Supported national syndicalism

Why isn't he considered to be a leftist figure?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/union.htm)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Niekisch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-François_Thiriart
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic#Hitler.E2.80.99s_Participation_in_the_Socialist_Republic
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

There ya go, fam.

You can't deny he took economic practice from the left. What became of the party after his death is irrelevant.

...

Where is it stated that he supported imperialism?

"anticapitalism" isnt leftism, it is actually one of the many weapons that capitalism deploys to control the masses.

Fuck that guy.

Proto fascists could have been our comrades against liberalism. Depressing af how things turned out.

lol, he has the exact same opinion on this as fucking an-fem Emma Goldman

Red-Brown alliance when?

He is neither Left or Right wing because he takes elements from ideologies from both the Left and Right wing, similar to Asserism

Weren't Falange 'trade unions' just a means of ensuring class-collaborationism and an inability for the workers to strike?

because leftists are faggy egalitarians and believes in muh equality, muh solidarity.
Anti-capitalist right wing is supperior.
thought i prefer marxist leninists over capitalist right wingers

Wasn't Stalin and imperialist too since he invaded Poland and tried to invade Finland?

You're asking an anarchist wether stalin was imperialist
what do you think he'll answer

oh right i forgot that the cat was an anarkiddie symbol my bad,

Trotskyism would pretty much be imperialist in practice

Asserists and Falangists are a fucking joke, and deep down they hate what the left represents.

So-called "National-Syndicalism" is hardly more than a snowflake variant of Fascism targeted at Spanish Catholics.


No, he didn't. In fact, he opposed independent unions and supported corporatism. The "Syndicalism" in "National-Syndicalism" has very little to with what leftists understand as trade unions.


No, he didn't. Unless you have a very superficial definition of "Capitalism".

Their reason for criticizing electoral politics are very different. Goldman as a revolutionary dismissed them as bourgeois smokes and mirrors with very little potential for social change whereas Rivera as an autocrat simply thought the masses shouldn't have a say in politics as they do in liberal democracies.

Nationalism leads to imperialism. Poland and Finland's nationalities have no right to exist, and they deserved to be absorbed into the Soviet Union.

USSR didn't invade Poland and that was known by everyone in those years.

nope
so did ethiopians deserve to be absorbed into Italy?

Because first of all trade unionism (syndicalism) is not in any way inherently anti-capitalistic or even progressive (it's actually, if anything, incredibly conservative, read Pannekoek: marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/union.htm) and then he was a nationalist, i.e. a vocal entertainer of the basic prerequisite for capital: property (most self-titled "socialists" will in one way or the other stand for this in practice but be oblivious to how they already rhetorically are).

u sure?

Hahaha holy shit.

And if that wasn't enough

Read a book, Rosa wanted Finland and Poland nationalism to disappear and thought that it was counter-revolutionary.

She was a Pole herself interestingly.

Supposedly he chose the red and black colors for the party flag to gain sympathy from the ancoms.

But then they just killed him instead.

Say what you want about Anarchists, but you can't fool em'.

At least national syndicalism is a practical system that can be achieved. Anarkiddie syndicalism is a joke.

I was a national syndicalist for a long while. I left after finding the divisiveness of private property. I became a De Leonist after awhile. I still hold many of the Falange's outlooks but at the moment I don't see any leftist movement a real threat, nor do I see them as an establishment.

The right is being held back by the capitalists, and many; even the fascists, get spooked by even considering a critique of capitalism beyond jews. The right has to decide whether to resort back to libertarianism or go socialist. If the right does go socialist, then it would push the establishment to a position that is purely liberal. Though this is a pipe dream and became blackpilled into believing the capitalists will always dominate the right.


The fascists were right in many regards. When I mean fascists, I do not mean Hitler. I mean those who understood the dangers of capitalism both economically and culturally.


Don't bother going fascist. If you speak fascist quotes to the alt-right, they will call you communist. Fascism is dead. I'd rather take my chances with the communists and anarchists (fellow sorellians) to start a new order than to defend the very foundations of our current establishment aka Private Property. Even after WW2 most fascists like Francis Yockey understood that capitalism was the worse evil.

There's hope for Fascism/Nazbol/NazSyn. Rest of your post was quality.

Wew


Google Bookchin

Are you a for real unironic nazbol? I thought that was just a meme…

Search up what imperialism means comrades. If you think that imperialism just means foreign agression than you're wrong and need to read Lenin on the subject.

You'd be surprised
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Niekisch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-François_Thiriart

She was a Jew

A damn fine one at that. Even Hitler served under her:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic#Hitler.E2.80.99s_Participation_in_the_Socialist_Republic

Like which?