PDA

View Full Version : National Communism



Taras Bulba
Wednesday, November 19th, 2003, 04:41 PM
This is a topic over at Slavic National Unity, and I thought it'd be an interesting topic to discuss here. I'm posting only the first message in the debate, but if you want to read more you can at the link.


http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thread?forumid=86294&messageid=1068554906&lp=1068766199

Nationalism Includes Socialism!

Seeing certain members of the forum show symapthy towards Pinochet and other servants of the elites that used even murder as a tool to prevent movement towards equality of their respective countrymen, claiming that their doing was in interest of their nation, reminded me of a topic I have been thinking about for quite some time. And the topic is just when was rodoljublje kidnapeded by the right wing and just how did the left came to aggree with it? Since when is a patriot, a nationalist the same as a rightwinger?

The left and the right are defined as opposing views on level of inferfearence the government should be allowed in the economy and just what corelation this has with nationalism, which is infinitley older than either the left, the right or the market economy is beyond me. I can not comprehend what connection there is beetwen financal policy that guarantees low inflation even if it means increase in unemployment and willingles to sacrifise in defence of interest of your nation. I can not comprehend just why is a puchist that enjoys support of industrialists a nationalist, while a leader of a socialist trade union is not.

Regular right (by which I mean all this fiscal conservatives even if there was a time where 9/10ths of todays left parties would be considered right) with it`s obssesion with charts of stock markets ratings, inflations and surreal economical theories obviously thinks of an economy (-which to them equals Dow Jones rating) as a goal to itself and it`s most obvious manifestation of lack of care for health of a nation is tolerance and even ecourangment of masive foreign imigration becouse it means an influx of cheap labor and a mean to disciplinise local work force. So basicaly all their "nationalism" or patriotism comes down to propagating death sentance and refusing to allow gays to adopt children.

I am quite certain there was no illusions about today`s nice and proper right being nationalistic around here (I reckon not many people here would vote for union of right forces on upcoming election in Russia), but there certainly is a perception that extreme rightists ( of the past (lets just call them fascists) were somehow nationalists. Or at least, that they were bigger nationalists than socialists and communists were. But just what is nationalistic about policies of the likes of Pinochet, Mussolini or Franco? They imposed their rule upon their nation by force what should disgust nationalists that belive the only legitimisation for government comes from the narod. Yes they all claimed to do so becouse there was danger of rise of communism which is undisputedly a poison for nationalism and a health of a nation, becouse it propagates class identity at the expense of national identity and wants to replace a nation with some kind of absurd brotherhood of workers. But it is a fact that all this claims were completly baseless. In case of Pinochet he overthrew an elected leader, that was a socialst not a communist and that (unlike Pinochet) keept the institution of elections. Franco by force defeated a coalition of election winners whose mayority formed the republicans and that again unlike him wanted to keep an institution of elections. And in case of Mussolini there weren`t even any leftists anywhere close to government in sight. And even were there a danger of rise of communism present that would stil not justify the terror they launched afterwards they got the hold on power. Terrorising and inflicting violence upon one`s nation, by a brute that somehow got to power, should of course disgust any true rodoljub.

Further they were little more than agents of the old and new upper class. They came on power with support of industrialists, bankers, big landowners, former aristocrats and the church (-that is another great paradox, just when was the church abducted by the right and what ever happened to christian socialism). First they blocked movement toward greater social justice that would only benefit the nation and its coherance (Franco even went so far to block something as basic as agrarian reform). And they stayed on power by forwarding interests of parts of society that helped them to power at the expense of great majority of their respective nationals who continued to live in poverty and countinued to be exploited. And by doing so they were as great enemies of their respective nations as communists were. You see exploitation and unequality is poison to health of a nation and it`s coherance just as marxism is. And anybody in service of prolonging of unequality and exploitation can be no more of a nationalist than a bolshevik can. Becouse in doing so it allienates the exploited ones from the state and forces them to choose beetwen the (in case of fascists) supposed nationalistic goals of the state and an end of one`s poverty and exploitation.

Were you a worker in early days of industrial revolution that has to work 16 hours a day for a wage that is barely enough to keep him alive, while the fruits of your work is spent for luxury of a factory owner that hasn`t moved a finger in his life, would you say that such sacrifise is needed for the development and faster industrialisation of your nation or would you start a workers rebellion? And would you choose to start a rebbelion, would that make you unpatriotic? More unpatriotic than the factory owner that exploited you?

So basicaly "nationalism" of fascists comes down to primitive chauvinism that rodoljubs should avoid and imperialism which is acctually the opposite of nationalism and has no place among ideas of nationalism, since nationalism belives in nation-states which end on borders of ethnic area of one nation not in empires.

So what part of the right that nationalists put their hopes into we haven`t examined jet? The anwser is of course today`s anti-immigrant far right which is of course labeled as extreme-right by panicked political opponents that equate it with nazis and other such evils, by which they are giving this quite harmless formations much more credit than they deserve. Such parties of cheap demagogy and populism, not even very convincing demagogy ride on the wawe of xenophobia that is begining to show itself in Europe. This xenophobia is of course an irrational, emotional reaction to foreign immigration and only helps to stronger the position of pro-immigration, becouse it`s attacks on immigration are quite emotional and primitive and directed against immigrants themselves as often as on open-door policy itself and can therefore be easily labeled as untolerant or even racist by opponents. More importantly voting body of these forces has no understanding of reasons and mechanics of immigration. Otherwise they would understand that immigrants are as much of victims of today`s rampant globalist capitalism as they themselves are and would attack reasons for immigration rather than results of them. Therefore I don`t see a particular reason why nationalists should affilate with this new far-right.

Nationalist should aspire to prosperity of one`s nation. What includes taking care that national culture is preserved, enriched and well placed in the hearts of its nationals. And enabling social development in direction of greater coherance and health of a nation and economical prosperity of a nation. But becouse the nation is neither a state, neither some methaphysical poetic term, but is exactly the sum of all of it`s elements (all people of a certain nationality), economical prosperity of a nation means exactly economical prosperity of all it`s nationals. And economical prosperity of all nationals can not be achived if one part of a nation exploits the other part and prospers by empovrishment of the other part. State can economicaly prosper this way, but not the nation! Therefore neither should national state if it is truly national. What means that nationalists should always also be socialists*. And that a nationalist which is not a socialist is, weather he knows or admits it or not, just a servant of the upper class and a tool of destruction of coherance and health of its own nation.

As a nations coherance is endangered when one part of the nation has to adres the other part with "your sirship" (-formal unequality dealt with by the republican nationalists), it is also endangered when part of a nation earns just enough to survive while other has millions (-unformal, practical, social unequality to be dealt with by socialist nationalists).


*here is socialism of course meant as a system which activly pursues the goal of relative social equality, with way to achive this goal undefined (-but faschist head-busting of trade unionists doesn`t qualify)

Moody
Friday, November 21st, 2003, 05:38 PM
Pushkin;"Since when is a patriot, a nationalist the same as a rightwinger?
The left and the right are defined as opposing views on the level of inference the government should be allowed in the economy, and just what correlation this has with nationalism is beyond me".

Moody Lawless replies; The 'rightists' to whom I presume you refer, are no doubt those of the 'libertarian' right; they're also known as 'neoconservatives'.

'Neo' [i.e., 'new'] because they actually began as Leftist liberals; they then adopted Free Market Capitalism, which believes essentially that bankers should run the governments of the world.

The old, true, right believes that the government should rule, not the markets.
So we have an exmple where a form of Leftism has evolved and hi-jacked the title 'Right'. Yet this libertarian 'right' has done much to destroy all the traditions and institutions that the real right hold dear.

Jack
Thursday, November 27th, 2003, 08:45 AM
Pushkin;"Since when is a patriot, a nationalist the same as a rightwinger?
The left and the right are defined as opposing views on the level of inference the government should be allowed in the economy, and just what correlation this has with nationalism is beyond me".

Moody Lawless replies; The 'rightists' to whom I presume you refer, are no doubt those of the 'libertarian' right; they're also known as 'neoconservatives'.

Wrong. Neoconservatives are a bunch of ex-Trotskyite Chicago-school psuedo-capitalist Jew loving multiculturalists. Libetarians believe in private property and the right to defend it by whatever means you judge fit, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of trade and freedom from taxation.


'Neo' [i.e., 'new'] because they actually began as Leftist liberals; they then adopted Free Market Capitalism, which believes essentially that bankers should run the governments of the world.

ROFL. They never adopted Free Market Capitalism. They want to replace the welfare state with the warfare state and bomb the hell out of every country that opposes the Jews. Moody, do the folks at www.anti-state.com support Israel? No, they don't. And they don't support Governments at all, either.


The old, true, right believes that the government should rule, not the markets.

Read: Gangs, not producers and traders.


So we have an exmple where a form of Leftism has evolved and hi-jacked the title 'Right'.

Hardly. 'Right' = Conservative. There's nothing left to conserve, but the Neoconservatives think so - they want to preserve the military-industrial apparatus used during the Cold War to suppress hostility to the Jews and keep it that way.


Yet this libertarian 'right' has done much to destroy all the traditions and institutions that the real right hold dear.

LOL. The Libetarian Right are closer to the ideas of the of the American Founding Fathers and the Articles of Confederation than Fascists and National Socialists ever will be.

Moody
Thursday, November 27th, 2003, 06:25 PM
I said in the post above that Neocons were called such because they were former Lefists who had newly (neo) adopted 'rightist' libertarian ideas.
You may want to quibble over the nature of these neocon ideas for some reason, but they certainly are Capitalist, Multiculturalist [for others], and Zionists.
Their mantra is 'freedom and liberty', hence they call themselves 'libertarian' [they are bringing 'liberty' to the Iraqis, for example - no, I don't believe them either - they are really bringing Bechtel to the Iraqis].
They also claim to be on the right, and so call themselves the 'libertarian right'.

You imply that there is another 'lib right' out there ?... it looks like they've had their thunder stolen!

Jack
Friday, November 28th, 2003, 12:00 AM
I said in the post above that Neocons were called such because they were former Lefists who had newly (neo) adopted 'rightist' libertarian ideas.

The Chicago school is hardly economically libetarian. They're mixed economy advocates.

[qipte]You may want to quibble over the nature of these neocon ideas for some reason, but they certainly are Capitalist,[/quote]

No, they aren't Capitalist, they're in solid favour of the mixed economy.


Multiculturalist [for others],

Multiracialist. Every NeoCon 'hates' Leftism and wants to meld America into one big tolerant mixing-pot. In fact, almost all (I know of no exceptions) NeoCons are in favour of the early Civil Rights laws.


and Zionists.

I agreed here.


Their mantra is 'freedom and liberty', hence they call themselves 'libertarian'

Anonymous Authority. Show me where the NeoCons call themselves Libetarians. They share little, if anything at all, with the American Founding Fathers.


[they are bringing 'liberty' to the Iraqis, for example - no, I don't believe them either - they are really bringing Bechtel to the Iraqis].

They're bringing Jewish-American imperialism to the Iraqis at the expense of American tax payers. That's not Capitalism, that's looting one group to buy guns to shoot another group with.


They also claim to be on the right, and so call themselves the 'libertarian right'.

Uh, no they don't. Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises are the libetarian right. Once again, show me where the NeoCons call themselves the 'libetarian right'.


You imply that there is another 'lib right' out there ?... it looks like they've had their thunder stolen!

There only ever has been one 'lib right', and not only did the NeoCons never call themselves Libetarian rightists but you're applying that label to a group that shares none of its characteristics.

Moody
Friday, November 28th, 2003, 06:56 PM
Aloysha; "Anonymous Authority. Show me where the NeoCons call themselves Libertarians".

Moody Lawless; Why did you capitalise my word "libertarian"?
I deliberately wrote "libertarian", as the Neocons are found of expounding on their love of "liberty".
To give the "Authority" you ask for [and perhaps you could do the same for yourself], I will quote the arch-Neocon Richard Perle;
"Democracies must confront totalitarian rule when they find it.
That was true of the Nazis, it was true of the communists.
Takes a slightly different form now because it's also true of the terrorists.
That's a mission that we have willingly to accept if we're going to preserve our core values of individual LIBERTY, FREEDOM of individuals which is what is PARAMOUNT for all of us".
[Richard Perle, 18th Feb. 2003, interview by J. Holmes, my emphasis]

Aloysha; "Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises are the libertarian right. Once again, show me where the NeoCons call themselves the 'libertarian right'".

Moody Lawless; The libertarian right you name have one thing in common with Perle and Wolfawitz [yep, they're all Jews!].
The Neocons are called 'right-wing', especially as they are advisors to George Bush. Top Neocon Willy Kristol [on the 'right-wing' of the Republican Party] describes his group as, "liberals who have been mugged by reality".

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 06:35 AM
http://www.bolsheviks.org/DOCUMENTS/NATIONAL-COMMUNIST.htm

THE NATIONAL-COMMUNIST ALTERNATIVE

Luc Michel

Translation by bolivian NB comrade Jorge Morón

"You make the cause of the nation the cause of the people and the cause of the people will become the cause of the nation." V.I. Lenin

Let us imagine a laboratory: in this laboratory a matter prevails, in this matter a big-bang prevails and inside this big-bang, a chain of chemical reactions of an extraordinary violence [unwinds]. Some molecules come undone, others are formed, [and] a formidable process of fission, combustion, reconstruction, corpuscular combustion [develops]; at the end of which appears a synthesis of products of unknown nature. Who could have foreseen the synthesis of the "national" and of the "social" in 1920? Who, before Barres, could have imagined the encounter, the mere encounter, of the two terms? Because, well, it's at this point where we find ourselves now.

Europe `mutatis mutandis', is at this point. [It] doesn't return, it invents, it doesn't meditate, it improvises. It doesn't repeat old formulas: it burns them, it turns them to ashes and from the fragments, combined crazily, it forms new unknown products. Nationalism is found in it, certainly, as are fragments of populism, remains of anti-Semitism and some good-old communism, less dead than it seems. All of these are blended, and passed though the big-bang test. In the heart of the tumult, even as unlikely as it was in its time, is the Fascist synthesis. This is a monster that the new Europe cracks under our eyes, although for the time being it does it behind our backs. He still has no name, this monster, nor has it a face. The hypothesis is only that it exists or that it will exist one day." (B.H. Levy, "enser L'Europe" en "Le Monde des debats 1993").

In the summer of 1993, the great press discovered what it called the temptation or the danger of National-Bolshevism. From Paris to Moscow, our journalists seemed to have discovered a new phenomenon. Their flagrant lack of culture did not allow them to be acquainted with the remarkable thesis about national-bolshevism written by professor Louis Dupeux fifteen years ago (1).

From "Liberation" (Paris) to "Soir" (Brussels), through to "Le "Monde", they opened a true debate on the topic. They multiplied articles, often contradicting themselves on the topic of national-bolshevism and the fusion between nationalists and communists. Thus, "Liberation" titled an article, "The National- Bolshevik Galaxy" and spoke of the "extraordinary ideological convergence that has taken place during these last months between some communist intellectuals and the extreme right." It underlined that "the approach [was made] on behalf of their hate for the socialist left, America and Zionism" (2). "Soir" on the other hand, spoke of an alliance between browns and reds and subtitled [its article] "Political fiction or politics without fiction?" (3).

Despite its first political expression in between the two world wars, national-bolshevism had already become a European political reality by the mid 60's thanks to Jean Thiriart's Jeune Europe and its evolution in 1965 towards national-communist theses (4). From the 80's on, with the Parti Communautarie National-European (P.C.N) (5), national-bolshevism would find a new political expression. Today, next to the already mentioned P.C.N., numerous currents postulate theses that favor an offensive coalition between revolutionary nationalism and Leninist communism against the System, the New World Order and American hegemony; such as the Nouvelle Resistance in France, Orion in Italy, European Alternative in Spain and the National-Bolshevik Front in Moscow.

The great press has been interested, on the other hand, on the marginal aspects of the national-Bolshevik phenomenon. In the French case, the common road of communist intellectuals and of the extreme right has been underlined together with the political project of Russian communist militants and national-revolutionaries. [However], national-bolshevism is much more. Above all, it's a political desire to overcome the dividing lines between the Right and the Left, between the anti-fascism and the anti-communism maintained by the System so as to divide opposition; and it's a will to offer a political alternative to the decadence of the contemporary world. Such are the different aspects of what "Liberation" calls the "national-Bolshevik galaxy."

Never having been faced with such politically unqualifiable phenomenons, the specialists of the "pret-a-penser" and of intellectual conformism, have preferred to include it in a very comfortable bundle under the generic name of "extreme right", showing, by this, their lack of historical culture and politics and their inability to consider today's reality outside of the traditional outlines in which socio-political thought is framed and reduced [today].


THE BIRTH OF NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM.

National-bolshevism, independently of its precursors to which we shall return and the first of which is George Sorel, was historically born in Germany with the shock caused by the collapse of the Second Reich in 1918 and due to the rising crisis emanated by the creation of Bolshevik Russia in 1917. From its birth, German national-bolshevism presented the two tendencies that we have already underlined: on one hand, the collaboration between nationalist and communist intellectuals and, on the other, an authentic national-revolutionary movement that united Leninist ideology with nationalist content. National-bolshevism was born to overcome the international order imposed by Versailles, whose victims were mainly Soviet Russia and Germany, as well as Italy. Beyond ideological options, the weight of the order created in Versailles, dictated by the U.S. President Wilson, imposed an even situation upon the German nationalists and the Russian communists. Before even building a theoretical construction or a revolutionary political construction, German national-bolshevism would first be a nexus between German and Russian frustration in regards to the Versailles order. Faced with the looting and the dismemberment of Germany and of Russia on the part of the 1918 winners and the excessive demands made by the winners of 1918, numerous German intellectuals openly declared that the Bolshevik regime [then] recently implanted in Russia was preferable to the humiliation and the ruin imposed on their German homeland.

"The sought-after national Bolshevism is born from a fever caused by the encounter of two fears, but in circumstances objectively unfavorable..., [it's] a heroic solution, reducent for a minority of idealists, it sinks its roots in a genuinely `German' reactionary tradition. In this way, it extends beyond a simple combination of circumstances and, it's for this reason, that this "temptation" would survive and express itself in a time in which the internal and external situation offered a prospective of radical loss of legitimacy in a concrete order before the eyes of the extreme right belonging to the conquering West" (6).

The great Germanist Eltzbacher, law professor in Berlin, would be the first one to speculate about this position in April 1919, in a proclamation that would constitute the first coherent doctrinal manifestation of national-Bolshevism.

Professor Paul Eltzbacher's ideas found an attentive eye in the Soviet field. Karl Radek, put in charge by the First Communist International -the Comintern- of the preparation of revolution in Germany, would favor the alliance between German reactionaries and Russian communists.

In November 1919, Radek declared "This is the reason why honest nationalists as Eltzbacher, displeased by the peace of Versailles [and] who have looked for a union with Soviet Russia in what they have called national bolshevism, have been totally isolated today."


THE NATIONAL-COMMUNISM OF HAMBURG.

The coalition between nationalism and Leninist communism, within a common political formation, would respond quickly to this first national-Bolshevik intellectual convergence, which is [in itself] the authentic essence of Bolshevism .

From 1919 [on] it would be embodied in a national-Bolshevik current developed, at first in Hamburg, by the leaders of the Soviet revolution Heinrich Laufenberg and Friedrich Wolfheim (7). In this city, they derived radical national-communist positions in alliance with those of the [then] marked national tendency. In 1919-20 Wolfheim and Laufenberg encouraged a national-Bolshevik current that competed with the positions of the "Spartans" (left revolutionaries) who called for the formation of the German Communist Party, K.P.D.; [they did so] in Germany and in the heart of the First International.

After being expelled by this party in October 1919, they immediately formed a dissident communist party, the K.A.P.D. or German Worker's Communist Party (8). Through this party, which would be represented in the Comintern up until 1922, Wolfheim and Laufenberg defended the idea of creating a German Red Army to re-launch the war against the winners of Versailles.

After the victory of national-socialism in 1933, some national- Bolshevik structures survived the political and intellectual apparatus of the Third Reich. [Amongst these was] in particular, the Fichte-Bund, created in Hamburg following the line of the K.A.P.D. [This structure] would end up integrating itself into and surviving the core of the Third Reich. Directed by professor Kessemaier of Hamburg, this university and intellectual movement had many parallel [formations] in Europe. Among them was a young man from Lieja who had emerged from the lines of extreme communism, a certain Jean Thiriart, to whom we shall return later on...."


THE GERMAN NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM OF THE 20s AND 30s.

Starting from the mid twenties up until the arrival of national- socialism in 1933, national-Bolshevism would become an important part of the intellectual panorama of the Weimar Republic. There were numerous intellectuals that would embrace national-Bolshevik positions.

In the first place, we must name Ernst Niekisch, who would be the most celebrated and the main representative of the German national- Bolshevik current.

Coming from the German socialist current, Niekisch, would evolve towards national-Bolshevik and neo-nationalist positions, in particular, through the magazine which he formed: "Widerstand" (Resistance), which held a considerable influence specially over the German juvenile movements previous to 1933. Niekisch's current was composed of former-social-democrats and syndicalists to whom numerous representatives of the average neo-nationalist [movements] were added. After 1933, Niekisch express himself, every time with more force, against the positions of Hitler, which would [subsequently] cause the closing of the magazine and his enclosure in a concentration camp from which he would [only] emerge in 1945.

Before his death he participated in the bringing to birth of the German Democratic Republic within which he saw the exaltation of the communist and Prussian values that were as ever his.


KARK RADEK AND “THE TRAVELER OF NAUGHT”.

"In the year 1923, I remember having witnessed a new great wave of national-bolshevism, in the vague and vulgar sense of the contacts between nationalist and communist. The origin of this wave, in fact very quarrelsome, is Schlageter's line in the midst of which the German Communist Party (K.P.D.) intends to "win over the middle classes thorough proletariazation" using the patriotic subject deliberately. In the course of this campaign one could see the leaders of the party compromised, even to look for a debate, with the qualified elements of Fascists or "pro-fascists". The social- democrats and the bourgeois parties once again re-launched the old accusation about a convergence between the two extreme ends... the herald of this new line was Radek" (9).

The German national-bolshevism of the early 20's is unquestionably [shaped after] the figure of the International Communist Karl Radek. Put in charge by the Comintern of organizing and coordinating the Bolshevik revolution in Germany, Radek understood (10) the benefit that could be extracted from the national-Bolshevik phenomenon and he never stopped favoring it. When in 1925, the French and Belgian armies occupied the basin of the Rhur, as a response to the lack of payment of war reparations from the part of bled-out Germany, an important resistance movement was organized by French national- revolutionaries.

The leader of one of these, Leo Schlageter, was captured and executed by the French army; Schlageter became the first hero of national-socialism (11). Upon his death, Karl Radek pledged a homage to him in a surprising speech made before the representatives of the International Communist gathered in Moscow. Karl Radek announced: "most of the German people are men that work and consecrate themselves to the fight against the German bourgeoisie. If the patriotic atmospheres of Germany don't decide to make theirs the cause of this majority of the nation and to constitute in this way a front against the capital of the Entente and German capital, then the road opened up by Schlageter will be the road to nothing."

In this same speech, pronounced in Moscow the 20th of June 1923, Radek also spoke of Schlageter as the traveler of naught, in relation to the title of a novel of the time (12).

Radek's speech would have enormous repercussion in Germany. It would constitute the origin of numerous cohabitations and debates between German intellectuals of the extreme right and communist leaders, with Radek as the head [of them].

This situation can't but, at least, make us think about the current debate in course carried out, particularly, in France and which in the summer of 1993 the great press denounced as "national-communism".

Warner Lerner, biographer of Karl Radek, evokes in an impressive way the action of this last one: "In 1923 Karl Radek attempted to use the recently created Nazi party to destroy the Weimar Republic and favor the communist revolution. Radek gave the Nazis their first hero, Schlageter, shot by the French in the Rhur, and he made in his memory a celebrated speech, approved by Stalin and Zinoviev. Radek expressed the conviction, shared by the leaders of the Comintern, that the crushing majority of the nationalist masses do not belong to the field of the nationalists, but to that of the workers, and that hundreds of Schlageter's would unite themselves to the field of the Revolution. On the other hand, Hitler trusted his comrades with the conviction that a communist could always become a good Nazi, but that a social-democrat could never be one" (13).


THE RESURGANCE OF NATIONAL-COMMUNISM IN THE 60's: JEUNE EUROPE AND
JEAN THIRIART.


To [better] view the new current of national-communist tendency we first must look at the 1960's with the transnational organization "Young Europe" and Jean Thiriart's work. The current intellectual climate is characterized by meek conformism. One of the stupidest manifestations of this is the marked will of giving to each political current a label that locates it in one of the conventional compartments that extend from the extreme right to the extreme left.

And when a revolutionary movement is located outside of this system of classification "rien ne va plus". Pseudo-explanations arrive about "the convergence of the ends" and other fantasies coming from the apolitical or, simply, from intellectual dishonesty.

The organization Young Europe didn't escape this phenomenon and it has been classified for more than 30 years as extreme right, that is to say Fascist, in a rejection of any objective reality. If on the contrary, this European organization is studied through its real history [and] its publications, the reality is other: we are before an original and unclassifiable revolutionary movement that is located outside of the "right" or "left" conformism and which picks as its positions, socio-politically as well as in foreign policy, from the national-communist or national-Bolshevik synthesis of the 20's and 30's (14).

An "organization for the formation of a political frame" [and] a revolutionary party of the vanguard, Young Europe reminds us of the Bolshevik Party after 1903, because of its methods and its political project: "A revolution demands the conjunction of diverse factors: having a global ideology (and not only a small electoral program), being a determined group, being organized, homogeneous, disciplined, that is to say to be an action party; to finally find a point of crisis,... We have an ideology, we are preparing an organized group, the point of crisis we await" (15).

Former-Stalinist militant at the beginning of his political career previous to the war (16), Jean Thiriart, founder and main theoretician of Young Europe, structured his movement following the principles of the strictest Leninist organizational orthodoxy and its hierarchy derives directly from "democratic centralism". Also, in a number of occasions, Thiriart would openly recognize the influence that Lenin exercised over him (17).

Starting in 1960, the doctrine of the movement, "National-European Communitarism" whose social character was affirmed from the beginning, derived from national-communist positions. If in the first years of the movement, Thiriart would have a right-wing orientation (fundamentally Franco-Belgian) which feeds on virulent anti-communism, from 1960 on he affirmed the ideological positions that were in direct line with those that he would defend from the eighties on, under the generic name of "the Euro-Soviet School". [This called for] the creation of a Great Europe [extending] from Dublin to Vladivostok, National-communism and a collaboration between the USSR and Western Europe. In 1962 Thiriart wrote: "In my view, there are big chances that in the next twenty-five years the following blocks may be formed: the two Americas (subsequently he would return to the idea of seeing a Latin America liberated from the Yankees), the Asian block, China-India, and the Europe-Africa- U.S.S.R. block which would allow us to no longer write about 'from Brest to Bucharest' but about 'from Brest to Vladivostok'. Geopolitics is already underlining this future" (18).

After the definitive elimination of the right-wing sector of the organization in 1964, Thiriart would lead Young Europe in a direction in which two general orientations dominate: on one hand, radical anti-Americanism and, on the other, a progressive approach to national-communist positions. Thiriart sees Communitarism as surpassing communism and not as its opponent, this is a typical national-Bolshevik posture. In 1965, he defined Communitarism as "national-European socialism" and he added that "in the mid century, communism will become, wanting it or not, Communitarism" (19). In this, history has had to agree with him given that before the fall of the Soviet block, the economic reforms that were introduced in Hungary and Romania took communist economy towards Communitarism (20).

In 1984, Thiriart would clearly specify that Communitarism is "European communism without Marx " (21). This ideological evolution would be translated into facts in two different ways: a progressively more pro-soviet vision which would lead to the creation of the Euro-Soviet Doctrinal School and, on the other hand, an approach from the part of the organization towards the regimens of Eastern Europe, speacially to Tito's Yugoslavia and Ceaucescu's Romania. In an article titled "World Chess Board and National- communism" (22), Thiriart affirms that "the revolutionary concept of the next years will be the creation of a socialist Europe of a revolutionary type, our communitarist Europe in whose construction the militant blocks of eastern Europe must play an important role."

In the summer of 1966, Thiriart would travel to Romania and Yugoslavia, multiplying his official contacts [there]. In August of 1966, the Yugoslavian government's official diplomatic magazine Medunarodna Politika published, in Serbo-Croat, a long article of Thiriart's entitled "Europe do Bresta do Bucaresta" (23). The European national-communists theses of Young Europe were of visible interest, [and] at the highest level. The most spectacular of all these high level contacts was the encounter between Chou In Lai and Jean Thiriart, organized by Ceauscescu's services in the occasion of the Chinese Prime Minister's visit to Bucharest in the summer of 1966 (24).

In spite of these tactical successes, the organization would break up in 1969, with Thriart's retreat from militant politics for more than 10 years.

The reasons for this failure was, fundamentally, the absence of a revolutionary political land during the "Golden Sixties" [and] the exhaustion of the organization's human, material and financial resources.

On the other hand, the organization's alliances and its practical possibilities of success were what led Thiriart to consecrate an important part of his doctrinal thought to the role that the communist regimens of eastern Europe, and even the USSR, could play in the European unification process. A position which reminds us of the national-Bolsheviks of the twenties who expected the Soviet Union to play a decisive revolutionary role in Germany, as well as to impulse a revenge against the Entente countries.


JEAN THIRIART AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM.

Unquestionably, Jean Thiriart appears as a continuation of the diverse German national-Bolshevik and national-communist currents of the 20's and 30's. There are, certainly, differences which are in great measure rooted in the evolution of the political and international context existent before World War II and after the sixties.

An apparent fundamental difference lies in the national element. Thiriart completely rejected [the idea of a] small German nationalism and [instead] defended the idea of a pan-European nationalism and community. [One must] add that Thiriart's thought derives directly from the theory of "big spaces", which sees in the construction of big economic blocks an answer to the challenge of the present times. Thiriart is equally in favor of the autarchic economic blocks and of auto-centralization, the prophet of which was the German Friedrich List. We must put this position in context in regards to the national-Bolshevik current, and particularly in relation to Niekisch, who proposed the constitution of a "German- Slavic block from Vladivostok to Flessing". Thiriart proposes the creation of a "Great Europe from Rijkjavik to Vladivostok". The difference in positions, [however], derives mainly from anti-Latin and anti-Roman attitudes, because Niekisch saw in these the power of the Entente and therefore [he believed them] responsible for the decadence and ruin that Germany and the Soviet Union suffered from. In a study published in 1982 and titled "L'Unione Sovietica nel pensiero di Jean Thiriart", Jose Cuadrado Costa also responded positively to attributing the national-Bolshevik current of the 20's and 30's to Thiriart. Cuadrado added: "Thiriart, guided by his pragmatism and his revolutionary will, has defined in the last numbers of "The European Nation" the essential lines of what we could refer to as national-bolshevism in a European dimension" (25).

It's this thought that would comprise the point of origin of a new national-Bolshevik political and doctrinal current in the early 1980's.


THE SO-CALLED NAZI-MAOISM: REALITY BEYOND INSULT.

One cannot speak of the national-communist synthesis without remembering what the big newspapers have called, in an inappropriate and unjust way, Nazi-Maoism.

TThe 27th of April 1978, the "right-thinking" organ "L'Unita", the newspaper of the Italian Communist Party, published a front page article titled "The language of Freda and of the Red Brigades": an extract of a 1968 booklet written by the theoretician of "Disintegration of the System", Franco Freda (26).

"L'Unita" rediscovered expressions used in this text, which seemed to have been extracted from one of the numerous official statements of the Red Brigades, that revealed "truly impressive passages due to the language used by one of the leaders of a subversive group of the time [compared to the language] of today's subversive leaders" (27).

This was a beautiful example of what the press would call Nazi- Maoism. Let us make it known that this term, Nazi-Maoism, derives more from insult than political science, it can only be attributed to journalists. No political currents have ever used this word or claimed it as their own. Let us see, then, what it really refers to.

The so-called Nazi-Maoist current was embodied mainly in the diverse fractions of "Lutte du Peuple" who were direct derivatives of the remains of Young Europe from whom they assimilated a part of its doctrine. "Jean Thiriart... is not a proper teacher, but he is still a very serious reference point for all that concerns Europe" (28).

Lutte du Peuple was born together with its Italian faction Lotta di Popolo. This organization split from the coalition of Giovane Europa, representatives of Thiriart in Italy and its diverse student groups. Swiftly after, sister organizations of it were created in Spain, Germany and France.

The French faction, the most important after the Italian, the "Organisation Lutte du Peuple" (O.L.P.) was founded in 1971 by some left-wing nationalists originated from "Ordre Noveau" and from European socialists from "Pour une Jeune Europe" (not to be confused with the Thiriart's Jeune Europe with whom they didn't hold any bond). Their leader was Yves Battaille. "In Italy they made contact with diverse extra-parliamentarian groups, but in particular with the most advanced elements in European nationalism, these last... created the organization `Lotta di Popolo'. Returning to France, these new European militants built the bases of a new movement: it was not more than a replica of "Lotta di Popolo". The French faction of the O.L.P. he had been born" (29).

The German faction is the "N.R.A.O", the National Revolutionare Aufbau Organisation.

As Yannick Sauveur, author of one of the rare and serious socio- political studies of the O.L.P., insists "If one definitively admits to the reality of a Nazi-Maoist current, we should state that it is not simply a conversion of national-Bolshevism, since Nazi-Maoism is not the national-bolshevism of the seventies. The national dimension has changed. It is no longer Germany, but Europe. In the same way that Bolshevism is not the same type as that of the thirties. It's now Mao's ideological and practical contribution... that are unquestionably considerable. Finally, the community and unity of Europe that the O.L.P. wants to carry out is, no more and no less, the translocation of the work of Mao adapted into the European field and to the mentality of the European people" (30).

The diverse factions of the O.L.P. disappeared by the mid seventies without leaving any heirs and without being able to resuscitate or empty its waters into a political alternative. The French [case was] due to weakness, the Italians due to the blows exerted by an ultra- repressive power.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 06:39 AM
THE CURRENT NATIONAL-COMMUNIST SYNTHESIS.

After the disappearance of Young Europe in 1969 and the successive disappearances of the similar French and Italian groups, one must look at the eighties to see the ideas of Thiriart resuscitate and to see a new political current that can qualify as national-communist or national-Bolshevik.

In June of 1984, in Charleroi, the National European Community Party, P.C.N, was founded. From its creation this party categorically rejected the "right" and "left" qualifications and offered a synthesis that may be called national-communist (31).

The points that stand out from this new party were the personality of its founders and the firm coalition between Europeanism and socialism.

The new party, from its foundation, assumed in its entirety the doctrinal positions of Young Europe post-1965 (the time period to which the P.C.N refers to with its new name and with that of its magazine "La Nacion Europea" [the European Nation]) and defended the communitarist thesis in regards to a united and communitarian Europe.

The party participated in the Belgian legislative elections of 1985 and it is not by chance that the only published interview of the president of the party appeared in the newspapers in the occasion of these elections. [The publications were made] in the socialist newspaper of Charleroi, "Le Peuple", in a favorable interview entitled "L'Europe jusqu'au Vladivostok" (32).

From 1988, the P.C.N. continued developing its unitary, anti-system project coming closer to the association Europe-Ecologie.

In the Belgian legislative elections of November of 1991, the party would continue its road and would present, under its initials, an electoral platform opened to the many formations of the extreme right, as the "League Le Pen" or the remains of the "P.F.N" of Brussels, and left nationalist like the "Alliance Republicaine Nationaliste Wallone"or the "Association Europe-Ecologie" (33).

Honest journalists that have busied themselves with this original formation have not failed to underline its strangeness in regards to traditional political clarifications.

After C. Boursellier dedicated a big section in his book "Les ennemis du systeme" to the national-communist current (34), Manuel Abramovicz would describe the anti-system positions of the party in an article published in the monthly "Republique" (35).

The opponents of the P.C.N. have also recognized its atypical character. "The Anti-semitism World Report" 1993, published by the "Institute of Hebrew Matters" writes that "the P.C.N. is not an extreme right organization..." (36).

The new party's marked orientation towards the east is equally characteristic of national-Bolshevik positions. The magazine that would serve as the P.C.N.'s main means of expression, "Conscience Europenne", would include, in 1983, a bilingual supplement in French and Russian titled "Russia is also Europe." Since its foundation the party defended the idea of a coalition among the two Europe's, the Western one and the one then formed by the Soviet block. The party would [also] defend a theory according to which the interior oriental borders of the USSR were also those of Europe.

Since 1983, the main contemporary national-communist or national- Bolshevik currents have adopted the doctrinal work developed by Jean Thiriart and the P.C.N. In this way, in Russia the magazine "Elementy" or the National-Bolshevik Front make reference to "the ideas of Thiriart" (37). In France, the movement Nouvelle Resistance, born from the break-away national-revolutionary section of the extreme right movement Troisine Voie, would make important references to Thiriart and the work of the P.C.N. (38). These defend, more than ever, the anti-system positions and the will of a national-communist synthesis which [together] have comprised as their goals from the moment of their foundation. This is particularly so, through their desire to create a Black/Green/Red United Front to contain national-revolutionaries, national-communist and environmentalist for a unitary anti-system movement (39). In Italy it's the magazine "Orion" which assumes national-communism explicitly. In Italy, official representatives of the Russian opposition forces, Communist Party included, maintain regular exchange and collaboration contacts with groups of the revolutionary left and the Communist Refoundation Party, some of whose exponents collaborate regularly in Orion. In Spain, this current is represented by the European Alternative association that publishes the magazine "Tribuna de Europa" (European Tribune)."


EMERGING OF THE NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM IN RUSSIA.

The current debate in the big newspapers about national-bolshevism, has, in large part, emerged from the national-Bolshevik current in Russia. It is not by chance that this [current] is in first plane [there] due to the deep crisis that has crossed Russia since the explosion of the Soviet Union and due to the imperialist stratagems supported by Gorbachev and Yeltsin which have led the Russian people to support radical solutions that are not, as of yet, possible in Western Europe. On the other hand, [this is the case also] because the political territory there is favorable for a union of the system opposition, be it national-revolutionary or national-communist, before the common opponent and before the serious threats that hang over the future of Russia.

It was normal that the forces that personified order, progress and the future would together react against cosmopolitanism and imperialistic dominance. In this way, the big newspapers have been able to make attractive banners about the alliance amongst the "browns" and the "reds" and write tendentious articles dedicated to distort reality.

The Russian political reality is a remarkable example of two aspects of that movement that at the time is being called "the national- Bolshevik temptation". On the first place, there is a collaboration among the national-revolutionaries, extreme right and old communist apparatus forces. This is the only aspect that at the moment the journalists of the System underline. This collaboration found its political expression in the creation of the Front of National Salvation.

The second feature of the national-Bolshevik reality, the true essence of this political current, also found its public attainment in May of 1993, in the construction of the National-Bolshevik Front directed by Alexander Dugin and Edward Limonov.

The foundation manifesto of this movement gathers the deep concerns of the national-Bolshevik current in Europe. It is also necessary to stress the fact that it underlines the precursor role of Young Europe in the diffusion of national-communist ideas in today's Europe: "The political struggle in Russia has arrived to a critical point. The resistance phase is out, therefore the traditional opposition (purely emotive and of protest) has expired. The period of resistance has finished, the period of national salvation has begun. The new stage demands new methods, new forms and new instruments of fight. It is for this reason that we consider it necessary and urgent to create the political and ideologically radical structure of a new type that responds to the demands of History. This will be national-bolshevism" (40).

This manifesto specifies the new movement's concerns which are the same as those of the national-Bolshevik current in Europe. "What is national-Bolshevism? It's the coalescence of the most radical ways of the social struggle and of the national fight, this is what national-Bolshevism is. Up to now the two ideologies, the national and the social, have been able to understand each other by means of commitments and temporary and pragmatic unions: in national- Bolshevism they will unite into an inseparable entity. Tentative unions of the two currents have already been attempted in the past, from the Jacobeans, through Ustrialov, Niekisch, and Thiriart's Young Europe. We have the determination to carry out this extremely important convergence. The social revolution is synonymous with the national revolution and the national revolution is synonymous to the social revolution" (41).

With this manifesto the circle has come to a close. From the precursory Niekisch to Thiriart, the National-Bolshevik Front, constituted by the National Radical Party, the National- Revolutionary Front of Action, the Movement of the New Right, the Movement to Support Cuba and the Communist Youth's Union, carries out in Russia the hopes nurtured by some thinkers and ideologists of the vanguard during the twenties.


NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM AND FASCISM.

It's necessary to remember the existent relationships between national-bolshevism and fascism, the both of which were born in the same historical time. We determinably reject the Marxist historiography which, essentially for tactical reasons and later for propagandistic ones, in the early 20's denounced fascism as a bourgeois and reactionary ideology.

It's certain that fascism, just like revolutionary-nationalism, national-bolshevism or Marxist-Leninism, belongs to the socialist school. In particular [since] it was born as Leninism was, from the White currents of the XIX century.

Fascism was born within the left with Mussolini and under Georges Sorel's influence. It was, in fact, the result of a Marxist and socialist revision; whereupon the role played by the hard-working class in the class struggle was replaced by the nation. This would be, on the other hand, the typical road that led from the socialism to fascism during the thirties [and the one] which Marcel Deat and H. De Man would also follow.

It is not necessary to fall into summary analyses about fascism, which usually tend to relegate it as a movement from the extreme right. Particularly, one must not be deceived by the recovery of Fascist symbology carried out by certain reactionary movements of the extreme right. The example of Francisco Franco's Spain comes to mind. Before the Civil War of 1936-39, the Spanish Phalange of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera was qualified by the Spanish right as "Bolshevism from the right". Once the civil war ended, the right reactionary Francoism appropriated the Phalange allowing Jose Antonio to die under the bullets of a republican execution platoon.

The remnants of the Phalange, having emptied out its revolutionary and social content, reduced themselves to a group of mere external decor. They only served as an excuse for a reactionary regime that mostly depended on the Church and the Army.

On the other hand, fascism fundamentally differs from national- bolshevism. Even if the two are an alliance between a social ideology and a national one, their fundamental difference lies in their relationship with Marxism. For the Fascist movement, Marxism is a rival in the road to revolution. Therefore it is necessary to neutralize it and knock it down; hence the importance given to anti- communism within Fascist ideology. For national-bolshevism, on the contrary, Marxism or communism are not rivals, they are at least allies and at best tendencies that are necessary to integrate into a unitary movement. This is the deep sense of the national-communist fusion which wishes to carry out national-bolshevism. This is the national-Bolshevik and national-communist political and doctrinal journey, as it was in the 20's and 30's, as it is today.


NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM AND NATIONAL-SOCIALISM: TWO UNYIELDING OPPOSITIONS.

One must remember the relationship between national-bolshevism and national-socialism, since both were born in Weimar Germany during the early twenties.

What we have said about the relationships between fascism and national-Bolshevism, is also valid in this case.

One must also refer to the classic distinction made by the Italian historian Renzo de Felice (42) who locates the origins of Italian fascism in the left and those of German national-socialism to the right. These two movements begun their road from two different sides, only to arrive to a similar solution: the realization of an ideology of socialist and national types.

The mark left on the extreme right by national-socialism is undeniable, [specially] when one examines its racist content. It's clear that the foundations of extreme right thought from the pan- Germanist and racist movement of the XIX century are present from the beginning in the heart of national-socialism. These are what mark the deep divergence between national-bolshevism and national- socialism. This racist practice which consists, in particular, on the rejection of the Slavic world and on the view of eastern Europe only as a vital territory for Germanic expansion, obviously placed national-socialism and national-bolshevism in two completely opposed sides.

After the advent of the Third Reich, national-Bolsheviks clearly pronounced themselves in opposition to national-socialism. Most of them were persecuted and captured. Wolffheim would die in a concentration camp, while Niekisch would emerge under painful conditions in 1945. Under the Third Reich, national-Bolsheviks were in declared opposition to the regime.

They were the ones, particularly, who supported the Soviet espionage net, inappropriately called "Red Orchestra", an appellative that referred to those who were not communists but national-Bolsheviks.

Some national-Bolsheviks made a space for themselves in the Third Reich and continued defending, according to the measure of their possibilities, the theory of an opening to the east. This would be the particular case of the Bund Front, directed in Hamburg by doctor Hessemaier, of whom we have already spoken.

This was the case, above all, of Joseph Goebbels, former national- Bolshevik militant who would look at the socialist movement and think of carrying out the pending social revolution. During the Third Reich, doctor Goebbels maintained strong sympathies towards the USSR, and at the end of the war when most of the German leaders attempted a separate peace with the Anglo-Saxons so as to follow the war in the east, Goebbels attempted to work in the opposed sense. Speaking of which, one cannot but mention surprising words, extracted from his diary in 1925: "no Czar has ever understood the Russian people as Lenin has. He has given to Russian citizens that which he has always seen in Bolshevism: freedom and property" (43). It was later added: "a tie with the west means to surrender forever. We, therefore, remain besides Russia in the fight for freedom" (44).


MARXISM-LENINISM AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM.

One must [also] remember the relationship between Marxist-Leninism, as a political ideology, and national-Bolshevism.

If communist leaders showed, as Karl Radek did, their interest for national-Bolshevism, the official Marxist-Leninist school rejected this tendency. In 1919, the Spartans, the official current represented in the First International, begun to expel national- Bolsheviks from their ranks. This was the origin of the division within the K.A.P.D., already spoken about in regards to the Hamburg group of Laufenberg and Wolffheim. After 1920, these [people] were excluded from their party, the K.A.P.D., [all together]. From then on, until the early thirties, national-bolshevism in Germany would only become a tendency reserved for the nationalist field.

The Marxist-Leninist school was (and will always be) extremely to displeased with national-bolshevism. Indeed, it viewed it as a lacking point in its own doctrine.

The Comintern, the Communist International then directed by Lenin, developed two different tactics in regards to the world revolution. For developed countries, it was to launch a Soviet-type revolution by proletarian forces. Contrarily, for colonized countries or semi- colonized ones, which today we would call developing, the First International and Lenin, himself, developed a national-revolutionary or national-communist type of strategy. It was about attempting to create a unity amongst nationalist and communist revolutionaries. Mao, [in turn] would give this theory its full development and create for it an unexpected historical posterity.

Germany in the twenties, a developed and capitalist country, was, evidently, not able to enter this Leninist category.

The positions of the first national-Bolsheviks in regards to the confrontation with communism is also multiple. The national- communism of Hamburg, for example, represents an authentic coalition between nationalist values and Leninist ideology. National- Bolsheviks originated in other atmospheres, as Niekisch was for example, would develop political tendencies that would have a unity of nationalist and communist revolutionaries in a single road against the Weimar Republic. [In relation to] foreign policy they favored a union between Germany and the USSR against the Entente powers so as to avenge and bring about the rebirth of the German homeland.

It would be necessary to speak of professor Friedrich Lenz's current, and his magazine "Der Vorkampfer" , so as to be able to view the reappearance of genuine national-communism. In fact, between 1930 and 1933, Professor Lenz developed an original synthesis that would fuse Marxist and nationalist ideology. Beginning with Marxist concepts, he developed an interesting economic theory which originated from Marx's theories and those of Friederich List, the great German theoretician of "economic nationalism."

Particularly, Lenz wrote: "We have as an objective, like Hegel says, to seal our times by means of thought, so as to acquire the knowledge of systematic bases. That is to say, starting from the theory, so as to have the capacity to order social contradictions politically. In this synthesis, Hegel would be supplemented by Lenin and List by Marx. No analysis of the international structural transformations may escape such guides" (45).

This is, behind the work of the Hamburg group, a typical example of the coalition between Marxism and revolutionary-nationalism. In regards to the theories of Marx, Lenz affirmed particularly that "its scientific analysis of the economic reality is also an indispensable weapon for nationalism" (46).

Therefore, two divergent tendencies are distinguished, in regards to Marxism-Leninism, within the heart of what one commonly calls the national-Bolshevik current.

On one hand, one tendency sees in it nothing more than a tactical ally. This was the heart of the debate between intellectuals from the extreme right and communists in the twenties, as it [still] is today. These intellectuals from the extreme right remained, nevertheless, fundamentally opposed to Marxism.

The second tendency, apparent in the Wolffheim and Laufenberg group as well as in that of professor Lenz, attempts a doctrinal coalition using common concepts both from nationalist ideology and Marxist- Leninism.

Jean Thiriart's doctrinal works of the early eighties and those developed in the same period by the P.C.N., assume this last tendency. For this purpose, this party presents Communitarism as an "ideology of synthesis that wishes to fuse Marxist-Leninist ideologies and national-revolutionary ones into a synthesis of doctrinal offensive: the socialism of the XXI century" (47).


THE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM.

The relationship between the Conservative Revolution and national- Bolshevism should be clarified.

The term Conservative Revolution, in fact, is designated to a political current present in Weimar Germany; it was called this due to the study that Armin Mohler consecrated to it in 1950 (48). The expression was previously used by Arthur Moeller Van Den Bruck, a theoretician of the time.

In his thesis about national-Bolshevism, Professor Louis Dupeux dedicates a big section to the analysis of the relationships between this current and the Conservative Revolution, which he qualified as "ideological sustenance to national-bolshevism" (49). This is the main criticism that can be made to his work. For professor Dupeux, national-bolshevism is a radical tendency derived from the Conservative Revolution. This relationship is established according to a number of convergences in symbols and common vocabulary present in both tendencies. However this assimilation is completely inadequate.

In fact, the Conservative Revolution, in which we will find the thought of Moeller Van Den Bruck (50) or of Spengler (51) on the first plane, is based mainly on a fundamental rejection of Bolshevism and in a romantic and idealized vision of a past golden age. And these are present, besides the characteristics of the conservative movements in Europe, particularly in France.

Contrarily, national-bolshevism is not only a revolutionary ideology that looks for an alliance or doctrinal coalition with Bolshevism, but rather the national-Bolshevik theses are surprisingly up-to-date (they never look to the past), be they the theses in favor of an autarchic economy, big spaces, power economy, the State's definition or in favor of technocratic glorification.

Therefore, the question of vocabulary convergence or of relationships among individuals, should not deceive us. For example, the fact that both social-democrats and Bolsheviks refer to Marxism, does not mean that they both belong to one political school.

On the other hand, let us stop looking at the current positions of the heirs of national-Bolshevism and of those of the Conservative Revolution. Today, the main national-communist currents in Europe define themselves as declared enemies of the conservative extreme right. They do so expressively, originating from the same positions their predecessors in the 20's and 30's did (52).


REVOLUTIONARY-NATIONALISM AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM: TWO CURRENTS FROM ONE SAME FAMILY.

It is also indispensable to specify the relationships between revolutionary nationalism and national-bolshevism. Revolutionary nationalism, was an important political current present in most European countries during the twenties. In Weimar Germany, and in particular with the Junger brothers and their "neo-nationalism", it represented an intellectual and political current of important resonance.

National-bolshevism should be located at the same time inside and outside this current, which represents the most revolutionary expression. On the other hand, it was the national-communist Laufenberg who used the expression of "Revolutionary Nationalism" for the first time: "Inside the German National Party a repair of the most active idealistic intellectual atmospheres, who have always been big defenders of the national idea, has begun and, in its midst, its vanguard today recognizes that under the national objective's general current conditions, these cannot be carried out but by revolutionary means. The intellectual laboratories are, in this way, attracted to the communist movements... The national- revolutionary and social-revolutionary movements approach one another: they don't have a common organization, but their political encounter is carried out in practice" (53).

Now-a-days, these two political currents are always closely bound to each other. The current national-communists have located themselves inside the national-revolutionary field. This is, for example, the road chosen by the Nouvelle Resistance in France, the National- Bolshevik Front in Russia, Orion in Italy and European Alternative in Spain, who openly present themselves as a synthesis between national-communist ideologies and national-revolutionaries ones.

It would also be convenient to specify the relationship between these two currents. National-communism is, in fact, a radical and ultra-revolutionary development of revolutionary nationalism itself. Revolutionary nationalism maintains certain apprehensions in its relationship with Marxist-Leninism, whom it considers at best as a simple ally.

National-communism carries out an offensive coalition between two ideological currents in a dynamic synthesis.

NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM AND “NAZISM OF LEFT”.

One must necessarily analyze what has been called "left nazism", whose most outstanding figures were the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser, representatives of the socialist and revolutionary wing of the national-socialist movement. These two were opposed to Hitler from the beginning of the movement. Gregor was murdered during the purge of July 30, 1934 (the celebrated "night of the long knives") while his brother Otto would go on to encourage a national-socialist left-wing movement to resist the Hitler regime, the "Schwarze Front" (Black Front) (54).

At the beginning of the sixties, which is of most interests to this study, Otto Strasser, conquered by the European unitary cause (55), would grant two interviews for the publications of Young Europe. In these he would manifest his sympathies (56).

However, left-wing nazism was not part of the national-Bolshevik current. [This current] proved its desire for an opening to the east and opposed all "crusades" against the USSR (in this it opposed Hitler's theory of "Drang nach Osten"); it also manifested a remarkable socialist desire. But its position in relation to Marxist- Leninism take it fundamentally away from national-Bolshevism. In fact, the national-socialist Strasserians would eliminate the proletarian masses from Marxism and take them [instead] to the national-socialist filed. It is not, then, about an alliance or fusion with communists.

Professor Dupeux wrote in this sense: "It is not correct to assimilate Otto Strasser to national-bolshevism like many authors have done during his time and today" and he adds: "If the left-wing national-socialist sincerely referred to the class struggle and looked for a cohesion of the proletarian masses, its implicit objective was their consolidation or rather their development into the middle classes" (57).

The expulsion of the Strasser brothers from the national-socialist party (N.S.D.A.P.) wouldn't prevent certain left national-socialists from taking a place within the party. This was the case, particularly, of Doctor Goebbels, Gregor Strasser's former- secretary, who would become Minister of Propaganda and Popular Culture, without, however, giving up his socialist and revolutionary orientations.

NEITHER LEFT OR RIGHT: THE NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM AGAINST THE SYSTEM.

Speaking of national-Bolshevism, professor Dupeux wrote: "national- bolshevism is certainly the most ambiguous creations of the Wiemar Republic's political vocabulary" (58).

Doubts have assaulted historian and journalist when they have tried to characterize national-Bolshevik positions. "Is it the extreme right of the extreme left or of the extreme left of the extreme right"?.

In 1960, the first important book, written by Otto Ernst Schuddekop, was consecrated to this reality, which was titled "Liben leute von rechts", roughly translated to "the people of left of the right" (59). A title that reveals all the phenomenon's ambiguity when one attempts to explain it with the traditional political board categories of the western regimens of modern time. Are national- Bolsheviks Fascists from the extreme left or Bolsheviks from the extreme right?.

The absurdity of the question and the words used clearly exemplify that the left/right political classifications is completely incapable of reflecting the reality of revolutionary and atypical ideologies as the national-Bolshevik and national-communist ones.

One cannot but think of the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset's celebrated quote, frequently sited by contemporary national- Bolsheviks: "being from the left or being from the right are two options presented to imbecile men, both are forms of moral `hemiplejia'" (60).

National-bolshevism or the "convergence of the ends, passing from one to another, the fusion of representatives of both [ends]" is an incomprehensible phenomenon to those who reason with the classic political classifications of the regime, which spreads from the extreme right to the extreme left, and where right and left are presented as opposed and unyielding fields. Fascism, Stalinism, Bolshevism or the extreme right can never meet and all convergences appear, to the eyes of the specialists of the conformist "pret- a- penser", as unnatural.

The Polish writer Malynske proposes the union and the historical compromise between the ends and denounces the union of interests between the bourgeoisie, the beaurocracy and syndicalist parties as a coincidence: "the blocks of the extreme right and the extreme left should rise against this block of democratic insolence, of financial rapacity and of dominance" (61). He equally accentuates the "certain deep likeness between those that call themselves extreme right and extreme left, because, as strange as it may seem, it seems that they are in fact the two parts of the contemporary social field between which, if one doesn't look superficially, unyielding interests do not exist, nor do aspirational antithesis. On the contrary, this irreducibility and this antithesis necessarily exists between these two currents and the bourgeoisie" (62).


A PRECURSOR: GEORGES SOREL.

One cannot remember the different national-Bolshevik or national- communist currents, be they from the thirties or from current time, without remembering Georges Sorel, the great socialist and revolutionary theoretician of syndicalism (63).

Georges Sorel is an almost unique figure within late XIX and early XX century French intellectuality.

Since 1907, Georges Sorel, opponent of the bourgeois demo- plutocratic regime and of the dominant liberal system in France, would be the soul of an approach between those who in the extreme right and extreme left rejected the system. That is, [an approach between] the nationalists, whose emblematic figure was Maurice Barres, the monarchists of Charles Maurras, and revolutionary syndicalist leaders proceeding from the left white stream (64).

Through the magazines, "Revue critique des idees et des livres" (1907), "La cite francaise" (1910) and later "L'Independence" (1911- 1913), Georges Sorel would be the artisan of an important intellectual agitation in which theoreticians of integral monarchic maurraisan nationalism, such as the national-revolutionary Maurice Barres, pre-Fascists like Georges Valois, as well as numerous syndicalists and theoreticians of the extreme left, in particular Eduard Berth and Daniel Halevy, would participate.

The influence and the repercussion exercised by Sorel in Europe were frequently recognized over Lenin. Mussolini would always recognize the debt he owed this great socialist theoretician. He came from the revolutionary socialist fields of the start of the century. After the war, Georges Sorel's influence would also be felt in Georges Valois' French Fascist movement.

But mainly, his theories found an important continuation in the national-revolutionary and national-Bolshevik tendencies which appeared in Germany during the 20's and 30's (65).

Sorel theorized the "general strike" in which he saw the means to demolish the bourgeois regime. One cannot but assimilate his conceptions to those of the national-communists Wolffheim and Laufenberg. For these, parliamentary action would disappear when being faced with "mass strikes" capable of forcing the bourgeois state to retire progressively until the proletariat exercised its dictatorship definitively.

Georges Sorel didn't live to see the important effects of his doctrinal influence, he would die in 1922 without seeing the development of the USSR nor Mussolini's victory in Italy. The day of his death the Bolshevik Government of the new Soviet State and the Italian Fascist State both tried to take charge of his funeral. [This being] the final image of a surprising destiny which serves to show us what the notions of "right" and "left" represent for a revolutionary thinker.

Sorel was, with Georges Valois particularly, the encourager of the "Circle Proudhon" which contained monarchists, nationalist and revolutionary syndicalists.

A road that can't but remind us of the current Russian patriotic opposition which contains communist, nationalist-revolutionaries and Russian monarchists. To this respect, the No. 1 edition of the magazine "Elementy", by Alexander Duguin, is particularly relevant, which depicts the three flags of the patriotic opposition united: the communist red flag, the monarchists' tri-colored flag (66) with the bicephalous eagle and the national revolutionaries' black flag (67).


FROM CONFORMISM TO INSULT: THE CURRENT "DEBATE" IN THE PRESS.

In the introduction of this article we remembered the journalistic phenomenon that national-Bolshevism provoked in the summer of 1993.

A pseudo-debate arose in the big French newspapers, from "Liberation" (67), "Le Monde " (68), "Globe" (69) and "L'Evenement de Jeudi " (70) which then made its way to newspapers from other countries like those of Belgium, Italy and Spain (71).

This debate arose as an internal settling of accounts from Georges Marchais as head of the [French Communist] party. A press campaign that had risen months earlier in Germany also originated from a great political scandal arisen by the encounter between one of the vice-presidents of the Socialist Democracy Party, the P.D.S. (the new name of the German Communist Party) and one of the members responsible for National Offensive, a formation classified as extreme right.

In respects to this, German journalists spoke of national-bolshevism and, in this sense, denounced the "temptation" that exists in Germany. "Der Spiegel" , especially, consecrated several articles [to this topic].

This German debate echoed some time ago in the occasion of an article's publication in edition No. 87 of the magazine "Les dossiers de l'Historie" titled "National-Bolchevisme, un spectre allemand" (72). Contrary to the articles already mentioned, this article was a more serious study, having been clearly assisted by professor Louis Dupeux's thesis, although without ever mentioning it. This article, however, lacked historical depth, since it saw national-bolshevism only as a German tentative, both during 1929-30 and today. The authors of the article visibly ignored the expansion of the national-Bolshevik phenomenon in Europe during the sixties and, particularly [ignored], today's reality in several European countries.

The pseudo-debate in the big newspapers is only preoccupied with a polemic end, (for the internal use of the French Communist Party, where it gave way to an argument against the opposed factions), the convergence between certain intellectuals of the new right, like Alain of Benoist, and communist intellectuals. These articles also "accuse" some non-conformist magazines, like "Le Choc du Mois" or "L'Idiot International" published in Paris by the brave non- conformist Jean-Eden Hailler, who is endowed with a special talent, (73) where thinkers classified as both "communist" and "extreme right" write.

Be it due to ignorance or wishing to censure, the journalists that write these articles continually avoid speaking about the national- communist phenomenon's other reality, [which has been seen at] the end of this XX century; that is to say, of the different political realities like the organizations integrated into the European Liberation Front.

The majorities of these articles' lack of dignity doesn't deserve our wasting time on them, since they easily fall into insult and political offence.

In this sense, it's still necessary to reveal the "pearl". In the weekly "Globe" of July of 1993, a certain Laurent Dispot directed an open letter to Georges Marchais, qualifying him as a "Messerschmit national-communist" (74) and took refuge on the old fable about "the party of shot people" (the author doubtlessly ignores that the collaboration was, in great measure, a matter of the left and the extreme left, communists included). Dispot proposes as a remedy to the "national-communist danger" which he denounces, a united Europe and what he calls a "European socialism". What is truly remarkable is that in these articles which pretend to be well researched, journalists simply ignore that in the most contemporary national-communist movements, from Lisbon to Moscow, this European construction is defended in the line of Young Europe and in a much deeper sense than the shy advances that European social-democracy present as universal panacea. The author [of this article] has, certainly, never heard of Jean Thiriart or the Euro-Soviet School.

The general tone of this press campaign proves itself when, in repeated occasions, "The totalitarian languages" of Jean Pierre Faye is used as a reference (75). [This work], published in 1972 was compiled on the base of incomplete and often self-interested documentation; its a work full of errors which professor Louis Dupeux has already denounced in his thesis. What is symptomatic [of this whole situation] is that this last reference work, the only one existent up to today, is not cited a single time in the numerous articles which appeared in the press during the summer of 1993.

The lack of citation by these articles of the mere names of the 1918 Hamburg national-communist, Wolffheim and Laufenberg, is also very revealing. These men were truly, authentic communist who were in the origin of the first national-communist movement in Germany and Europe. It's also true that the Laufenberg trajectory within the communist doctrinal current is important and extremely uncomfortable for the special conformists of the "pret a penser" , as Louis Dupeux underlines: "we can see how the thesis adopted by Laufenberg about the 'crushing majority of the people' will be adopted - twice - by orthodox communists" (76). A thesis that would be the base for the work of Soviet constitutional jurists even today! (77).

The other main characteristic of this intellectual debate is its excessive positivism. In fact, numerous articles are consecrated to figures of the Parisian intellectual atmosphere (the few Russian authors that are mentioned only serve to contribute to the microcosmic Parisian debate). The European dimension of contemporary national-bolshevism, its true political dimension beyond any cenacle of Parisian intellectuals, is completely unknown to this press campaign.


THE NATIONAL-BOLSHEVIK ALTERNATIVE.

The failure of the dominant political system surprises us more and more everyday. The capitalist world economy, under the hegemony of the U.S., has proclaimed its victory over the communist system; but at the same time, it has arrived at the final stage of its decadence. A global scale of this economy is not possible. The impossibility of opening new markets inevitably leads to the formation of economic giants and an [eventual] war amongst them.

The national-Bolshevik dialectics are, in fact, an answer to the current situation of social, economic and political degradation, to the failure of the educational system, to the inability of assuring full employment, to the growth of poverty and unemployment, to the return of the social misery that every day points to the failure of the capitalist system and the partitocracy of pseudo-democrats which embody it. The national-Bolshevik alternative is the answer to the failure of the American model, its pretension of dominating the world economy and its desire to play the role of world policeman.

AGAINST THE DERAILING OF THE SYSTEM'S OPPOSITION. THE NATIONAL- BOLSHEVISK DIALECTICS.

The system's opposition, in all of Europe, has been present since the end of the Second World War. Its formations are often local, of a "poujadista" regional type, that is to say, without possessing any revolutionary will, cohesion or planning. This is what has saved the System up until today. The opposition to the System which comprises of a wide socio-political arch, (the national opposition in the extreme right, the communist opposition in the extreme left, the neo- poujadista opposition of the middle classes and the different environmentalist oppositional currents), does not represent a real threat to the System. These oppositional forces faced against each other, and not coordinated amongst themselves, are reabsorbed by the System movement by movement, protest by protest.

The national-Bolshevik dialectic wishes to respond to the failure of the isolated opposition, a failure that clearly reveals that the opposition lacks more of a brain than a heart and, as was underlined by Lenin, Gramsci and Thiriart, a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, there is no revolution and without a revolutionary, political, organizational and theoretical union, there is no united opposition. The key question about this opposition union against the System and its [eventual] structure is the center of the debate brought about by national-bolshevism, as it was in the early twenties and as it is at the end of the XX century.

BROWN/RED ALLIANCE OR BLACK/RED/GREEN UNITED FRONT?

The system's press, intending to discriminate against the national- Bolshevik alternative, has elaborated big banners about a seditious brown and red alliance, remaining far from all political reality.

Its evident to any lucid, or simply, honest observer that the central point of national-Bolshevism is not, at all, an alliance between seditious Neo-Nazis and archaic communist, but it's about a unity between the opposition to the System's dynamic forces: the brown, or nostalgic Neo-Nazis, don't have any place within this union and they are not more than mere marionettes encouraged by the Washington and Tel Aviv secret services so as to sow hate and the division within Europe.

Today, the purpose of the national-Bolshevik strategy is to organize a revolt, to channel dissatisfaction. Its certain that when the pseudo-oppositional movements located in the extreme right (such as the French National Front or the M.S.I - today Alleanza Nazionale -) or the environmentalists, have given final proof of their inability to organize this revolt and to become an alternative to the System, the road will be finally open for a genuinely revolutionary movement. This will be the hour of national-bolshevism. In this sense, the 1917 Russian Revolution example is full of historical meaning. After the February liberals, after Kerensky, the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution arrived.

TODAY, NATIONAL-BOLSHEVIK MILITANTS PREPARE THEIR OCTOBER IN ALL OF EUROPE

ogenoct
Wednesday, August 18th, 2004, 09:54 PM
http://bolsheviks.org/DOCUMENTS/NATIONAL-COMMUNIST.htm



http://bolsheviks.org/BANNER.jpg



THE NATIONAL-COMMUNIST ALTERNATIVE

Luc Michel

Translation by bolivian NB comrade Jorge Morón


"You make the cause of the nation the cause of the people and the cause of the people will become the cause of the nation." V.I. Lenin

Let us imagine a laboratory: in this laboratory a matter prevails, in this matter a big-bang prevails and inside this big-bang, a chain of chemical reactions of an extraordinary violence [unwinds]. Some molecules come undone, others are formed, [and] a formidable process of fission, combustion, reconstruction, corpuscular combustion [develops]; at the end of which appears a synthesis of products of unknown nature. Who could have foreseen the synthesis of the "national" and of the "social" in 1920? Who, before Barres, could have imagined the encounter, the mere encounter, of the two terms? Because, well, it's at this point where we find ourselves now.

Europe `mutatis mutandis', is at this point. [It] doesn't return, it invents, it doesn't meditate, it improvises. It doesn't repeat old formulas: it burns them, it turns them to ashes and from the fragments, combined crazily, it forms new unknown products. Nationalism is found in it, certainly, as are fragments of populism, remains of anti-Semitism and some good-old communism, less dead than it seems. All of these are blended, and passed though the big-bang test. In the heart of the tumult, even as unlikely as it was in its time, is the Fascist synthesis. This is a monster that the new Europe cracks under our eyes, although for the time being it does it behind our backs. He still has no name, this monster, nor has it a face. The hypothesis is only that it exists or that it will exist one day." (B.H. Levy, "enser L'Europe" en "Le Monde des debats 1993").

In the summer of 1993, the great press discovered what it called the temptation or the danger of National-Bolshevism. From Paris to Moscow, our journalists seemed to have discovered a new phenomenon. Their flagrant lack of culture did not allow them to be acquainted with the remarkable thesis about national-bolshevism written by professor Louis Dupeux fifteen years ago (1).

From "Liberation" (Paris) to "Soir" (Brussels), through to "Le "Monde", they opened a true debate on the topic. They multiplied articles, often contradicting themselves on the topic of national-bolshevism and the fusion between nationalists and communists. Thus, "Liberation" titled an article, "The National- Bolshevik Galaxy" and spoke of the "extraordinary ideological convergence that has taken place during these last months between some communist intellectuals and the extreme right." It underlined that "the approach [was made] on behalf of their hate for the socialist left, America and Zionism" (2). "Soir" on the other hand, spoke of an alliance between browns and reds and subtitled [its article] "Political fiction or politics without fiction?" (3).

Despite its first political expression in between the two world wars, national-bolshevism had already become a European political reality by the mid 60's thanks to Jean Thiriart's Jeune Europe and its evolution in 1965 towards national-communist theses (4). From the 80's on, with the Parti Communautarie National-European (P.C.N) (5), national-bolshevism would find a new political expression. Today, next to the already mentioned P.C.N., numerous currents postulate theses that favor an offensive coalition between revolutionary nationalism and Leninist communism against the System, the New World Order and American hegemony; such as the Nouvelle Resistance in France, Orion in Italy, European Alternative in Spain and the National-Bolshevik Front in Moscow.

The great press has been interested, on the other hand, on the marginal aspects of the national-Bolshevik phenomenon. In the French case, the common road of communist intellectuals and of the extreme right has been underlined together with the political project of Russian communist militants and national-revolutionaries. [However], national-bolshevism is much more. Above all, it's a political desire to overcome the dividing lines between the Right and the Left, between the anti-fascism and the anti-communism maintained by the System so as to divide opposition; and it's a will to offer a political alternative to the decadence of the contemporary world. Such are the different aspects of what "Liberation" calls the "national-Bolshevik galaxy."

Never having been faced with such politically unqualifiable phenomenons, the specialists of the "pret-a-penser" and of intellectual conformism, have preferred to include it in a very comfortable bundle under the generic name of "extreme right", showing, by this, their lack of historical culture and politics and their inability to consider today's reality outside of the traditional outlines in which socio-political thought is framed and reduced [today].


THE BIRTH OF NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM.

National-bolshevism, independently of its precursors to which we shall return and the first of which is George Sorel, was historically born in Germany with the shock caused by the collapse of the Second Reich in 1918 and due to the rising crisis emanated by the creation of Bolshevik Russia in 1917. From its birth, German national-bolshevism presented the two tendencies that we have already underlined: on one hand, the collaboration between nationalist and communist intellectuals and, on the other, an authentic national-revolutionary movement that united Leninist ideology with nationalist content. National-bolshevism was born to overcome the international order imposed by Versailles, whose victims were mainly Soviet Russia and Germany, as well as Italy. Beyond ideological options, the weight of the order created in Versailles, dictated by the U.S. President Wilson, imposed an even situation upon the German nationalists and the Russian communists. Before even building a theoretical construction or a revolutionary political construction, German national-bolshevism would first be a nexus between German and Russian frustration in regards to the Versailles order. Faced with the looting and the dismemberment of Germany and of Russia on the part of the 1918 winners and the excessive demands made by the winners of 1918, numerous German intellectuals openly declared that the Bolshevik regime [then] recently implanted in Russia was preferable to the humiliation and the ruin imposed on their German homeland.

"The sought-after national Bolshevism is born from a fever caused by the encounter of two fears, but in circumstances objectively unfavorable..., [it's] a heroic solution, reducent for a minority of idealists, it sinks its roots in a genuinely `German' reactionary tradition. In this way, it extends beyond a simple combination of circumstances and, it's for this reason, that this "temptation" would survive and express itself in a time in which the internal and external situation offered a prospective of radical loss of legitimacy in a concrete order before the eyes of the extreme right belonging to the conquering West" (6).

The great Germanist Eltzbacher, law professor in Berlin, would be the first one to speculate about this position in April 1919, in a proclamation that would constitute the first coherent doctrinal manifestation of national-Bolshevism.

Professor Paul Eltzbacher's ideas found an attentive eye in the Soviet field. Karl Radek, put in charge by the First Communist International -the Comintern- of the preparation of revolution in Germany, would favor the alliance between German reactionaries and Russian communists.

In November 1919, Radek declared "This is the reason why honest nationalists as Eltzbacher, displeased by the peace of Versailles [and] who have looked for a union with Soviet Russia in what they have called national bolshevism, have been totally isolated today."


THE NATIONAL-COMMUNISM OF HAMBURG.

The coalition between nationalism and Leninist communism, within a common political formation, would respond quickly to this first national-Bolshevik intellectual convergence, which is [in itself] the authentic essence of Bolshevism .

From 1919 [on] it would be embodied in a national-Bolshevik current developed, at first in Hamburg, by the leaders of the Soviet revolution Heinrich Laufenberg and Friedrich Wolfheim (7). In this city, they derived radical national-communist positions in alliance with those of the [then] marked national tendency. In 1919-20 Wolfheim and Laufenberg encouraged a national-Bolshevik current that competed with the positions of the "Spartans" (left revolutionaries) who called for the formation of the German Communist Party, K.P.D.; [they did so] in Germany and in the heart of the First International.

After being expelled by this party in October 1919, they immediately formed a dissident communist party, the K.A.P.D. or German Worker's Communist Party (8). Through this party, which would be represented in the Comintern up until 1922, Wolfheim and Laufenberg defended the idea of creating a German Red Army to re-launch the war against the winners of Versailles.

After the victory of national-socialism in 1933, some national- Bolshevik structures survived the political and intellectual apparatus of the Third Reich. [Amongst these was] in particular, the Fichte-Bund, created in Hamburg following the line of the K.A.P.D. [This structure] would end up integrating itself into and surviving the core of the Third Reich. Directed by professor Kessemaier of Hamburg, this university and intellectual movement had many parallel [formations] in Europe. Among them was a young man from Lieja who had emerged from the lines of extreme communism, a certain Jean Thiriart, to whom we shall return later on...."


THE GERMAN NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM OF THE 20s AND 30s.

Starting from the mid twenties up until the arrival of national- socialism in 1933, national-Bolshevism would become an important part of the intellectual panorama of the Weimar Republic. There were numerous intellectuals that would embrace national-Bolshevik positions.

In the first place, we must name Ernst Niekisch, who would be the most celebrated and the main representative of the German national- Bolshevik current.

Coming from the German socialist current, Niekisch, would evolve towards national-Bolshevik and neo-nationalist positions, in particular, through the magazine which he formed: "Widerstand" (Resistance), which held a considerable influence specially over the German juvenile movements previous to 1933. Niekisch's current was composed of former-social-democrats and syndicalists to whom numerous representatives of the average neo-nationalist [movements] were added. After 1933, Niekisch express himself, every time with more force, against the positions of Hitler, which would [subsequently] cause the closing of the magazine and his enclosure in a concentration camp from which he would [only] emerge in 1945.

Before his death he participated in the bringing to birth of the German Democratic Republic within which he saw the exaltation of the communist and Prussian values that were as ever his.


KARK RADEK AND “THE TRAVELER OF NAUGHT”.

"In the year 1923, I remember having witnessed a new great wave of national-bolshevism, in the vague and vulgar sense of the contacts between nationalist and communist. The origin of this wave, in fact very quarrelsome, is Schlageter's line in the midst of which the German Communist Party (K.P.D.) intends to "win over the middle classes thorough proletariazation" using the patriotic subject deliberately. In the course of this campaign one could see the leaders of the party compromised, even to look for a debate, with the qualified elements of Fascists or "pro-fascists". The social- democrats and the bourgeois parties once again re-launched the old accusation about a convergence between the two extreme ends... the herald of this new line was Radek" (9).

The German national-bolshevism of the early 20's is unquestionably [shaped after] the figure of the International Communist Karl Radek. Put in charge by the Comintern of organizing and coordinating the Bolshevik revolution in Germany, Radek understood (10) the benefit that could be extracted from the national-Bolshevik phenomenon and he never stopped favoring it. When in 1925, the French and Belgian armies occupied the basin of the Rhur, as a response to the lack of payment of war reparations from the part of bled-out Germany, an important resistance movement was organized by French national- revolutionaries.

The leader of one of these, Leo Schlageter, was captured and executed by the French army; Schlageter became the first hero of national-socialism (11). Upon his death, Karl Radek pledged a homage to him in a surprising speech made before the representatives of the International Communist gathered in Moscow. Karl Radek announced: "most of the German people are men that work and consecrate themselves to the fight against the German bourgeoisie. If the patriotic atmospheres of Germany don't decide to make theirs the cause of this majority of the nation and to constitute in this way a front against the capital of the Entente and German capital, then the road opened up by Schlageter will be the road to nothing."

In this same speech, pronounced in Moscow the 20th of June 1923, Radek also spoke of Schlageter as the traveler of naught, in relation to the title of a novel of the time (12).

Radek's speech would have enormous repercussion in Germany. It would constitute the origin of numerous cohabitations and debates between German intellectuals of the extreme right and communist leaders, with Radek as the head [of them].

This situation can't but, at least, make us think about the current debate in course carried out, particularly, in France and which in the summer of 1993 the great press denounced as "national-communism".

Warner Lerner, biographer of Karl Radek, evokes in an impressive way the action of this last one: "In 1923 Karl Radek attempted to use the recently created Nazi party to destroy the Weimar Republic and favor the communist revolution. Radek gave the Nazis their first hero, Schlageter, shot by the French in the Rhur, and he made in his memory a celebrated speech, approved by Stalin and Zinoviev. Radek expressed the conviction, shared by the leaders of the Comintern, that the crushing majority of the nationalist masses do not belong to the field of the nationalists, but to that of the workers, and that hundreds of Schlageter's would unite themselves to the field of the Revolution. On the other hand, Hitler trusted his comrades with the conviction that a communist could always become a good Nazi, but that a social-democrat could never be one" (13).


THE RESURGANCE OF NATIONAL-COMMUNISM IN THE 60's: JEUNE EUROPE AND
JEAN THIRIART.


To view the new current of national-communist tendency we first must look at the 1960's with the transnational organization "Young Europe" and Jean Thiriart's work. The current intellectual climate is characterized by meek conformism. One of the stupidest manifestations of this is the marked will of giving to each political current a label that locates it in one of the conventional compartments that extend from the extreme right to the extreme left.

And when a revolutionary movement is located outside of this system of classification "rien ne va plus". Pseudo-explanations arrive about "the convergence of the ends" and other fantasies coming from the apolitical or, simply, from intellectual dishonesty.

The organization Young Europe didn't escape this phenomenon and it has been classified for more than 30 years as extreme right, that is to say Fascist, in a rejection of any objective reality. If on the contrary, this European organization is studied through its real history [and] its publications, the reality is other: we are before an original and unclassifiable revolutionary movement that is located outside of the "right" or "left" conformism and which picks as its positions, socio-politically as well as in foreign policy, from the national-communist or national-Bolshevik synthesis of the 20's and 30's (14).

An "organization for the formation of a political frame" [and] a revolutionary party of the vanguard, Young Europe reminds us of the Bolshevik Party after 1903, because of its methods and its political project: "A revolution demands the conjunction of diverse factors: having a global ideology (and not only a small electoral program), being a determined group, being organized, homogeneous, disciplined, that is to say to be an action party; to finally find a point of crisis,... We have an ideology, we are preparing an organized group, the point of crisis we await" (15).

Former-Stalinist militant at the beginning of his political career previous to the war (16), Jean Thiriart, founder and main theoretician of Young Europe, structured his movement following the principles of the strictest Leninist organizational orthodoxy and its hierarchy derives directly from "democratic centralism". Also, in a number of occasions, Thiriart would openly recognize the influence that Lenin exercised over him (17).

Starting in 1960, the doctrine of the movement, "National-European Communitarism" whose social character was affirmed from the beginning, derived from national-communist positions. If in the first years of the movement, Thiriart would have a right-wing orientation (fundamentally Franco-Belgian) which feeds on virulent anti-communism, from 1960 on he affirmed the ideological positions that were in direct line with those that he would defend from the eighties on, under the generic name of "the Euro-Soviet School". [This called for] the creation of a Great Europe [extending] from Dublin to Vladivostok, National-communism and a collaboration between the USSR and Western Europe. In 1962 Thiriart wrote: "In my view, there are big chances that in the next twenty-five years the following blocks may be formed: the two Americas (subsequently he would return to the idea of seeing a Latin America liberated from the Yankees), the Asian block, China-India, and the Europe-Africa- U.S.S.R. block which would allow us to no longer write about 'from Brest to Bucharest' but about 'from Brest to Vladivostok'. Geopolitics is already underlining this future" (18).

After the definitive elimination of the right-wing sector of the organization in 1964, Thiriart would lead Young Europe in a direction in which two general orientations dominate: on one hand, radical anti-Americanism and, on the other, a progressive approach to national-communist positions. Thiriart sees Communitarism as surpassing communism and not as its opponent, this is a typical national-Bolshevik posture. In 1965, he defined Communitarism as "national-European socialism" and he added that "in the mid century, communism will become, wanting it or not, Communitarism" (19). In this, history has had to agree with him given that before the fall of the Soviet block, the economic reforms that were introduced in Hungary and Romania took communist economy towards Communitarism (20).

In 1984, Thiriart would clearly specify that Communitarism is "European communism without Marx " (21). This ideological evolution would be translated into facts in two different ways: a progressively more pro-soviet vision which would lead to the creation of the Euro-Soviet Doctrinal School and, on the other hand, an approach from the part of the organization towards the regimens of Eastern Europe, speacially to Tito's Yugoslavia and Ceaucescu's Romania. In an article titled "World Chess Board and National- communism" (22), Thiriart affirms that "the revolutionary concept of the next years will be the creation of a socialist Europe of a revolutionary type, our communitarist Europe in whose construction the militant blocks of eastern Europe must play an important role."

In the summer of 1966, Thiriart would travel to Romania and Yugoslavia, multiplying his official contacts [there]. In August of 1966, the Yugoslavian government's official diplomatic magazine Medunarodna Politika published, in Serbo-Croat, a long article of Thiriart's entitled "Europe do Bresta do Bucaresta" (23). The European national-communists theses of Young Europe were of visible interest, [and] at the highest level. The most spectacular of all these high level contacts was the encounter between Chou In Lai and Jean Thiriart, organized by Ceauscescu's services in the occasion of the Chinese Prime Minister's visit to Bucharest in the summer of 1966 (24).

In spite of these tactical successes, the organization would break up in 1969, with Thriart's retreat from militant politics for more than 10 years.

The reasons for this failure was, fundamentally, the absence of a revolutionary political land during the "Golden Sixties" [and] the exhaustion of the organization's human, material and financial resources.

On the other hand, the organization's alliances and its practical possibilities of success were what led Thiriart to consecrate an important part of his doctrinal thought to the role that the communist regimens of eastern Europe, and even the USSR, could play in the European unification process. A position which reminds us of the national-Bolsheviks of the twenties who expected the Soviet Union to play a decisive revolutionary role in Germany, as well as to impulse a revenge against the Entente countries.


[b]JEAN THIRIART AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM.

Unquestionably, Jean Thiriart appears as a continuation of the diverse German national-Bolshevik and national-communist currents of the 20's and 30's. There are, certainly, differences which are in great measure rooted in the evolution of the political and international context existent before World War II and after the sixties.

An apparent fundamental difference lies in the national element. Thiriart completely rejected [the idea of a] small German nationalism and [instead] defended the idea of a pan-European nationalism and community. [One must] add that Thiriart's thought derives directly from the theory of "big spaces", which sees in the construction of big economic blocks an answer to the challenge of the present times. Thiriart is equally in favor of the autarchic economic blocks and of auto-centralization, the prophet of which was the German Friedrich List. We must put this position in context in regards to the national-Bolshevik current, and particularly in relation to Niekisch, who proposed the constitution of a "German- Slavic block from Vladivostok to Flessing". Thiriart proposes the creation of a "Great Europe from Rijkjavik to Vladivostok". The difference in positions, [however], derives mainly from anti-Latin and anti-Roman attitudes, because Niekisch saw in these the power of the Entente and therefore [he believed them] responsible for the decadence and ruin that Germany and the Soviet Union suffered from. In a study published in 1982 and titled "L'Unione Sovietica nel pensiero di Jean Thiriart", Jose Cuadrado Costa also responded positively to attributing the national-Bolshevik current of the 20's and 30's to Thiriart. Cuadrado added: "Thiriart, guided by his pragmatism and his revolutionary will, has defined in the last numbers of "The European Nation" the essential lines of what we could refer to as national-bolshevism in a European dimension" (25).

It's this thought that would comprise the point of origin of a new national-Bolshevik political and doctrinal current in the early 1980's.


THE SO-CALLED NAZI-MAOISM: REALITY BEYOND INSULT.

One cannot speak of the national-communist synthesis without remembering what the big newspapers have called, in an inappropriate and unjust way, Nazi-Maoism.

TThe 27th of April 1978, the "right-thinking" organ "L'Unita", the newspaper of the Italian Communist Party, published a front page article titled "The language of Freda and of the Red Brigades": an extract of a 1968 booklet written by the theoretician of "Disintegration of the System", Franco Freda (26).

"L'Unita" rediscovered expressions used in this text, which seemed to have been extracted from one of the numerous official statements of the Red Brigades, that revealed "truly impressive passages due to the language used by one of the leaders of a subversive group of the time [compared to the language] of today's subversive leaders" (27).

This was a beautiful example of what the press would call Nazi- Maoism. Let us make it known that this term, Nazi-Maoism, derives more from insult than political science, it can only be attributed to journalists. No political currents have ever used this word or claimed it as their own. Let us see, then, what it really refers to.

The so-called Nazi-Maoist current was embodied mainly in the diverse fractions of "Lutte du Peuple" who were direct derivatives of the remains of Young Europe from whom they assimilated a part of its doctrine. "Jean Thiriart... is not a proper teacher, but he is still a very serious reference point for all that concerns Europe" (28).

Lutte du Peuple was born together with its Italian faction Lotta di Popolo. This organization split from the coalition of Giovane Europa, representatives of Thiriart in Italy and its diverse student groups. Swiftly after, sister organizations of it were created in Spain, Germany and France.

The French faction, the most important after the Italian, the "Organisation Lutte du Peuple" (O.L.P.) was founded in 1971 by some left-wing nationalists originated from "Ordre Noveau" and from European socialists from "Pour une Jeune Europe" (not to be confused with the Thiriart's Jeune Europe with whom they didn't hold any bond). Their leader was Yves Battaille. "In Italy they made contact with diverse extra-parliamentarian groups, but in particular with the most advanced elements in European nationalism, these last... created the organization `Lotta di Popolo'. Returning to France, these new European militants built the bases of a new movement: it was not more than a replica of "Lotta di Popolo". The French faction of the O.L.P. he had been born" (29).

The German faction is the "N.R.A.O", the National Revolutionare Aufbau Organisation.

As Yannick Sauveur, author of one of the rare and serious socio- political studies of the O.L.P., insists "If one definitively admits to the reality of a Nazi-Maoist current, we should state that it is not simply a conversion of national-Bolshevism, since Nazi-Maoism is not the national-bolshevism of the seventies. The national dimension has changed. It is no longer Germany, but Europe. In the same way that Bolshevism is not the same type as that of the thirties. It's now Mao's ideological and practical contribution... that are unquestionably considerable. Finally, the community and unity of Europe that the O.L.P. wants to carry out is, no more and no less, the translocation of the work of Mao adapted into the European field and to the mentality of the European people" (30).

The diverse factions of the O.L.P. disappeared by the mid seventies without leaving any heirs and without being able to resuscitate or empty its waters into a political alternative. The French [case was] due to weakness, the Italians due to the blows exerted by an ultra- repressive power.


THE CURRENT NATIONAL-COMMUNIST SYNTHESIS.

After the disappearance of Young Europe in 1969 and the successive disappearances of the similar French and Italian groups, one must look at the eighties to see the ideas of Thiriart resuscitate and to see a new political current that can qualify as national-communist or national-Bolshevik.

In June of 1984, in Charleroi, the National European Community Party, P.C.N, was founded. From its creation this party categorically rejected the "right" and "left" qualifications and offered a synthesis that may be called national-communist (31).

The points that stand out from this new party were the personality of its founders and the firm coalition between Europeanism and socialism.

The new party, from its foundation, assumed in its entirety the doctrinal positions of Young Europe post-1965 (the time period to which the P.C.N refers to with its new name and with that of its magazine "La Nacion Europea" [the European Nation]) and defended the communitarist thesis in regards to a united and communitarian Europe.

The party participated in the Belgian legislative elections of 1985 and it is not by chance that the only published interview of the president of the party appeared in the newspapers in the occasion of these elections. [The publications were made] in the socialist newspaper of Charleroi, "Le Peuple", in a favorable interview entitled "L'Europe jusqu'au Vladivostok" (32).

From 1988, the P.C.N. continued developing its unitary, anti-system project coming closer to the association Europe-Ecologie.

In the Belgian legislative elections of November of 1991, the party would continue its road and would present, under its initials, an electoral platform opened to the many formations of the extreme right, as the "League Le Pen" or the remains of the "P.F.N" of Brussels, and left nationalist like the "Alliance Republicaine Nationaliste Wallone"or the "Association Europe-Ecologie" (33).

Honest journalists that have busied themselves with this original formation have not failed to underline its strangeness in regards to traditional political clarifications.

After C. Boursellier dedicated a big section in his book "Les ennemis du systeme" to the national-communist current (34), Manuel Abramovicz would describe the anti-system positions of the party in an article published in the monthly "Republique" (35).

The opponents of the P.C.N. have also recognized its atypical character. "The Anti-semitism World Report" 1993, published by the "Institute of Hebrew Matters" writes that "the P.C.N. is not an extreme right organization..." (36).

The new party's marked orientation towards the east is equally characteristic of national-Bolshevik positions. The magazine that would serve as the P.C.N.'s main means of expression, "Conscience Europenne", would include, in 1983, a bilingual supplement in French and Russian titled "Russia is also Europe." Since its foundation the party defended the idea of a coalition among the two Europe's, the Western one and the one then formed by the Soviet block. The party would [also] defend a theory according to which the interior oriental borders of the USSR were also those of Europe.

Since 1983, the main contemporary national-communist or national- Bolshevik currents have adopted the doctrinal work developed by Jean Thiriart and the P.C.N. In this way, in Russia the magazine "Elementy" or the National-Bolshevik Front make reference to "the ideas of Thiriart" (37). In France, the movement Nouvelle Resistance, born from the break-away national-revolutionary section of the extreme right movement Troisine Voie, would make important references to Thiriart and the work of the P.C.N. (38). These defend, more than ever, the anti-system positions and the will of a national-communist synthesis which [together] have comprised as their goals from the moment of their foundation. This is particularly so, through their desire to create a Black/Green/Red United Front to contain national-revolutionaries, national-communist and environmentalist for a unitary anti-system movement (39). In Italy it's the magazine "Orion" which assumes national-communism explicitly. In Italy, official representatives of the Russian opposition forces, Communist Party included, maintain regular exchange and collaboration contacts with groups of the revolutionary left and the Communist Refoundation Party, some of whose exponents collaborate regularly in Orion. In Spain, this current is represented by the European Alternative association that publishes the magazine "Tribuna de Europa" (European Tribune)."


EMERGING OF THE NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM IN RUSSIA.

The current debate in the big newspapers about national-bolshevism, has, in large part, emerged from the national-Bolshevik current in Russia. It is not by chance that this [current] is in first plane [there] due to the deep crisis that has crossed Russia since the explosion of the Soviet Union and due to the imperialist stratagems supported by Gorbachev and Yeltsin which have led the Russian people to support radical solutions that are not, as of yet, possible in Western Europe. On the other hand, [this is the case also] because the political territory there is favorable for a union of the system opposition, be it national-revolutionary or national-communist, before the common opponent and before the serious threats that hang over the future of Russia.

It was normal that the forces that personified order, progress and the future would together react against cosmopolitanism and imperialistic dominance. In this way, the big newspapers have been able to make attractive banners about the alliance amongst the "browns" and the "reds" and write tendentious articles dedicated to distort reality.

The Russian political reality is a remarkable example of two aspects of that movement that at the time is being called "the national- Bolshevik temptation". On the first place, there is a collaboration among the national-revolutionaries, extreme right and old communist apparatus forces. This is the only aspect that at the moment the journalists of the System underline. This collaboration found its political expression in the creation of the Front of National Salvation.

The second feature of the national-Bolshevik reality, the true essence of this political current, also found its public attainment in May of 1993, in the construction of the National-Bolshevik Front directed by Alexander Dugin and Edward Limonov.

The foundation manifesto of this movement gathers the deep concerns of the national-Bolshevik current in Europe. It is also necessary to stress the fact that it underlines the precursor role of Young Europe in the diffusion of national-communist ideas in today's Europe: "The political struggle in Russia has arrived to a critical point. The resistance phase is out, therefore the traditional opposition (purely emotive and of protest) has expired. The period of resistance has finished, the period of national salvation has begun. The new stage demands new methods, new forms and new instruments of fight. It is for this reason that we consider it necessary and urgent to create the political and ideologically radical structure of a new type that responds to the demands of History. This will be national-bolshevism" (40).

This manifesto specifies the new movement's concerns which are the same as those of the national-Bolshevik current in Europe. "What is national-Bolshevism? It's the coalescence of the most radical ways of the social struggle and of the national fight, this is what national-Bolshevism is. Up to now the two ideologies, the national and the social, have been able to understand each other by means of commitments and temporary and pragmatic unions: in national- Bolshevism they will unite into an inseparable entity. Tentative unions of the two currents have already been attempted in the past, from the Jacobeans, through Ustrialov, Niekisch, and Thiriart's Young Europe. We have the determination to carry out this extremely important convergence. The social revolution is synonymous with the national revolution and the national revolution is synonymous to the social revolution" (41).

With this manifesto the circle has come to a close. From the precursory Niekisch to Thiriart, the National-Bolshevik Front, constituted by the National Radical Party, the National- Revolutionary Front of Action, the Movement of the New Right, the Movement to Support Cuba and the Communist Youth's Union, carries out in Russia the hopes nurtured by some thinkers and ideologists of the vanguard during the twenties.


NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM AND FASCISM.

It's necessary to remember the existent relationships between national-bolshevism and fascism, the both of which were born in the same historical time. We determinably reject the Marxist historiography which, essentially for tactical reasons and later for propagandistic ones, in the early 20's denounced fascism as a bourgeois and reactionary ideology.

It's certain that fascism, just like revolutionary-nationalism, national-bolshevism or Marxist-Leninism, belongs to the socialist school. In particular [since] it was born as Leninism was, from the White currents of the XIX century.

Fascism was born within the left with Mussolini and under Georges Sorel's influence. It was, in fact, the result of a Marxist and socialist revision; whereupon the role played by the hard-working class in the class struggle was replaced by the nation. This would be, on the other hand, the typical road that led from the socialism to fascism during the thirties [and the one] which Marcel Deat and H. De Man would also follow.

It is not necessary to fall into summary analyses about fascism, which usually tend to relegate it as a movement from the extreme right. Particularly, one must not be deceived by the recovery of Fascist symbology carried out by certain reactionary movements of the extreme right. The example of Francisco Franco's Spain comes to mind. Before the Civil War of 1936-39, the Spanish Phalange of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera was qualified by the Spanish right as "Bolshevism from the right". Once the civil war ended, the right reactionary Francoism appropriated the Phalange allowing Jose Antonio to die under the bullets of a republican execution platoon.

The remnants of the Phalange, having emptied out its revolutionary and social content, reduced themselves to a group of mere external decor. They only served as an excuse for a reactionary regime that mostly depended on the Church and the Army.

On the other hand, fascism fundamentally differs from national- bolshevism. Even if the two are an alliance between a social ideology and a national one, their fundamental difference lies in their relationship with Marxism. For the Fascist movement, Marxism is a rival in the road to revolution. Therefore it is necessary to neutralize it and knock it down; hence the importance given to anti- communism within Fascist ideology. For national-bolshevism, on the contrary, Marxism or communism are not rivals, they are at least allies and at best tendencies that are necessary to integrate into a unitary movement. This is the deep sense of the national-communist fusion which wishes to carry out national-bolshevism. This is the national-Bolshevik and national-communist political and doctrinal journey, as it was in the 20's and 30's, as it is today.


NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM AND NATIONAL-SOCIALISM: TWO UNYIELDING OPPOSITIONS.

One must remember the relationship between national-bolshevism and national-socialism, since both were born in Weimar Germany during the early twenties.

What we have said about the relationships between fascism and national-Bolshevism, is also valid in this case.

One must also refer to the classic distinction made by the Italian historian Renzo de Felice (42) who locates the origins of Italian fascism in the left and those of German national-socialism to the right. These two movements begun their road from two different sides, only to arrive to a similar solution: the realization of an ideology of socialist and national types.

The mark left on the extreme right by national-socialism is undeniable, [specially] when one examines its racist content. It's clear that the foundations of extreme right thought from the pan- Germanist and racist movement of the XIX century are present from the beginning in the heart of national-socialism. These are what mark the deep divergence between national-bolshevism and national- socialism. This racist practice which consists, in particular, on the rejection of the Slavic world and on the view of eastern Europe only as a vital territory for Germanic expansion, obviously placed national-socialism and national-bolshevism in two completely opposed sides.

After the advent of the Third Reich, national-Bolsheviks clearly pronounced themselves in opposition to national-socialism. Most of them were persecuted and captured. Wolffheim would die in a concentration camp, while Niekisch would emerge under painful conditions in 1945. Under the Third Reich, national-Bolsheviks were in declared opposition to the regime.

They were the ones, particularly, who supported the Soviet espionage net, inappropriately called "Red Orchestra", an appellative that referred to those who were not communists but national-Bolsheviks.

Some national-Bolsheviks made a space for themselves in the Third Reich and continued defending, according to the measure of their possibilities, the theory of an opening to the east. This would be the particular case of the Bund Front, directed in Hamburg by doctor Hessemaier, of whom we have already spoken.

This was the case, above all, of Joseph Goebbels, former national- Bolshevik militant who would look at the socialist movement and think of carrying out the pending social revolution. During the Third Reich, doctor Goebbels maintained strong sympathies towards the USSR, and at the end of the war when most of the German leaders attempted a separate peace with the Anglo-Saxons so as to follow the war in the east, Goebbels attempted to work in the opposed sense. Speaking of which, one cannot but mention surprising words, extracted from his diary in 1925: "no Czar has ever understood the Russian people as Lenin has. He has given to Russian citizens that which he has always seen in Bolshevism: freedom and property" (43). It was later added: "a tie with the west means to surrender forever. We, therefore, remain besides Russia in the fight for freedom" (44).


MARXISM-LENINISM AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM.

One must [also] remember the relationship between Marxist-Leninism, as a political ideology, and national-Bolshevism.

If communist leaders showed, as Karl Radek did, their interest for national-Bolshevism, the official Marxist-Leninist school rejected this tendency. In 1919, the Spartans, the official current represented in the First International, begun to expel national- Bolsheviks from their ranks. This was the origin of the division within the K.A.P.D., already spoken about in regards to the Hamburg group of Laufenberg and Wolffheim. After 1920, these [people] were excluded from their party, the K.A.P.D., [all together]. From then on, until the early thirties, national-bolshevism in Germany would only become a tendency reserved for the nationalist field.

The Marxist-Leninist school was (and will always be) extremely to displeased with national-bolshevism. Indeed, it viewed it as a lacking point in its own doctrine.

The Comintern, the Communist International then directed by Lenin, developed two different tactics in regards to the world revolution. For developed countries, it was to launch a Soviet-type revolution by proletarian forces. Contrarily, for colonized countries or semi- colonized ones, which today we would call developing, the First International and Lenin, himself, developed a national-revolutionary or national-communist type of strategy. It was about attempting to create a unity amongst nationalist and communist revolutionaries. Mao, [in turn] would give this theory its full development and create for it an unexpected historical posterity.

Germany in the twenties, a developed and capitalist country, was, evidently, not able to enter this Leninist category.

The positions of the first national-Bolsheviks in regards to the confrontation with communism is also multiple. The national- communism of Hamburg, for example, represents an authentic coalition between nationalist values and Leninist ideology. National- Bolsheviks originated in other atmospheres, as Niekisch was for example, would develop political tendencies that would have a unity of nationalist and communist revolutionaries in a single road against the Weimar Republic. [In relation to] foreign policy they favored a union between Germany and the USSR against the Entente powers so as to avenge and bring about the rebirth of the German homeland.

It would be necessary to speak of professor Friedrich Lenz's current, and his magazine "Der Vorkampfer" , so as to be able to view the reappearance of genuine national-communism. In fact, between 1930 and 1933, Professor Lenz developed an original synthesis that would fuse Marxist and nationalist ideology. Beginning with Marxist concepts, he developed an interesting economic theory which originated from Marx's theories and those of Friederich List, the great German theoretician of "economic nationalism."

Particularly, Lenz wrote: "We have as an objective, like Hegel says, to seal our times by means of thought, so as to acquire the knowledge of systematic bases. That is to say, starting from the theory, so as to have the capacity to order social contradictions politically. In this synthesis, Hegel would be supplemented by Lenin and List by Marx. No analysis of the international structural transformations may escape such guides" (45).

This is, behind the work of the Hamburg group, a typical example of the coalition between Marxism and revolutionary-nationalism. In regards to the theories of Marx, Lenz affirmed particularly that "its scientific analysis of the economic reality is also an indispensable weapon for nationalism" (46).

Therefore, two divergent tendencies are distinguished, in regards to Marxism-Leninism, within the heart of what one commonly calls the national-Bolshevik current.

On one hand, one tendency sees in it nothing more than a tactical ally. This was the heart of the debate between intellectuals from the extreme right and communists in the twenties, as it [still] is today. These intellectuals from the extreme right remained, nevertheless, fundamentally opposed to Marxism.

The second tendency, apparent in the Wolffheim and Laufenberg group as well as in that of professor Lenz, attempts a doctrinal coalition using common concepts both from nationalist ideology and Marxist- Leninism.

Jean Thiriart's doctrinal works of the early eighties and those developed in the same period by the P.C.N., assume this last tendency. For this purpose, this party presents Communitarism as an "ideology of synthesis that wishes to fuse Marxist-Leninist ideologies and national-revolutionary ones into a synthesis of doctrinal offensive: the socialism of the XXI century" (47).


THE CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM.

The relationship between the Conservative Revolution and national- Bolshevism should be clarified.

The term Conservative Revolution, in fact, is designated to a political current present in Weimar Germany; it was called this due to the study that Armin Mohler consecrated to it in 1950 (48). The expression was previously used by Arthur Moeller Van Den Bruck, a theoretician of the time.

In his thesis about national-Bolshevism, Professor Louis Dupeux dedicates a big section to the analysis of the relationships between this current and the Conservative Revolution, which he qualified as "ideological sustenance to national-bolshevism" (49). This is the main criticism that can be made to his work. For professor Dupeux, national-bolshevism is a radical tendency derived from the Conservative Revolution. This relationship is established according to a number of convergences in symbols and common vocabulary present in both tendencies. However this assimilation is completely inadequate.

In fact, the Conservative Revolution, in which we will find the thought of Moeller Van Den Bruck (50) or of Spengler (51) on the first plane, is based mainly on a fundamental rejection of Bolshevism and in a romantic and idealized vision of a past golden age. And these are present, besides the characteristics of the conservative movements in Europe, particularly in France.

Contrarily, national-bolshevism is not only a revolutionary ideology that looks for an alliance or doctrinal coalition with Bolshevism, but rather the national-Bolshevik theses are surprisingly up-to-date (they never look to the past), be they the theses in favor of an autarchic economy, big spaces, power economy, the State's definition or in favor of technocratic glorification.

Therefore, the question of vocabulary convergence or of relationships among individuals, should not deceive us. For example, the fact that both social-democrats and Bolsheviks refer to Marxism, does not mean that they both belong to one political school.

On the other hand, let us stop looking at the current positions of the heirs of national-Bolshevism and of those of the Conservative Revolution. Today, the main national-communist currents in Europe define themselves as declared enemies of the conservative extreme right. They do so expressively, originating from the same positions their predecessors in the 20's and 30's did (52).


REVOLUTIONARY-NATIONALISM AND NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM: TWO CURRENTS FROM ONE SAME FAMILY.

It is also indispensable to specify the relationships between revolutionary nationalism and national-bolshevism. Revolutionary nationalism, was an important political current present in most European countries during the twenties. In Weimar Germany, and in particular with the Junger brothers and their "neo-nationalism", it represented an intellectual and political current of important resonance.

National-bolshevism should be located at the same time inside and outside this current, which represents the most revolutionary expression. On the other hand, it was the national-communist Laufenberg who used the expression of "Revolutionary Nationalism" for the first time: "Inside the German National Party a repair of the most active idealistic intellectual atmospheres, who have always been big defenders of the national idea, has begun and, in its midst, its vanguard today recognizes that under the national objective's general current conditions, these cannot be carried out but by revolutionary means. The intellectual laboratories are, in this way, attracted to the communist movements... The national- revolutionary and social-revolutionary movements approach one another: they don't have a common organization, but their political encounter is carried out in practice" (53).

Now-a-days, these two political currents are always closely bound to each other. The current national-communists have located themselves inside the national-revolutionary field. This is, for example, the road chosen by the Nouvelle Resistance in France, the National- Bolshevik Front in Russia, Orion in Italy and European Alternative in Spain, who openly present themselves as a synthesis between national-communist ideologies and national-revolutionaries ones.

It would also be convenient to specify the relationship between these two currents. National-communism is, in fact, a radical and ultra-revolutionary development of revolutionary nationalism itself. Revolutionary nationalism maintains certain apprehensions in its relationship with Marxist-Leninism, whom it considers at best as a simple ally.

National-communism carries out an offensive coalition between two ideological currents in a dynamic synthesis.

NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM AND “NAZISM OF LEFT”.

One must necessarily analyze what has been called "left nazism", whose most outstanding figures were the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser, representatives of the socialist and revolutionary wing of the national-socialist movement. These two were opposed to Hitler from the beginning of the movement. Gregor was murdered during the purge of July 30, 1934 (the celebrated "night of the long knives") while his brother Otto would go on to encourage a national-socialist left-wing movement to resist the Hitler regime, the "Schwarze Front" (Black Front) (54).

At the beginning of the sixties, which is of most interests to this study, Otto Strasser, conquered by the European unitary cause (55), would grant two interviews for the publications of Young Europe. In these he would manifest his sympathies (56).

However, left-wing nazism was not part of the national-Bolshevik current. [This current] proved its desire for an opening to the east and opposed all "crusades" against the USSR (in this it opposed Hitler's theory of "Drang nach Osten"); it also manifested a remarkable socialist desire. But its position in relation to Marxist- Leninism take it fundamentally away from national-Bolshevism. In fact, the national-socialist Strasserians would eliminate the proletarian masses from Marxism and take them [instead] to the national-socialist filed. It is not, then, about an alliance or fusion with communists.

Professor Dupeux wrote in this sense: "It is not correct to assimilate Otto Strasser to national-bolshevism like many authors have done during his time and today" and he adds: "If the left-wing national-socialist sincerely referred to the class struggle and looked for a cohesion of the proletarian masses, its implicit objective was their consolidation or rather their development into the middle classes" (57).

The expulsion of the Strasser brothers from the national-socialist party (N.S.D.A.P.) wouldn't prevent certain left national-socialists from taking a place within the party. This was the case, particularly, of Doctor Goebbels, Gregor Strasser's former- secretary, who would become Minister of Propaganda and Popular Culture, without, however, giving up his socialist and revolutionary orientations.

NEITHER LEFT OR RIGHT: THE NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM AGAINST THE SYSTEM.

Speaking of national-Bolshevism, professor Dupeux wrote: "national- bolshevism is certainly the most ambiguous creations of the Wiemar Republic's political vocabulary" (58).

Doubts have assaulted historian and journalist when they have tried to characterize national-Bolshevik positions. "Is it the extreme right of the extreme left or of the extreme left of the extreme right"?.

In 1960, the first important book, written by Otto Ernst Schuddekop, was consecrated to this reality, which was titled "Liben leute von rechts", roughly translated to "the people of left of the right" (59). A title that reveals all the phenomenon's ambiguity when one attempts to explain it with the traditional political board categories of the western regimens of modern time. Are national- Bolsheviks Fascists from the extreme left or Bolsheviks from the extreme right?.

The absurdity of the question and the words used clearly exemplify that the left/right political classifications is completely incapable of reflecting the reality of revolutionary and atypical ideologies as the national-Bolshevik and national-communist ones.

One cannot but think of the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset's celebrated quote, frequently sited by contemporary national- Bolsheviks: "being from the left or being from the right are two options presented to imbecile men, both are forms of moral `hemiplejia'" (60).

National-bolshevism or the "convergence of the ends, passing from one to another, the fusion of representatives of both [ends]" is an incomprehensible phenomenon to those who reason with the classic political classifications of the regime, which spreads from the extreme right to the extreme left, and where right and left are presented as opposed and unyielding fields. Fascism, Stalinism, Bolshevism or the extreme right can never meet and all convergences appear, to the eyes of the specialists of the conformist "pret- a- penser", as unnatural.

The Polish writer Malynske proposes the union and the historical compromise between the ends and denounces the union of interests between the bourgeoisie, the beaurocracy and syndicalist parties as a coincidence: "the blocks of the extreme right and the extreme left should rise against this block of democratic insolence, of financial rapacity and of dominance" (61). He equally accentuates the "certain deep likeness between those that call themselves extreme right and extreme left, because, as strange as it may seem, it seems that they are in fact the two parts of the contemporary social field between which, if one doesn't look superficially, unyielding interests do not exist, nor do aspirational antithesis. On the contrary, this irreducibility and this antithesis necessarily exists between these two currents and the bourgeoisie" (62).


A PRECURSOR: GEORGES SOREL.

One cannot remember the different national-Bolshevik or national- communist currents, be they from the thirties or from current time, without remembering Georges Sorel, the great socialist and revolutionary theoretician of syndicalism (63).

Georges Sorel is an almost unique figure within late XIX and early XX century French intellectuality.

Since 1907, Georges Sorel, opponent of the bourgeois demo- plutocratic regime and of the dominant liberal system in France, would be the soul of an approach between those who in the extreme right and extreme left rejected the system. That is, [an approach between] the nationalists, whose emblematic figure was Maurice Barres, the monarchists of Charles Maurras, and revolutionary syndicalist leaders proceeding from the left white stream (64).

Through the magazines, "Revue critique des idees et des livres" (1907), "La cite francaise" (1910) and later "L'Independence" (1911- 1913), Georges Sorel would be the artisan of an important intellectual agitation in which theoreticians of integral monarchic maurraisan nationalism, such as the national-revolutionary Maurice Barres, pre-Fascists like Georges Valois, as well as numerous syndicalists and theoreticians of the extreme left, in particular Eduard Berth and Daniel Halevy, would participate.

The influence and the repercussion exercised by Sorel in Europe were frequently recognized over Lenin. Mussolini would always recognize the debt he owed this great socialist theoretician. He came from the revolutionary socialist fields of the start of the century. After the war, Georges Sorel's influence would also be felt in Georges Valois' French Fascist movement.

But mainly, his theories found an important continuation in the national-revolutionary and national-Bolshevik tendencies which appeared in Germany during the 20's and 30's (65).

Sorel theorized the "general strike" in which he saw the means to demolish the bourgeois regime. One cannot but assimilate his conceptions to those of the national-communists Wolffheim and Laufenberg. For these, parliamentary action would disappear when being faced with "mass strikes" capable of forcing the bourgeois state to retire progressively until the proletariat exercised its dictatorship definitively.

Georges Sorel didn't live to see the important effects of his doctrinal influence, he would die in 1922 without seeing the development of the USSR nor Mussolini's victory in Italy. The day of his death the Bolshevik Government of the new Soviet State and the Italian Fascist State both tried to take charge of his funeral. [This being] the final image of a surprising destiny which serves to show us what the notions of "right" and "left" represent for a revolutionary thinker.

Sorel was, with Georges Valois particularly, the encourager of the "Circle Proudhon" which contained monarchists, nationalist and revolutionary syndicalists.

A road that can't but remind us of the current Russian patriotic opposition which contains communist, nationalist-revolutionaries and Russian monarchists. To this respect, the No. 1 edition of the magazine "Elementy", by Alexander Duguin, is particularly relevant, which depicts the three flags of the patriotic opposition united: the communist red flag, the monarchists' tri-colored flag (66) with the bicephalous eagle and the national revolutionaries' black flag (67).


FROM CONFORMISM TO INSULT: THE CURRENT "DEBATE" IN THE PRESS.

In the introduction of this article we remembered the journalistic phenomenon that national-Bolshevism provoked in the summer of 1993.

A pseudo-debate arose in the big French newspapers, from "Liberation" (67), "Le Monde " (68), "Globe" (69) and "L'Evenement de Jeudi " (70) which then made its way to newspapers from other countries like those of Belgium, Italy and Spain (71).

This debate arose as an internal settling of accounts from Georges Marchais as head of the [French Communist] party. A press campaign that had risen months earlier in Germany also originated from a great political scandal arisen by the encounter between one of the vice-presidents of the Socialist Democracy Party, the P.D.S. (the new name of the German Communist Party) and one of the members responsible for National Offensive, a formation classified as extreme right.

In respects to this, German journalists spoke of national-bolshevism and, in this sense, denounced the "temptation" that exists in Germany. "Der Spiegel" , especially, consecrated several articles [to this topic].

This German debate echoed some time ago in the occasion of an article's publication in edition No. 87 of the magazine "Les dossiers de l'Historie" titled "National-Bolchevisme, un spectre allemand" (72). Contrary to the articles already mentioned, this article was a more serious study, having been clearly assisted by professor Louis Dupeux's thesis, although without ever mentioning it. This article, however, lacked historical depth, since it saw national-bolshevism only as a German tentative, both during 1929-30 and today. The authors of the article visibly ignored the expansion of the national-Bolshevik phenomenon in Europe during the sixties and, particularly [ignored], today's reality in several European countries.

The pseudo-debate in the big newspapers is only preoccupied with a polemic end, (for the internal use of the French Communist Party, where it gave way to an argument against the opposed factions), the convergence between certain intellectuals of the new right, like Alain of Benoist, and communist intellectuals. These articles also "accuse" some non-conformist magazines, like "Le Choc du Mois" or "L'Idiot International" published in Paris by the brave non- conformist Jean-Eden Hailler, who is endowed with a special talent, (73) where thinkers classified as both "communist" and "extreme right" write.

Be it due to ignorance or wishing to censure, the journalists that write these articles continually avoid speaking about the national- communist phenomenon's other reality, [which has been seen at] the end of this XX century; that is to say, of the different political realities like the organizations integrated into the European Liberation Front.

The majorities of these articles' lack of dignity doesn't deserve our wasting time on them, since they easily fall into insult and political offence.

In this sense, it's still necessary to reveal the "pearl". In the weekly "Globe" of July of 1993, a certain Laurent Dispot directed an open letter to Georges Marchais, qualifying him as a "Messerschmit national-communist" (74) and took refuge on the old fable about "the party of shot people" (the author doubtlessly ignores that the collaboration was, in great measure, a matter of the left and the extreme left, communists included). Dispot proposes as a remedy to the "national-communist danger" which he denounces, a united Europe and what he calls a "European socialism". What is truly remarkable is that in these articles which pretend to be well researched, journalists simply ignore that in the most contemporary national-communist movements, from Lisbon to Moscow, this European construction is defended in the line of Young Europe and in a much deeper sense than the shy advances that European social-democracy present as universal panacea. The author [of this article] has, certainly, never heard of Jean Thiriart or the Euro-Soviet School.

The general tone of this press campaign proves itself when, in repeated occasions, "The totalitarian languages" of Jean Pierre Faye is used as a reference (75). [This work], published in 1972 was compiled on the base of incomplete and often self-interested documentation; its a work full of errors which professor Louis Dupeux has already denounced in his thesis. What is symptomatic [of this whole situation] is that this last reference work, the only one existent up to today, is not cited a single time in the numerous articles which appeared in the press during the summer of 1993.

The lack of citation by these articles of the mere names of the 1918 Hamburg national-communist, Wolffheim and Laufenberg, is also very revealing. These men were truly, authentic communist who were in the origin of the first national-communist movement in Germany and Europe. It's also true that the Laufenberg trajectory within the communist doctrinal current is important and extremely uncomfortable for the special conformists of the "pret a penser" , as Louis Dupeux underlines: "we can see how the thesis adopted by Laufenberg about the 'crushing majority of the people' will be adopted - twice - by orthodox communists" (76). A thesis that would be the base for the work of Soviet constitutional jurists even today! (77).

The other main characteristic of this intellectual debate is its excessive positivism. In fact, numerous articles are consecrated to figures of the Parisian intellectual atmosphere (the few Russian authors that are mentioned only serve to contribute to the microcosmic Parisian debate). The European dimension of contemporary national-bolshevism, its true political dimension beyond any cenacle of Parisian intellectuals, is completely unknown to this press campaign.


THE NATIONAL-BOLSHEVIK ALTERNATIVE.

The failure of the dominant political system surprises us more and more everyday. The capitalist world economy, under the hegemony of the U.S., has proclaimed its victory over the communist system; but at the same time, it has arrived at the final stage of its decadence. A global scale of this economy is not possible. The impossibility of opening new markets inevitably leads to the formation of economic giants and an [eventual] war amongst them.

The national-Bolshevik dialectics are, in fact, an answer to the current situation of social, economic and political degradation, to the failure of the educational system, to the inability of assuring full employment, to the growth of poverty and unemployment, to the return of the social misery that every day points to the failure of the capitalist system and the partitocracy of pseudo-democrats which embody it. The national-Bolshevik alternative is the answer to the failure of the American model, its pretension of dominating the world economy and its desire to play the role of world policeman.

AGAINST THE DERAILING OF THE SYSTEM'S OPPOSITION. THE NATIONAL- BOLSHEVISK DIALECTICS.

The system's opposition, in all of Europe, has been present since the end of the Second World War. Its formations are often local, of a "poujadista" regional type, that is to say, without possessing any revolutionary will, cohesion or planning. This is what has saved the System up until today. The opposition to the System which comprises of a wide socio-political arch, (the national opposition in the extreme right, the communist opposition in the extreme left, the neo- poujadista opposition of the middle classes and the different environmentalist oppositional currents), does not represent a real threat to the System. These oppositional forces faced against each other, and not coordinated amongst themselves, are reabsorbed by the System movement by movement, protest by protest.

The national-Bolshevik dialectic wishes to respond to the failure of the isolated opposition, a failure that clearly reveals that the opposition lacks more of a brain than a heart and, as was underlined by Lenin, Gramsci and Thiriart, a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, there is no revolution and without a revolutionary, political, organizational and theoretical union, there is no united opposition. The key question about this opposition union against the System and its [eventual] structure is the center of the debate brought about by national-bolshevism, as it was in the early twenties and as it is at the end of the XX century.

BROWN/RED ALLIANCE OR BLACK/RED/GREEN UNITED FRONT?

The system's press, intending to discriminate against the national- Bolshevik alternative, has elaborated big banners about a seditious brown and red alliance, remaining far from all political reality.

Its evident to any lucid, or simply, honest observer that the central point of national-Bolshevism is not, at all, an alliance between seditious Neo-Nazis and archaic communist, but it's about a unity between the opposition to the System's dynamic forces: the brown, or nostalgic Neo-Nazis, don't have any place within this union and they are not more than mere marionettes encouraged by the Washington and Tel Aviv secret services so as to sow hate and the division within Europe.

Today, the purpose of the national-Bolshevik strategy is to organize a revolt, to channel dissatisfaction. Its certain that when the pseudo-oppositional movements located in the extreme right (such as the French National Front or the M.S.I - today Alleanza Nazionale -) or the environmentalists, have given final proof of their inability to organize this revolt and to become an alternative to the System, the road will be finally open for a genuinely revolutionary movement. This will be the hour of national-bolshevism. In this sense, the 1917 Russian Revolution example is full of historical meaning. After the February liberals, after Kerensky, the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution arrived.

TODAY, NATIONAL-BOLSHEVIK MILITANTS PREPARE THEIR OCTOBER IN ALL OF EUROPE


NOTES


Louis Dupeux, “Strategie Comuniste et dynamique south conservatrice them differents l'expression sens "National-Bolchevisme" in Allemagne, sous the Republique of Weimar” (1919-1933)", thesis presented in the University of Paris 1 November of 1974, 28 Ed. Libreire Honoré Champion, Paris 1976.

(2) “Les compagnos de route de la galaxie national-bolchevique”, Marses, June 29 1993.

(3) Pol Mathil, Fiction politique ou politique sans fiction? L'alliance gives bruns et you give rouges in Him Soir", July 3/4 1993.

(4) Joven Europa has more than enough: Yannick Sauveur Jean Thiriart et him National-Communitarisme europeén", thesis presented in the University of Perugia in 1978. Third edition in four volumes, Ed. Machiavel, Charleroi 1985 and Dossier Jean Thiriart in Vouloir nº 97, January-March of 1993.

(5) On the National-European Community Party and their political and doctrinal speech, to consult Manuel Abramowicz's brief and honest synthesis, L'etrange P.C.N". in " Republique " nº 5, October of 1992.

(6) Louis Dupeux, op. cit, chapter III Chantage au bolchevisme et bolchevisme allemand au printemps 1919 p. 67.

(7) November 6 1918 the communist revolution explodes in Hamburg. Militant of extreme left, Wolffheim plays a paper of first plane, taking the head of soldiers and mutineer miners. It is in Hamburg where the Socialist Republic is proclaimed for the first time in Germany. A provisional Council of workers and soldiers taking the control of the revolution. Laufenberg, also him communist militant, is elected president of the Council.

(8) During the secret congress of the K.P.D. in Heidelberg, in October of 1919, the address spartakista (Levi) he obtains the exclusion of the group of Hamburg fraudulently, opposed to the address of the Party. The excluded is taken to most of those stuck the K.P.D. that quickly loses more than half of their 100.000 members. In April of 1920 to created the K.A.P.D., of which Wolffheim and Laufenberg were the leaders shortly. In the face of the importance of the division the Komitern, in spite of their statute, it should accept the adhesion from this second communist party to the International one. This became a scenario where the K.P.D faced. and the K.A.P.D., the first one of which it was the one that finally it prevailed and heonly stayed.

(9) L. Dupeux, op. cit., chapter IV 1923, The crise of the Rhur et the ligne Schlageter of the Communist Party Alemnán p. 207.

(10) The position of Radek in front of the national-Bolshevism radically evolved. In 1919, he is a declared opponent of the national-communist of Hamburg. Four years later, in the breast of the Komitern the politics of the hand defends spread the nationalists.

(11) May of 1923, 9 the French advice of war of Dusserldorf condemns to death to the lieutenant Schlageter, boss of the frank bodies, for sabotage. Executed Schlageter, it is the first one. This fact will have a strong repercussion in Germany. Hitler made of Schlageter the first martyr of its cause.

(12) “Der wanderer ins nichts", novel of F. Strawberry that puts in scene the death of a lieutenant of the frank bodies against the communist espartaquistas.

(13) Warren Lerner, Karl Radek, the lasts internationalist", Standord, 1970.

(14) on the revolutionary work of Young Europe: Of Young Europe to the Red Brigades", ed. European alternative, 1995.

(15) Jean Thiriart, Vers a paralyse du Régime in Jeune Europe nº 22, June of 1965, p. 2

(16) in partiular in 1975, he declared in an interview to the university magazine Them Cahiers du C.D.P.U nº 12: I have begun, very young, like you know a "road", my search of the political Graal in the Communist Party. It was in the times of Stalin."

(17) to see Marcel Ponthier's reflection, titled "Influences" in The great nation. L'Europe of Brest to Bucarest", Brussels, October of 1965.

(18) Jean Thiriart, with the alias Tisch, L'Europe et l'U.R.S.S., a Rapallo européen: porquoi pas?in Nation Belguique/Jeune Europe nº 85, March 2 1962.

(19) Jean Thiriart, The big nation, l'Europe unitaire of Brest to Bucarest", op. cit., p. 60.

(20) On the relationships between the Comunitarismo and the socialist economy: Luc Michel Him to bring to an agreement du Socialisme, him l'avenir Socialisme: him Communautarisme national-européen in Jean Thiriart and L. Michel, Him socialisme communautaire special nº of Conscience Européenne. nº 4, 1985.

(21) Jean Thirirat, 106 questions south l'Europe. Entretiens avec him journaliste espagnol B. G. Mugarza", Ed. Machiavel, 1985.

(22) Jean Thiriart, Echiquier mondial et national-communisme", in The nation européenne", nº 11, November of 1966, 15 p. 13.

(23) Medunarodna Politika has Belgrade nº 392/393, I Wither 1966.

(24) of Young Europe to the Brigades Red op. cit. and J. Square and L. Michel, Revolution Européene ou Tradition?" special nº of Conscience Européene nº 12.

(25) ?

(26) ?

(27) Claudio Mutti, complementary notes to the second edition of The Disintegration of the System of G. Freda, ed. European alternative. pp. 53-54.

(28) Yannick Sauveur, L'Organisation Lutte du Peuple, a mouvement national-bolchevik"?, Conference of political science Paris, without date, p. 11.

(29) Ibid, p. 3.

(30) Ibid, p. 22.

(31) about the trajectory of the P.C.N. cfr.: Manuel Abramovicz, Him longe goes du P.C.N". in it Carries to an extreme droite et antisemitisme in Belgique from 1945 to nous jours." Editions EPO, Brussels, 1993. pp 45-49 and Thierry Mudry, Quand a homme classé to l'extreme droite utilize him corpus doctrinal marxiste-leniniste. The notion of I Left historique révolutionnaire au P.C.N". in " Vouloir ", nº 32, autumn 1986.

(32) L. Michel, P.C.N. européen jusqu'a Vladivostok", he/she interviews in the socialist newspaper Him Peuple 13 and 15 of September of 1985.

(33) Cfr. "L'extreme droite francophone face aux elections du 24 novembre 1991 in Courrier Hebdomadaire du CRISP", nº 1350, May 1992 and Droit of you recover du P.C.N". supplement of the Courrier du CRISP nº 1353, May 1992.

(34) C. Boursellier, Give nationalistes... prosovietiques in Them enemies du systeme Ed. R. Laffent, Paris 1989 and National.communisme: him socialisme sans lutte gives classes in it Carries to an extreme droit, l'enquete", ed. F. Bounin, Paris, 1992.

(35) Manuel Abramowicz, op. cit.

(36) "Belgium" in Antisemitism World Report 1993", Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1993.

(37) Comunicato nº 1 sulla constituziones of the Fronte Nazional-Bolscevico in Orion", nº 106, p. 32.

(38) C. Bouchet, Résistance européenne, Jean Thiriart's retour", in Nationalisme et République", July 1993.

(39) Cfr. L. Michel, does On go l'opposition nationale-européene?" special nº of Nation Europe", July 1993.

(40) Comunicato nº 1 sulla constituzione of the Fronte Nazional Bolscevisco in Orion nº 106 p. 32.

(41) Ibid.

(42) Renzo of Felize Cles pour comprendre him Fascisme." Editions Seghers, Brussels.

(43) J. Goebbels in Nationalsozialistische Briefe 15 of October of 1925.

(44) Ibid.

(45) L. Dupeux, op. cit. cap. XVII Among Bismarck et Karl Marx, him Vorkämfer p. 433.

(46) Ibid.

(47) Actes du IIéme Congrés du P.C.N"., June of 1986, Charleroi, 1986.

(48) Armin Mohler, The Rivoluzione Conservatrice", Akropolis, 1990.

(49) L. Dupeux, op. cit. , cap. I, The revolution conservatrice arnere plan ideologique du national-bolchevisme."

(50) Arthur Moelle goes they give Bruck it is in particular the autro of a book of great repercussion in the Republic of Weimar titled “The III Reich", one of the works of reference of the Conservative Revolution. After 1933 Hitler he appropriated of that this expression and he gave him another meaning.

(51) on the theoretical of the Conservative Revolution (and also of the national-socialism) cfr. E. Vermeil, Doctrinaires of the Revolution Allemande", N.E.C., Paris.

(52) on today's fight of the national-communist ones against the extreme right cfr. "Droit of réponde du P.C.N., in Him Soir", May of 1993.

(53) mentioned by L. Dupeux, op. cit.

(54) Otto Strasser, Him Front Noir contre Hitler", Ed. Marbout, Verviers, 1972.

(55) Strasser was in particular the author of a titled book Europaische Föderation. Die Schweiz als Vorbild Europas", published in 1936, Reso-Verlag, Zürich, where it favours the Swiss pattern as relating for the European unification.

(56) Nation Europe", March 4 1962 and The Nation Européene nº 13, January 15 1967.

(57) L. Dupeux, op. cit. cap. XX Otto Strasses e'fait-il national-bolcheviste?" p. 493.

(58) L. Dupeux, op. cit. cap. I.

(59) Otto-Ernst Schuddenkopf, Linke leute von rechsts. Die national-revolutionäre minderheiten a der kommunismus in der Weimarer Republik, Stuttgart, 1960.

(60) José Ortega y Gasset, “The rebellion of the masses."

(61) E. Malynski, L'empreiinte d'Israel", Paris, p. 38-41.

(62) Ibid.

(63) it has more than enough Sorel cfr. Fernand Rossignol Pour connaitre the pensée of G. Sorel", you Embroider, Paris, 1948.

(64) Cfr. Zeev Sternhell, The droite revolutionnaire, 1885-1914", Sevil, Paris, 1973.

(65) Cfr. M. Freund, Georges Sorel. Der Revolutionäre Konservatismus", ed. Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt/Main, 1972.

(66) as for the tri-colored flag used by the national-Bolshevik ones in Russia it is not the white one blue and red, designed by the Czar Pedro I in 1667, in favour of an convert to occidentalism of Russia, but the quarter note, yellow and white created in the Czar's times Alejandro III for a first German minister and that it represented from 1858 to 1883 to the Russian Empire. He/she also appears in the national-Bolshevik manifestations next to this last and the Soviet, other flag representing to the Russia previous at 1667, white San Andrés' call Flag crossed by two blue crosses. cfr: Daily ABC, December 27 1991.

(67) " Elementy ", nº 1, 1992.

(68) Francois Bonnet, Them Compagnons of route of the galaxie national-bolchevik and he/she Interviews with Didier Daeninckx, Of fortes convergences ideologiques in Liberation", June 29 1993.

(69) it Hulls him it has published a series of articles and interviews it has more than enough eltema from June 26 1993.

(70) Elie Leo and René Monzat, Quand l'extreme gauche flirte avec l'extreme droite. L'affaire du national-communisme á the françcaise and M. N. "Rouges et bruns: a veille historie d'amour in Globe nº 21, June 30 1993 and special Dossier The resucée du national-communisme, do give apprentis Hitler? in Globe", nº 22, July 7 1993.

(71) Karl Laske and René Monzart, Au dessus d'un n goes of coconuts mutants in L'Evenemetn du Jeudi nº 453, July 8 1993. The article is presented with the following " introduction ": In the red-brown writing committees and in the colloquys of political alteration, the nationalism of lefts search timidly its road, the new right spreads him the hand."

(72) Pol Mathil, op. cit. in Him Soir 3/4 of July of 1993.

(73) National-bolchevisme: a spectre allemand in Dossier: them neo-Nazi aujour'hui" Them l'Historie Dossiers", nº 87, 1993.

(74) Jean-Edern Hallier, debater and talent writer, take a valiant fight against the socialist mafia of I Wall them, Mitterrand, Long and Fabius. It has been worth him a scandalous process where the speculator Walls he tries to ruin him, with the complicity of a numb magistracy, in particular to have published the real judicial file although prescribed by anmesty of it Walls. Hallier L'idiot's magazine avid International of freedom singular and of no-conformism, and equally vigorously committed against the imperialism and their New World Order.

(75) Laurent Dispot, Lettre ouverte á monsieru Goes communiste national Messerschmitt in Globe", nº 7, op. cit.

(76) Jean Pierre Faye, The totalitarian languages", Madrid 1974.

(77) Louis Dupeux, op. cit.

(78) on the argument cfr. Squared José Costa, Reflexions south them ouvres of Clausewitz et Carl Schmitt, Actualité of Clausewitz in Conscience Europénne", nº 16/17, May-June of 1987.

ogenoct
Sunday, August 22nd, 2004, 02:30 AM
EAST GERMAN COMMUNITARISM AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITARISM:


THE NATIONAL-COMMUNIST VISION OF "THE OTHER SOCIALIST AND PRUSSIAN GERMANY”






By Luc MICHEL





As is common within the national-communist movement, nostalgia for East-Germany is not concealed within the PCN, which sees in it the aborted implementation of an authentic "Prussian National-Communism."




THE NOSTALGIA OF THE PCN FOR THE "GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC”



The communitarian Hebdo of the PCN’s Central Committee celebrated the 10th anniversary of the disappearance of EAST GERMANY in Une with an article titled "In memory of the other socialist and Prussian Germany”.



"(It has been) Ten years since the end of the German Democratic Republic. Ten years of capitalistic and liberal propaganda against the other socialist and Prussian Germany. Ten years of misery for the East Germans who were delivered to the colonialism of the west…" as the editorial of "COMMUNITARIAN EUROPE" comments. It denounces "the treason of EAST GERMANY" and details that "Erich Honecker, chief of state of EAST GERMANY, leader of the Communist Party of EAST GERMANY (SED), after eighteen years of heading the other socialist and Prussian Germany, was dismissed October 18, 1989 by the opportunists of his own party who were inspired and armed by Gorbachev's revisionism (...) As their Gorbachev model, the opportunists opened the way of misfortune for their people."



The editorial also honours "HONECKER’s last fight": "As for Erich Honecker, he died in May, 1994 in Chile from the reprisals of cancer in the liver. Before that, he was imprisoned by the liberal regime of the FRG and prosecuted in an attempt to retrospectively apply the laws of Federal Germany over him. (This was also the case of) the hundreds of leaders, civil servants and military (personnel) of EAST GERMANY, a sovereign and internationally recognized state since 1947! The prosecution claims also included accusations against them for the KPD struggle against the Nazis prior to 1933! Thanks to the continuation of an international support campaign, marked by the creation of the "Honecker Committee", to which the PCN trust contributed, the old leader who was seriously sick, was freed."



The "Honecker's International Solidarity Committees" united national-revolutionaries and national- communist in the same fight.



"What followed is sadly known. It was the "official reunification", (or) in fact the colonising operation of the East by the West, where the ex-East Germany was delivered to wild capitalism” adds “COMMUNITARIST EUROPE”, which also denounces the PDS’ imposture in the succession of the SED: "the irony of history, the neo-Communists of the PDS, heirs of the opportunist liquidators of 1989 and their party carrier of the shameful acronym that they had chosen in 1989, capitalize the voices of those nostalgic of EAST GERMANY, which are more and more numerous, after having obtained the goods and holdings of the former Communist Party of EAST GERMANY… Treason is not always punished by history... »




THE PCN AND ITS COMMUNIST NATIONAL VISION


OF THE "GERMAN "DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC




The PCN has also précised its national-Bolshevik vision of EAST GERMANY and its "aborted destiny": "For many militants everywhere in Europe, EAST GERMANY with its austere socialism and its cult of Luther, Marx and Engels, will remain the symbol of Prussia restored a last and ultimate time. A socialist State that was raised from the ruins of Potsdam and the statues of Frédéric the Great. Who among us can forget the relief of the Guard before the "Monument to the victims of Fascism" facing the equestrian statue of the "old Fritz", with its Volksgrenadierses from the National VolksArmee, who embodied the glorious tradition of the old Prussian army incontestably? This Prussia that stood against Hitler on July 20, 1944 and that inspired the heroic fight of our national-Bolshevik friends against Nazism. For the European national-Bolsheviks, the nostalgia of the national-communist EAST GERMANY and its "National Volksarmee" with its worker’s militias is incontestable. (Together with) the cult rendered to the East in our SCHULZE-BOYSEN comrades and ARNACK, and to their "Red Orchestra", a moving memory. In particular for the cadres of our Organization that don't forget their youthful engagement between Berlin and Leipzig and the enthusiasm of their 20 years dedicated to Prussian Socialism. History will yield to justice in the other Germany; the look of the historians (will) change. Facing the capitalistic and neo-colonial vomissure of the liberal order of Bonn, EAST GERMANY embodies the aborted hope for another Germany and another destiny for the homeland of Marx, Engels and Luther! ."






EUROPEAN COMMUNITARISM AND THE DDR





The PCN also appears besides it (DDR?) in the current European communitarian tradition which it embodies. In 1966, one could already read in "THE EUROPEAN NATION" a praise of EAST GERMANY under the title "Without the Marshal Plan, the real German miracle".



Three decades later the PCN, (and) "THE EUROPEAN NATION", continue not concealing their sympathy for "the other Germany." Its French and Italian editions published a number that carried a cover titled "National Communism Tomorrow" and the photo of a military parade of the DDR’s workers’ militias.



THIRIART himself, an optician by profession who frequently went to EAST GERMANY in the setting of his professional and union activities, didn't conceal his sympathy for "the other Germany" and its "tonic ambiance." During the 70’s he organized a centre of the world optics in Leipzig, one of the conventions of his trans-national union, the "European Society of Optometry" (SOE).




THE NATIONAL-BOLSHEVIK ORIGINS OF THE DDR:


THE "NATIONALKOMITEE FREIES DEUTSCHLAND"



The sympathies of the European Communitarians for the DDR even go back to the "first German workers and peasants’ State" and the national-Bolshevik and national-communist origins of "the other Germany": the "NATIONALKOMIETE FREIES DEUTSCHLAND", which draws its ideological foundations in the KPD’s "Declaration of the national and social Liberation of Germany", published in 1930. "In 1943, the surviving old German Communist leaders: Anton Ackermann, Johannes Bêcher, Hermann Matern, Wilhlem Pieck, Walter Ulbricht organized the National Committee of Free Germany (Nationalkomitee Deutschland freies) under the narrow control of the soviet authorities. This national Committee, which specially had to coordinate the resistance to Hitler, was constituted of a German elite faithful to Stalin, susceptible to take the power upon liberation".



Anton ACKERMANN is one of the ideologists of the KPD, notably at the time of the "Declaration of national and social Liberation of Germany", who wanted to pull the nationalistic masses away from Nazism. Presented by historians as the theoretician behind "national-Communism", from 1945 to 1953, he would be the DDR’s ideologist.



One of the foundations KOMINTERN politics in Europe, since 1919, was the desire to bring about a junction between the German Revolution and Soviet Russia. Hitler's decision to wage war on Russia didn't put an end to these much older views. Since October 1941, the veteran Communist Walter Ulbricht directed the formation of a Communist league among the German prisoners of war. In a speech pronounced in a Moscow Soviet in November 6, 1942, Stalin affirmed: "Our goal is not to destroy Germany, because to destroy Germany is impossible... our goal is not to destroy the whole military strength of Germany, because all educated people will understand that it is not only impossible in regards to Germany but also undesirable in a futuristic point of view." July 12-13 I943, the National Committee of Free Germany was founded in Moscow under the nominal presidency of the general Junker Walther Seydlitz von, imprisoned in Stalingrad, and under the real direction of Wilhelm Pieck, a German communist and former Chief Secretary of the Communist International."



The goal of the operation was two fold: to prepare for the birth of a new antifascist German liberation army and to prepare the settings that would take control of a new democratic Germany after victory.



The reaction of the Anglo-Americans was violently hostile. "These theses provoked reactions of distrust and suspicion from the western Allies. The creation, in Moscow, of the National Committee of Free Germany was considered a first step towards a government's constitution for a post-war Germany, and as a preparation of a separate agreement between Germany and the Soviet Union."



The influential conservative theoretician James BURNHAM sets the tone in an article published in the Magazine "The COMMONWEALTH" titled "Stalin and the Junkers." BURNHAM perfectly seized STALIN'S gait: "the Committee of free Germany opened some offices in the whole world under Communist direction.
It attracted the adherence, abroad, of the mass of German speaking refugees and residents: socialist, Liberals and plain German patriots but (all) anti-hitlériens. Inside the Soviet Union, the Committee and its subsidiaries undertook the conversion of Nazi German prisoners to Communism and the formation of special agents for the army battalions of a future "free Germany." In August 1944, when Friederich Paulus von, the German commander in Stalingrad, announced that he adhered to the Committee, close to a hundred imprisoned generals and officers became members. England and the United States became alarmed so of this Committee of Free Germany that in Yalta they obtained Stalin's signature, at the low end of a paragraph, by which he gave up establishing the Committee as a new German government. As always with the Communists, such a renunciation was only of pure shape and didn't prevent them from anything. The Committee of free Germany is the expression of the Communist projects for Germany. Its program (...) offers Germans a role as secondary associates to the Soviet Eurasians and in the future world Empire."



STALIN knew the value of national myths. According to his political needs, he glorified some Czars, such as Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great and former Russian military chiefs as Koutousov, Napoleon's conqueror. At the time of international tension before the Second World War, STALIN sought the support of the population. He had well understood that one day the Red Army would be engaged militarily-and soldiers without a national ideal fight badly. This is why and in the line with "red patriotism", during the years of the civil war he re-established the honour of the ideals of former Russia: hence the red army received uniforms fashioned after czarist times. The war that had to be waged, STALIN called the "big patriotic war."



In the beginning of 1943, after the battle of Stalingrad for the first time a number of high ranking German officers, who rightly felt betrayed and sold by Hitler, capitulated. STALIN, together with the cadres of the KPD harboured in the USSR and Anglo-Saxon countries, decided to win these officers over to soviet objectives and with them the rest of the German prisoners of war. They didn't do so with the red flag of the Communist world revolution, but with the traditional colours of Germany: black-white-red, while evoking the memory of the German-Russian coalition against Napoleon in 1812 and the German-Russian political alliance with Bismarck around 1880. This is how in Krasnogorsk July 12, 1943 in the model prisoners camp n° 27 close to Moscow, the "NATIONAL COMMITTEE of FREE GERMANY" was born under the united portraits of LENIN and the German imperial flag. The Committee immediately published a MANIFESTO co-signed by the KPD’s leaders and the German soldiers. The signatures of eleven Communist leaders – amongst whom were PIECK and ULBRICHT- stood by those of 16 soldiers and non-commissioned officers, as well as those of 11 officers- three of them high ranking officials. The Committee was presided by a Communist militant, Erich WEINERT, former fighter in Spain and author of the famous poem "Song of the international Brigades."



Hitler's adversaries in the officers’ corps, whose adherence was sought after, followed in September 1943 when "the German Officers UNION" was founded. Then Marshal VON PAULUS, loser at Stalingrad, general VON SEYDLITZS, VON DANIEL, KORFES, LATTMENN and other hundreds of general officers joined the National Committee.



Hitler’s old adversaries were found there again, such as Ottomar PECH, future general of the NVA, who belonged to the Berliner network of the "RED ORCHESTRA" controlled by the national ARNACK Bolsheviks and SCHULZE-BOYSEN. Or General Otto KORFES, member of the national-revolutionary group of STAUFFENBERG (his brother-in-law was executed for having participated in the heroic uprising of July 20, 1944).



The propaganda campaign of the "National Committee", with its millions of newspaper tracts and the daily calls in Radio Moscow "to the German people and in the German Wehrmacht", contributed to the disintegration of the Nazi war machine.



Working internationally within the emigration area of anti-Nazi Germans, the Committee also had some activities in occupied France, where the "COMMITTEE OF FREE GERMANY FOR THE WEST" (CMVO) was established: "From August 1943 on, an important part of the political resistance work will concentrate on contact with members of the Wehrmacht, Social democratic emigrants or other German political emigrants, especially dispersed in the South of France; in view of the massive distribution of the manifesto of the national Committee of free Germany created in summer 1943 in Moscow and in order to constitute a Committee of free Germany (Nationalkomitee Freies Deutschland) in France representing Social democrats and other anti-Nazis groups, members of the Wehrmacht, soldier committees, etc (...) The CALPO declares itself open to the combat objectives and to the program of the national Committee of free Germany based in Moscow, to know "the unification of all antifascist forces, to create a democratic Germany" (...) In the propaganda documents, the CALPO exhorted German officers and soldiers: "Stop the fight [...] Return France its liberty [...] you don't have anything to do in foreign countries [...] don't pick on the French. Don't participate in the arrests, or in the denunciations! We must save Germany and must bring peace back while provoking Hitler's fall! [...] If you are sent to the East, join the red army!" From August 1943 until the liberation of Paris in August 1944, the CALPO clandestinely published the following documents: 63 numbers of Volk Vaterland und, 25 numbers of Unser Vaterland, 109 tracts and 5 booklets of propaganda. These publications were made possible thanks to the material and financial help of the CP and the ME."







THE ABORTED BIRTH


OF "THE GERMAN NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY"




Farsighted STALIN had declared in November 6, 1942 that: "Our goal is not to destroy all of Germany’s organized military strength. Because all somewhat cultivated men will understand that this is not only impossible, in regards to Germany and Russia, but inopportune in the point of view of the winner."



In STALIN'S entourage as in the KPD’s leadership, or the "NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF GERMANY", there were the people who thought that it was necessary to constitute, with German prisoners of war, a liberation army against Hitler. In General VON SEYDLITZ’s entourage there was also a project to form a German police force that, entering Germany following the Red army, was to assure tranquillity and order. But, following the violent pressure exerted by the Anglo-Americans, STALIN had to abandon the project. Therefore, there was never an "armed Seydlitz” or an "armed Paulus" whose recruitment the Soviets encouraged among their German prisoners of war.



Nevertheless, these projects would have a fundamental influence over the birth of the NVA, the popular army of the DDR.



It is necessary to remember, however, that many German soldiers served in the auxiliary staff of the soviet army. This was also the case of the German Communist who had joined the red army after 1941, or the old "INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES" sheltered in USSR after 1939 that fought alongside the Soviets, notably in the armies of partisans. Heinz ZORN, the first Chief of Staff of the DDR’s air forces, was, after having switched from the enemy to antifascism, a soviet partisan. This was also the case with Rudolf BARBARINO, former second lieutenant of the Wehrmacht and delegate to the front of the "National Committee." It is a proven fact that a lot of Communist emigrants and Communists of old fought during the Second World War as soviet partisans against the Hitler’s forces. In the first years of the DDR’s "National Popular army", one would often find these Soviet partisans in positions of authority.



In France, the "Committee" would hold military activities in the underground ? and in the Resistance: "From September 1943, the CALPO formed an organization of autonomous German resistance in France, recognized by the other groups and movements of the French Resistance. It is only in June 1944 when a convention concluded between the general delegate of the CALPO, the heads of the former Southern Zone and the leaders of the other Resistance groups in the region of Toulouse was officially ratified by the supreme command of Algiers represented by the general Bourdelait. This recognition was very important to participate in the operations in many FTP undergrounds ? that had welcomed anti-Nazi refugees, about 250 Germans and former volunteers of the international Brigades (...) After the liberation of Paris in which more than 100 German refugees participated in the FFI cadres, the CALPO began a new stage of work which in January 1945 regrouped more than 300 anti-hitlerien refugees and a few score Wehrmacht soldiers and officers." The regional head of the national Movement of prisoners and deportees, C. STRICKLER, prefaced his report on the activity of the CALPO (Toulouse) December 28, 1944 as follows: "In manner of a preface [...], I would like to simply write my admiration for the work executed by our friends whose loyalty didn't demit for one instant. It is certain that, pursued by the Gestapo and the agents of the Vichy, they fought in unusually difficult conditions, (and) in a particularly unfavourable climate. In the fraternity of the resistance struggle, we have valuably appreciated the courage and heart of these men whose hate for Nazism brought closer to us. We have perfectly understood these fighters who excluded themselves voluntarily from their homeland and difficultly found a secure asylum in ours. We have worked in common perilous circumstances and no indiscretion was ever committed. However, they did a difficult job: the diffusion of newspapers and tracts in the German barracks, a job that no executions or abominable tortures ever prevented.”





THE BIRTH OF THE DDR



It’s the "National Committee", conceived like a cadre factory and to which the "ANTIFAS SCHOOL" was attached, that was to take up the task of renewal within the KPD in East Germany and who, before the failure of STALIN'S plans who we often forget was a germanophile, aimed at a unified, democratic, neutral and socialist Germany, the birth of the DDR: "The members of the Committee of free Germany, formed abroad by the Communists, were recalled from Mexico, New-York, Latin America, London, Stockholm, and Moscow. For the first time since the war, in Paris June 1946, Molotov rose against federalism and dismemberment, recommending a "united Germany". He believed then that the assured result was that a united Germany would be a Communist Germany."



In November 2, 1945, when the Soviets had already solidly established their power over the zone of Germany which they occupied, the "National Committee of Free Germany" and the “Union of German Officers" were officially dissolved to calm the Anglo-Americans. But a part of their members - amongst which were officers- went back to Germany in 1945 to participate in the "democratic organization" of the Soviet occupation zone, under the direction of ULBRICHT. Most officers of the "National Committee" were then put on reserve while waiting, until 1948, to serve on the armed forces of the future DDR.



It is indeed Walter ULBRICHT, "former member of the Political Office of the German Communist Party, important member of this Committee and completely faithful to the "big soviet brother" who was the first, in April 30 1945, to regain Berlin. The group that carried his name, the "Ulbricht group", was placed under the direct control of the soviet military administration (Sowjetische Militaradministration, SMAD) and worked in close collaboration with it. The Communists were the first to benefit from the second order of the SMAD on June 10th, which allowed for the reconstitution of "democratic parties." On June 11 1945, the German Communist Party reconstituted itself under the direction of the old exiles of Moscow, they elaborated its political program in direct link with the soviet authorities (...) from October 1945 on, Walter Ulbricht propagated the idea of the "particular German road to socialism." »



In April 22, 1946, the "United Socialist Party ("Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands", SED) was created. It resulted from the fusion of the East-German "German Social Democratic Party" ("Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands", SPD) and the Communist Party ("Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands", KPD). In the western zone, the Social democrats, under American control, rejected the fusion.



The cold war arrived quickly. The soviet and western zones were in fact separated. In the west, the three occupying powers begun to form the idea of a West German entity. In July 1st 1948, the allies presented the "Frankfurt documents" to the Länderses delegates of the 3 zones. They contained some proposals about the territorial future of the Länderses, a draft of the occupation statute, and a project constitution. It is on these bases that 65 deputies elaborated a constitutional charter in cooperation with the occupying powers. On May 8, 1949, 5 years after the defeat of the Nazi Reich, a German state reappeared after the approval of the definitive text of the fundamental Law (Grundgesetz) with 53 votes for and 12 against it. The law officially came to force in May 23, 1949: the Federal Republic of Germany, the BundesRepublik Deutschland (BDR) in German, was created officially with Bonn as its capital.



Before the definitive refusal by the western powers of a unified Germany, as proposed by STALIN, a socialist state was constituted alongside the FRG. The Communist party (SED) became more and more controlled by the hardliners of the movement and was stalinised. In June 1948, the "titiste deviation (?)" was condemned by all the East German leaders. In October 22, 1948, the "people's Council" (Volksrat) presented a project constitution for a democratic and indivisible Republic. This project was approved in May 30, 1949 and, in October 7, the "people's Council" temporarily occupied a legislative post in order to officialise the birth of the "German "Democratic Republic ("Deutsche Demokratische Republik", DDR) and to elect Wilhelm PIECK, first president of the "first German workers’ and peasants’ state".




ERNST NIEKISCH AND THE DDR




In 1945, the national-Bolshevik leader Ernst NIEKISCH emerged half blind and overcome from the Nazi prison-camps, where he had languished since 1937. The old fighter did not abdicate and got immediately involved in politics. He adhered to the KPD and then to the SED of Berlin and actively participated in the birth of the DDR, a struggle through which he recovered the ideals of the WIDERSTAND.



His friend Ernst JUNGER, who protected NIEKISCH’s family since 1937, had written, not without irony, that “he was definitely oriented towards the East."



In 1948, he became a deputy in the Volksrat and later also in the Volkskamer.



He also occupied posts of authority in the Humbold University of East Berlin and in the SED’s "Institute of anti-imperialist studies".



The road followed by EAST GERMANY at its beginning was the road of Anton ACKERMANN’s “national-communism” and ULBRICHT’s "special German road to socialism", the enthusiasm (?). All was ruptured with the western and the Prussian discipline of the new "National Volksarmee." (?) Author of "HITLER, A German Fatality", the most radical of the anti-hitlerian pamphlets; he also identified himself with the antifascist ideology of the DDR.



The events of June 1953, following STALIN'S death, drove NIEKISCH, opposed to the politics of ULBRICHT, to resign from the SED. He died in Berlin in 1967.





A RETURN TO NATIONAL-COMMUNISM


AND TO PRUSSIAN ETHICS



After June 1953, Anton ACKERMANN separated. It was the abandonment of the “national-communist” line.



But since 1961 it re-emerged through the will of the DDR, the "socialist nation" (which was also the name of the national-Bolshevik group of PAETEL, decimated by Nazis for the resistance of 1933-34) as defined by the SED, found its identity in its historical roots. These were its Lutheran past, the popular traditions of the peasant wars of the Middle Ages, the 1812-1813 liberation war against NAPOLÉON, antifascism, the real ideological foundation of the DDR and slowly but surely, the past of Prussia, this other ideological state. "The socialist Nation", was in search of its history and, next to Martin Luther and Frédéric II, it incorporated in its gallery of forefathers the same conspirators of July 20th (...) Under Honecker, as opposed to Ulbricht, the representatives of the German interior Resistance were granted a more important place in the collective conscience." The democratic Republic then represented the events of July 20, 1944 as a "revolution from the top" under the word of order: "Colonel Graf Stauffenberg von is ours." This was incontestably more legitimate than the recuperation of STAUFFENBERG by the liberal republic of Bonn, since the colonel, disciple of the national-revolutionary ideas, vomited at liberalism and became a partisan for an understanding with the USSR.




THE BIRTH AND IDEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS


OF THE "NATIONAL VOLKSARMEE



The values that founded the DDR can be specially seen in the "NATIONAL VOLKSARMEE, the army of "the other Germany", which also reflected the national-Bolshevik foundations of the "NATIONALKOMIETE FREIES DEUTSCHLAND" from which much of its organization derived (the remaining coming from the "INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES" or the units of soviet partisans).



In August 1946, "The Soviet Military Administration in Germany" (SMAD) centralized the police force of the entire eastern zone into the "German Interior Administration" and placed the responsibility of the surveillance of the zone’s border to an organization called the "German "Border Police”. Both of these were constituted by officers from the "National Committee". The following stage was the creation of a "based (?) popular police" (KVP) from which the "NATIONAL VOLKSARMEE” (NVA) emerged directly. Contrary to the FRG’s army who wore American helmets and uniform (and Nazi decorations), the NVA adopted the feldgrau stance, the "stalhelm", and the parade steps of German and Prussian tradition.



The proclamation of the "People’s National Army” (NVA) took place in January 18, 1956. The DDR then affirmed insistently that the NVA, a political army that stood on ideological foundations, didn’t serve solely for "the edification of the workers’ and peasants’ socialist state", but also "for national objectives."



The NVA rested upon a body of politicized officers. "The officer schools must become socialist centers of education and instruction for soldiers", where an ideal officer would be trained, as explained one of the first chiefs of the NVA, brigade general Siegfried WEISS (p.147, in the magazine political and military "Militärwesen", 6th fascicle, year 1959). WEISS begins from the idea that "the working class confides to an officer the honourable task of making his subordinates enthusiastic about the triumph of socialism and to instil in them the requisite political, military and technical knowledge and faculties for the military defence of the DDR. Weiss, the general politician, sees these conditions fulfilled in an officer who "is a first rate political civil servant, that bound intimately with the working class, accomplishes his work according to the working class party’s order and who is ready to protect the socialist homeland against enemies alongside armies fraternally allied."



The NVA is rooted in German popular, national, workers’ and communist traditions.



The officers of the NVA must, as political civil servants of the "first German workers’ and peasants’ State", maintain and personify the "military traditions of the German working class". The army Museum, inaugurated in the "day of the people’s army", March 1st 1961, (and which is installed in the "Marble Palace" a castle built close to Potsdam by Frederic-William II, a whole symbol,) demonstrates through German history that the history of war, her war as well, cannot but be "appreciated in the mind of class struggle" and that "the good will to defend our DDR must be strengthened." The peasant wars of 1526, the wars of independence of 1813-15, internal German struggles, the Communist insurrections following to World War I, the involvement of Communists in the Spanish civil war in 1936/38 and the "antifascist struggle", especially that of the "National Committee of Germany" are specially shed a light on in the Army Museum.

Among the historic events forming the "military traditions of the German working class" the peasant war already more than 400 years past comes to light. It was one of the biggest tragedies of German history, but here it was examined in the lines of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, which sees popular national armies in the peasant troops of Florian Geyer, Gotz Berlichingen von and Thomas Münzer. The "national revolutionary wars of 1813/15, by which the Germans freed themselves from the yoke of Napoleonic domination, put on an ideal character for the DDR since they serve as an example of the "germano-russian anti-western arms brotherhood". During the first years of the DDR, these were particularly effective in winning over some recruits previously submerged in German nationalist surroundings, given that the wars of the independence occupied a privileged place in German historiography up to then. The traditions of the Weimar’s civil wars, of the Spanish civil war and- with a different nuance- the "antifascist struggles" of the "NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF GERMANY LIBRE" were made more alive outside (the museum).







The Spanish War holds an important role here. Many NVA heads took part in the anti-franquiste side in the Spanish civil war during 1936-1938. With volunteers from all over the world, they formed the five "INTERNATIONAL BRIGADES". The history of the XIth and XIIIth international brigades, where more than 9000 Germans fought, were specially exposed.



Many of the founding cadres of the NVA were pulled to militarism in the national-Communist line of the "declaration-program for the national and social liberation of Germany", launched by the KPD in 1930 and which the" NATIONALKOMIETE FREIES DEUTSCHLAND" perpetuated. "There must certainly be some officers in the People’s National Army who belonged to the dejected Wehrmacht. But they don't look like those who head the federal army of NATO. They recognize without reserve the controlling role of the working class party and subordinate themselves without restriction to the historic necessity of working class direction of the state and army. They recognized, through their own and bitter experience, the really undemocratic character of German militarism. They separated from it, they declared themselves for the German homeland and the socialist state and proved the sincerity of their attitude as members of the “National Committee of Germany" and in other antifascist organizations. They studied the doctrines of Marxism-Leninism and made theirs this working class ideology ".




EAST GERMAN COMMUNITARISM




DDR historians, like Sandrine KOTT, declare that "East German communitarism" descended from the "construction of the people's community” (Menschen-gemeinschaft), dear to ULBRICHT, to define the social ideology of the regime: a societal project that also explains the sympathy of European Communitarism for "the other Germany ".



“"Communitarism" is only one dimension in East German social organization (...) which permits us to describe the East-German society and do so specifically (?). The political dictatorship didn't “kill" the society but “delivered" it to a specific atomized and communal, divided and bound world, a world different and similar at once to that dreamt by the Communists who took power in 1945. One must not forget that the dictatorship of the party doesn't constitute an end in itself, it is carried by a desire to change the world and the regime founds its legitimacy on the values that take, with the promise to reach socialism, the pressing dimension of a terrestrial eschatology. These values are rooted in the history of the German working movement and soviet socialism; they can claim the incontestable utopian dimension of Marxism and can easily nourish or substitute themselves from a religious representation of the world. East German communists have used these utopian dimensions many times for political or religious purposes. They have mobilized Christian symbols such as sacrifice, redemption, acquisition, love and charity rhetoric. So that the religious invades the politician's field progressively, but also the civil society as a whole, and contributes to the "re-charming of the world" (?). It is certainly difficult to know to what degree this “belief” penetrates even the party itself. Measured by the tepidness of enthusiasm displayed and by the difficulty of a complete collective mobilization, one would conclude on the weakness and even uselessness of this penetration. Yet some signs allow me to write this first report. If certain rituals of the defunct regime remained as artificial creations whose appliance was a matter above all of constraint, others really contributed to a people's formation, even about a socialist topic. The attachment to a gesture of contribution that is illustrated in particular occasions, such as symbols and dates in the socialist calendar, can be seen like a form of the regime’s "success" which, during the forty years of its existence, created shared values, an expression of a real process of "civilization ".



Sandrine KOTT continues that “ten years after the East-Germans affirmed in their majority, that the German leaders really looked to achieve a just society" and that "in spite of the reality of political domination, the teleological message seems to have reached the German population extensively since ten years after the fall of the wall, they (still) believe that the SED really wanted to establish a just society". ?



Luc MICHEL

ogenoct
Sunday, September 5th, 2004, 10:18 PM
NATIONAL COMMUNISM IN THE AGE OF KALI

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


"The Aryan is greatest not in his mental qualities as such, but in the extent of his willingness to put all his abilities in the service of the community. In him the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the greater whole and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it."
-- Adolf Hitler, MEIN KAMPF

"All Koreans, if they live in the North, in the South or abroad, belong to a homogenous race with the blood and spirit of the Korean Nation, and are inseparably bound in their common national interests, souls and sentiments."
-- Kim Jong Il


The masses are a conglomeration of the ideal archetype of a race. There is a sublimely inspiring and overarching glorious beauty in sculptures and paintings that extol the physical and mental virtues of the Aryan worker. Of course, it is always the elite that controls the destiny of the majority. However, this does not mean that the elite could exist without the tacit support and approval of the people. The elite's sole purpose of existence should be to serve the folk. Without the consent of the masses, the elite's status would very quickly lose its momentum and the leaders their very purpose of existence. According to this reasoning, people are NOT dispensable. On the contrary, they are the body and blood of the elite.

V.I. Lenin knew full well that only through whipping up nationalist sentiments could he claim the support of the Russian majority. The same goes for most Communist leaders, from Ernst Thaelmann to Ho Chi Minh. While Communism might sometimes claim to defend the international interests of the proletariat, in reality it most often transforms itself into a fighting ideology of national revolutionaries - from Lenin's Russia (a battle station against the earth- and soul-destroyers of the Occident) all the way to Pol Pot's Cambodia and Kim Il Sung's North Korea. This is why, in essence, Hitler and Stalin were blood brothers. APPLIED Bolshevism (without the Marxist baggage) IS National Socialism.

why cry cruelty?
creation craves change
but God is a goner
& reality molded to match
stability means mobility
evolution upwards through equality
biology a centerpiece in thought
reason ruling eulogies

There needs to be a united front against the Capitalist Beast. However, one needs to keep in mind that to combat globalism effectively, one needs to distance oneself categorically from it. We do not need a globalist/internationalist front against the international "Kapital" (High Finance). This would defeat the purpose of fighting against global materialism in the first place. Instead, we need an alliance of sovereign-minded nations and/or ethnic factions that want to keep the diversity on this planet intact, either through self-sufficiency or through trade with like-minded folk-socialist countries or communities.

For example, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a (slowly but surely) prospering nation, despite the propaganda emanating against it from the Western imperialist press. If it followed the "Chinese road" (of State Capitalism) it would betray the very values it stands for and owes its existence to - namely Socialism. Following the "Chinese road" would transform one of the last bastions against the Monolith of Materialism into another dependant of the globalizing nature of World (American) Capitalism.

PRIOR NECESSITY:
driving out all apocalypticians -
dialectics in order to please:
individual, folk, planet -
GALACTIC EMPIRE

To fight the Moloch of Exploitation, a true brotherhood of the peoples is sorely needed. All revolutionaries on this planet should first care for their respective race/tribe/nation and then for the cooperative unity of all mankind.

This in a time when the identity-conscious European, who harbors anti-imperialist thoughts, shakes the hand of the brown-skinned Indian sadhu.
"Peace be with you," says the sadhu.
"In diversity lies earthly bliss," says the European.
"And while silly symphonies might deceive a humble listener, a tune of buried glory never fails to rouse," says the sadhu.
"In order to find one's strength one travels to find one's own," says the European.
"Both here and there, Aryans de-aryanize themselves, submitting to lust for death's sake," says the sadhu.
"The passing of the individual is transient and meaningless, but the demise of a great race is final - changing the pattern of the universe, for better or worse," says the European.
"All creatures are sacred - as a species, not as single entities," says the sadhu, realizing his deviation from the traditional appraisal of individual self-discovery.
"While one might be able to create and discover, the many harbor, incorporate and represent all different ones into a unified whole - relegating the levels of individual genius to insignificance within the same group," says the European.

"THE SPIRIT OF '33": Game Over - Let the Game begin!

JUDAEA DELENDA EST

Vlad Cletus
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 08:53 AM
Yes, hopefully in time, people will realize how their lives are being turned upside down by a greedy corporate swine and submit to a new divine world order promoting separation and peace between the various peoples of Earth.

Worldwide Revolution must be instigated, and should take place to destroy Globalism and Capitalism which exploit all dear to the people for profit.

walfiler
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 03:24 PM
As long as you don't destroy the culture as the classic communists did... why not.

Deling
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 05:47 PM
"As long as you don't destroy the culture as the classic communists did... why not."

'Classic communists' didn't really destroy more culture than others did, so...

walfiler
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 06:55 PM
Ok let's say it this way: As long as you don't slaughter heathens like the russian slaughtered buddhists... why not.

ogenoct
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 11:45 PM
Ok let's say it this way: As long as you don't slaughter heathens like the russian slaughtered buddhists... why not.
When exactly did the Russians slaughter Buddhists?

Constantin

Deling
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 12:12 PM
"When exactly did the Russians slaughter Buddhists?"

Well, I guess he meant the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

There are no Heathens anymore by the way, and I don't see any nationalist of whatever kind killing neo-Pagans because of 'fun'. No reason, no mean to do something.

walfiler
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 02:43 PM
When exactly did the Russians slaughter Buddhists?
Betwene 1919 and 1989 they where in Mongolia, shot almost all Buddhist monks and destroied the monasteries.

Anyway i didn't want to make the commies down. But it's vital to the movement to keep the differend cultural roots of every nation. That was the problem with the russion communism.

I'm quite shure a national communism won't make the same mistakes.

Jack
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 03:30 AM
They also killed thousands of priests, suppressed Ukrainian nationalism and banned hundreds of books which exemplified Russian culture, like the works of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. Insult removed. -- NE

Social-Nationalist
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 08:00 AM
Communists destroyed culture?

It is true that in the Soviet Union and especially China they 'destroyed' cultural elements of the old society. In these particular cases I don't see the problem, since this was principally an attack on religion. However, I do not think this can be said of North Korea and Albania, which were both resolute in preserving and ameliorating cultural traditions, even those of a religious character.

Social-Nationalist
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 08:04 AM
They also killed thousands of priests, suppressed Ukrainian nationalism and banned hundreds of books which exemplified Russian culture, like the works of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. Insult removed. -- NE
Ukrainian nationalism was limited only to WESTERN Ukraine. Stalin or Hitler did not massacre the East Ukrainians -- it was the Western Ukrainians who did this.

Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia, as well as Eastern Ukraine and Eastern Belorussia, as well as Russia, are integral parts of USSR.

Modern Ukraine, modern Belorussia and modern Russian Federation are ILLEGITIMATE constructs (Referendum proved it) that violate both the historical reality and common sense.


Oh, by the way, according to recent popular opinion polls, 48% of Ukrainians want their country to be part of USSR, and only 32% (Western-Ukrainian Ultranationalists) want independance.

Social-Nationalist
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 12:33 PM
Oh, and when were the works of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky banned? I have read essays by Russian bolsheviks praising both of those authors. I know for a fact that Lenin was a fan of Dostoyevsky.

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 03:21 PM
[Note: Thread split from here (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=112112).]


I think you better examine the masterminds(Die Juden) of Communism before you criticize the Italian race and yes, under fascism that became a new term for the Italian people.Wilhelm Pieck and Erich Honecker were not Jews. :) I'm a nationalist communist, not an internationalist communist. There's a difference between the two like between ethnic and civic nationalism.

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 04:12 PM
Wilhelm Pieck and Erich Honecker were not Jews. :) I'm a nationalist communist, not an internationalist communist. There's a difference between the two like between ethnic and civic nationalism.
You may very well be a "National Communist", however it is still a Judaized form of government. Like it or not. Communism and or Bolshevism will and always be defined as a Jew ideology.

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 04:22 PM
You may very well be a "National Communist", however it is still a Judaized form of government. Like it or not. Communism and or Bolshevism will and always be defined as a Jew ideology.So what? Their ideology is actually very efficient. The Jews have racist principles which kept their folk alive for thousands of years. They're intolerant with foreigners and with those who attack their tribe. What's wrong with the Jews is they don't allow other folk to be racist, because this threatens their status in their countries and they can't take advantage and prosper anymore. If we acted like the Jews in Israel and placed restrictions on immigration, promoted ethnocentrism and forbade marriages with people who aren't of our tribe, we'd have no problems preserving our folk. I don't care who created an ideology, as long as it can be adapted to work for our people it's a good tool.

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 04:51 PM
So what? Their ideology is actually very efficient. The Jews have racist principles which kept their folk alive for thousands of years. They're intolerant with foreigners and with those who attack their tribe. What's wrong with the Jews is they don't allow other folk to be racist, because this threatens their status in their countries and they can't take advantage and prosper anymore. If we acted like the Jews in Israel and placed restrictions on immigration, promoted ethnocentrism and forbade marriages with people who aren't of our tribe, we'd have no problems preserving our folk. I don't care who created an ideology, as long as it can be adapted to work for our people it's a good tool.

There are no racial hygiene doctrines in any kind of communism.

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 04:55 PM
There are no racial hygiene doctrines in any kind of communism.
Wrong. There are ethnic hygiene doctrines in German national communism. It wasn't acceptable to mix with foreigners. And if there weren't, then we, nationalist communists would create them for the future. :)

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 05:01 PM
Wrong. There are ethnic hygiene doctrines in German national communism. It wasn't acceptable to mix with foreigners. And if there weren't, then we, nationalist communists would create them for the future. :)

I have never heard of this but I will take your word for it. They certainly did not kick out Jews in the DDR even though the leaders were not. A Jew is a foreigner and should not be allowed to marry a German.

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 05:11 PM
They certainly did not kick out Jews in the DDR even though the leaders were not.
The DDR didn't have a perfect policy but you don't seem to know much about my former country, do you? The Jew Leo Zuckermann had to flee to West Berlin along with other Zionists. Others got kicked out of their positions and arrested. The DDR was the only German state which had the guts to oppose Zionists and refuse reparations to Israel. West Germany was the one who was kissing their ass.

Communist East Germany no safe haven for Jews after war (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=98045)

Either way there's no logic in repeating systems of the past entirely, or they wouldn't have failed. They have to be improved where they were mistakes. German national communism is simply collectivism applied to the German nation. Capitalism, materialism, individualism are enemies of nationalism, which encourage people to sell their souls for money and prestige. Capitalism is a Jewish invention too, but it's a failed one because it's used by greedy businessmen to exploit immigrant workers for their pockets.

Nationalist communism in Korea:

"All Koreans, if they live in the North, in the South or abroad, belong to a homogenous race with the blood and spirit of the Korean Nation, and are inseparably bound in their common national interests, souls and sentiments."
- Kim Jong Il

Replace "Koreans" with "Germans" and we have a doctrine of German nationalist communism. :)

Ossi
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 05:25 PM
I have never heard of this but I will take your word for it. They certainly did not kick out Jews in the DDR even though the leaders were not. A Jew is a foreigner and should not be allowed to marry a German.
Not all Jews were kicked out of NS Germany either, unlike the Holocaustians want us to believe. Those who served their interests were allowed to stay and put in charge to deal with their own kind.

The Nuremberg Laws accepted 1/4 Jews as German and they were allowed to marry Germans.

Fascism differentiated itself from NS by not being "anti-Semitic". :D

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 05:59 PM
Not all Jews were kicked out of NS Germany either, unlike the Holocaustians want us to believe. Those who served their interests were allowed to stay and put in charge to deal with their own kind.

The Nuremberg Laws accepted 1/4 Jews as German and they were allowed to marry Germans.

Fascism differentiated itself from NS by not being "anti-Semitic". :D

I accidentally thanked you, but yeah I do realize there were some Jews in Germany during WWII as well as a world champion racer Italian.

NS Germany still did not like Jews. There were some lucky ones out there.

You are totally wrong about fascism not being anti-Jewish though. Have you ever seen any Italian propaganda posters? Or how about from the publication called "The defense of the race?" There was a Catholic priest I think it was who re-wrote the Protocols of Zion in Italian.




Communist East Germany no safe haven for Jews after war (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=98045)


The Earth Times very often has an article talking about a Jewish Whinefest and how they are "persecuted."


Fascism differentiated itself from NS by not being "anti-Semitic". :D

http://www.alessandrorobecchi.it/UserFiles/Image/Difesadellarazza.jpg

That's just one of them.


9. GLI EBREI NON APPARTENGONO ALLA RAZZA ITALIANA. Dei semiti che nel corso dei secoli sono approdati sul sacro suolo della nostra Patria nulla in generale è rimasto. Anche l'occupazione araba della Sicilia nulla ha lasciato all'infuori del ricordo di qualche nome; e del resto il processo di assimilazione fu sempre rapidissimo in Italia. Gli ebrei rappresentano l'unica popolazione che non si è mai assimilata in Italia perché essa è costituita da elementi razziali non europei, diversi in modo assoluto dagli elementi che hanno dato origine agli Italiani.http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leggi_razziali_fasciste (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fit.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FLeggi_razziali_fascist e)

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 06:44 PM
The Earth Times very often has an article talking about a Jewish Whinefest and how they are "persecuted."
So NS Germany was Judeophile just because Jews always whine about how they were persecuted in it? Applying the same flawed logic.

It's historical documented fact. But alright, a right wing source:


East Germany, as an official Soviet satellite, was forbidden by Moscow to make any reparations payments to the Zionist created state of Israel for the treatment of Jews by the Nazi government.
http://www.white-history.com/hwr61.htm

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 07:01 PM
So NS Germany was Judeophile just because Jews always whine about how they were persecuted in it?

I did not say that.

It is their lies always featured in that publication, but in NS Germany they were sent to labor camps and not concentration.

Eoppoyz
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 07:09 PM
Not all Jews were kicked out of NS Germany either, unlike the Holocaustians want us to believe. Those who served their interests were allowed to stay and put in charge to deal with their own kind.

The Nuremberg Laws accepted 1/4 Jews as German and they were allowed to marry Germans.

Fascism differentiated itself from NS by not being "anti-Semitic". :D


How about the racial issue?

What's the difference between Communism and National Communism?

rainman
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 07:10 PM
Jews don't believe in Communism. Nor do they believe in Christianity or the holohoax or a whole load of other stuff they push on other people.

Communism is as old as our history. We find it in Christianity. It is an ideology used to submit whole nations and people and to bleed them dry. It can never be used for anything else.

At the heart of Communism is propping up under performers, giving money to the poor, creating false/enforced "equality" of people's, relying on the power of the broad masses- instead of the intellect or ability of the individual, not allowing better people to be promoted etc. It is about submitting to a central authority and expecting it to solve your problems and to be in control of you.

Word for word the holy Roman Empires plan of global conquest (Catholic Church) which was primarily founded by Jews and the Roman elite to control the masses and take over the world, it's basically word for word the same philosophy found in communism. Communism only takes God out of the pictures and uses it in a more modern way.

Maybe you guys are confusing communism with a dictatorship or centrally controlled government?

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 07:28 PM
I did not say that.

It is their lies always featured in that publication, but in NS Germany they were sent to labor camps and not concentration.
That was the online source I had handy, but like I said it's a historical fact documented by Germans. If East Germany was pro-Jew they'd have no reason to whine. And the Jews aren't lying about being persecuted in NS Germany. They are just lying about the details of it. Neither NS Germany nor East Germany treated Jews with silky gloves. That's a fact and the Jews are right about that. What they're not right about is claiming some sort of duty or compensation for it. Jews as foreigners aren't entitled to equal or special rights as the natives.


What's the difference between Communism and National Communism?
It's like the difference between nationalism/patriotism and ethnic/racial nationalism/patriotism. Communism is the general umbrella, a generalized term. It can be internationalist or nationalist. National communism considers the collective to be the nation. The Warsaw Pact countries were national communism. They rejected much foreign influence, especially Western influence from the US-Israel alliance.


Communism is as old as our history.
That's true.


We find it in Christianity. It is an ideology used to submit whole nations and people and to bleed them dry. It can never be used for anything else.It can. Communism is destructive if you apply it on a global, internationalist scale. If you consider the collective to be the entire planet. But if you apply it on a national scale, and you consider the collective to be the nation, it can work. It worked in East Germany, with some flaws, but from which we can learn from in future. East Germany had no substantial problem with foreigners.


At the heart of Communism is propping up under performers, giving money to the poor, creating false/enforced "equality" of people's, relying on the power of the broad masses- instead of the intellect or ability of the individual, not allowing better people to be promoted etc. It is about submitting to a central authority and expecting it to solve your problems and to be in control of you.And why shouldn't we help the poor Germanic people? We are one nation. Not through welfare checks. Through creating jobs for them. Putting them to work. There is a lot that needs to be done in Germany and people are too lazy to do because they'd rather sit on welfare. Under national communism, if you don't find work, work finds you. We help the poor and the poor help us at the same time.

Our national communist constitution said:
The socialist principle of from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is carried out.

Each citizen of the German Democratic Republic has the right to work. It has the right to a job and its free choice according to the social requirements and the personal qualification. It has the right to wages after quality and quantity of the work.


Maybe you guys are confusing communism with a dictatorship or centrally controlled government?Not at all. National communism implies a centrally controlled government and it has a dictator. It's a totalitarian ideology.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 07:40 PM
I read on Wikipedia that National Communism was a originally and firstly a Soviet Muslim idealogy. That it started out as an idealogy to get eastern european and nationalistic Muslims to join and cooperate with the Soviet Union and the goals of Communism.

Is there any truth to this?

After reading about that I was therefore also expecting to see any National Communists on Skadi being practicing Muslims. :D

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 07:48 PM
I read on Wikipedia that National Communism was a originally and firstly a Soviet Muslim idealogy. That it started out as an idealogy to get eastern european and nationalistic Muslims to join and cooperate with the Soviet Union and the goals of Communism.

Is there any truth to this?
Yes. They supported nationalistic Muslims/Arabs who were against Zionism. But they were only allies, no more. Eastern Europe was predominantly Atheist. The German/Eastern European communists despise religion.


In eastern Germany both religious observance and affiliation are much lower than in the rest of the country after forty years of Communist rule. The government of the German Democratic Republic encouraged an atheist worldview through institutions such as Jugendweihen (youth consecrations), secular coming-of-age ceremonies akin to Christian confirmation which all young people were strongly encouraged to attend (and disadvantaged socially if they did not). The average church attendance is now one of the lowest in the world, with only 5% attending at least once per week, compared to 14% in the rest of the country according to a recent study. The number of christenings, religious weddings and funerals is also lower than in the West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany#Secularism


After reading about that I was therefore also expecting to see any National Communists on Skadi being practicing Muslims. :D
Neither practicing nor non-practicing, just Atheists. ;)

Quo vadis
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 07:52 PM
How is National communism supposed to be different from National socialism and why is it supposed to be better?

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 07:55 PM
How is National communism supposed to be different from National socialism and why is it supposed to be better?
National socialism isn't really socialist. National socialism has some capitalist elements. National communism doesn't. National socialism accepts imperialism. National communism doesn't. We just keep our country, we don't need to get involved in useless wars to try to conquer colonies in other continents. Israel has been engaging in imperialism and all they get is a life full of war.

rainman
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Communism is always destructive because it takes away personal responsibility. It inherently believes that one person is as good as the next and that we are all the same. The only time it can work is in a small group (like less than 1,000) because the group can hand pick people who aren't good enough and kick them out of the group.

National Socialism is the exact opposite: it believes individuals vary in ability and unique talents and so do groups. It believes inherently in the inequality of people and the different treatment of people and groups based on them earning their own way and pulling their own weight.

Communism: feed everybody. We are all in this together. Take from the rich give to the poor- make everyone the same. It's inherently anti-racial, anti-eugenic etc.

Bärin
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 08:03 PM
Communism is always destructive because it takes away personal responsibility. It inherently believes that one person is as good as the next and that we are all the same. The only time it can work is in a small group (like less than 1,000) because the group can hand pick people who aren't good enough and kick them out of the group.

National Socialism is the exact opposite: it believes individuals vary in ability and unique talents and so do groups. It believes inherently in the inequality of people and the different treatment of people and groups based on them earning their own way and pulling their own weight.

Communism: feed everybody. We are all in this together. Take from the rich give to the poor- make everyone the same. It's inherently anti-racial, anti-eugenic etc.
Umm, read what I posted from the GDR constitution, you are so wrong.

The socialist principle of from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is carried out.

Each citizen of the German Democratic Republic has the right to work. It has the right to a job and its free choice according to the social requirements and the personal qualification. It has the right to wages after quality and quantity of the work.

We are all in this together though. That's a nationalist principle. The nation is a body.

rainman
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 10:35 PM
Umm, read what I posted from the GDR constitution, you are so wrong.

The socialist principle of from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is carried out.

Each citizen of the German Democratic Republic has the right to work. It has the right to a job and its free choice according to the social requirements and the personal qualification. It has the right to wages after quality and quantity of the work.

We are all in this together though. That's a nationalist principle. The nation is a body.

That is a contradiction. If I need $100,000 a year in medical care and my ability is to contribute nothing then by Communism I get $100,000 a year for nothing. Whats more even if I'm a low life lying cheating theif often I still get.

Wages regarding quality and quanitity of work contradicts giving people their needs and asking of their ability. You could have a mixed system like what we have in the U.S. and Europe now where people on welfare get more money than people who work for a living. Which we already have and call it modern capitalism.

By the way that is a true example: I know a retard who get's about $100,000 a year spent on him and never works. He usually goes about comitting crimes. Because he's "disabled" he gets anything he needs from the government. Meanwhile I work and contribute and obey the law and don't make enough money to live on. I think people should earn their way in life I don't care what you need. Because wealth comes from somewhere. Food doesn't grow itself. So a society will collapse if it doesn't reward ability.

TheGreatest
Wednesday, March 4th, 2009, 10:55 PM
Kim IL Jong is the example of ''National Communism". Essentially it's going to up being ran by a single leader who is a complete buffoon and threatens us all.

Anyway Communism is going to be the end term goal of humanity, unless we revert into savagery (which seems more likely with all this miscegenation). We should have enough technology to end the 40 hour week, and still provide a home and enough food for each worker, thus freeing us from this responsibility and do the things which we wish to do. Very Star Trek Equese, almost like the line from Picard where he claims that no more humans have greed or selfishness. And with education being free and accessible (and the Professor having been eliminated. Imagine a blueprint education system which takes advantage of a centralized computer network) would allow everyone to pursue their field of interest.

Myself I'm taking history at the moment. But if education was truly free, I would be learning military history.

It wouldn't stamp out creativity. The fact is that all our best minds are preoccupied with jobs like accounting and lawyering, when they could be using this genius to innovate and design. The same goes for the average construction worker and the like, while they might not be necessarily gifted, they might still have a spark of genius in a field they love

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, March 5th, 2009, 07:12 AM
I've split the discussion theme about National Socialism and Imperialism to a new thread. Here the address:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=112428

Koenigsberg
Friday, March 6th, 2009, 11:53 PM
Communism is the denial of anything metaphysical and is thus destined for failure.

Vandal Lord
Saturday, March 7th, 2009, 07:07 AM
I do not trust communism in any form. I don't deny the corruption found in Capitalism or Socialism but National Communism just seems like an attempt by Marxists to repackage communism in a more attractive image to sell to Nationalists, sort like a deception or a trojan horse.


National socialism isn't really socialist. National socialism has some capitalist elements. National communism doesn't. National socialism accepts imperialism. National communism doesn't. We just keep our country, we don't need to get involved in useless wars to try to conquer colonies in other continents. Israel has been engaging in imperialism and all they get is a life full of war.

But hypothetically can there be National or Ethnic Socialism without imperialism and watered down Capitalism?


Communism is as old as our history. We find it in Christianity. It is an ideology used to submit whole nations and people and to bleed them dry. It can never be used for anything else.

I always thought Christianity had the most in common with Socialism, essentially being a Theocratic form of Socialism. Communism wants to eliminate religion, while religion can still exist in Socialism.

Bärin
Saturday, March 7th, 2009, 01:49 PM
I do not trust communism in any form. I don't deny the corruption found in Capitalism or Socialism but National Communism just seems like an attempt by Marxists to repackage communism in a more attractive image to sell to Nationalists, sort like a deception or a trojan horse.
National Communism is not a democratic ideology. It's not about "selling" anything to anyone. Maybe you confuse National Communism with Democratic Socialism, a liberalized version created by traitors from the former SED.


But hypothetically can there be National or Ethnic Socialism without imperialism and watered down Capitalism?
Yes. :)

Vandal Lord
Monday, March 9th, 2009, 04:59 AM
National Communism is not a democratic ideology. It's not about "selling" anything to anyone. Maybe you confuse National Communism with Democratic Socialism, a liberalized version created by traitors from the former SED.

I don't believe I am confusing Democratic Socialism with National Communism aleast I don't think I am, I just don't trust communism at all in any form. It just seems like a way for Marxists to lie and trick Nationalists and Ethic Preservationists into something resembling Nationalism and than chancing to regular communism later on.


Yes. :)

:) Well if there can be National or Ethnic Socialism without imperialism and watered down Capitalism then that would make National Communism unnecessary, just my opinion.

TheGreatest
Saturday, April 18th, 2009, 09:10 PM
The failure with normal communism is it's rejection of racial science/evolution and argues that everything is purely social evolution.


But the Soviet Union did have elements of National Communism (anthropology and eugenics held out longer in the Soviet Union than it did in the west!)

Gardisten
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 06:12 AM
[Note: Discussion has been split and merged from here (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=957546#post957546).]



Christianity is not only non-Germanic, but also bad for Germanics. If it were good we could use its values despite its origin. We could learn from the Semites. The Jews ditched Christianity and practice Judaism, which is an ethnic religion. You can only be a Jew if your mother is Jewish. But Christian you can be if you embrace the Christian god. And Muslim if you think Allah is the only god. Germanics should ditch universal religion and adopt an ethnic one, which isn't open to xenophilia.
I don't care if Christians are here, but what shouldn't be tolerated is promotion and Christian missionarism, attempting to convert Germanics to this xenophilic religion. The garbage quoted by Jael should be inacceptable on a forum for Germanic preservation.

Are you really sure about this?

Also, I would like to point out the fact that Communism was NOT a good thing for Germany, and that Communist regimes have had a tendency to squash ethnic minorities. The Communists deported many millions of Germans following the war, and most died in far-flung gulags. You have no living memory of what Communism was like, you have no right to spew you hypocracy about "Germanic preservation".

Bärin
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 12:33 PM
Are you really sure about this?
Yes. Do you know something else? If so enlighten me.


Also, I would like to point out the fact that Communism was NOT a good thing for Germany,
What does this have to do with Xtianity? I love it how people go offtopic because they dislike what I say, and they try to pick on the political orientation from my profile, always with the same ignorant bullshit. :oanieyes

It's national communism by the way.


and that Communist regimes have had a tendency to squash ethnic minorities.
A good regime for the natives is one that cares for the natives, not for ethnic minorities.


The Communists deported many millions of Germans following the war, and most died in far-flung gulags.
The Russian communists. They did what was best in the interest of the Russians. The nationalism and politics of a country doesn't benefit all others. That doesn't mean nationalism is not a good thing. The same with national communism. Nationalist communism in Germany is good for Germans, but not for ethnic minorities living there. It happened the same with Russia. Whining and crying rivers about it won't solve anything. The solution is not to have ethnic minorities anywhere. To either extend Germany and (re)conquer those areas, or to move the Germans to where Germany is. Only a multicultural and xenophilic state cares for its minorities. Germany is like this today. Better than the DDR? Bullshit. Better for the Turks and Niggers, but not for Germans! Why should a nationalist state give a shit about its minorities?


You have no living memory of what Communism was like, you have no right to spew you hypocracy about "Germanic preservation".
I'm part of a family that lived in the DDR and knows full well the contrast between two regimes. And I don't believe in 'rights', and least of all that a Canadian on a forum who can't even spell his German "heritage" properly can decide what rights Germans have and what rights they don't. :)

Gardisten
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 04:22 PM
The Russian communists. They did what was best in the interest of the Russians. The nationalism and politics of a country doesn't benefit all others. That doesn't mean nationalism is not a good thing. The same with national communism. Nationalist communism in Germany is good for Germans, but not for ethnic minorities living there. It happened the same with Russia. Whining and crying rivers about it won't solve anything. The solution is not to have ethnic minorities anywhere. To either extend Germany and (re)conquer those areas, or to move the Germans to where Germany is. Only a multicultural and xenophilic state cares for its minorities. Germany is like this today. Better than the DDR? Bullshit. Better for the Turks and Niggers, but not for Germans! Why should a nationalist state give a shit about its minorities?
Communists are Communists. And I was talking about German ethnic minorities that were oppressed by the Communists, throughout eastern Europe and East Germany.


I'm part of a family that lived in the DDR and knows full well the contrast between two regimes. And I don't believe in 'rights', and least of all that a Canadian on a forum who can't even spell his German "heritage" properly can decide what rights Germans have and what rights they don't. :)
Again, you didn't actually live through the regime, though.

Too bad for you I can trace my ancestry back to the early 16th century and its 100% German. The issue here isn't location rather mindset, and the real problem here is your espousing Communism as a means if Germanic preservation when we all know what Communism is really about.

Nachtengel
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 06:25 PM
Although I'm no communist, I feel I should correct some ill informed statements about this topic:


Communists are Communists. And I was talking about German ethnic minorities that were oppressed by the Communists, throughout eastern Europe and East Germany.
I'm from the GDR, born and lived there until I was a teenager, and this is the first time I ever hear someone talking about "German ethnic minorities in East Germany". There was no such thing, I can assure you. We were native and a majority population in the GDR. As for the ones in Eastern Europe/Russia, they were oppressed because of the war. Germany was the war loser, so the winners punished it by punishing its minorities too. It didn't only happen under communist regimes. It also happened in the USA, where German POWs were exterminated and German civilians were rounded up and placed in camps for merely being German. There were German witnesses who survived to tell the stories of the atrocities in the USA. So I am not so sure that has to do with communism, because pure communism has no nationalist/anti-foreigner doctrine, it is internationalist. In addition, Stalin ethnically cleansed nearly every sector of Russian life, not just Germans. Many Russians died under communism too. And I should remind you how Russian communism was Philosemitic and open to Jews, so some ethnic minorities were accepted after all.


Too bad for you I can trace my ancestry back to the early 16th century and its 100% German. The issue here isn't location rather mindset, and the real problem here is your espousing Communism as a means if Germanic preservation when we all know what Communism is really about.
As I said before, blood/ancestry is not enough. Eisenhower had German ancestry too, but he wasn't a German. The mindset of colonials isn't really German either. Most of the time they have no understanding of German matters, because they don't live and breathe in Germany.

Gardisten
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 07:31 PM
Not all Jews were kicked out of NS Germany either, unlike the Holocaustians want us to believe. Those who served their interests were allowed to stay and put in charge to deal with their own kind.

The Nuremberg Laws accepted 1/4 Jews as German and they were allowed to marry Germans.

Fascism differentiated itself from NS by not being "anti-Semitic". :D

In other words, don't trust anyone's theories of history if they grew up in DDR or simply fancy themselves to be Communists...

Ossi
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 08:12 PM
Communists are Communists. And I was talking about German ethnic minorities that were oppressed by the Communists, throughout eastern Europe and East Germany.
Simple question for you: is a xenophilic, minority-friendly regime a GOOD or a BAD thing? Do we need MORE or LESS minorities in our countries? Russian nationalism has always been anti-German, communist or not. And that's why they're freer or alien influence than the FRG, which adopted a xenophilic, multicultural stance.


In other words, don't trust anyone's theories of history if they grew up in DDR or simply fancy themselves to be Communists...
I'm not a communist or fancy myself to be one, and I thought you said Bärin's words shouldn't be trusted because she didn't grow up in the GDR. Now that someone has lived through it, it has no validity, but before it had? LOL, what lack of logic you have there. But do your own research on the NS laws, genius.

Gardisten
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 08:45 PM
Simple question for you: is a xenophilic, minority-friendly regime a GOOD or a BAD thing? Do we need MORE or LESS minorities in our countries? Russian nationalism has always been anti-German, communist or not. And that's why they're freer or alien influence than the FRG, which adopted a xenophilic, multicultural stance.
I live in a country that considers itself "multicultural" and trust me, Germany is not "multicultural" by a long shot. Whatever the case, my concern for "ethnic minorities" relates to regional social, cultural, and linguistic variations among Germans (within Germany) and Germanics in general.



I'm not a communist or fancy myself to be one, and I thought you said Bärin's words shouldn't be trusted because she didn't grow up in the GDR. Now that someone has lived through it, it has no validity, but before it had? LOL, what lack of logic you have there. But do your own research on the NS laws, genius.
It really depends on the context, so I don't see how there's a "lack of logic".

Ossi
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 08:56 PM
I live in a country that considers itself "multicultural" and trust me, Germany is not "multicultural" by a long shot.
I rather trust my OWN experiences IN GERMANY than the words of someone who lives a continent away. Germany is so filled with xenophilia and multiculturalism that it's about to crack. As you speak about your pink fantasy world, German women are being attacked, insulted and raped on the street by "ethnic minorities". I invite you to have a look over the news in the German forum and see how "not multicultural" Germany is. :oanieyes


Whatever the case, my concern for "ethnic minorities" relates to regional social, cultural, and linguistic variations among Germans (within Germany) and Germanics in general.
Regional variations are not "ethnic minorities". Ethnic minorities are ALIENS, foreigners of distinct ethnic (and most often also racial) background. A nationalist regime shouldn't cater to them. Multiculturalism and nationalism don't go together. From this perspective the Russians preserved their ethnicity and race by pushing foreign influence out. The ones who are more to blame are the TRAITOR politicians who refused to make any efforts to regain the stolen German land. A Russian nationalist can't be expected to care about German interests. People here are incredibly unrealistic. You expect a rosy world where your countries kick out foreigners, but where your own ethnic group can go abroad and expect to be treated with silk gloves and red carpets as "ethnic minorities". In a nationalist Europe, a German living in Russia is treated the same way as a Russian living in Germany. As an alien. That's how it works, like it or not.

It really depends on the context, so I don't see how there's a "lack of logic".
So what is your "context"?

Gardisten
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 10:30 PM
I rather trust my OWN experiences IN GERMANY than the words of someone who lives a continent away. Germany is so filled with xenophilia and multiculturalism that it's about to crack. As you speak about your pink fantasy world, German women are being attacked, insulted and raped on the street by "ethnic minorities". I invite you to have a look over the news in the German forum and see how "not multicultural" Germany is. :oanieyes
I lived and studied in Germany. It's not a "multicultural" society. Just because Germany has a few visible minority doesn't make it a "multicultural" society. There's much more to it.



Regional variations are not "ethnic minorities". Ethnic minorities are ALIENS, foreigners of distinct ethnic (and most often also racial) background.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of ethnicity.

Ossi
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 10:39 PM
I lived and studied in Germany. It's not a "multicultural" society.
Not enough, it looks.


Just because Germany has a few visible minority doesn't make it a "multicultural" society. There's much more to it.
Ya, like promoting xenophilia and anti-German "values". Multiculturalism is the foundation of the liberal democracy called FRG.

http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/histfor/5/PHP/mietzner-pil-abb-1.jpg



You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of ethnicity.
Ethnicity:
an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties; "ethnicity has a strong influence on community status relations"

Ethnic minority:
a group that has different national or cultural traditions from the majority of the population

Germans in German are NOT ethnic minorities. Claiming otherwise is being ignorant of not only ethnicity, but of Germany too.

Bärin
Thursday, July 9th, 2009, 11:49 PM
Communists are Communists.
No, there are national communists and internationalist communists.


And I was talking about German ethnic minorities that were oppressed by the Communists, throughout eastern Europe and East Germany.Do you need a handkerchief to wipe your tears for the poor oppressed minorities? You're starting to sound like the nonwhite immigrants here who whine all day about "oppression". :oanieyes
My family who comes from the DDR speaks local version of German and so do I, so much for "oppression".


Again, you didn't actually live through the regime, though.My parents did, and educated me.


Too bad for you I can trace my ancestry back to the early 16th century and its 100% German. The issue here isn't location rather mindset, and the real problem here is your espousing Communism as a means if Germanic preservation when we all know what Communism is really about.Exactly, it's about mindset, that's why you and other colonials can't qualify as German even if you live and study here and even if your grandfathers were German. Your ignorance about Germany and Germans is quite striking.


[Moderation note: Off-topic discussion has been split and moved:
Germans in the New World (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=124656)
Debate on Low Germans and Dutch (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=94757&page=15)

Please continue discussing in the appropriate threads.]

Peoples Observer
Friday, August 28th, 2009, 11:53 PM
http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/histfor/5/PHP/mietzner-pil-abb-1.jpg


This photo would make a great paper target on every Germanic's and Europid's
rifle range for practice ! :D

AngloTeutonic
Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 12:40 AM
National socialism isn't really socialist. National socialism has some capitalist elements. National Communism doesn't.

Great! Some capitalist elements aren't bad at all. It gives people the freedom to make money if they work hard. That is how it should be, without going to far into capitalism, where the business ends up exploiting people.


National socialism accepts imperialism. National communism doesn't. We just keep our country, we don't need to get involved in useless wars to try to conquer colonies in other continents. Israel has been engaging in imperialism and all they get is a life full of war.

There is nothing wrong with imperialism, it is a sign of strength in this world of struggle. The Jews are the new imperialists, and that is the reason why they have so much influence. I admit, their system will fall some day (maybe in the not too distant future), but 1) a lot of it had to do with their snake jewness and their lies upon lies, which are now starting to crumble on their heads and 2) they had a pretty good run for a bunch of hook-nose money grubbing fools.



Communism as a system is not as bad as some nazis make it out to be, so long as it is national communism. National socialism, national communism, national capitalism; as long as it is "national", meaning keeping a homogenous country, I cannot tell you that you are wrong. Russia was a communist country, and immigrants were not piling up during those days. China is a communist nation, and so is Korea, but there is no multiculturalism over there.

Nevertheless, communism is a bad choice of system because it has always been associated with Jews and Jewish lead revolutions. Also, its idea of equality is just plain silly. Why should a doctor who studied 8 years to get a phd get paid the same as some street sweeper, who took a week to learn his job. Communism is a great fantasy, so is multiculturalism. But they are not realistic systems.

Bärin
Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 12:46 PM
Great! Some capitalist elements aren't bad at all. It gives people the freedom to make money if they work hard. That is how it should be, without going to far into capitalism, where the business ends up exploiting people.
My family and millions others who lived under communism, didn't have their money taken away.


There is nothing wrong with imperialism, it is a sign of strength in this world of struggle. The Jews are the new imperialists, and that is the reason why they have so much influence. I admit, their system will fall some day (maybe in the not too distant future), but 1) a lot of it had to do with their snake jewness and their lies upon lies, which are now starting to crumble on their heads and 2) they had a pretty good run for a bunch of hook-nose money grubbing fools.
Imperialism is wrong, and it's very simple why. It's expanding into alien territories with alien inhabitants. Sooner or later some Germanics move there, and the result is miscegenation. We need to separate ourselves from the aliens. If the colonized lands were empty or almost empty, or if the inhabitants segregated themselves, it wouldn't be a problem. But it's not like that. Just look at all the Americans who brag about Injun ancestry. Sure it's overrated, but it doesn't come from nothing either. Some people race mixed.


Communism as a system is not as bad as some nazis make it out to be, so long as it is national communism. National socialism, national communism, national capitalism; as long as it is "national", meaning keeping a homogenous country, I cannot tell you that you are wrong. Russia was a communist country, and immigrants were not piling up during those days. China is a communist nation, and so is Korea, but there is no multiculturalism over there.
Exactly. While in the Western liberal democracies multiculturalism thrives.


Nevertheless, communism is a bad choice of system because it has always been associated with Jews and Jewish lead revolutions. Also, its idea of equality is just plain silly. Why should a doctor who studied 8 years to get a phd get paid the same as some street sweeper, who took a week to learn his job. Communism is a great fantasy, so is multiculturalism. But they are not realistic systems.
No? Just look around you. Multiculturalism exists.

And doctors wouldn't get the same wage as street cleaners. Although a street cleaner has a more important role than people think. Imagine we lived in dust, rats and epidemics. German socialism is about every citizen contributing to the nation through work, and I mean every, with maybe the exception of those who are unable because of severe physical or mental problems, although there is something they could do as well if you look hard enough. I don't support a welfare system like in the liberal democracy where it means you can sit comfortably and receive money for doing nothing. I support a system where everyone has the duty to work for his nation, whether as a doctor, street sweeper, or whatever he can do. If you don't find a job, the government finds you one.

StormjaerKommando
Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 04:44 PM
Interesting thread this, I personally don’t see where this is going however.

Bärin, it sounds like your ideals are very similar to those of us National Socialists. Why do you then insist on being so obstinate in your promotion of what you call “National Communism”? Is it because you feel you need to form your ideology on the experiences of your family in the DDR in comparison to their (and your) experiences in the BRD, with the Dritte Reich in hindsight? Or do you feel that National Socialism has such a bad reputation that something similar packaged as something else might effectively rally the German masses for a nationalistic cause? We all know that throughout the world anything that is pro-Nationalist/Germanic will be branded as “Neo-Nazi”/”far right”/”reactionary” etc. anyway… Why then not call a spade a spade?

Also, your ideology will not sit well with the majority of nationalists who, like myself, are inherently anti-communist and pro-National Socialist. So, good luck in finding a large support base for “National Communism”. It doesn’t matter how you try and dress it up, communism is a jewish experiment to achieve the control of the world-wide masses that ran parallel with liberalism/capitalism/ multiculturalism and came second best, whilst causing so much suffering, not even for Germanics alone. Conversely, National Socialism is the only ideology that is purely pro-Germanic preservation; its product the Dritte Reich was the most successful socialist state ever (meaning the protection and upliftment of the worker), it established harmony between the classes and still allowed the individual to grow to his potential, and above all, it attempted to break the stranglehold of the international finance jew on all the world’s people.

I find your glorifying of communism and attempt to merge it with nationalism, a grave insult to those who have dedicated their lives to Germanic preservation and creating independent nationalist states, and those who continue to do so. I don’t mean to be antagonistic but you seem to be hell-bent on being different. Maybe it’s just your age…

Bärin
Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 05:35 PM
Interesting thread this, I personally don’t see where this is going however.

Bärin, it sounds like your ideals are very similar to those of us National Socialists. Why do you then insist on being so obstinate in your promotion of what you call “National Communism”? Is it because you feel you need to form your ideology on the experiences of your family in the DDR in comparison to their (and your) experiences in the BRD, with the Dritte Reich in hindsight? Or do you feel that National Socialism has such a bad reputation that something similar packaged as something else might effectively rally the German masses for a nationalistic cause? We all know that throughout the world anything that is pro-Nationalist/Germanic will be branded as “Neo-Nazi”/”far right”/”reactionary” etc. anyway… Why then not call a spade a spade?
I already said why. National socialism is not socialist, and I oppose imperialism. Maybe it would have been different if Stauffenberg had killed Hitler, but it didn't happen. I'm against moving to expand the nation over exotic territories and calling it "Germany". I believe the German people should be kept in their country, separated from contact with aliens.


Also, your ideology will not sit well with the majority of nationalists who, like myself, are inherently anti-communist and pro-National Socialist. So, good luck in finding a large support base for “National Communism”.
Did I also mention I don't believe in democracy and mob rule? If not, I mention it now. :)


It doesn’t matter how you try and dress it up, communism is a jewish experiment to achieve the control of the world-wide masses that ran parallel with liberalism/capitalism/ multiculturalism and came second best, whilst causing so much suffering, not even for Germanics alone. Conversely, National Socialism is the only ideology that is purely pro-Germanic preservation; its product the Dritte Reich was the most successful socialist state ever (meaning the protection and upliftment of the worker), it established harmony between the classes and still allowed the individual to grow to his potential, and above all, it attempted to break the stranglehold of the international finance jew on all the world’s people.
Read up on NS, it wasn't socialist.


I find your glorifying of communism and attempt to merge it with nationalism, a grave insult to those who have dedicated their lives to Germanic preservation and creating independent nationalist states, and those who continue to do so.
I don't care if the ideas I support are offensive to others. I am used to complaining about feeling insulted, from Muslims, Jews, and other oversensitive people who lay in my country, and just like in that case, I couldn't give two shits about people's personal feelings. Individualism is a trait of the kind of liberal democracies I abhor. I gave birth to a German child, so I made my contribution to preservation. My mother, also communist, gave birth to seven children, so she made hers too. None of the national communists I know and collaborate with did things against the welfare of the German nation.


I don’t mean to be antagonistic but you seem to be hell-bent on being different. Maybe it’s just your age…
If you mean I like being a rebellious teenager, I was taught the national communist ideas by my family, and I'm not particularly bent on disobeying them for the sake of being "different".

Stimme
Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 05:48 PM
My family and millions others who lived under communism, didn't have their money taken away.

That's because your parents lived in the socialist GDR. That never was a communist state.

Bärin
Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 06:02 PM
That's because your parents lived in the socialist GDR. That never was a communist state.
No, it was a national communist state, which isn't the same as what ordinary people usually understand by "communism" (which in reality is international communism). If people imagine as communism being only one thing, then it's wrong, because there are many types of communism. I've been trying to explain it for months to ignorants, but it seems people just don't want to get it. :nope

Nachtengel
Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Also, your ideology will not sit well with the majority of nationalists who, like myself, are inherently anti-communist and pro-National Socialist.
Which majority is this? I notice on the contrary, that the modern nationalists reject NS and consider us some sort of pariah. Just look at all the white/European/Germanic forums, and how they try to dissociate from NS. It is also what happens in real life, so we could notice a tendency towards embracing mainstream, socialist elements.

StormjaerKommando
Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 09:43 PM
Read up on NS, it wasn't socialist.

Cheeky ;), It depends on what you view as socialism. NS was socialist in the sense that the state assumed responsibility for the creation of an environment conducive for the socio-economic development of all its citizens to the highest possible level (unlike communism that promoted that everyone should have a little more than nothing at all so that all can be "satisfied"). I don't refer to socialism in the sense of Social Democracy that just hands out freebies like the BRD or the British government does.


Did I also mention I don't believe in democracy and mob rule? If not, I mention it now.

In what do you believe then? The incitement of the physical worker by egoist (most likely jewish) controllers against those who perform creative work (naturally both are required for the foundation of a strong state in the interest of the folk). I agree that democracy is bull, that is why strong leaders who have a clear vision for advancement of the folk must seize control of power (by any means necessary) with the full support of that folk, naturally. Mob rule? One cannot fake thousands of people lining the streets shouting "Heil!" and giving the straight arm salute (and later their lives) in support of the greater ideal...


I couldn't give two shits about people's personal feelings...

Egoism anyone?:-O This is exactly what communism is about, just being another idiotic slave in the eyes of the controller, not an individual who contributes to the greater good of the folk as in the case of NS.


If you mean I like being a rebellious teenager, I was taught the national communist ideas by my family, and I'm not particularly bent on disobeying them for the sake of being "different".

This I respect, though I think your parents efforts would have been more constructive if directed at NS. My father is a nationalist and my mother a liberal democrat (they are divorced), I therefore did not receive my beliefs from them in the direct sense. I found NS as a result of my observations in life, or nature if you will.


I am used to complaining about feeling insulted, from Muslims, Jews, and other oversensitive people who lay in my country

Funny, I thought that ALL where equal and it is environment and not race that determine a person’s character and actions, according to the communist doctrine anyway. Why insult them if you are a communist. O sorry, national communist...

Is it just me, or does that seem like a paradox?

NS is a movement which is aimed at the advancement of the folk, whilst communism is a movement for the maintaining of the state, pointless. Must a state serve its folk or itself?


Which majority is this? I notice on the contrary, that the modern nationalists reject NS and consider us some sort of pariah. Just look at all the white/European/Germanic forums, and how they try to dissociate from NS. It is also what happens in real life, so we could notice a tendency towards embracing mainstream, socialist elements.

I should have thought that statement through a bit more, I admit…:ftomato:

I referred to those who are truly nationalistic, i.o.w. those who are willing to sacrifice their own comfort and egos for the maintenance of the folk (also future generations) and hence the state. They aren't YET fully NS in the true sense of the word. I did not refer to those who see nationalism as a communal belief in liberalism, unconditional individualism and materialistic imperialism (capitalism) that provides pleasure and comfort. It is true that there are many of these types, they observe the problems in society, rant about "kikes", "niggers" and "towel heads", but are not willing to do what it takes to make an actual difference.

They disassociate with NS because the mainstream will not support them if they associate with it (Holocaust, Drang nach Osten, anyone? :fviolin:), they believe in a type of nationalist/racialist democracy because they feel that life is about prestige and welfare for the individual and they don't give a crap about the manual laborer, they are racially aware though, and that more will support this than NS. Nationalism and liberalism/capitalism cannot co-exist, it is pointless.

As for our "National Communist" friend, she shares many of our NS ideals, I think she just disguises it not to seem like a "blood drinking Nazi henchman". The stigma continues...

Ossi
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 02:48 AM
As for our "National Communist" friend, she shares many of our NS ideals, I think she just disguises it not to seem like a "blood drinking Nazi henchman". The stigma continues...
:oanieyes

Nonsense. You don't even know her. She is one of the few people who is not afraid to say what she thinks. Because of that, she received a lot of scorn from "fellow nationalists", got called a purist, extremist, and many other names.

Bärin
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 03:55 AM
Cheeky ;), It depends on what you view as socialism. NS was socialist in the sense that the state assumed responsibility for the creation of an environment conducive for the socio-economic development of all its citizens to the highest possible level (unlike communism that promoted that everyone should have a little more than nothing at all so that all can be "satisfied"). I don't refer to socialism in the sense of Social Democracy that just hands out freebies like the BRD or the British government does.
I don't either and the BRD isn't socialist by the way, it's social democrat and capitalist, like the main parties that dominate it. Socialism is an economic means, of providing members of the nation with equal access to work. The BRD is mixed with greedy capitalism and exploitation of foreign labor while taking jobs from the natives to fill pockets. Socialism is about the principle "to each according to his contribution".


In what do you believe then? The incitement of the physical worker by egoist (most likely jewish) controllers against those who perform creative work (naturally both are required for the foundation of a strong state in the interest of the folk).
No. I already wrote about what I believe in. That every citizen of the nation has the obligation to provide work to serve it, and in exchange the nation has the obligation to care for its members.


I agree that democracy is bull, that is why strong leaders who have a clear vision for advancement of the folk must seize control of power (by any means necessary) with the full support of that folk, naturally. Mob rule? One cannot fake thousands of people lining the streets shouting "Heil!" and giving the straight arm salute (and later their lives) in support of the greater ideal...
Even your NS included revolution, which is the true means to gain power. If Hitler believed in mob rule, why were other parties outlawed? Nowadays, support of the idiotic masses will be impossible to gain, especially since the situation is not like in the interwar period. We have hordes of aliens making up decisive percentages in our countries, and eligible for voting. I don't believe change comes from going to the voting booth, because people have no power, it will come by taking power from those who truly have the power, the politicians.


Egoism anyone?:-O This is exactly what communism is about, just being another idiotic slave in the eyes of the controller, not an individual who contributes to the greater good of the folk as in the case of NS.
Liberalism is what puts the individual above the nation, and that's why the individual was handed so many idiotic, degenerate "freedoms", from homosexuality to prostitution and many other habits.


Funny, I thought that ALL where equal and it is environment and not race that determine a person’s character and actions, according to the communist doctrine anyway. Why insult them if you are a communist. O sorry, national communist...
No, that's internationalist communism. Internationalist communism seeks to erase borders and considers all humans as the collective. National communism considers the nation as the collective. I don't care for what's beyond it.


Is it just me, or does that seem like a paradox?
It's you. You don't understand the difference between internationalist and nationalist, although I must have explained it a thousand times by now.


NS is a movement which is aimed at the advancement of the folk, whilst communism is a movement for the maintaining of the state, pointless. Must a state serve its folk or itself?
Bullshit, you confuse communism with fascism, which is about the state. The relationship folk-state is a symbiosis, one cannot be without the other.


I should have thought that statement through a bit more, I admit…:ftomato:

I referred to those who are truly nationalistic, i.o.w. those who are willing to sacrifice their own comfort and egos for the maintenance of the folk (also future generations) and hence the state. They aren't YET fully NS in the true sense of the word. I did not refer to those who see nationalism as a communal belief in liberalism, unconditional individualism and materialistic imperialism (capitalism) that provides pleasure and comfort. It is true that there are many of these types, they observe the problems in society, rant about "kikes", "niggers" and "towel heads", but are not willing to do what it takes to make an actual difference.

They disassociate with NS because the mainstream will not support them if they associate with it (Holocaust, Drang nach Osten, anyone? :fviolin:), they believe in a type of nationalist/racialist democracy because they feel that life is about prestige and welfare for the individual and they don't give a crap about the manual laborer, they are racially aware though, and that more will support this than NS. Nationalism and liberalism/capitalism cannot co-exist, it is pointless.

As for our "National Communist" friend, she shares many of our NS ideals, I think she just disguises it not to seem like a "blood drinking Nazi henchman". The stigma continues...
I just said I don't give two shits if the mainstream doesn't support my politics. Many people confuse me for nazi already, and I don't care. As Ossi said, I am not PC and I express what I think. You will just have to deal with the fact that although me and nazis have some things in common, I am not a nazi myself but national communist.

Dagna
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 05:50 AM
nationalists who, like myself, are inherently anti-communist and pro-National Socialist.
I believe you should speak for yourself only, not nationalists in general. There are many nationalists who see National Socialism for what it is, a totalitarian system, just like "National Communism", and reject it because it is incompatible with the free spirit of Germanics. There are more similarities than not between the two, as Bärin and yourself have just highlighted in your own posts. In other words, a polite way of saying "same shit, different name".

Bittereinder
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 07:59 AM
:hutheb


Also, your ideology will not sit well with the majority of nationalists who, like myself, are inherently anti-communist and pro-National Socialist. So, good luck in finding a large support base for “National Communism”.


I believe you should speak for yourself only, not nationalists in general. There are many nationalists who see National Socialism for what it is, a totalitarian system, just like "National Communism", and reject it because it is incompatible with the free spirit of Germanics. There are more similarities than not between the two, as Bärin and yourself have just highlighted in your own posts. In other words, a polite way of saying "same shit, different name".

Dagna, you accuse Wikingsdonnor of speaking for Nationalists (while not even quoting his full sentence at that) yet you turn around and practically did the same and your not even nationalist. I understand that as a “Freedom loving American” you struggle to grasp how any sane persone could advocate, as you put it, a totalitarian NS state. The main reason IMO is that if one persone resides at the head of the state he is responsible for the decisions of the state. Thus the head of state is accountable to the people living under the state for the choices made. By the same logic the head of state is likely to have the interests of the people under his state in mind when making decisions of state, as he is the one that people will hold accountable.

As for National Communism it hails directly from post revolutionary Russia. The Marxists realized that people living under Marxism would fail to recognize the legitimacy of the state without the advent of a National stance. So the move from Bolshevism to National Communism was a ploy to legitimize the state in the eyes of the people. This however never translated into a better life for any persone living under “National Communism”. It also does not change the Communist goal of an all equaling society. If one believes in individual worth and individual potential then one cannot be Communist, National or no.

By extension Democracy coupled with Capitalism gives the elution of choice or Liberty along with the conditional affluence for a society, unfortunately capitalism favors not the individual but big business thus it creates an economic state within the state which holds sway on all actions of government instead of the interest of the people as the determining factor for decisions of state.

Dagna, you state that you are Classic Liberal; I suppose one cannot find more Classical Liberalism than with the founder of the philosophy. John Locke is responsible for the bassis of this philosophy; here is what Wikipedia says about Liberalism.


Liberalism holds that the only legitimate form of government is one that respects the liberty of its citizens, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

This can only be realistic if the people in the state are of similar race and culture, the state cannot be influenced by external interests, its people’s interests must be the core of its policies and decisions for this world view to have a chance of lasting success. Be that as it may I cannot see liberalism wresting the control of the American state from its Multi-Cultopia future. It is too similar, one needs a polar opposite in order to break the hold on state and people. Democracy also makes it virtually impossible to hold any single persone responsible for any action not in the people’s interest.


Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived by sense perception.

This is implying that blacks born in America or Europe with a similar upbringing to Germanics must have the same potential as Germanics even if the evidence at hand suggests the opposite.

Germanics do not need government in order to be governed, We/I require government for our representation in the international world and protection from outside influences thus NS is the most freedom loving philosophy of all for it frees the Germanic to develop as a Germanic.

Winkelried
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 08:28 AM
This is getting off topic, but liberal and libertarian aren't interchangeable terms. She states that she is a classic liberal, not libertarian. Liberals believe in personal freedom and a regulated economy. Libertarians believe in personal freedom and an unregulated economy.

Bittereinder
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 08:39 AM
:hutheb
Swiss Cheese, you are quite right it is somewhat of topic but relevant to the statement of Dagna regarding totalitarian similarities between NS and NC, for democracy IMO is Communism dressed for the Germanic sphere. I stated all that I did and you correct me on the use of terms, perhaps it is not quite the same but there are more similarities then differences ;)

Ward
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 12:37 PM
No, it was a national communist state, which isn't the same as what ordinary people usually understand by "communism" (which in reality is international communism). If people imagine as communism being only one thing, then it's wrong, because there are many types of communism. I've been trying to explain it for months to ignorants, but it seems people just don't want to get it. :nope


It's not surprising that so many people are confused by and critical of your "National Communist" political persuasion, especially when you describe the kind of government dictatorship that you desire.

Communism in the true sense has never yet existed; and any serious student of communism will tell you that. In the Marxist-Leninist fairytale, the term "communism" was used to designate the highest stage of human social development that would be ushered in after the state is able to put the final touches on its social engineering project, and thereafter begins to "wither away" into some cockamamie Utopian society.

The Soviet block never got past the socialist stage of development. The so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" was in full effect, although in reality it was dictatorship of the party, which in actuality was the dictatorship of the politburo or central committee or whatever they called it in the DDR, and these centers of elite political power were often ruled over by one man, like the General Secretary of the party. So in effect, the DDR was a socialist dictatorship (modeled after the Soviet (prison) state, which was shaped by brazen tyrants and mass-murders like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. It never even came close to achieving "communism" (not surprisingly, since it is an unachievable dream).

In this world, do you really think it's plausible or desirable that the state will wither away and that one day we will achieve the communist paradise?

If you don't subscribe to this kind of claptrap then you're not a communist, nor even a "national communist."

If you like the way the DDR was run and wanted to keep it that way, then you're a socialist. And if you want to add a nationalist principles to your socialism, then you're a National Socialist. It's just that your view of it differs in some respects to that of Hitler (e.g. you are opposed to foreign conquest and want a heavier version of socialism stripped of all forms of capitalism.)


No offense or anything, you seem pretty tuned in on many issues, but you might want to rethink how you label yourself politically, because quite frankly, it doesn't make much sense.

Jäger
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 01:21 PM
Bärin, it sounds like your ideals are very similar to those of us National Socialists.
They differ in essential points.
It is sad enough that many people who call themselves NS are drained in Bolshevist ideas, no need to convince someone who clearly states that she is not NS, but Bolshevist, to accept the label of NS.

Ward
Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, 02:53 AM
They differ in essential points.
It is sad enough that many people who call themselves NS are drained in Bolshevist ideas, no need to convince someone who clearly states that she is not NS, but Bolshevist, to accept the label of NS.

I'm assuming that something got lost in translation there, in that you meant many NS are "infected" with Bolshevist ideas? When you say it's sad that many NS are "drained" in Bolshevist ideas, it could be interpreted that you are ruing the fact that many NS reject certain ideas because they are Bolshevik.

Just a heads up.

Anyway, is "National Communism" in any way a legitimate, coherent ideology? I've never heard of it. It sounds like a contradiction in terms to me, like "Nazi reggae," or a "non-mentally-ill homosexual."

I don't understand all this defense of the DDR communist state. It was only for temporary strategic reasons that the communists didn't open the flood gates to foreign peoples. The state structure itself was Judeo-Slavic in origin, a kind of oriental despotism, and it failed miserably.

If the only alternative to multicultural liberalism is Bolshevism, then I guess I was not meant for this world.

Kogen
Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, 05:54 AM
I can see how someone may interpret 'National Communism' as a legitimate ideology. Just take a look at the two terms at their basis:

Communism - the ideology of a 'commune', a French/Latin word with definitions such as "A relatively small, often rural community whose members share common interests, work, and income and often own property collectively.", "A local community organized with a government for promoting local interests.", and "a group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities".

This, of course, is a traditional European community; people working together for the benefit of each other. It is a natural tribalism that occurs in humanity and other social mammals. If you put people together in the wilderness, they will form communes; if you mix people together in a jail, they will again form communes - and something of note is that all races will form them separately when forced to live next to other races.

Looking back at the first ideological 'Communists', they existed in France and were groups of poor urban people forming their own group in order to stabilise their society and exist beyond the French Monarchy and Liberal Authoritarian 'Communists'. The term ends up pre-dating Karl Marx's birth.

National - something belonging to a nation; a nation being a group of people.

These people are then described as being nationalities, which in whole is all of humanity filtered down into those who have have direct similarities. Looking at the Latin origin of nation-derived words, it ends up coming from the term 'nasci'. This further describes itself as the verb 'nascor', which means to be 'born into'.

So concept such as the European Nation-State, phenomena like Balkanisation, and the descriptive phase 'First Nations' in relation to Amerindians... all end up classifying people into specific ethnic groups.


Putting these two terms together results in definition such as: "a nationality, being a group of ethnic people, living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities". Collectively, this ends up describing a unified people based on their race, which dictates ethnicity and organises them into a traditional commune - or social community.

Seeing it that way, 'National Communism' can exist, but it is only a play on words and is truly no different than 'National Socialism'. The only difference people will get from it is their emotional attitude attached to these phrases, which really has nothing to do with the definitions. So I cannot honestly see the purpose of placing 'Communism' where 'Socialism" should be other than for the sake of dividing opinion for no reason. The difference people see is the German Reich and the Soviet Union, not the direct definitions one can interpret.

Peoples Observer
Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, 06:01 AM
I'll quote a famous Soviet leader (Josef Stalin) on his opinion on German communists :

"Getting a German to accept communism is like trying to saddle a cow"

Enough said.

Communism and German's DON'T mix !

Its an oriental/despotic/Slavic/jewish/anti-natural system of oppression.

Germans ought to stick to National Socialism.

Ocko
Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, 06:17 AM
National communism is an oxymoron:

Friedrich Engels wrote:

'“All the…large and small nationalities are destined to perish…in the revolutionary world storm… (A general war will) wipe out all…nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes…but…reactionary peoples.” (”The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Jan. 13, 1849)'

(out of this website: http://http://sanfransanity.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-cultural-marxism-anyway.html

As communism is a jewish invention for gentiles with the expressed purpose to destroy religion, nation, family and race it is never going to work as a 'national communism'

National socialism is something that works very well as we have seen in Germany under Adolf Hitler because he eliminated the jews out of administration, industry and politics. (He kept though about 150.000 jews in the Wehrmacht . the most advanced one was Feldmarschall Milch).
National socialism finished the crisis in less in a year, had full employment, healthcare, KDF, industrial developement like an explosion, fully political back-up by the people, a high spirited nation, art which deserves the name, philosophy under Heidegger and on and on. Compare that to the communist state of Germany after the war or the social demokrate Staat in the West. Those are just weak subservient states, abused, robbed of their riches, opressed in their development, their freedoms stolen, big chunks of it territories occupied by foreign people, the original inhabitants killed off by ethnic cleansing, the people brainwashed by jewmedia and shabbes goyim.

The only alternative to end that miserable state germany is in is to revert to national socialism.

AngloTeutonic
Saturday, September 5th, 2009, 04:42 AM
It doesn’t matter how you try and dress it up, communism is a jewish experiment to achieve the control of the world-wide masses that ran parallel with liberalism/capitalism/ multiculturalism and came second best, whilst causing so much suffering, not even for Germanics alone. Conversely, National Socialism is the only ideology that is purely pro-Germanic preservation; its product the Dritte Reich was the most successful socialist state ever (meaning the protection and upliftment of the worker), it established harmony between the classes and still allowed the individual to grow to his potential, and above all, it attempted to break the stranglehold of the international finance jew on all the world’s people.


That is what I like about the national socialist system. It demands social obedience and hard work, yet it permits individual freedom and creativity in all the right ways.

Bärin
Saturday, September 5th, 2009, 12:16 PM
It's not surprising that so many people are confused by and critical of your "National Communist" political persuasion, especially when you describe the kind of government dictatorship that you desire.
People seem to accept dictatorship if it's NS, but otherwise, if they want to criticize my ideology, they always go straight for the dictatorship. As if democracy ever worked. :oanieyes


Communism in the true sense has never yet existed; and any serious student of communism will tell you that. In the Marxist-Leninist fairytale, the term "communism" was used to designate the highest stage of human social development that would be ushered in after the state is able to put the final touches on its social engineering project, and thereafter begins to "wither away" into some cockamamie Utopian society.

The Soviet block never got past the socialist stage of development. The so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" was in full effect, although in reality it was dictatorship of the party, which in actuality was the dictatorship of the politburo or central committee or whatever they called it in the DDR, and these centers of elite political power were often ruled over by one man, like the General Secretary of the party. So in effect, the DDR was a socialist dictatorship (modeled after the Soviet (prison) state, which was shaped by brazen tyrants and mass-murders like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. It never even came close to achieving "communism" (not surprisingly, since it is an unachievable dream).

In this world, do you really think it's plausible or desirable that the state will wither away and that one day we will achieve the communist paradise?

If you don't subscribe to this kind of claptrap then you're not a communist, nor even a "national communist."

If you like the way the DDR was run and wanted to keep it that way, then you're a socialist. And if you want to add a nationalist principles to your socialism, then you're a National Socialist. It's just that your view of it differs in some respects to that of Hitler (e.g. you are opposed to foreign conquest and want a heavier version of socialism stripped of all forms of capitalism.)


No offense or anything, you seem pretty tuned in on many issues, but you might want to rethink how you label yourself politically, because quite frankly, it doesn't make much sense.
How many times do I have to repeat to you? Nationalist =/= internationalist. German national communism does not want for the German state to perish. But, it considers all Germans equal before the state.

And I never said the DDR is the perfect system. But it was the only national communist system in Germany, so inspiration from it is a good start. Some things should be removed from an ideal NC state, like the Russophilia.

As for relabeling myself politically, thanks, but, no thanks. I am not a traitor to my ideology. I won't convert just to be accepted by other people. I don't want you to like my ideology, because I am not thinking of running for positions in a democratic state. This majority pressure just won't do it, I'm afraid. Even if I stand alone in my ideology, as long as I am convinced it's right, I won't abandon it. You know what Hitler said about the majority and the masses? I think he was right. The people who are ideologically right, are usually in minority, and that's not something I am ashamed of. :)

Gardisten
Saturday, September 5th, 2009, 06:19 PM
At some point I hope you come to realize just how flawed Communism is to the social fabric and the individual's morality. You can make all of the arguments you want about how you think your fanciful ideology would function, but the truth of the matter is that Communism is Communism. It has inherent traits that no amount of wishful thinking can change.

AngloTeutonic
Sunday, September 6th, 2009, 01:29 AM
At some point I hope you come to realize just how flawed Communism is to the social fabric and the individual's morality. You can make all of the arguments you want about how you think your fanciful ideology would function, but the truth of the matter is that Communism is Communism. It has inherent traits that no amount of wishful thinking can change.

Yea honestly communism is a pretty dumb system. It just doesn't work. Equality just does not exist anywhere in nature. Whether it be for beast or for man, whether it be between the different races, whether it be between the different sexes, and whether it be between individuals. Communism makes everybody equal, henceforth opposing one serious practise of nature; that is seperating all life into a hierarchy. Communism completely destroys the individual progression, which is the opposite of capitalism, which encourages it (I am of course talking about REAL capitalism practised by the founding fathers, not the current government which pretends to do so, but in reality does the opposite). Even though capitalism takes it to the other extreme, atleast capitalists understand a class system which exists in nature.

Ossi
Monday, September 7th, 2009, 04:03 PM
If you like the way the DDR was run and wanted to keep it that way, then you're a socialist. And if you want to add a nationalist principles to your socialism, then you're a National Socialist.
Ya, she is.


It's just that your view of it differs in some respects to that of Hitler (e.g. you are opposed to foreign conquest and want a heavier version of socialism stripped of all forms of capitalism.)
Ya, because she's not a Nationalsocialist. ;)

National Socialist (or Nationalist Socialist, if you want to understand it) is not the same as NationalSocialist like Hitler was).

Ocko
Monday, September 7th, 2009, 04:25 PM
the NS employed several jews:

Feldmarschall Milch was the highest ranking jew in the Wehrmacht, for General Wilberg Adolf Hitler himself signed the arisation papers. Helmut Schmidt, the late german chancellor is a jew and served in the Wehrmacht as a first lieutenant.

Julius Streicher, the editor of the Stuermer, imployed a jew.

The treatment of jews weren't as monolithic as one thinks today.

In the GDR Mischa Wolf was a jew. in his function as second in the Stasi he was able to control everybody through blackmail, false accusation etc. That probably was the most powerful position in the GDR.

Ossi
Monday, September 7th, 2009, 05:40 PM
the NS employed several jews:

Feldmarschall Milch was the highest ranking jew in the Wehrmacht, for General Wilberg Adolf Hitler himself signed the arisation papers. Helmut Schmidt, the late german chancellor is a jew and served in the Wehrmacht as a first lieutenant.

Julius Streicher, the editor of the Stuermer, imployed a jew.

The treatment of jews weren't as monolithic as one thinks today.

In the GDR Mischa Wolf was a jew. in his function as second in the Stasi he was able to control everybody through blackmail, false accusation etc. That probably was the most powerful position in the GDR.
Ya, but just because they did, doesn't mean we should too. We should rectify and not repeat the mistakes of our ancestors. Non-Germans shouldn't be involved in German politics AT ALL.

Ward
Tuesday, September 8th, 2009, 09:38 AM
People seem to accept dictatorship if it's NS, but otherwise, if they want to criticize my ideology, they always go straight for the dictatorship. As if democracy ever worked. :oanieyes

I'm not NS, but as a conservative I do favor law and order and recognize the importance of strong, effective leadership.

However, the level of authoritarianism you desire is not what people are having a problem understanding. The problem lies with what you wrote below:


How many times do I have to repeat to you? Nationalist =/= internationalist. German national communism does not want for the German state to perish. But, it considers all Germans equal before the state.

As a side note, let me just say that any ideology which subscribes to equality is deeply flawed. No two people are created equal, and the aristocratic principle of nature applies to Germans, too. Any attempt by man to defy this basic principle of life is doomed to failure.

Anyway, "National Communism" sounds like a term used in the Bizarro World. (Will only Americans understand that?)

Put it this way, telling people you're a "National Communist" is like telling people you're an "anti-racist National Socialist" or a "heterosexual bulldyke." Catch my drift?

There are contradictory meanings in these words. "Communism" has become synonymous with Marxism, and we know well the Marx was an internationalist ("Workers of the world, unite!"). It would thus make just as much sense for you to call yourself "National Marxist" as it would "National Communist."

From what I can tell, you're no real Communist (which is a good thing :)). You've either simply confused the referents attached to the word "Communism," or you're on a mission to purposely change the established definitions of words in order to create a new kind of vocabulary, an Orwellian-like "newspeak." :D

Whatever the case, to avoid confusion when communicating with others, you should use words according to their standard, commonly understood meanings.

But as we say sometimes say over here in the Evil Empire, "It's your world, I'm just living in it." So if it makes you happy to call yourself a Commie, then by all means go ahead, but don't be surprised when others have trouble understanding you.


And I never said the DDR is the perfect system. But it was the only national communist system in Germany, so inspiration from it is a good start. Some things should be removed from an ideal NC state, like the Russophilia.

Producing junk commercial goods (compare Trabants to BMWs), building prison walls to keep citizens from escaping the "workers' paradise," and shooting up little girls and women with testosterone so they cheat at the Olympics--those are just a few of the other "imperfections" known to that system. ;)



Ya, she is.


Ya, because she's not a Nationalsocialist. ;)

National Socialist (or Nationalist Socialist, if you want to understand it) is not the same as NationalSocialist like Hitler was).

I understand that. Hopefully Baerin does now, too.

Mjolnir
Friday, October 16th, 2009, 04:10 PM
The main difference between communists and national socialist is the Darwinistic philosophy, lex naturalis...natures laws.

National socialists believe in a better future through eliminating weaknesses within its populace, following the laws of nature. Communists abide by their own peoples and don t root out any weaknesses. So in the end, all will become one....the average of the best and the worst of one people.

If you strife for the best for your people, you need to eliminate weaknesses to get you own folk and kinsman on a superiour level. There is no room for an average and there is no room for weakness.

Thats why I despise communism. Communism, even in an nationalistic way, aims for the avarage.

Haunebu III
Friday, October 16th, 2009, 08:00 PM
Alaf Sal Runa!
Mjolnir wrote:
"Thats why I despise communism. Communism, even in an nationalistic way, aims for the avarage."

I agree 100%!

Obama and his wretched followers are doing their best to reduce this great country of ours into a mediocre, "average" country where everyone is "equal." That idea goes directly against the natural forces of nature. We as human beings are NOT equal and we never will be. Some nationalities evolve and strive forward and advance in every field. While others continue to squat in mud huts and kill monkeys with blow guns as did their ancient ancestors. Obama and his ilk seek to dumb down our Folk, destroy our national pride, and lead us like sheep to a government controlled, politically correct society.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote; "The mediocre alone have a prospect of continuing and propagating themselves--they will be the men of the future, the sole survivors; "be like them! become mediocre!" is now the only morality which has still a significance, which still obtains a hearing. But it is difficult to preach this morality of mediocrity! It can never avow what it is and what it desires! It has to talk of moderation and dignity and duty and brotherly love -- it will have difficulty in concealing its irony!"

We must continue to fight this sickness whenever and wherever we see it.


Hail the Götter!

Hail the Völk!

Hail the Reawakening!

Haunebu III

Nachtengel
Friday, October 16th, 2009, 11:18 PM
Obama and his wretched followers are doing their best to reduce this great country of ours into a mediocre, "average" country where everyone is "equal."
Actually, no. This is one of the biggest misconceptions Americans have about politics. Obama is not a communist who believes that everyone is equal. He played the race card and he supports his own people, Negroes, mixed race, immigrants and the like. He doesn't believe they're equal to whites. "Affirmative action" wouldn't exist under a regime where everyone is considered equal. Obama's politics is anti-white, black supremacist.

Peoples Observer
Friday, October 16th, 2009, 11:22 PM
Communism in all of its ugly forms should be buried along with Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and any/all other lesser Commies. :thumbup

The only good Commie is a non-breathing Commie !:thumbup

Liberals, Reds, Commies, Leftists, Race-Mixers, Multiculturalists, Hippies, Tree-Huggers, Pacifists, Socialists, etc...... are trash.

frippardthree
Saturday, October 17th, 2009, 07:39 AM
I have never heard of this but I will take your word for it. They certainly did not kick out Jews in the DDR even though the leaders were not. A Jew is a foreigner and should not be allowed to marry a German.

I'm not defending Communism. I'm not defending Stalin, and I'm not defending the Jews. But Stalin did indeed take on an anti-Jewish initiative, after the death of Lenin. However Stalin's motives had nothing to do with "Nationalism", and probably had more to do with power.


Stalin and the Jews
The Doctors' Plot was the beginning of the Communists' Final Solution.
by Stephen Schwartz
05/19/2003, Volume 008, Issue 35

Stalin's Last Crime
The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors 1948-1953
by Jonathan Brent and Vladimir P. Naumov

THERE'S NOTHING NEW about the upsurge in recent months of leftist theories about Jewish conspiracies, particularly in Europe. Anti-Semitism has long been established in the history of the radical left. It reached its peak in the Soviet repression and mass murder of Jewish Bolsheviks during the 1920s and 1930s. And it found tragic repetition in the early 1950s, when Joseph Stalin launched new purges against the Communist elite both in Moscow and in Eastern Europe.

Along with the purges went a pogrom directed at a group of Soviet doctors, many of them Jewish, as a pretext for wholesale deportation, and yet another effort at mass murder, of the Jews. The episode, known as "the Doctors' Plot," represented the last convulsion of Stalinism in its most extreme, pathological form. This year--on the fiftieth anniversary of the Soviet dictator's death--Jonathan Brent and Vladimir P. Naumov have published "Stalin's Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors 1948-1953." Brent is the head of Yale University Press and best known for directing the outstanding "Annals of Communism" series issued by Yale, which translates and annotates archival documents. Naumov is a leading Russian historian and former state official. Together, their scholarship makes Stalin's homicidal, Judeophobic intentions undeniable.

The essence of "Stalin's Last Crime" is stated in its preface: "Standing at the apex of the state, Stalin had absolute power. He had achieved this not because absolute power was conferred
on him by the state, but because he succeeded in finding means to delegitimize the state itself. The Doctors' Plot became his most powerful weapon in the last years of his life in pursuing this end; it starkly demonstrates that Stalin's power did not derive from the state and its institutions but from the underlying system that allowed him to manipulate them."

Full Article:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/666jpuxd.asp



The Soviet “Doctors' Plot”—50 years onA Mark Clarfield, Sidonie Anti-Semitism and mistrust of doctors
Contemporary responses
Emigration of the Jews
References A half century has passed since Stalin accused a group of doctors—most of them Jewish—of plotting against the state. The ramifications of this case continue to the present dayJust under 50 years ago, on 4 April 1953, Pravda carried a prominent statement by Lavrenty Beria, Stalin's infamous head of secret police, exonerating nine Soviet doctors (seven of them Jews) who had previously been accused of “wrecking, espionage and terrorist activities against the active leaders of the Soviet Government.” The Soviet people, especially its Jews, were astounded to learn that just a month after Stalin's death the new leadership now admitted that the charges had been entirely invented by Stalin and his followers. Seven of the doctors were immediately released—two had already died at the hands of their jailers.

Full Article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139050/

One could also argue that Stalin's version of Communism was different from Marx, Lenin & Trotsky, but that does not make any of the four to be good guys or heroes! All four were all revolutionary, careerist pigs!


The Stalinist State
Not a single one of these conditions is in existence in Russia today. The Soviets have been abolished and a parliament—without the advantages of bourgeois democracy, free elections of contending parties and candidates—has taken their place. Instead of the dissolution of the army into the armed people, we have a caste of privileged military bureaucrats living on higher standards in relation to the Russian soldiers than even the generals in the capitalist countries in relation to their rank and file. The rule of no payment for officials higher these that of a worker was long ago abolished. And high state officials and bureaucrats have greater differences with the people in privileges and wages than even in the capitalist countries. “The functions of control and superintendence” have long ago disappeared and an all-powerful caste of bureaucrats in state and factory orders the workers’ lives.

As if to make quite certain of answering traitors such as Stalin and Aleksandrov in advance, Lenin had written:

“The possibility of such destruction [of bureaucracy—E.G.] is assured by the fact that Socialism will shorten the working day, raise the masses to new life, create such conditions for the majority of the population as to enable everybody, without exception, to perform ‘state functions’, and this will lead to a complete withering away of every state in general.” [source] (translation differs)

“The more democratic the ‘state’ consisting of armed workers, which is ‘no longer a state in the proper sense of the word’, the more rapidly does every state begin to wither away.” [source] (translation differs)

Open break with Marxism
Thus we see that Lenin’s position is just the opposite to that of Stalin and his mouth-piece Aleksandrov. To attempt to separate Marx from Lenin is to betray all the teachings of Leninism, in the name of Lenin. Stalin, the anti-Marxist, for the first time here openly proclaims his break with Marxism through one of the stooges. Up to now the Stalinists have made a pretence of basing themselves on the Marxist theory of the state. For years they have slandered and vilified Trotsky because he foretold the inevitable break with Marxism. This open break will make the road considerably easier for the Trotskyist movement in its approach to members of the Communist Parties who suffer from illusions that Stalinism is Marxism.

The break with Lenin’s internationalism led to the theory of “Socialism in one country.” This in its turn has led now to the open break with Marxism on the question of the state. This fundamental breach with the ideas of Marx and Lenin prepares the way for the complete abandonment of any pretence of standing on the programme of Bolshevism, which was always based on the teachings of Marx.

Now that the danger of military intervention has receded into the background, the workers, especially the youth of the Soviet Union will be asking, even if in mottled tones, why the Marxist and Leninist theory is not working out; what need is there for the highly paid generals and bureaucrats in the army and civilian life? The workers will be saying: Isn’t it about time that they who have lorded over us for the past 20 years, should start to make themselves scarce and “wither away”?

Retrieved From:http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1946/02/aleksandrov.htm


Stalin and Trotsky fight for Power
Before Lenin died, already there were two contenders for his place - the brilliant Leon Trotsky and the cunning Joseph Stalin. The most obvious choice would have been Trotsky, with his quick mind and intelligent speeches. His military skill during the civil war had gained him a lot of support as well. Stalin on the other hand, had been quite an insignificant figure during that time, being only the editor of the propaganda newspaper Pravda. He did, however, make many wise moves, by getting to know the more outstanding people in the party and getting to know them better.

The sick, ailing Lenin knew he was dying soon. After suffering two strokes, it was time to decide on a new leader for the country. He had more faith in Trotsky than in Stalin, describing Stalin's motives as evil, and wanting Trotsky to carry on. He wrote a letter saying that Trotsky should be named as his successor, while Stalin should be gotten rid of. Stalin naturally hid this letter from the parliament to protect himself, but feared that Trotsky might show it to them at the next meeting, where he would be powerless to stop him. Luckily, Trotsky did not have enough time and Stalin's position was consolidated.

In the meantime, the power struggle was still going on between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky was gathering a lot of support with his fluent and brilliant speeches while Stalin was scheming plots to defame his opponents and bring himself to power. Trotsky was succeeding with his seemingly limitless energy and superb oratorical skills, while Stalin's public appearances were strong but not as lasting. Trotsky was skilled in the areas of theories and policies, while Stalin was clearly lacking in these areas. Trotsky seemed to be heading towards an undeniable victory.

However, things started to change. Stalin teamed up with Politburo members Kamenev and Zinoviev. They began to slam Trotsky, picking up all minor faults of his and raking up his past. They emphasised clearly on his Menshevik past and how he was but a newcomer to the party.

Retrieved From:[http://library.thinkquest.org/C0112205/stalinvstrotsky.html

Peoples Observer
Saturday, October 17th, 2009, 04:05 PM
I'm not defending Communism. I'm not defending Stalin, and I'm not defending the Jews. But Stalin did indeed take on an anti-Jewish initiative, after the death of Lenin. However Stalin's motives had nothing to do with "Nationalism", and probably had more to do with power.
One could also argue that Stalin's version of Communism was different from Marx, Lenin & Trotsky, but that does not make any of the four to be good guys or heroes! All four were all revolutionary, careerist pigs!

You are right about Stalin. He was a virulent anti-Semite and did purge most of the Jews from positions of power during his reign.

He was more of a power-hungry dictator than a Communist.

Too bad he did not abandon the Soviet system and make it into a Russian Nationalist system. Many "Communists" in his regime were closet Nationalists.

Gardisten
Saturday, October 17th, 2009, 04:31 PM
frippardthree, I'm not really sure what significance that has, though. If you believe the numbers, then apparently there were at least 2.5 million Jews in the Soviet Union when the Germans invaded in 1941--that's supposedly how many that were killed. Ask anyone who lived in inter-war Soviet Union about Jews, and you'll usually learn that they were firmly entrenched in local politics, meaning that they were in positions of power over most of the common native citizen. So the Communists were very much inclined to allow them to exist in peace, it would seem.

frippardthree
Sunday, October 18th, 2009, 10:02 AM
So the Communists were very much inclined to allow them to exist in peace, it would seem.

So, it would seem, but Stalin did have a history of covering his tracks. Again, Stalin's motives had little to do with "Nationalism" or "Racial Cleansing", but more to do with getting rid of the "Jewish" Capitalist and removing much of Lenin & Trotsky's faithful from the Communist Party.


While communism officially has no place for antisemitism, interpretations suggesting that Joseph Stalin exhibited antisemitism have been put forth by different historians and other sources. British historian Nikolai Tolstoy writes that Stalin, not trusting anybody, felt threatened by a vast Jewish conspiracy.[1] Some of Stalin's associates were Jews, including Lazar Kaganovich. Many of his friends and family had Jewish spouses, including his daughter Svetlana and his son Vasily.[2]

Retrieved From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_antisemitism


Old Bolshevik, old Bolshevik Guard of old Party guard (Russian: ста́рый большеви́к, ) is an unofficial designation for members of the Bolshevik party before the Russian Revolution of 1917, many of whom were either tried and executed by the NKVD during Stalin's purges or died under suspicious circumstances.

In 1922 there were 44,148 Old Bolsheviks.[1] Vladimir Lenin expressed an opinion that the "old party guard", a "thinnest layer" has a "huge, unshared prestige". [2]

Joseph Stalin removed many of the Old Bolsheviks from power during the Great Purges of the 1930s. The most prominent survivor in the Communist Party was Vyacheslav Molotov. Most were executed for treason after show trials; some were sent to labor camps (the Gulag); and a few, such as Alexandra Kollontai were sent abroad as ambassadors, preventing them from participating in the central government. Many communist opponents of Stalin, most notably the Trotskyists, cite this fact in support of their argument that Stalin betrayed the aims of the revolution for his own gain.

Various things in the Soviet Union, such as a publishing house, several steamships, motorboats, kolkhozes and settlements, were given the name Old Bolshevik


Retrieved From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Bolsheviks


Stalin, as head of the Politburo consolidated near-absolute power in the 1930s with a Great Purge of the party, justified as an attempt to expel 'opportunists' and 'counter-revolutionary infiltrators'.[16][17] Those targeted by the purge were often expelled from the party, however more severe measures ranged from banishment to the Gulag labor camps, to execution after trials held by NKVD troikas.[16][18][19]

In the 1930s, Stalin apparently became increasingly worried about the growing popularity of Sergei Kirov. At the 1934 Party Congress where the vote for the new Central Committee was held, Kirov received only three negative votes, the fewest of any candidate, while Stalin received 1,108 negative votes.[20] After the assassination of Kirov, which may have been orchestrated by Stalin, Stalin invented a detailed scheme to implicate opposition leaders in the murder, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zioviev.[21] The investigations and trials expanded.[22] Stalin passed a new law on "terrorist organizations and terrorist acts", which were to be investigated for no more than ten days, with no prosecution, defense attorneys or appeals, followed by a sentence to be executed "quickly."[23]

Thereafter, several trials known as the Moscow Trials were held, but the procedures were replicated throughout the country. Article 58 of the legal code, listing prohibited anti-Soviet activities as counterrevolutionary crime was applied in the broadest manner.[24] The flimsiest pretexts were often enough to brand someone an "enemy of the people," starting the cycle of public persecution and abuse, often proceeding to interrogation, torture and deportation, if not death. The Russian word troika gained a new meaning: a quick, simplified trial by a committee of three subordinated to NKVD with sentencing carried out within 24 hours


Retrieved From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Purges_and_deportations


In particular, the term "enemy of the workers" was formalized in the Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code)[2], and similar articles in the codes of the other Soviet Republics.

At various times these terms were applied, in particular, to Tsar Nicholas II and the Imperial family, aristocrats, the bourgeoisie, clerics, business entrepreneurs, anarchists, kulaks, monarchists, Mensheviks, Esers, Bundists, Trotskyists, Bukharinists, the "old Bolsheviks", the army and police, emigrants, saboteurs, wreckers (вредители, "vrediteli"), "social parasites" (тунеядцы, "tuneyadtsy"), Kavezhedists (people who administered and serviced the KVZhD (China Far East Railway), particularly the Russian population of Harbin, China), those considered bourgeois nationalists (notably Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian nationalists, Zionists, Basmachi), and members of certain ethnic groups (see Population transfer: Soviet Union).[citation needed]

An enemy of the people could be imprisoned, expelled or executed, and lose their property to confiscation. Close relatives of enemies of the people were labeled as "traitor of Motherland family members" and prosecuted. They could be sent to Gulag, punished by the involuntary settlement in unpopulated areas, or stripped of citizen's rights. Being a friend of an enemy of the people automatically placed the person under suspicion.

A significant fraction of the enemies of the people were given this label not because of their hostile actions against the workers' and peasants' state, but simply because of their social origin or profession before the revolution: those who used hired labor, high-ranking clergy, former policemen, merchants, etc. Some of them were commonly known as lishentsy (лишенцы, derived from Russian word лишение, deprivation), because by the Soviet Constitution they were deprived of the right of voting. This automatically translated into a deprivation of various social benefits; some of them, e.g., rationing, were at times critical for survival.

Since 1927, Article 20 of the Common Part of the penal code that listed possible "measures of social defence" had the following item 20a: "declaration to be an enemy of the workers with deprivation of the union republic citizenship and hence of the USSR citizenship, with obligatory expulsion from its territory". Nevertheless most "enemies of the people" suffered labor camps, rather than expulsion.


Retrieved From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_workers


The Night of the Murdered Poets (Russian: Ночь казнённых поэтов) refers to the night of 12 to 13 August 1952, when thirteen of the most prominent Yiddish writers, poets, artists, musicians and actors of the Soviet Union were secretly executed on the orders from Joseph Stalin in the basement of the Lubyanka prison in Moscow. Ten "engineer saboteurs" from the Stalin automobile factory, all Jewish, were also executed the same night.

Retrieved From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Murdered_Poets


Nikita Khrushchev recalled Marx's criticism in his 1956 "Secret Speech" denouncing Stalin to the 20th Party Congress:

“ Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin's self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948.[2]
This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, "the greatest leader," "sublime strategist of all times and nations." Finally no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.

We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book.


Retrieved From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality