Who is closer to the left?

Who is closer to the left?

Social democrats? Or Nazbols?

I personally think Nazbols are closer, since they actually oppose capitalism. Even though they're highly autistic.

You're probably right, though I would support socdems over them since I don't want to shot or deported

Keynesians do happen to share a lot of policies that socialists also agree with.

For example?

no one, as both think socialism to be a statist movement.

Can you call government programs socialist if they're just funded with taxes?

Ur geten on me nerves

Universal healthcare?

Nazbols seem to believe in worker control of the means of production, whereas demsocs seem to be fine with bourgeois ownership provided it is sufficiently regulated.

...

I meant socems. Mea culpa.

I imagine it would be easier to convert a social democrat to a socialist than a Nazbol to a (non-racist) socialist. Unless anyone has any evidence to the contrary.

Who said that? You don't think a national healthcare system absent a profit motive is a good idea?

Sufficient taxation and government regulation could fundamentally change the nature of private ownership of the means of production. It would have to be far higher and more extensive than any socdem would ever propose, but it's technically possible.

It's not like national healthcare is a unique characteristic or ideal of socialism. It's still possible under capitalism.

mfw nobody here seems to know that the Nazbols were a Russian parody/meme party in the early 2000s, not an actual attempt to synthesize Marxism and Nationalism.

nah b, I subscribe to the infantile disorder known as accelerationist brocialism

You mean Marxism and nazism

pick one

Let's rephrase the OP's question in a way that makes left-right division not completely shit: If shit hits the fan and society gets divided into a) socialists, communists and anarchists against b) nationalists, conservatives and right-libertarians, then which groups would socdems and nazbols support?

Pick one.

Indeed, it's something that's a good idea under capitalism and socialism.

Nice try Rebel.

If you took Keynesian economics to their logical extremes wouldn't you get a form of market socialism?

I'm going to take ethical capitalism over nazis thanks

NAZBOL GANG WW@

20th century social democrats, or post cold war social democrats?
Because up until the neoliberal period, clearly social democrats.
Past that point, nazbols.

socdems to be honest. I mean am I the only one who's nostalgic for social democrats after all the former left wing parties have been taken over by neoliberal progressivism? I mean shit socdems were better than nothing, arguably they were kind of laying the groundwork in terms of class conciousness.

The problem you run into there is that, historically speaking, neither of them stand by group A when shit hits the fan.

Nazbols (or in this case we'll say any radical nationalist group that is "sympathetic" with socialism since actual Nazbol isn't terribly relevant) historically have been among the "left-wing" of authoritarian right-wing governments as the lure to coax moderate leftists into the fold as a matter of convenience/safety. That was the case in both Germany and Italy among other later places when fascism came calling. They'll be the first to suggest purging group A when any semblance of power is achieved as a measure to "consolidate power under the party/state."

Socdems stand with group A up until revolution actually starts happening, at which point they'll jump ship to group B ASAP. They don't tend to care what group B tends to stand for: they just want to back any opposition group to A.

Most "Nazbols" are just tankies who don't want n*gg*rs to overrun their country because some basement dweller told them human nature is a spook.

did the word nigger get filtered?

Doubtful. I think the censorship was ironic more than anything.

NIGGERS

...

tbh succdems

Succdem is the only kind of capitalism that doesn't make me want to fucking kill myself so I'd take that over Nazi tankies

That's the point tbh. You don't kill yourself so that you keep showing up to work, and by the time the workers' dissatisfaction has gone away it just goes back to normal capitalism rinse and repeat forever.

they oppose capitalism the same way bourgeois and regressive socialists oppose capitalism.

Can anyone explain Nazbol to me? Someone told me it was a Pan-Europe-Asia thing but I think he was autistic.

Being anti-capitalist doesn't necessarily make you a leftist. Socialism is a product of post-enlightenment humanist thinking. Being accidentally anti-capitalist because you're fetishising the USSR doesn't make one a leftist.

Nazbols are reactionary to the core and just want to LARP being in the Red Army.

It's when you're Russian and want to be a neo-Nazi but then can't because Hitler considered your people worthy of extermination. So you idolise the USSR instead for nationalist reasons.

Nazbols are literally just authoritarian nationalist socdems. Of course, socdems in practice have abandoned social democracy so I guess nazbols are vaguely more leftist for not abandoning Soviet state-capitalism as an economic model despite the racism/nationalism they promote.

So they are rightist slightly to the left of other rightist.

For those who have absolutely no idea what NazBol is, I'll give you a brief explanation.

There is a huge difference between the Russian and German "National-Bolshevism" - in the case of German national-bolshevism there certainly are examples of clearly defined ideologies

Strictly speaking was Niekisch part of the National-Revolutionary movement, so not a proper German National-Bolshevist. They saw the potential of bolshevism as a social myth (Sorel) - so they did not use it as a worked out ideology but for its revolutionary potential. Examples of proper German National-Bolshevists (Social-Revolutionaries) would be Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolfsheim. They propagated a proletarian nationalism based on a soviet system. Both movements influenced each others ideas and joined forces on several occasions - coming from different viewpoints they came together because of their shared radicalism and nationalism. Several comprehensive ideological works were published like the "National-Bolshevist Manifesto" (Das Nationalbolschewistische Manifest) of Karl O. Paetel (Gruppe Sozialrevolutionärer Nationalisten). Nonetheless both movements stayed on the marginal outskirts of the left and right camp, some integrating into the NSDAP while others joined the resistance (such as Die Rote Kapelle) - but a defined ideological tendency (or rather a bunch of ideological tendencies) nonetheless.

Niekisch sees communism as a revolutionary potential against the bourgeois society - he opposes Marxism. His "national-bolshevism" was meant to unite the workersmovement with the "völkische" nationalist movement for the "national rebirth of Germany". He belonged to a segment of the national-revolutionaries that was called the "rightwing people of the left" - known as "national bolshevists" because they were anti-Western, embraced proletarian ideas, wanted a cooperation with the USSR but opposed the communist worldrevolution.

Laufenberg - who came from the left - sees nationalism as the inevitable outcome of communism - when the proletarian class becomes the nation (which is currently a bourgeois constuct) it can no longer be anti-national because they become the bearer of the national culture and thus the national idea. He saw not only the working class, but the entire German people as the revolutionary subject. The proletarian struggle was the first fase in the struggle of the German people in whioch the working class would take the lead.

So "national-bolshevism" mainly is a broad term used to mark those ideological tendencies in which socialist/communist and nationalist/conservative/völkisch ideas merged together.

Cont

within national-revolutionary circles aswell as within the leftwing of the NSDAP, the West (of Europe + US) was refered to as being capitalist and imperialist (in a negative sense), while the East was seen as communist (and a potential ally). Most national-revolutionaries aswell as some forces within the NSDAP (like Goebbels in his early Berlin days) were anti-Western because of its liberal-capitalism aswell as the Diktat of Versailles and saw an potential ally in the USSR to form a alliance with. He recognizes the nation and people as the basis for human society within a communist context (or conform communist theory).

The proletarian struggle is about combatting the exploitation of the majority of the people by a small minority. So its about the exploitation of one class or one segment of the nation by the other. So this form of expoitation is combatted by both bolshevism and fascism, albeit with different means - bolshevism by class war (the abolishment of classes) and fascism by class harmony.

Cont

Class harmony is not based on exploitation (thus class conflict), but on a organic model (*the nationstate as one single body) in which all individuals fullfill their natural role for the welbeing of the ENTIRE society (so not just one class). Therefore fascism opposes exploitation of any sort (proletarian aswell as capitalist) because this is against the general interest of the nation. From this follows no class can be muh privileged, thus in a sense they are "equal" - all citizens benefit from this class co-operation.

If everybody becomes proletarian, the nation will also become proletarian, thus it stops being a bourgeois construct that originates from the French revolution. He recognizes the nation and people as the basis for human society within a communist context (or conform communist theory). The proletarian struggle is about combatting the exploitation of the majority of the people by a small minority. So its about the exploitation of one class or one segment of the nation by the other. So this form of expoitation is combatted by both bolshevism and fascism, albeit with different means - bolshevism by class war (the abolishment of classes) and fascism by class harmony.

Most fascists opposed bolshevism for it being just another form of class conflict or class egoism. But "national" bolshevism is not about "depriving the nation of its possessions", but about the redistribution of accumulated wealth among the entire nation and the abolishment of classes within the nation (all become proletarians).

You are welcome

Socialist
Alt-right
Normie liberal
Normie rethuglican
Socdem
Nazi

Social democrats are fascist corporatists.

Messed up the text a bit, wrote a paragraph twice, but you get the point.

I'm an ex Nazbol and currently internationalist, I do have some respect for serious Third Postionists though, really they aren't always as racist as your typical Holla Forumstard.