartoonish and a bit silly, is because you're far removed from the history

[youtube]EbjQeW8KRn0[/youtube]
By Benjamin Noyles
#13371403
you think I'm a dummy, but help me out here I'm just so confused.

Ok, well for starters you read into what I say too much. Believe it or not I can speak about things with a studied and objective neutrality without endrsing them. The point of Integralism is to break with the mentality of the post war world and establish not an 'opposing' type of thinking but a 'new' type of thinking. Yes i like a great deal of what has been achived over the past 50 years, but one reconfigures it and runs it though a new understanding of the world which for arguments sake is different in what is prioritised and how things are defined in relation to their essential view of life. As I demonstrate all within the current radical right/new right necessitates a racial outlook in some form or another, and national bolshevism is no exception and can not be exempt from this.
User avatar
By Dave
#13371412
telluro wrote:Like Fascism, National-Bolshevism is not a right-wing movement.

I do not agree with the "third position" idea of fascism at all.

telluro wrote:Further, do not underestimate the importance of Soviet nationalist symbols and myth for contemporary Russian nationalists, regardless of Communism, even though there has been a long German-Russian tradition of national Bolshevism or national Communism from Junger onwards. I think one of the reasons you see them as cartoonish and a bit silly, is because you're far removed from the history.

That's not what's silly. What's silly is taking Soviet symbols and placing them inside the flag of the Third Reich, the mortal enemy of Slavs. :knife:
By Francis Drakeleigh
#13371577
Thank you Benjamin, you have demonstrated that you are a poltician already for that truly was a politician's response.
As I demonstrate all within the current radical right/new right necessitates a racial outlook in some form or another, and national bolshevism is no exception and can not be exempt from this.


You have demonstrated nothing of the sort, you have avoided answering any of the straightforward questions that I asked, if you don't wish to address them please say so. You are simply proposing something now that up until quite recently you wholeheartedly rejected through sophistry.

National Bolshevism is not part of the radical right/new right, it is part of the national left.
By Benjamin Noyles
#13371840
You have demonstrated nothing of the sort

Well I had already made my point as to why I think Naional Bolshevism is intrinsicly racial and went to considerable effort to do so, the fact you left it unaddressed I assumed you took me at my word. One leaves it at that or repetition sets in you understand.

you have avoided answering any of the straightforward questions that I asked

I thought I answred what I thought were quite stupid questions with insights to my perspective
eg when you ask 'Is the Integralist Party now defunct or is it amalgamating with the BNP?' That is not a serious (let alone straightforward) question by any means and requires you come to understand what I think, and that answers the question. What i am saying the first line answered all of those by stating you missed the point entirely. What I was trying to to was make a very complicated point and redice it to a simplified set of statements, if you want me to expand on this alleged false construct feel free to ask.

National Bolshevism is not part of the radical right/new right, it is part of the national left.

It believe in structure, order, justice, and Hierachy within a nationalist model, it is therefore existentially 'right' wing if one wants to put it somewhere. The Economics are unimportant (I already fleshed this out in the first post). the alternatie is international Egalitarianism and social anarchy.
Who leads Japan?

Ask @Cherry, He'll know who leads Japan. It's prob[…]

Trump and Russiagate

They said that Trump and his cohorts were too clue[…]

Yes agreed, and they managed to keep their women […]

Alex Tsakiris and Tom Jump Debate Near Death Exper[…]