F E L L O W L E F T I S T S

In post-modernity, eclectic pluralism and far-right sentiment replaces any notion of a coherent leftist politics. The only fix is a militant rejection of post-modernism and embrace of modernity, and the embrace of a rationalist politics that is coherent, rather than a hodge-podge mix of basically incompatible ideas pieced together with Dugin-like autism.

patrician

...

Anarcho-monarchism is actually not a postmodern thing. It started way back in the 20s in France i believe, started by Maurras.

Maurras and his buddies just cherry-picked from Proudhon, they weren't actually advocating anarchism.

...

political-generator.herokuapp.com

This is part of why I'm against capitalism, really.
Does Gregor Stras.ser count ?
Also I'm trying to get more read on classical leftism

Word of advice. Read Germany Tommorow by Asser. Amazing book that shows his world veiw. He shares far more with Ernst Niekisch than any of the Notsocs.

Maurras wasn't an anarchist in any shape or form, he was just influenced by some of Proudhon's most reactionary writings. It's true he stated "Monarchism is Anarchism plus One" but this statement was devoid of substance. Maurras defended his ow brand of royalist, counter-revolutionary, anti-centralist, Catholic nationalism: "integral nationalism".

Any "third way" position based on the fusing of radical left and right wing ideas is always, without exception, fascism with a different aesthetic. Every time.

Nazbols need to fuck off, btw.

Is it still fascism when it's not destructive/aggressive/expansionist ?

The destruction of backward social relations (feudalism, tribalism, etc) is one the progressive historical roles of capitalism.

How is National-Bolshevism not aggressive? It promotes the establishment of a totalitarian state for fuck's sake.

Completely hypothetical question, because regardless of what they *say*, every third way position would be quite aggressive and expansionist if it actually became a reality.

National anarchism would be focused on creating more and more racially pure "communes", which would require the destruction and territorial theft of nonwhite communes.

Capitalism destroys languages and cultures with the globalisation and the commodification of culture.
Everyone see the same films, ads play before a movie, sometimes even before a play, movies get butchered because they are too "artsy" and not profitable enough, malls become places of culture and meeting, and sometimes historical landmarks are rased to make way for the new mall, the new hotel.
Gentrification drives people out of their cities.
Wars and imperialism create racial tensions out of nowhere, which reduces social trust.
The "cult of modernity" destroys rural and laidback lifestyles because they aren't productive enough.
That's why I say Capitalism destroy culture, not because I want to go back to feudalism, absolute monarchy or anything of the sort.

Wasn't talking about Nazbol.

Historical counterexample : Vichy France. They weren't expansionist, and had they won the war, wanted to turn inwards and withdraw from the world.
Of course, the argument is flawed because they deported Jews, Communists, and Resistance members, so they were still aggressive.
I'm not, of course, supporting that regime.

Then your criticism of capitalism's impact on culture (which I mostly agree with) has nothing to do with a rejection of modernity contrary to what the quote from the OP implies. "Revolt against the modern world" isn't an innocent expression, it's also the name of radical-traditionalist Julius Evola's most popular book.

There is still the element of speed, productivity, urbanisation, cult of progress for progress' sake, extreme advertising, and tertiary economy which come in the balance.
I've never read Evola, not even on wiki, but I do plan to read Stras.ser (and Marx) out of curiosity.

Then what kind of ideology are you talking about? Most of thïrd positionist ideologies are a largely cosmetic rebranding of national-bolshevism — nationalism-solidarism, national-anarchism, national-communautarism, revolutionary traditionalism, European-socialism, neo-Eurasianism, Nazi-Maoism, you name it.

Before you read Asser I would recomend reading this
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://libcom.org/files/NATIONAL%20BOLSHEVISM%20IN%20WEIMAR%20GERMANY.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiC3OWlparVAhVK5SYKHRsLAvUQFggjMAI&usg=AFQjCNFImSmfCTClPPR9fH97hKCkwhhiYQ

Then you should definitely read about the Frankfurt School, a group of social theorists who sought to analyze the impact of capitalism on culture through the lens of Marxism. Their books can be intensely demanding and inscrutable though, so you should first try to read some articles or summaries though.

This might be relevant to your interests as well: ijms.nova.edu/Spring2010/IJMS_Artcl.Rosa.html

National Trotism? Permanent Revolution in one country?

somalia is naztrot

nwnprod.com/

Nuclear War Now!

Literal cultural Marxism, heh.
Thanks, I will read on it (or rather, add it to my long backlog), though I don't really like when philosophers are very hard to read.

Thanks for the link.

That's where the conspiracy theory comes from, in fact. If you ever stumble upon a rant or a video about "cultural Marxism", chances are they're going to refer to the Frankfurt School as a cabal of Jews who plotted the destruction of Western culture. Neo-Fascists, alt-rightist, Holla Forumstards and other assorted idiots sincerely believe Adorno single-handedly tried to destroy white civilization.

Gramsci is the one who is the urfather of cultural Marxism, but he wasn't Jewish, so Holla Forums don't bother mentioning him.

is nazbol a meme

NO
yes

There isn't really such a thing as "cultural Marxism", this term is almost exclusively employed by rightist to refer to the conspiracy theory. Though it's true Gramsci was one of the first Marxist to focus on cultural issues.

Too bad "cultural Marxism" has been appropriated by Holla Forumsacks, since "critical theory" is so non-descript.

Nazbol died with Niekisch

Yes, and a terrible one at that.

The problem with critical theory is how full of themselves and self-fellating their work is.
Like most continental philosophers, really.

What if you're a left-wing nationalist?

Then you can be a Leninist, tankie, titoist, maoist, etc.

The whole turd position idea is stupid. To them socialism is nationalization of industry and nothing more. National bolshevism used to be a theory of applying socialist thought to patriotism after ww1 but then it regressed into a way for cultural reactionaries to claim themselves as left wing. Now it's just neo Eurasianism, anti atlanticism, and corporatism.

I still can't be too harsh on nationalists, because nationalism has no future under capitalism. Capitalism will turn nations into meat-grinders, people go in, and capital comes out.

I'm guessing this is to goad people with fringe (and sometimes silly) ideologies to conform to more accepted or simpler ones. I don't know if this is an attempt to whitewash or an attempt at "left unity".
My main reasoning is that this is a copypasta, so someone clearly wanted to affect people widely with this.
Why am I the only one who is saying anything about this? I guess Holla Forums has gained a lot of new people, or they only recently kicked up the pasting

If a nationalist advocates for capitalism then they do not love their nation. They will allow it's financial rape and enslavement. Only through socialism can a people truely be free. Only through socialism can they work not to fatten the pockets of the international elites who disregard their citizens, only through socialism can a people work for what their nation needs, only through socialism can a people be safe from their nation embarking on financialy based imperialist wars, only through socialism can a people truely see what their citizens are capable of when not held back by the economic shakles that is the bourgeoisie and their whores of political power.

If you really want to preserve your nation and your citizens you can stsrt by bombing a bank and hanging a stock broker.