What Would You Choose? National Socialism or National Anarchism?

[DieMenschMaschine]

If you had to live in one of these two systems and would have to pick one of them -- which one would you choose?

I've been a National Anarchist in the past and still lean in that direction, but I have some doubts about how viable NA is and whether an NA federation can compete with more authoritarian nations in the daily struggle for resources and living space. My main problem with Anarchism is how such a society is going to deal with the degenerate and/or criminal elements in its midst; will these be expelled, and, if so, where will the lines be drawn, and, more importantly, who will draw them? I'm also unsure how the individual 'will to power' fits in with the system. Do you not think human beings have an innate drive to impose their will on their environment and fellow human beings?

Here's a link for 'Men Among The Ruins' as well:

http://members.aol.com/kabrenn/MenAmongtheRuins.pdf

I have never read any of his stuff but the infamous Bill White of Overthrow.com, LNSG website, and that recent riot in Ohio is always talking about Evola and Traditionalism. He rarely had a post at LNSG that didn't deal in some way with Evolva.

[gorgeousgal2k2]

national anarchism

[Japetos]

But,why not National Bolshevism?

[Deling]

"National Socialism", "National Anarchism"...just words. Doesn't tell very much. Depends on the people governing, and their policies.

[Arktos-Anarch]

For more information on National-Anarchism:

Terra Firma
http://www.national-anarchist.org

National-Anarchist Forum
http://p218.ezboard.com/bnationalanarchistforum

Synthesis
http://www.rosenoire.org

Nationalanarchismus (Germany)
http://www.nationalanarchismus.org

Wardance (France)
http://www.wardance.net/francais/cadrelibre.htm

Nationalanarkisme (Denmark)
http://www.geocities.com/nationalanarkisme/

Northern Revolt: Scandinavian Discussion Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Northern-revolt/

Kansallista Anarkiaa (Finland)
http://anarkiaa.150m.com/index2.html

[Prussian]

"National Socialism", "National Anarchism"...just words. Doesn't tell very much. Depends on the people governing, and their policies.

.....you make a very good point, it really comes down to their political program and how they conduct themselves in the act of governing, whether the results are applicable with the general population concerning overall approval.

[Welf]

I agree that it depends who is runing the show. But in general I would rather have strong communities than a strong man...........

MKG

Welf

[Agrippa]

I agree that it depends who is runing the show. But in general I would rather have strong communities than a strong man...........

MKG

Welf

Strong communities are always good, but probably only a strong man or men can coordinate strong communities without getting lost in chaos and regionalism.
Strong communities often tend to act in some kind of competition with not too much common goals especially if its about economy etc.

There is always the risk that communities break apart and the whole collective would be endangered if so. I think a good community spirit works quite good on the low level and with the right people, but not with masses and bigger collectives. But those must act as one man in modernity to have a maximal success.

So I dont see any kind of contradiction between a strong man and a strong community, but I see a problem with strong communities only but not too much beyond it.

In the end its about

it really comes down to their political program and how they conduct themselves in the act of governing,

There is only a problem if "your leader(s)" are bad ones...

[Brecht dS]

Strong communities are always good, but probably only a strong man or men can coordinate strong communities without getting lost in chaos and regionalism.

Why would strong communities need "coordination"? What's wrong with chaos (cfr nature!) and regionalism?

Strong communities often tend to act in some kind of competition with not too much common goals especially if its about economy etc.

Is that a fact? Could you maybe clarify what you mean with an example or something?
If we compare communities with individual neighbours - let's say you and the people in your street - what kind of competition are you into? Which are the common goals you and your neighbours have, or should have?

There is always the risk that communities break apart and the whole collective would be endangered if so. I think a good community spirit works quite good on the low level and with the right people, but not with masses and bigger collectives. But those must act as one man in modernity to have a maximal success.

Why do you prefer masses, acting as one man (masses of followers), over communities? When do masses have "maximal success"?

There is only a problem if "your leader(s)" are bad ones...

Aren't they allways?

[Jack]

national anarchism

Ditto. NA can do everything NS can except perhaps the imperialism, and it can do a lot more. NA also permits more diversity in social systems.