The essential Marx

[Oskorei]

There are two reasons for Nationalists to be acquainted with the thoughts of Marxism. The first is the ageold "Know your enemy". There may not be many Marxists left outside of academia, but the ideologies of anti-racism, feminism and gay activism all have strong roots in Marxist thought (just exchange "working class" with "immigrant/non-White", "woman" or "homosexual", and "capitalism" with "racism", "patriarchy" or "heterosexism/homophobia"). The left has largely given up on the "class war", and is focusing instead on "minorities", but the basic mode of thought is the same, and the results even more harmful.

The second reason to become familiar with Marxism is however the more important. All ideologies and theories have grains of truth, and in Marxism these grains are primarily found in three areas. These areas should be of interest for Nationalists as well.

1. Political Economy/Labor Theory of Value/Capitalism

Nationalism largely lacks an economic theory of it's own. It is my impression that Marxism provides the basics of such a theory, while Liberalism does not. Liberal thoughts of Economy are usually based on the idea of harmony, and balance in the economy, while Marxism resembles the Fascist idea of constant conflict more. This is not a coincidence, given both Marxisms and Fascisms roots in Hegelian thought.

The central idea of Marxist Political Economy is the Labor Theory of Value, that Marx inherited from previous economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Basically the idea is that only human labour creates new value, and that since capitalists have a monopoly on the ownership of the means of production, the working class is forced to work for less pay than they produce. The difference, the surplus value, is the basis of all profits.

I find this idea of immense value in any critique of capitalism, and also in the understanding of how any capitalist economy works. On this central idea, the Marxists build more complex theories on class conflicts, unemployment, periodical crises, the welfare state, and so on.

As an introduction, these works are of use:

Wage, Labour and Capital by Karl Marx:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...bour/index.htm

A summary:
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/t...arx/marx3.html

Or, if you have nothing else to do for a couple of weeks, Marx' magnum opus; Capital:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...7-c1/index.htm
(volumes II and III are also found on marxists.org, but it is the first book that is most useful)

To create a Nationalist analysis of how the economy functions, it is my proposal that one takes the Labor Theory of Value and the other Marxist theories, adds some metapolitical thought/conspiracy theory, throws in some research on the IQ of various races, spices with antisemitism and a little American constitutional anti-Statist thought, and then serves it with more contemporary theories of the conflicts over resources between ethnic groups.

2. Socio-historical theory/Class conflicts/Historical materialism

Marxist social and historical thought views history as constantly driven by the forces of production, and by class conflicts. This downplays the importance of idealism and race, and is therefore most useful to understand a mono-ethnic society. But it still gives good tools for an analysis of political struggles.

Questions that Marxists often ask themselves are: is there an economic crisis on the way in this society? Which are the potential revolutionary classes in this society? Is there, in objective terms, a revolutionary situation in this society, or should we work legally at the moment? What ideologies are used to control the working class in this society?

Good examples of historical materialism in use are:

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, by Karl Marx
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...aire/index.htm

The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, by Engels and Marx
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...mily/index.htm

The Peasant War in Germany, by Friedrisch Engels
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...many/index.htm

To understand current society, Marxism however has to be combined with a theory on ethnic relations and conflicts over resources, and an understanding of vulgar materialism/hedonism contra heroism/idealism. Maybe MacDonald and Evola.

3. Political Struggle/Guerilla Warfare

During the existence of Marxism, various Marxists have studied how to dethrone the powers-that-be. During this they have developed such concepts as hegemony (Gramsci), false consciousness (Marx), people's war (Mao?), urban guerilla, and more. These writings are of course of use to anyone with the intention of seizing power, in any society, I personally find that the concept of hegemony is a good tool to understand the difficulties of Nationalist parties in contemporary Europe. Consciously or not, the Left has gained partial hegemony in the West of today, especially in the areas of race relations, gender relations, and pacifism.

The various fates of Socialist countries in a hostile world system also might be of interest for Nationalists.

The weaknesses of Marxism

Marxism has several weaknesses though. The first is the most obvious: it's goal is a utopia. Marx himself was very vague on how the classless society would look, and his successors had serious problems on creating it.

Since Marxists usually believe that practice and theory cannot be separated, this failure of praxis indicates that there is something wrong with the theory as well. And there are several. The anthropology is too primitive, and does not acknowledge the natural inequalities between men. Neither does Marxism have much thought on ethnic relations. The understanding of the State also seems to be limited.

Contemporary examples of the use of Marxism would be of interest, as would debates on the use of this leftist theory.

[Siegmund]

There are two reasons for Nationalists to be acquainted with the thoughts of Marxism. The first is the ageold "Know your enemy". There may not be many Marxists left outside of academia, but the ideologies of anti-racism, feminism and gay activism all have strong roots in Marxist thought (just exchange "working class" with "immigrant/non-White", "woman" or "homosexual", and "capitalism" with "racism", "patriarchy" or "heterosexism/homophobia"). The left has largely given up on the "class war", and is focusing instead on "minorities", but the basic mode of thought is the same, and the results even more harmful.

The second reason to become familiar with Marxism is however the more important. All ideologies and theories have grains of truth, and in Marxism these grains are primarily found in three areas. These areas should be of interest for Nationalists as well.

Another great educational site along the lines of your post:

Fighting the Octopus

A good socialist oriented discussion forum:

Socialist Front

[Deling]

I just want to note that one has to divide "Marxism" into two different parts:
1) Political Marxianism - What can be politically interpreted through the Marxian scientific methodology. Most "Marxists" dealt with this: Kautsky, Lenin, Bebel, Luxemburg, Stalin, Mao a.s.o.; the PRACTICAL learnings from interpreting Marxian science.

2) Scientific Marxianism - An idea of History, Nature, Society, Progress; basically a holistic world-view in the footsteps of 19th Century materialism. The Science (Marx called it "Historical Materialism", the Communist state-builders "DiaMat"/"Dialectic Materialism) can be separated from the Political, and often is by 'New Leftists', and can be used entirely apolitical.

One has to remember that Marx was somewhat schizofrenic regarding his work: He thought of it as a social science methodology, not an ideology, and even said once: "One thing I do know is that I'm not a Marxist!", referring to all 'Communists' simplifying his message into hateful agitation. On the other hands, he helped Engels write the extremely political Communist Manifesto.

If one doesn't understand these two sides of Marxianism, it's difficult to understand what's it's all about. In essence Marx saw himself as a scientist, just as Charles Darwin is seen as. Still, both of them had political implications.

Marx' Outlook on History is, according to me, the most eurocentric existing. That's why I got problems with it: to Marx Europe is the center of the world, and everything outside it is just a show to its amusement and usage.


I also must comment on the issue Capitalism, Socialism, Communism. Marx' definition of Capitalism is not universal to me, even if it is to him and fellow Communists, and what's Socialism and Communism is hard to tell: the debate lives to this day. One thing is certain though: dialectics mean the merging of two things into a holism. The Bourgeouise and Industrialism was merged to form Capitalism, which generated a Proletariat. The step Marx envisages is the merging of the Proletariat with Capitalism, which is Socialism. Thus it's possible to REALISE what Socialism means (in a Marxian sense). Communism is (theoretically) the socialized (un-alienated) Proletariat (which then, because it's free from alienation, no longer is Proletariat) becoming Workers, liberated from alienation and free to work for its own good, which merge with Socialism, to form the Communism.
This is simplified theory. Marx is more complex than just stating things like this. That's also a reason he didn't explain the Communist future: he knew he couldn't, and he was scientific also BTW.

[Deling]

"To create a Nationalist analysis of how the economy functions, it is my proposal that one takes the Labor Theory of Value and the other Marxist theories, adds some metapolitical thought/conspiracy theory, throws in some research on the IQ of various races, spices with antisemitism and a little American constitutional anti-Statist thought, and then serves it with more contemporary theories of the conflicts over resources between ethnic groups."

You can't add conspiracy theories to the theories of Capital! Nor IQ, anti-semitism, anti-statism and contemporary situations.
Nothing in Historical Materialism counterfeit the claim that historical groups (Races/Ethnicities) have had impact on development of society at different stages, nor that the "humankapital" of a group determines its economical progress. But to throw Jews and anti-Statism into a theory that explain the development of societies thousands of years back, is wrong: that's not truthseeking, it's propaganda.
Marx never refuted Darwin; his first volume of Das Kapital was sent to Darwin when printed. Struggle and competition is the modell of Marx after all. Whole history is formed on objective and subjective struggles, and to Marx it's NOT just the class struggles as such; a class struggle can take the shape of different forms, it's depends on how a class is defined with relation to its time, society and economical model. Class is a group with a distinct relation to the economical life of an age.

It's easier to make Marx a Racialist than Spengler. But the history isn't just about Races (atleast not biological one) and Idealism, unfortunately. It's much more complex, and overall its impossible to entirely grasp.
But it is possible to refigure and interpret Marx and Historical Materialism into a Nationalist position. One just need understanding of Marxianism, and a open mind.

Marx doesn't tell much about how economics work, by the way. The Capital books do have the title "Critique against the Political Economy", after all. It's a then contemporary analysis of Western (especially British) society and how the economic systems work and progressed. Rather out-of-date to read today, I think.

[Oskorei]

I just want to note that one has to divide "Marxism" into two different parts:
1) Political Marxianism - What can be politically interpreted through the Marxian scientific methodology. Most "Marxists" dealt with this: Kautsky, Lenin, Bebel, Luxemburg, Stalin, Mao a.s.o.; the PRACTICAL learnings from interpreting Marxian science.

2) Scientific Marxianism - An idea of History, Nature, Society, Progress; basically a holistic world-view in the footsteps of 19th Century materialism. The Science (Marx called it "Historical Materialism", the Communist state-builders "DiaMat"/"Dialectic Materialism) can be separated from the Political, and often is by 'New Leftists', and can be used entirely apolitical.

One has to remember that Marx was somewhat schizofrenic regarding his work: He thought of it as a social science methodology, not an ideology, and even said once: "One thing I do know is that I'm not a Marxist!", referring to all 'Communists' simplifying his message into hateful agitation. On the other hands, he helped Engels write the extremely political Communist Manifesto.

If one doesn't understand these two sides of Marxianism, it's difficult to understand what's it's all about. In essence Marx saw himself as a scientist, just as Charles Darwin is seen as. Still, both of them had political implications.

Good post. I have little to add.

Marx' Outlook on History is, according to me, the most eurocentric existing. That's why I got problems with it: to Marx Europe is the center of the world, and everything outside it is just a show to its amusement and usage.

It is natural that Marx was Eurocentrist in most of his writings, since he was writing for the revolutionary working class, and at the time such a class existed only in Europe and her White colonies.

However, there is also an older, less Eurocentric Marx, who studied indigenous populations, the Russian mir, the society of the Iroquis, and similar subjects. This Marx was old and sick, and didn't publish very much, but his notebooks are still there, and they are being studied by some new Marxists. Apparently he became interested in the possibility of skipping Capitalism, and building Socialism on the Russian mir, or the primitive socialism of tribes.

[Oskorei]

"To create a Nationalist analysis of how the economy functions, it is my proposal that one takes the Labor Theory of Value and the other Marxist theories, adds some metapolitical thought/conspiracy theory, throws in some research on the IQ of various races, spices with antisemitism and a little American constitutional anti-Statist thought, and then serves it with more contemporary theories of the conflicts over resources between ethnic groups."

You can't add conspiracy theories to the theories of Capital! Nor IQ, anti-semitism, anti-statism and contemporary situations.
Nothing in Historical Materialism counterfeit the claim that historical groups (Races/Ethnicities) have had impact on development of society at different stages, nor that the "humankapital" of a group determines its economical progress. But to throw Jews and anti-Statism into a theory that explain the development of societies thousands of years back, is wrong: that's not truthseeking, it's propaganda.

I am not the first to add meta-politics to Marxist economic theory. Giovanni Arrighi (The Long Twentieth Century; Money, Power and the Origins of our Times) is into similar thoughts, stating that there are three areas of socio-economic life that should be studied. He compares them to floors in a building. The lowest floor is the material reality of production and reproduction. The second floor is the market, usually studied by economists. The third floor is "above" the market, involving States and other big players, who manipulate the market for their own gain. It is in the third floor meta-political theories can be placed, involving Jewish conspiracies if one is into that. Personally I believe these "conspiracies" to be open to all races, given they have the right attitude and money.

Theories about the role of the State in the economy are also common in Marxism. A good example would be Ian Gough with his Political Economy of the Welfare State.

I cannot really see why different theories cannot be combined in novel ways either. But I might have been unclear in my first post: "it is my proposal that one takes the Labor Theory of Value and the other Marxist theories". Capital would only be an ingredient in such a synthesis.

Marx never refuted Darwin; his first volume of Das Kapital was sent to Darwin when printed. Struggle and competition is the modell of Marx after all. Whole history is formed on objective and subjective struggles, and to Marx it's NOT just the class struggles as such; a class struggle can take the shape of different forms, it's depends on how a class is defined with relation to its time, society and economical model. Class is a group with a distinct relation to the economical life of an age.

It's easier to make Marx a Racialist than Spengler. But the history isn't just about Races (atleast not biological one) and Idealism, unfortunately. It's much more complex, and overall its impossible to entirely grasp.
But it is possible to refigure and interpret Marx and Historical Materialism into a Nationalist position. One just need understanding of Marxianism, and a open mind.

Marx doesn't tell much about how economics work, by the way. The Capital books do have the title "Critique against the Political Economy", after all. It's a then contemporary analysis of Western (especially British) society and how the economic systems work and progressed. Rather out-of-date to read today, I think.

I disagree on one point. Capitalism is still Capitalism, and essentially works in the same way. An understanding of what profits and wages really are, is still useful. That basic understanding should then be updated, going from the very abstract to the more concrete (and in that process, racial differences, meta-politics and ethnic relations are added).

[Deling]

I guess I'm a little late answering this... =)

"I disagree on one point. Capitalism is still Capitalism, and essentially works in the same way. An understanding of what profits and wages really are, is still useful. That basic understanding should then be updated, going from the very abstract to the more concrete (and in that process, racial differences, meta-politics and ethnic relations are added)."

Understanding wages and profits in a world economy were money is non-existent; numbers 1 and 0 on a computer screen...? The market economy is an anachronism, long gone. Hasn't existed for 100 years.

What needs to be examined is Class theory. We can see that the Bourgeousie/Capitalist world-view that conquered the world 1800-2000 is fading, and in steps new entrepreneurs, Newly-rich who want to take active part in politics (Berlusconi, Soros, Bush and Co., the Russian new-rich... is this the beginning of the Oligarch Class in western society; a class who hasn't inherited the bourgeoisie outlook, and want to change the world?), and a neo-proletarisation. There are new classes forming, and if one understands it one can use it as a political weapon.

Ironically I know NOT A SINGLE communist, not even M-L:s, who has been able to define class relations to me... ..and leftists complaint about NBs lack of Class analysis, but that's BS.

Racial/Cultural/Political aspects is another layer, beyond/beneath and within the class analysis, and can only be understood in relation to it.

"I cannot really see why different theories cannot be combined in novel ways either. But I might have been unclear in my first post: "it is my proposal that one takes the Labor Theory of Value and the other Marxist theories". Capital would only be an ingredient in such a synthesis."

Combining what is called the "Historical Materialist" outlook with ethnicism is possible, but one can't leave it alone. But Marx' science isn't only Economical. He's said to have said: "I hope I'm done soon with this economic shit"...

[Deling]

"Apparently he became interested in the possibility of skipping Capitalism, and building Socialism on the Russian mir, or the primitive socialism of tribes."

We can't forget:
Marx didn't say Socialism would follow Capitalism, just that an economical organisation of society is doomed to be replaced sooner or later. That Marx believed in an ultra-linear scheme, and that is was a historical necessity: Capitalism - Socialism - Communism is BS, propagated by political workers' activists and Social-Democrats as political propaganda: how to lose when history is on their side?
It's unfortunate that 'Marxists' to this day even believe that Marx predicted the scheme "Capitalism - Socialism - Communism"; but Marx did mention that there one day would be a Communism, but it wouldn't be the end of history, but beginning of Humanity.
Marx, Darwin and Technocratic ideas; that's the Historical Materialism in a nut-shell, and it's probably the closest to "truth" about history and progress one can get.

[Social-Nationalist]

Marxism has several weaknesses though. The first is the most obvious: it's goal is a utopia.

False. In the economic writings of Karl Marx nothing is said about how goods "should" be produced and distributed. There is no plan, no ready-made model. It is only pre-Marxian socialisms and communisms which concentrated on the abstract imagining of different 'models' of 'ideal society', and the like. The materialist conception of history describes mere tendencies, not unavoidable laws: tendencies which under normal conditions will prevail but which may nevertheless be impeded or altogether blocked in the actual, historical course of events.

Marxists regard justice is a judicial notion, and as such it belong to the superstructure of society, and the latter is determined by the latter's mode of economic production. From the standpoint of Marxism, it is incorrect to attribute a universal standard of justice to all modes of production. Marxism is not a congeries of value judgements or morals. True, it offers some insights as to the (material) causes of morality, but it does nothing else. It is purely descriptive. As Woods explained:

• For Marx religious misery is both an expression of actual misery and an attempt to flee from it into a world of imagination: it is the 'opium of the people'. The way out of alienation is not, as Hegel and Feuerbach thought, a new philosophical interpretation of life, but a new form of earthly existence, a new society in which the material conditions for a fulfilling human life would no longer be lacking. 'The philosophers have only
  interpreted the world in different ways; the point is to change it.'
  
  For Marx the ultimate tendency of history is the Promethian drive of the human species to develop its 'essential human powers', its powers of production. Under capitalism these powers, and the complex network of human cooperation through which they are exercised, have for the first time grown far enough to put within the reach of human beings themselves the collective, rational control of the societal form of their own production. This self-conscious self-determination is the true meaning of human freedom. But human beings under capitalism are alienated because capitalist social relations, by dispossessing the vast majority of producers and subjecting the form of social production to the market mechanism, frustrate this collective self-determination. The historic mission of the proletariat is to actualize the capacities for human freedom which the capitalist mode of production has put within our reach, by abolishing class society. In this way, historical materialism gives the working class a full conscious understanding of its historic mission, so that unlike previous ruling classes it may fulfill this mission consciously, and thus truly enable the human species to master itself and its destiny. The materialist conception of history thus serves as the link between Marx's concerns with the conditions for human fulfillment, his theoretical enterprise as economist and historian, and his practical activity as a working-class organizer and revolutionary.
  
  According to Marx's materialist conception of history, the goals of a class movement are determined by the set of production relations the class is in a position to establish and defend. This implies that historically conscious revolutionaries should not proceed by setting utopian goals for themselves and then looking around for means to achieve them. Revolutionary practice is rather a matter of participating in an already developing class movement, helping to define its owns goals and to actualize them through the use of the weapons inherent in the class's historical situation. The definition of these goals moreover, is an ongoing process; thus it is pointless to speculate about the precise system of distribution which a revolutionary movement will institute after its victory when the movement itself is still in its infancy.
  
  Marx believed that future society would see the abolition of classes, of private ownership of means of production, and even of commodity production (production of goods and services for exchange or sale). He believed communist society would eventually eliminate all systematic social causes of alienation and human unfulfillment. Yet he never thought of future society as an unchanging state of perfection. On the contrary, he thought of the end of class society as the true beginning of human history, of the historical development of human society directed consciouly by human beings. Above all, Marx never attempted to 'write recipes for the cookshops of the future' or to say in any detail what distribution relations in future socialist or communist society would be like. He equally scorned those who concerned themselves with formulating principles of distributive justice and condeming capitalism in their name. Marx concieves the justice of economic transactions as their correspondence to or functionality for the prevailing mode of production. Given this conception of justice, Marx very consistently (if very surprisingly) concluded that the human exploitation practiced by capitalism against the workers is not unjust, and does not violate the workers' rights; this conclusion constitutes no defense of capitalism, only an attack on the use of moral conception within the proletarian movement. Marx saw the task of the proletarian movement in his time as one of self-definition and growth through organization, discipline, and self-criticism based on scientific self-understanding. He left for later stages of the movement the task of planning the future society which is the historic mission of the movement to bring to birth.

and his successors had serious problems on creating it.

There were many back-steps of the bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic revolutionary processes. Capitalism and the bourgeois revolutionary processes took centuries to develop and several counter-revolutions before the bourgeoisie finally consolidated its power.

Further, they weren't trying to "create" communism. You would have to understand the Marxist conception of the state to know what they mean--which evidently you do not. It is nicely summed up in Lenin's State and Revolution.

Since Marxists usually believe that practice and theory cannot be separated,

What?

this failure of praxis indicates that there is something wrong with the theory as well.

What failure?

The anthropology is too primitive,

How?

and does not acknowledge the natural inequalities between men.

That is false. "To each according to his abilities."

The understanding of the State also seems to be limited.

How so?

Contemporary examples of the use of Marxism would be of interest, as would debates on the use of this leftist theory.

Contemporary leftism is antithetical to Marxism in every respect.

[Social-Nationalist]

"Apparently he became interested in the possibility of skipping Capitalism, and building Socialism on the Russian mir, or the primitive socialism of tribes."

Capitalism had been developing in Russia for several decades before the revolutionary crises of 1905 and 1917. It was a developing capitalist country with semi-feudal relations in the countryside. Uneven development is an absolute law in the era of imperialism. Capitalism just doesn't bring prosperity everywhere it exists, especially now that it has become a world system where imperialist centres have been formed.

Soviet-Russia wasn't sufficiently industrialised for socialism. So what did they do? The began industrialisation, with which socialist relations of production advanced. Lack of industry was something they overcame. Socialism wasn't defeated because of that.