Hey there Holla Forums I consider myself a rightwing white ethno-nationalist. However I do agree with alot of leftist positions. I thinks that some form of leftism/socialism is much better for the average worker than capitalism. My main problem is the eradication of nation states which in my estimation would lead to a huge influx of outsiders (often reactionary cultures) to the west. What are your thoughts on how to increase the standard of living for the average prole in the west hile not redistributing the wealth abroad?
Whats the del with leftism?
Other urls found in this thread:
You don't. Support global revolution. If you don't like the reactionary ideas abroad, support our comrades in those countries. Capitalism and reaction must be defeated everywhere.
in what fantasy world is this possible?
In the world where capitalism is a global system.
I.e. - this one.
you are correct but because a global socialist revolution wont happen any time soon what is the problem with nationalism that advocates for the worker?
Nationalism is a bourgeois ideal that divides workers on largely bourgeois lines, rather than organizing them on proletarian internationalist lines.
And I think you'll be surprised. There are decades where nothing happens and there are weeks where decades happen. Especially if a revolution occurred in a Western nation, the whole global dynamic would shift.
I agree that if the global "revolution" happened tomorrow I would join it, but given the history of leftist revolution it seem very unlikely. In my estimation the best we can hope for is some kind of Not Socialist who care about the worker in the nation they run.
But they're not socialist.
And a revolution is going to happen after a capitalist crash and subsequent crisis. Since capital is now global, its crisis will be global, making it possible for a revolution to be global.
We aren't eradicating anything. The nation-state is a recent bourgeois construct, there is no reason for it to last forever.
Why do you care about an influx of reactionary cultures? Didn't you just describe yourself as a right-wing ethno-nationalist?
We're not interested in defending an arbitrarily-defined segment of the proletariat over another. The working class has no country.
Maybe stop allowing the Western bourgeoisie to siphon the wealth away from the third world in the first place? Your question reads like: "How do we better our lot at the expense of everyone else?"
Here, food for thought:
"At any rate, the development of a rudimentary global society is, and is likely to remain, far behind the contrary effect of capitalist integration: the formation of many unevenly developed economies with varied and self-enclosed social systems, presided over by many nation states. The national economies of advanced capitalist societies will continue to compete with one another, while ‘global’ capital (always based in one or another national entity) will continue to profit from uneven development, the differentiation of social conditions among national economies, and the preservation of exploitable low-cost labour regimes […] That increasing disparity between the global economy and the territorial nation state in no way signals the end of capitalism’s need, however contradictory, for a spatially fragmented political and legal order. On the contrary, that contradiction results from the persistence of that need; and for the foreseeable future, it is most likely to be met by something like the nation state. The strongest challenges to existing nation states, to their boundaries or indeed to their very existence, are more likely to come from oppositional forces of various kinds than from the agents of capital or the impersonal forces of the market."
— Ellen M. Wood, The Origin of Capitalism
This is the part of Marxism ive never comprehended. It seems like a profacy more than something that will actually happen. I guess im skeptical to the point where ill believe it when i see it. It seem to me that a fascist revolution is just as likely as a socialist revolution when the current system collapses/
You're not wrong, but the revolution that SHOULD take place is a socialist one. Fascism is a violent restoration of capitalism, which will just lead to more crises.
Anyway i clicked on this thread because the title suggested it would be an ultra ranting about college kids or something and now I'm dissapointed.
what "should" happen is irrelevant, what is most likely to happen is more important,
sorry to disappoint you lad :^)
You didn't confront or answer any of my questions.
Fascist revolution isn't really a revolution at all, just capitalism spinning its wheels until it gets around to socialist revolution.
I would disagree about that, but It seems from what ive seen that a fascist "revolution" is much more likely given the current global situation that a socialist one.
People generally don't just randomly decide to pack up their bags and uproot their whole lives on a whim, mass migration is pretty much always the result of something else- the current refugee crisis in Europe is due to western meddling in the middle east, the immigrants in the US are largely due to free trade agreements that screwed over workers as well as a long history of US fuckery in South America. By ending imperialism and lopsided trade agreements meant to benefit the ruling class, there would be far less motive for people to leave their homes in the first place.
Its also important to remember that western nations are largely responsible for backing the reactionary elements of many other cultures as well, typically for the sake of installing puppet dictators like they've done in South America and/or for the purpose of opposing socialism like they did in the middle east. Even now we're best buddies with the Saudis and helping them commit genocide in Yemen just so we stay on good terms with them to keep the petrodollar going.
Socialism isn't about redistributing wealth (at least not in the sense of "big gov't taxes the population and does stuff with it" that most people seem to think), its about giving workers control of the means of production- the resources and tools they need in order to perform their jobs.
The idea of revolution in every part of the world simultaneously obviously isn't gonna happen, but ideally every area would switch to socialism at some point or another as the capitalist system eventually collapses in each area- and given the global nature of modern capitalism, collapse in one area would likely have tremendous impact in other areas, as we've seen in the various economic crashes over the years.
Nationalism generally exists to encourage workers to focus on "national interests" rather than class interests, while national interests are really just the interests of the ruling class.
The nazis weren't socialist, the name was just to win over workers since socialism was extremely popular at the time- the only ones who advocated for any remotely socialist economic system got stabbed in the back during the Night of the Long Knives, and even those ones still had horrific social policies. The ones who actually ran the show didn't give a shit about the working class, their policies were meant to serve the interests of corporations, pic related
A capitalist country becoming fascist isn't really a revolution, its still the same ruling class running the show, just without the empty promises of peace and freedom that capitalism offers. While its obviously a possibility that could happen instead of socialism, its not really something anyone should want- the ruling class will just continue fucking over the workers even worse than they do under capitalism.
How do you expect "the west" to keep it's lifestyle without exploiting the rest of the world.
It's not really a prophecy at this point, all revolutions happen when a country is in shit. Fascism is merely the capitalist reaction to revolutionary tought. Fascism usually improves the worker's life conditions to apease him then the regime usually fades away and capitalism goes back to normal working conditions. When someone tries to keep a fascist regime for longer then it's needed it gets crushed by the same burgeoise who created it or external forces. The only way to have perpetual fascism would be a NWO global one, probabbly with prejudice against aliens.
I doubt it's the only part.
I'd argue that fascism really isn't commanded by capitalists behind the scenes. Rather, it's them realizing the current situation has become one where, to paraphrase Lenin, "the ones below can't stand anymore and the ones atop can't maintain anymore". So they sacrifice their political power to fascism in order keep their economic power, as the brownshirts destroys the greater threat to capital, popular discontent. But as history has proven fascist governments to be inherently unsustainable, capitalists now know they can just rally the facist troops if need be, as they will fall soon enough and the capitalists who summoned them will ride back into town as the liberal saviors of freedom.
But that's fucking wrong. Capitalism is inherently liberal, because you can make money off every vice and moral decay.
Fascism is the violent resurgence of a conservatism that bases it's power in personal responsibility and moral supremacy; those higher up the chain have the responsibility to lead their people to better times. In a certain sense, fascism is the original Right-wing until it was coopted by liberalism.
This happens at the lower levels, with workers agreeing with their bosses because:
Back in the 1930's, employees knew their bosses on a personal level and the scale of business was much smaller.
Mechanization was less of a thing, and employees and bosses were mutually dependent on food
Remember that the NSDAP had it's roots from the freikorp; local militia's that sought to protect their own communities and rights of self-determination. The connection between corporate-capitalism and Fascism is facile; it was a reaction of locals against the forces of extreme state-power on one hand (bolshevism), and corporate power on the other (liberalism).
You live in a delusional fantasy land.
Capitalism is not about Capitalists commanding anything, but the systems making certain (socially disruptive) actions rewarding.
That's the qualitative difference between Left and pseudo-Left: the former recognizes that it is the system that creates the situation, while latter persists in attempts to attribute emergent behavoir to the will of specific individuals.
Exercising political power is not the same as sacrificing it. Political power of Capitalists follows from their economic power - which is not expended in the least, but expanded.
What actually happens is largest Capitalists (haute bourgeoisie) exercising their political power to increase their economic power at the expense of everyone else, including lesser Capitalists. It's not about being threatened by Socialists as such (which is oft repeated but never proven - a definite attempt to shift the blame from the Liberal practices to those of Socialists). In fact, it is the weakness of Socialist threat that allows Capitalists to get away with Fascism.
You aren't seeing the reality of it; Fascism cannot come back, because it requires high-trust communities of locales. It was built on a social fabric that has been destroyed by markets and technological advancement.
If you want to argue, come with something else than calling me delusional.
Then enjoy your neoliberal dictatorship instead. All the violent repression of a fascist dictatorship, but state terror targeted towards everyone, and no gibs. Operation Condor, but on a global scale. :^)
Are you talking about some special kind of Fascism, not the things actually referred-to as Fascism by the Marxists?
Do you know your neighbours? Did you marry the girl next door?
Back in those days, many more people lived in rural areas compared to today and operated on a personal basis. Today's culture is much more city-oriented and impersonal.
Yeah, exactly. Any revolution that will fail won't resolve into unwavering affection for volk and vaterland; it's going to result in corporate finance taking control and maintaining a minimum infrastructure to keep the bottom-line.
Coalitions of unempathetic corporate interests that align on mutual benefit, at the cost of every other group. There is no fertile soil in the alienated social landscapes of western nations.
That's not what Freikorps were. They were anti-communist paramilitaries made up of disgruntled WWI veterans. They spent most of their time murdering alleged commies, not "defending their communities".
We're getting trolled by a literal nazi guys….
I'm being confused, actually.
I simply disagree with Walter Benjamin. German Fascism was opposed to both American liberalism and Bolshevism; Fascism was the last stand of ancient European tradition and community against modernity.
It did contain some elements of modernity; but more rooted from the traditions of continental romanticism than anglo liberalism.
happy now, semantic fuck?
That fabric was already destroyed by the time Freikorps came into existence and, since the Nazis didn't actually oppose capitalism, that destruction continued under their rule. In fact, the only way they had to "restore" community was to stage elaborate ceremonies to artificially unite Germans on a racial basis.
Being sponsored by the bourgeois government to put down a revolution doesn't qualify as "community protection".
What do you define as "modernity"…?
What does he have to do with anything? I literally had to look him up and this still did not explain anything.
Just like Marxism is not unique to Russia, Liberalism is not unique to US. In fact, it one would be forced to oversimplify things, it would make more sense to ascribe Marxism to Germany and Liberalism to France.
Would you mind elaborating on this (other than "read Goebbels/Evola")? Because I don't see any "ancient European tradition" anywhere.
Also, there was no "last stand". There was only unbridled Capitalism running amok.
It was not rooted in anything. Fascism (understood as the social process) simply incorporates anything and everything it can to further it's goals: interests of organized upper Capitalists.
False, atleast in my Euro country, that social fabric was still around until the 60's. Europe massively lagged behind Britain and the US.
No, they favoured a mixed economy
They didn't "restore", they created because the Weimar was fractured and broken. Weimar was itself an anglo import.
State power was a lot more distant, because power flowed through a hierarchy of aristocracy before that time.
there was no "bourgeois government", it was the Weimar republic and it was a mess.
The modern phases generally of republics (power rooted in business), surpassed monarchies (power rooted in armies and violence).
How was Nazism in opposition to any of those?
Frankfurt school. They made the fatal mistake of confusing the Right (power rooted in violence) with liberalism (power rooted in free markets).
Aristocrat =/= Capitalist
The aristocracy gains it's power through armies.
The capitalist gains it's power through capital.
When all the aristocratic families had duked out all the battles, and the whole of Europe was relatively* free of violence; it gave incentive to greater investment and free markets. Fighting wars became pointless, and aristocrats generally lent their lands to merchants for exploitation rights.
They liked their monarchies (who were authoritative as well as responsible) more than merchants (who were authoritative, but not responsible). Ie; if you're owned by a monarch, he's more or less responsible for your wellbeing.
If you're labor in a free market with a failing government, you're free to die because your boss isn't responsible.
The pre-capitalist social fabric was torn apart by proletarianization and industrialization; what survived after that were remnants of a bygone era. The Nazis, being a-okay with capitalism, achieved nothing that didn't go further in that direction. Propaganda through administration, education and the mass media — which reached gigantic proportions in Nazi Germany — what the tool with which modern states sought to recreate a social community. It had, needless to say, disastrous consequences in the form of wars and genocides of a scope previously unheard of in this history of mankind.
That is, capitalism with state intervention. Just like New Deal-era America.
They nationalized the industries, but kept the owners.
Irrelevant. They created a propaganda machine, true, but i don't see it even tangentially touching any capitalist class. It was all to the glory of the state; not the markets.
But those things are inter-related. Accumulating capital (which, in capitalism, is largely interchangeable with power) is the goal, the socially disruptive actions are the means.
Of course the capitalists remain a ruling class, they just yield direct control of political power to fascists. But fascists were a separate class (or at least an ersatz one) who saw the old powers as incapable of keeping the country safe from this or that bogeyman, and as such, set out to replace them. Being a different class, they had a different interpolation (I think that's the word?); this new ruling class wasn't restricted according to wealth, but according to race, enmity towards the Other, deference to power, love of nation and a million other spooks. And of course, despite being a distinct classs, fascists will be nice to capitalists simply because they chose a capitalist economy instead of a socialist one, simply because the former is obviously more reactionary. In this way, capitalists keep on benefiting economically from fascism as they did from a liberal democracy or capitalist dictatorship or literally any system that isn't socialist or anarchist. Porky is adaptable and can live in a lot of ecosystems, however I very much doubt fascism would be their pick if they wanted to maximize profit. Anyway, not being in political control means they're also vulnerable now. If the fascists think you're harming their precious spooks, it's curtains for you, whether haute, petite or one-size-fits-all bourgeois. Nazis were smart to use the property of purged porkies as bargaining chips with capitalists.
Now this is a valid point (even if I'll say it's not capitalists promoting fascism, but fascists themselves as a separate class). It's possible that fascism reaches power by exploiting liberalism rather than crushing leftists, with them being largely a scapegoat. The right is historically very fond of scapegoats, after all. But on the other hand, the left did put up a literal fight against the Nazi ascension.
You can't define capitalism based on a possibility within it. Pianos are bad instruments because youb can play bad music in them. Science is evil because it can make nuclear bombs.
Absolute bullshit, ask worker joe if he knew henry ford.
Extremist conservative groups always existed. What happened during the 20th century was that under the pressure of communist movements many of those groups were sponsored by the local bourgeoisie and came to power. This is what became known as fascism and takes it's name from
ideological fascism of early mussolini, But even mussolini gave up on most of his original theory when he started to gain power.
You can search for yourself, every single right wing dictatorship has a strong leftist oposition that it took down with burgeoise funding prior to getting in to power
You missed the whole point. You can replace all Capitalists, but as long as system (Capitalist society) remains, socially disruptive actions will be rewarded and people will be motivated to do them.
Except Capitalists rarely use direct political control. Consequently, it is one type of representatives of Capitalists that yeilds power to another representatives.
Not in the Marxist sense.
Fasle. Fascists were people who got supported with money by the rich to do things rich wanted them to do. That is their definining characteristic (well, other than the whole "openly terrorist dictatorship"). It is irrelevant what they wanted (honestly or not). In fact, Fascism (as a movement) was forged out of multiple different movements with different goals and "interpolations" (whatever that supposed to mean).
I have no idea what you meant here. Marxists have this thing called "class consciousness" which is derived from class interests (i.e. the way people function in society) and Fascists predominantly relied on Petit-Bourgeois class consciounsess (individualism, lack of awarenss of Capitalism, etc.).
Fascists never became ruling class. Power was still wealth-based, regardless of all the claims made - which is evident by the bribery and corruption that permeated Fascist states.
Wealth-based power can be abolished only by making economy fully and directly subservient to political will (i.e. through Planned economy; by abolition of private property).
I.e. as long as Capitalist mode of production remains (and Planned economy does not replace it) Capitalists continue to retain their economic power - which can be easily transformed into political influence - and are still the ruling class, regardless of the method they use to exercise their influence through.
Also, I'd say you are wrong about Anarchism. Paris Commune did not abolish anything, Makhno's non-State was borderline Feudal, while Marxists do not recognize Libertarian "Communism" of Catalonia as non-Capitalist.
Fascism is incredibly useful for this, since it allows to easily suppress competition or force general public (through state) to acquire products.
For example, Hitler's royalties for Mein Kampf were immense since he made his book a mandatory gift (paid for by state) at weddings and for soldiers. Similarly enough, newly married couples in Germany received credit (from state) that was useable only for specific stores (increasing profits for owners of those stores).
I'm quite certain it's the opposite. While some lesser Capitalists can be singled out and suppressed in some way, upper strata of Capitalists actually grows in power.
How would they "think"? Their movement is subverted.
You are talking about Strаsserites. Those guys thought about this, but they were not smart (since they aligned themselves with Fascists) - and got purged the second they came anywhere near threatening anyone.
Anyone who harbours the same ideas will be similarly purged.
To promote anything under Capitalism one needs money. Fascists did not have the money to do it themselves. Consequently, they did not promote themselves, but were promoted by Capitalists. In comparison, Communists rely on support of Proletariat or on extralegal means.
Left put up a literal fight against Fascists in Spain, not in Germany. Also, this does not refute my point in the least.
Within markets, there will always be incentive to meet demand; whether that is drugs or pornography. Without opposition, it becomes normalized, as with the contemporary US.
Of course it wasn't a peasant revolt. But it wasn't the right who shot first; it was the international who defended their status quo.
Fascism is a form of government capitalism is a mode of production. Fascism as we had it was still capitalism, all the work and property relations that define capitalism were still present in fascism.
I am not blaming nobody for shooting first here, for all i care i don't want the bourgeoise shooting back when i shoot first. How come communists in pre fascist countries had a status quo if they were never in total power? The local bourgeoisie to defend their status quo gave the power to fascists. fascists were disposed when no longer needed and all the huge corporations live to this day see thyssenkrupp, bayer, siemens, toyota the list goes on… Same thing happened in russia with the white army but they lost. Had they won the word for fascism would probably be russian.
Aristocrats stayed in power for quite a while long after they got replaced as a warrior caste in the estates of the realm when they were replaced by mercenaries (arround mid/late 16th century). Noblemen had an economic base too, which was ownership of land, or more precisely: The ownership of usufruct rights over a piece of land which they would administer by lending it out to peasents for subsistence economics in exchange for military draft (feudalism). In the Early Modern Age, these relations became bureaucratized through a royal administration but stayed more or less the same until the peasent liberation in the beginning of the 19th century as a consequence of the Napoleonic Wars, which essentially freed human labor and generalized capitalism. The genie was out of the bottle once that happened, and the European aristocracy, miscalculating the power of capital and the law of value, introduced their own demise, culminating in WWI.
Interestingly, late-stage capitalism shows similar symptoms of feudalism in the Early Modern Age: Bureaucratization and the concentration of power in the hands of fewer capitalists.
supporting leftists abroad is the first step to raise standards of living everywhere and preventing the rise of reaction
Just look at the arab socialists in the 60's to see what could have been had it not been for the destruction of that left
Not only is this not entirely true (see "Reprivatisierung"), it has nothing to do whether an economy is capitalist or not.
The Nazis legitimized class hierarchy and enforced class collaboration. Their propaganda was intrinsically pro-capitalist regardless of rhetoric.
In a Communist USA, who would stop you from moving to rural Montana or something and setting up a white-only commune? As long as you don't force non-whites to leave their lands via violence, nobody would care. The Communist regime would have more important things to worry about than a handful of pasty larpers in Montana.
In contrast, if you try to set up something like this today under neoliberal capitalism, you would get enormous backlash, death threats, etc.
I think you're wrong and these stupid issues of race wouldn't be handled or taken seriously at a state level.
OP is a fgt
Aye my beautiful white holy brother. We must exterminate the subhumanoid shitskinoid hoards and reclaim our sacred white holy lands. SEIG HEIL!
How far humanity has fallen is really sad. Truly the most bemoaning time line.
Look.into national bolshevism (nazbol, nat ional bol shevisim IN CASE THERE'S A FILTER)
Nation states are strongly used as tools by the elite so that they can keep playing a balancing game with their own country while trying to unbalance the others for their own profit.
It's a game where the elite already hold all the pieces, that is what MAKES them the elite.
You can not beat the elite at their own game.' No matter how you push it, they will always be able to take advantage of it to your detriment.
The only way to win is to upend the table and stop playing the game.
Leftism is based on universalism (originated in the west btw) and looks on politics from the position of 'social humanity'; so we can't really help with your fear of brown people. The only hint is that every culture has 'reactionary' anti-western elements and 'progressive' political actors, not excluding the western culture itself. So, if we posit western values to be universalism, egalitarianism and all that, which comes from the greek polis through crhsitianity ("There is neither Judean nor Greek…") to modern liberal view, you are the 'anti-western' element in the west. As Zizek says:
"Today’s anti-immigrant populism has replaced direct barbarism with a barbarism that has a human face. It enacts a regression from the Christian ethic of ‘love thy neighbour’ back to the pagan privileging of the tribe over the barbarian Other. Even as it represents itself as a defence of Christian values, it is in fact the greatest threat to the Christian legacy. (…) Fanatical defenders of religion start out attacking contemporary secular culture; its no surprise when they end up forsaking any meaningful religious experience. In a similar way, many liberal warriors are so eager to fight anti-democratic fundamentalism that they end up flinging away freedom and democracy if only they may fight terror. (…) The anti-immigrant defenders of Europe, not the notional crowds of immigrants waiting to invade it, are the true threat to Europe."
more memes youtube.com
"Nation-states" were a political tool to organize regional capital and the corporation has rendered it obsolete. They're on borrowed time with or without Communism.