Why are nazbols and strasserists banned here ?

Because they're not socialists.

I'd be fine with them if they actually posted with any type of rigor and made their case, but look at literally any non-ironic NazBol or Nazi flag and you'll see the most retarded shit within mounds of shitposts.

Praise the mods!

Nazbols are though.

First off there's a VERY big difference between Nazies and Nazbols. Second I consistently see unironic Nazbols respectfully partaking in theory threads.

Because nazbols are shitposting memesters with no discernible ideology beyond being edgy for the sake of it.

leave it to a leftcom to shut down the opinions of others

I wish the mods would ban the tripfags.

...

Hoochie ban evaded like 10 times in the meta thread today

How? They stand for "socialism" in one country as the end-all; they're not even stagists like the MLs purport to be, who want SiOC in a transitional society sense. For NazBols the end goal is establishing their fantasy: a lasting world split into respective ethnic States. The same goes for Asserists, who have a less esoteric and more nationalist-trade unionist vision for practically the exact same thing. If it ever came to the point where every other socialist would want to go beyond such a stage (as if there wouldn't already be friction in ethnic stagism notions), the NazBols would be the first to betray us all. It's more than a methodological or practical question like between anarchists and Leninists, but a fully political one.

There's some, and those can stay for all I care, but the majority are shitposters who are just here to waste your time. Like I said anyone for me should be welcome to post here, for as long as they're being serious and honest.

I'm not demanding the shutting down of anything but distracting shitposters and "ironic" ideologues who enable the very real possibility of snowballing into non-ironic establishment of what was one "just ironic". Learn from Holla Forums and how easy it was for actual WNs to turn ironic anti-semitism into the biggest internet force of WN there.

Trip- and namefags need the banhammer. They exist for virtually no other reason than to assert their identities in a vain attempt to become e-celebs. /leftytrash/ and the rare occasion when a trip or name serves a truly useful function should be the only occasions.

You fool, learn2dialectics, Holla Forums going full retard was all part of our five-dimensional cheese plan to ensure the victory of world communism, Kek comes before Ma'at.

you have no clue what you're talking about

yeah, that's why one of the key tenets of national bolshevism, be it of the limonov-niekisch descent or the artificially coopted duginist form, is eurasianism and a greater eurasian union of socialist states.

can't reach a copy of germany tomorrow from the armchair, can you?

as of late it's mostly been 80% serious debate and theory discussion from every nazbol poster i've seen, what are you even fucking talking about?

As an ex-nationalist, the way anti-nationalists presented their arguments against nationalism always seemed fucking retarded to me. Whenever they tried to explain that the idea of nationalism was quite distinct from the idea of tribalism and that the former was developed in the 19th century and was inherently bourgeois I thought they were being deliberately obtuse and redefining nationalism to win the argument. I now realize the idea was just presented miserably. Let me try to actually explain why it's dumb:

The core problem that Nationalists attempt to address is consumerism or liberalism. They observe that in modern society people hoard masses of material goods they do not need, waste senseless amounts of resources, take advantage of others whenever possible, engage in pointless sectarian squabble, indulge in tasteless and trite media, extend not an ounce of trust to each other, and in general are terrible people. In its place, however, they have heard of an ideal society in the past that is the opposite of this; people live simply, act considerately, leave their doors unlocked, embrace the classics, vote their conscience and not their party, and in general are virtuous. They identify this past with the "nation" and strive to achieve it.

Now, it should be obvious to anyone here that this past is absolutely irreconcilable with capitalism, but "national capitalists" aren't at issue here. Neither still is the issue that the identity of the nation as a "spook" (which it is; the current ideas of nations did not exist before the 19th century which is exactly when the liberal/consumerist hellhole we all hate came into existence. You're aiming for the "restoration" of something that never existed.); it's plenty possible to be spooked and still be a leftist. It's not even a problem that one would focus efforts at liberation unevenly; there's no reason why anyone ought to be stuck in the consumerist wasteland or in poverty, but you only know, have, and can do so much with the resources you have. Nay, the problem is instead that Nationalists reject not only the consumerist wasteland, but also the entire idea of modernity.

See, the Nationalist sees how consumerism and liberalism have made people wretches, and has concluded that the entire idea of the Enlightenment, objectivity, skepticism, et cetera was a mistake. They see the idea of the "Ivory Tower", where every idea is examined solely on its merits and not on personal biases, as itself "degenerate". There's an incredible irony here, as the place most nationalists spend most of their time, the internet, obeys these rules of objectivity and anonymity!

Overall, I don't think nationalists are cancer, but it's definitely not something to be encouraged.

and how many national bolsheviks have you met who genuinely express these pathetic, reactionary views? nationalism itself isn't something that necessitates the arbitrary, vague views of traditionalism that fascists always ramble on about. i'm in favour of a socialist kind of nationalism where the socialist society is built up for the people, as it is the people as a whole who comprise the government structure, the economy, the military, and more in the socialist society. even in full theoretical communism this kind of nationalism has room to flourish, as just because you have a global communist society doesn't mean national identity itself has to die. why, for example, would proletarian solidarity/soviet nationalism have been able to flourish in the socialist state of the USSR while also allowing room for the regional identities of ukrainians, ruthenians, the baltic peoples, russians, kazakhs, turkestanis, etc.?

but the reason why Holla Forums became so terrible is because people started taking the internet seriously

anonymous imageboards*

assuming this is serious…..
NAZ-BOLs are just russian NAT-SOCs
and Asserites are more or less authoritarian succ-dems with nationalism drapped over it