Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Murkadin
« on: August 16, 2026, 06:51:02 am »

A Leftist History of Japan
Quote
Japan actually has one of East Asia's longest socialist histories, from early 1900s anarchists and feminists, through the Japanese Communist Party's secret founding, to the explosive 1960s student uprisings and the Japanese Red Army's alliance with Palestinian liberation movements in Beirut. It's a messy, factional story of splits, repression, and internal contradictions that's been largely erased from mainstream narratives. This video covers some of the key figures and moments that defined it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_Zu-89eMo

Noteworthy:

Quote
You praise Russia as the country of international solidarity and admit yourself that today Russia is more Russian than ever. What you call Bolshevist internationalism of Moscow is Pan-Slavism in its clearest and most pronounced form… Russia, Russian Bolshevism, are not about to collapse. But the Russian soviet system does not endure because it is Bolshevist , because it is Marxist , because it is international , but because it is national, because it is Russia. No Tsar ever grasped the Russian people in its depths, in its passion, in its national instincts as Lenin did. He gave the Russian peasants what Bolshevism always meant to the peasants : freedom and property . In this way he made the most indigenous group, the peasants, into the real supporters of the new system. The more the Russian peasants hates the Jew, especially the Soviet Jew, the more passionately he is a follower of agrarian reform, the more ardently does he love his country, his land and his soil. 'Down with the Jewish Soviets, long live the Leninist agrarian reform!' - National Socialism or Bolshevism? ( National Socialism or Bolshevism ), open letter to “My Friends on the Left,” National Socialist Letters , (Oct. 15, 1925); Nazi Ideology before 1933: A Documentation , trans. Barbara Miller Lane and Leila J. Rupp, University of Texas Press, 1978, p. 76.

Lenin sacrificed Marx and instead gave Russia freedom. You want to sacrifice German freedom for Marx. Even the Bolshevik Jew has clearly recognized the compelling necessity of the Russian
Quote
national state and has early and wisely adjusted himself to it. - Repudiation to German communists. National Socialism or Bolshevism? ( Nationalsozialismus oder Bolschewismus? ) NS-Briefe (October 25, 1925)

Quote
He is our natural ally against the diabolical temptation and corruption of the West. - About Russia, National Socialism or Bolshevism (November 15, 1925), National Socialist Letters , co-written with Gregor Strasser for the Völkisch Work Community . Quoted in Dr. Joseph Goebbels: (1st edition) by Viktor Reimann , Molden, 1971. Translated to English in Goebbels by Ralph Georg Reuth, Piper, 2nd ed., Munich, 1991, p. 96. ISBN 3-492-03183-8 .


Quote
Communism is nothing but a grotesque distortion of true Socialist thought. We and we alone could become the genuine Socialists in Germany, or for that matter, in Europe. - Letter to Count E. Von Reventlow (mid 1920s), quoted in Joseph Goebbels: A Biography , Curt Riess , Hollis and Carter, London (1949) p. 37



Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: February 04, 2025, 07:35:42 pm »

Quote
"China's socialism is not about an immediate leap to a pure communist society but about a long-term strategy that involves stages of development. Deng Xiaoping's reforms were about opening up the economy while ensuring that the state maintained control over key sectors, redistributed wealth through social policies, and worked towards the common prosperity of all citizens. This approach is encapsulated in the idea of 'socialism with Chinese characteristics,' where economic liberalization serves as a means to strengthen the socialist state rather than replace it. The state still owns a significant portion of the economy, controls strategic industries, and implements policies aimed at reducing inequality, such as the hukou reforms, rural development plans, and the massive investments in public infrastructure and education. Moreover, the goal remains the eventual transition to communism."

Source :

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners, p. 105-107

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Socialism_with_Chinese_Characteristics/LMArEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=socialism+with+chinese+characteristics&printsec=frontcover
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: November 29, 2023, 07:57:02 pm »

The Fatal Flaw of Social Democracy

Quote
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, social democracy rose out of a new conceptualization of freedom that emphasized not just individual liberties but also social justice and mass well-being. The fact that the rise of the welfare state in Europe took place at the same time as the collapse of colonialism raises the question of the relationship between the two: why was jettisoning the empire integral to the creation of freer, more democratic European societies? Such a formulation shows how far postwar Europe had come from the social imperialism of Cecil Rhodes and others at the beginning of the century, the belief that colonial exploitation would guarantee higher living standards in the metropole. In Britain in particular, many saw the cost of empire as outweighing its benefits after 1945 and argued that ensuring the prosperity and freedom of the metropole meant getting rid of the colonies.59 France managed to create the structures of social democracy while at the same  264 Chapter 6 time fighting two ruinous colonial wars, but by the end of the 1950s much of the French nation had come to the same conclusion, that empire wasn’t worth it.6

Source :

White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall 2021 Princeton University Press page 278-279
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: June 19, 2023, 04:10:48 am »

National Socialism (1)

It goes without saying that we have no affinities with the Japanese. They're too foreign to us, by their way of living, by their culture. But my feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance

...

How can one expect a State like that to hold together—a State where 80 per cent of the revenue is drained away for the public purse—a country where everything is built on the dollar? From this point of view, I consider the British State very much superior. - Adolf Hitler

Source : Adolf Hitler - Table Talk page 190

It is, of course, possible to make out a case for the success achieved in peopling continents which before had been empty. The United States and Australia afford good examples. Success, certainly - but only on the material side. They are artificial edifices, bodies without age, of which it is impossible to say whether they are still in a state of infancy or whether they have already been touched by senility. In those continents which were inhabited, failure has been even more marked. In them, the white races have imposed their will by force, and the influence they have had on the native inhabitants has been negligible - Adolf Hitler on 7th February 1945

Source : Martin Bormann Testament of Hitler page 13

Fascism (1)

The American nation is a creative nation, sane, with straight-lined ideas. When I talk with men of the United States it does not occur to me to use diplomacy for winning or persuading them. The American spirit is crystalline. - Benito Mussolini

Source : My Autobiography, Benito Mussolini Chapter III - The Book of Life

https://books.google.co.id/books?id=GfIwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT40&lpg=PT40&dq=When+I+talk+with+men+of+the+United+States+it+does+not+occur+to+me+to+use+diplomacy+for+winning+or+persuading+them.+The+American+spirit+is+crystalline.&source=bl&ots=phEwB7BHWr&sig=ACfU3U22aB_-FVuyQWvE89Otk6EJGF6PPQ&hl=id&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwif4-W_-M7_AhVy-zgGHZboBBQQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=When%20I%20talk%20with%20men%20of%20the%20United%20States%20it%20does%20not%20occur%20to%20me%20to%20use%20diplomacy%20for%20winning%20or%20persuading%20them.%20The%20American%20spirit%20is%20crystalline.&f=false



National Socialism (2)

...the concept of keeping the race pure can never be transferred from the Jewish example to, for example, the Aryan. And what was right and possible there may and can be completely incorrect as well as impossible here.

Much as I gaze in awe at the Jews’ laws for maintaining and preserving the purity of their race, I must nevertheless proceed from my belief that racial theories, should they become the subject of public discussion, may prove a national disaster rather than a blessing.

We must accept the mixing of blood as it is. We must not call one blood worse than another, one mixture better than another. Rather, we must employ other means to breed a higher form from this gray mass. We must try’ to bring to the surface the valuable traits of the people living in Germany, to cultivate and to develop them, and we must find ways and means to prevent the propagation of all the bad, inferior, criminal, and decadent tendencies and all the congenital diseases so damaging to the Volk. - Adolf Hitler

Source :

Wagener - Hitler Memoirs of a Confidant

We see in our people the existence of various racial nuclei. These racial nuclei contain the details as to the special abilities of this people; since these abilities are not primarily abilities of the German people themselves, but rather, racial abilities. That the German people currently possess a number of racial nuclei, appears, after all, in the wealth of their capabilities, because all these race nuclei carry certain dispositions in themselves: the Nordic race nucleus is more inclined to cold weather; is mathematically inclined; is exceptional with regard to the organizational factor—the factor which has generally organized states around the world up until now. Now in addition, other race nuclei contain a very artistic disposition, with a purely optical talent: the ability to observe and depict; then again, there are race nuclei with very strong musical talents, and also race nuclei with exceptional commercial talents. The strongest of these race nuclei, which possessed commercial talent but lacked creativity, was Jewry; the only difference being that, had it remained with us for a longer period of time, Jewry would have risen not as a race nucleus within the German people, but would have completely decomposed the German people bit by bit….But now it is clear, nevertheless: “race” and “people” are not the same. - Adolf Hitler

Source :

Kuzniar-Clark - Black Nazis II Ethnic Minorities and Foreigners in Hitler's Armed Forces


We do not conclude from a man's physical type his ability, but rather from his achievements his race. - Adolf Hitler

Source :

A. James Gregor, National Socialism and Race, 1958

Fascism (2)

It was agreed to use the term 'Aryan' for those white bloodlines that, descending from a pure and noble ethnic family, speak languages derived from a common mother tongue and appear to be linked in the historical development of civilization.

The European peoples, including those who have moved to other continents, are almost all considered as belonging to the Aryan race.

...

History records that in all ages the people of greatest civilization were those of our race.

Modern civilization, in all that is solid and high, is the product of Aryan races.

The highest artistic and literary creations, the highest inventions and scientific discoveries, the fundamental laws of social existence, are due to this race.

This civil domination of the European peoples, who by agreement are overall referred to as 'Aryans', is continuous and constant.

Only Aryan civilization tirelessly progresses and is renewed with a marvelous variety of types and accomplishments, which continue and complement each other.

The Mediterranean basin has been and still is the horizon of the greatest splendor of this continuity of Aryan primacy, with Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, Fascism. It is natural that Italy, placed at the center of the Mediterranean, is also today—as in the past—a lively, unquenchable fire of the purest Aryan tradition.

Mixtures or half-breeds are eliminated by preventing them from renewing and multiplying, so that, in the span of some generations, the extraneous elements disappear from our blood, being increasingly diluted and losing their genetic capacity.

In the ethical realm, the reestablishment of racial purity is obtained through education and through systems that regulate individual and social life, so as to conform it to those which are the genuine characteristics and higher needs of the race. - Benito Mussolini

Source :

The Second Book of Fascism (1939) [1941 Edition]

http://bibliotecafascista.blogspot.com/2012/04/the-second-book-of-fascism-1939.html

Actual Authentic White Nationalist Telegram Forum

https://web.telegram.org/k/#@democracyforever



Posted by: Blue Kumul
« on: April 19, 2022, 02:41:15 am »

For comparison, my analysis:

1. Traditionalist camp

1a. religious universalists seeking to spread their tradition around the world: Catholic social teaching, Protestant dominion theology, Islamism
1b. identitarian traditionalism: Confucianism, Judaism, Duginism, Trumpism, right wing of Nazism (e.g Heinrich Himmler)

2. Modernist camp

2a. liberalism: social liberalism, libertarianism, neoconservatism
2b. socialism: social democracy, Bolshevism, post-scarcity socialism (e.g. Zeitgeist Movement or Venus Project)
2c. liberation nationalism: Chavismo, Baathism, left wing of Nazism (e.g. Otto Strasser)

3. Countercultural camp

3a. green politics (including anti-civilization anarchists like Ted Kaczynski)
3b. left-wing identity politics (I coined the term Inclusivism for them)
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: March 14, 2022, 03:38:13 am »

I changed it to "A non-Marxist form of Socialism", since this is what I meant.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 14, 2022, 03:33:35 am »

"National Socialism = Non-Marxist form of Socialism. [Since we already know what National Socialism means, we can insert a better definition here later; the one that was one the main site is probably fine.]"

Does this imply that any form of socialism that rejects Marxist assumptions will eventually converge onto National Socialism? I don't think we can be sure this is the case. We should try, as an exercise, to come up with forms of socialism that are incompatible with both Marxism and National Socialism. Eventually we could put it all on a Venn diagram.

"faced with the choice of going their own way as unique forms of Socialism, joining True Leftist National Socialism, or ridding themselves of their "revisions" and returning to orthodox Marxist Socialism"

This is what I was thinking, which is exactly why we cannot say "National Socialism = Non-Marxist form of Socialism".

I can even think of forms of True Leftist Socialism that are not National Socialist!
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: March 14, 2022, 03:27:45 am »

I have come to realize that, if we want to be thorough, the objectives set out in this thread basically amount to an academic thesis. Honestly, that seems like too much work for what appears on the surface to be simple questions.

I will try to be as succinct as possible, but I think it will take some time to go through and learn all the details necessary to fully accomplish our task. I don't want to be overly-reliant on secondary or tertiary sources (i.e. I like quoting primary sources and understanding the full context of what the original ideologists were thinking), but, for the sake of our sanity, we may have to limit our scope a bit.

----

Breaking things down, what do we need to examine to be able to understand the various Socialist ideologies?

1) Modern pre-Marx Socialist ideologies that existed from the late 1700s to ~1840s (when Marx and Engels began their work). In my opinion, the purpose of studying this era is to (1) definitively demonstrate that Marxist Socialism was only one form of Socialism during his lifetime and that he did not invent modern Socialism, and (2) understand the milieu Marxism developed in, in order to really be honest about whether or not the ideology even has any relevance in a 21st century world. To be honest, I am less concerned about the ideological content of these early modern forms of Socialism. Although maybe some of them will have some inspirational viewpoints.

2) The views of Marx and Engels. Not as 20th and 21st century Marxist Socialists _want_ to revise and reinterpret their views, but the actual ideology Marx and Engels believed themselves. In other words, orthodox Marxism. Clearly understanding this is important, because this will allow us to precisely demonstrate how later "Marxist" theorists have deviated so profoundly from actual Marxism that it is absurd to call them "Marxists" (as I have already pointed out in this thread: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/leftist-ideological-camps-in-the-big-picture-socialism-marxism-true-leftism-etc/msg11339/#msg11339 ).

3) The development of Socialist ideas and Socialist political parties from the ~1840s (when Marx and Engels entered the scene) to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that Marxist Socialism soon became dominant over earlier forms of Socialism. However, there were many different opinions on how to best implement Marxist Socialist ideas, many of which were democratic compromises and not very radical. By understanding this part of history, we will understand the milieu in which Lenin and Hitler developed their political views and what they had to contend with when trying to find political success.

4) Bolshevist/Leninist ideology and all the ways it held true to orthodox Marxist Socialist ideology. From what I understand so far, Lenin tried to, as far as practical, implement Marx's ideology. It will be important to understand Bolshevist/Leninist ideology, because Marxist-Leninism will set the "standard" against which we will compare later developments of "Communism". (The point being that subsequent "Communist" ideologies which profoundly differ from Marxist-Leninism aren't really Marxist Socialism.)

5) The development of Socialist ideas and Socialist political parties from the Bolshevik Revolution to the end of WWII. A. James Gregor put it most succinctly by declaring this was an era of 'competing Socialisms' (i.e. Marxist-Leninism, National Socialism, and Fascism). This period is also important because these various forms of Socialism began influencing political movements throughout the world. For example, Indian Socialist Subhas Chandra Bose said he was attempting to make a synthesis of aspects from National Socialism and Communism. In the "Middle East", National Socialism led to nationalist-socialist movements (e.g. Ba'ath Party in Syria, whose founders were explicitly non-Communist Socialists.)

Hitler himself believed a three-way Cold War would develop in the future:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10914/#msg10914
with it being important to bring non-Western nations around the world into the National Socialist sphere of influence and assist in spreading Socialism to them:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg11183/#msg11183

And Hitler also believed "Communism" would evolve away from Marxist-Leninism and towards nationalist-socialism (which already began to happen under Stalin):
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10718/#msg10718

But with the end of WWII, National Socialism became not just unfavorable, but outright illegal in most places--therefore forcing aspiring non-Western Socialists to turn to the USSR and Marxist Socialism. Nevertheless, nationalist-socialism and other thoroughly un-Marxist forms of Socialism continued to gain traction.

5.1) The most important component of point 5 is demonstrating that National Socialism really was a form of Socialism, which we have already completed. But we will need to delve deeper into its ideology to thoroughly compare it with other forms of Socialism.
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/

6) Development of Socialist ideologies post-WWII. During this period (the 1st Cold War), "Communist" parties gained influence across the globe. It was during this time period that a massive variety of new Socialist interpretations came into play. Many of these were influenced by principles like anti-colonial struggles and religion and deviated profoundly from Marxist-Leninism. With the context of point (5), it becomes easy to imagine how National Socialism could have been the ally and inspiration for these religious and nationalist-socialist forms of Socialism had it continued to exist, instead of Marxist-Leninism (especially considering that actual Marxist-Leninism directly contradicted key elements of these new Socialist ideologies!).

7) The 21st century. This is where Aim 3 really comes into play. We want to unshackle Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and other Socialist ideologies from Marxist Socialism, so they can stand in the light as their own unique forms of Socialism. We can also demonstrate how the "tankies" who claim to remain inspired by statist Socialism after the fall of the USSR are really just NazBol Duginists now, rather than serious Marxist-Leninists or salvageable Dengists! Lastly, we form the True Left--to gather all salvageable Socialists who mistakenly believe themselves to be "Communists" and leftists who are disenfranchised and apathetic because they never felt at home with "Communists" or "Progressive" democrats.
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: March 14, 2022, 03:00:04 am »

Further ramblings on this train of thought:


When people think of "communism", what do they imagine? Red flags, the USSR, hammer and sickles, etc. What I am saying is that they are actually thinking of Marxist-Leninism, not "communism". Communism is a general term and Marxism has no more of a monopoly over it than it has over the word Socialism. Communist China and other nations tried to implement and emulate aspects of Marxist-Leninism, certainly. But over time they continuously drifted apart ideologically.

Conventionally, "communism" connotes statist Socialism (specifically, Marxist Socialism, which people incorrectly believe to be the only form of statist Socialism), but anarchists also lay claim to "communism"--based off of Marx's own description of end-stage "communism" being stateless! Statist Marxists may argue the anarchist interpretation of "communism" is impractical, but even they cannot argue that anarcho-communists are imposters with no claim to the word communism. Furthermore, historically "communism" and "socialism" were used interchangeably and the word communism even fell out of fashion until Lenin(!) assigned them specific meanings. So, just as we must break Marxist Socialism's monopoly over the general word Socialism itself, we need to arrive at the understanding that Marxist-Leninism never had a monopoly over the word "communism" either.

Really, this is all a matter of propaganda strategy. I don't care about an academic battle over semantics. But it is kind of difficult to argue the the Chinese Communist Party is not actually communist. It is easy to argue the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not actually democratic, but how can one convincingly argue the red-flag-waving Chinese Communist Party is not communist?

Instead, we say that Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, Chavismo, and maybe even Stalinism, etc. are not Marxist-Leninism, and therefore not orthodox Marxist Socialism. Stalinism has probably not deviated too far from orthodox Marxist Socialism/Marxist-Leninism, but Socialism with Chinese Characteristics has deviated so far that it is no longer truly Marxist.

It is its own form of Socialism. Who cares if both China and Stalin were "communists"? Who cares if anti-statist anarcho-communists also call themselves "communists"? Who cares if North Korea and the Democratic Party are both "democrats"? These words do not have bearing on the actual ideology and their similarities/dissimilarities. Does it really matter if "communism" continues to connote certain types of statist Socialism after we have explained "Chinese Communism", etc. aren't actually Marxist Socialism?

If we accept the Marxist-Leninist assertion that Deng, Stalin, Lenin, etc. are categorically similar on a deep and meaningful way because they are all "communist", then it will be much more difficult for us to pry so-called "communist" ideologies apart from one another. We should do all that we can to dissolve any unnecessary categories and concepts binding ideologies conventionally grouped as "communist" and "Marxist". This seems like the only practical way for them to truly take off their shackles and exist as unique forms of Socialism.

In other words, we need to get into the mindset where we don't automatically assume a political party or ideology is Marxist Socialism/Marxist-Leninism just because it uses the word "communist"--just as we don't assume the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually "democratic", or that the US Republican Party believes in Platonic Republicanism, or that the Whig Party dresses up in whigs and throws parties at their political meetings.

(And in theory, present-day "communists" would actually agree with us! "Communists" since the collapse of the USSR frequently argue that no nation, including the USSR, was ever "actually" communist... What a meaningless word then, if every communist party in existence never came close to actually being "communist"! Lol.)

I'm not saying we need to stop using the term communist outside of this thread, and certainly not saying we should call ourselves communist. But inside this thread, we should do all we can to break down pre-conceived notions in order to properly give the category of Socialism a radical re-examination.


TL;DR: Non-Marxist-Leninist varieties of "communism" (which encompasses basically everything except actual Leninism) have one foot in Marxist Socialism and one foot in non-Marxist Socialism. It us up to us to help them make the leap away from Marxist Socialism. Marxist-Leninism is, by definition, Marxist Socialism and not salvageable; it aims to keep divergent Socialist ideologies trapped in Marxist Socialist thinking by unreasonably keeping them trapped under its self-defined umbrella of "communism".

If we expose the meaninglessness of this category, so-called "communist" ideologies will be faced with the choice of going their own way as unique forms of Socialism, joining True Leftist National Socialism, or ridding themselves of their "revisions" and returning to orthodox Marxist Socialism (which has proven to be a failed ideology).
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: March 14, 2022, 02:50:52 am »

I suppose at this point, I should try to give a general definition of how I am thinking of the vocabulary I've been using.


Socialism = as we have previous defined: "Socialism is the belief that state intervention is essential to realistically combatting social injustice, and that it is the moral duty of the state to so intervene."

Marxist Socialism = A more precise term for the statist interpretation of "Marxism" in order to stress that it is merely one form of Socialism. Can also be used to refer to "Communism" (i.e. the political implementation of Marxist theory. Consider that there is no vocabulary distinction between National Socialism as an ideological theory and National Socialism as a political movement/party).

Orthodox Marxism = Strictly referring to the ideological theories developed by Marx and Engels. The word "orthodox" is to stress that subsequent theorists over the centuries who have "added" to Marxist thought are deviating from "actual" Marxist ideology--often to large degrees and often in sharp disagreement with one another.

Communism = In conventional use, Communism is the general term for the political implementation of Marxist ideological theory. For the sake of precision, I think we should try to avoid using the word Communism in this thread, since such a wide range of political parties and ideological positions are labelled as "Communism", many of which deviate from orthodox Marxist ideology (and each other) by a considerable degree.

Marxist-Leninism = In conventional usage, it seems this term is often used as a catch-all for various 'standard' implementations of Communism that aren't given their own -ism, and Communists stress that Marxist-Leninism is sort of the core "essence" of "real" Communism. Stalin coined this term and applied it as the state ideology of the USSR (and considered himself a Marxist-Leninist, even though his policies are frequently called "Stalinism" due to his deviations from Leninism.)

Just as the term "orthodox Marxism" makes it easier to isolate the real ideological core of Marxism and helps our aim of cleaving away Socialist ideologies that aren't fundamentally Marxist, by ditching the word "Communism" and narrowing down what we conventionally think of as Communism to include only Marxist-Leninism, this will make it easier to re-examine the so-called "Communist" ideologies which barely have anything in common with Marxism--finally allowing them to exist on their own as unique forms of Socialism.

(Why not simply use the term Leninism or Bolshevism? Convenience I guess, since Marxism-Leninism is an established term.

How is Marxist-Leninism different than 'Marxist Socialism as a political implementation'? It is a specific/more precise -ism to be used as needed, just as Hitlerism is a specific -ism of National Socialism. Theoretically, there could be a different attempt to implement orthodox Marxist Socialism, but seeing how impractical orthodox Marxism is, it is unlikely to be attempted again.)


I am open to thoughts on the Marxist-Leninist vocabulary, but I think everything else should make sense. De-emphasizing the word "Communism" when discussing in this thread and being precise about "Marxist Socialism" meaning 'statist Socialism of the Marxist variety' will also help us down the road when trying to discuss how Anarchism, Anarcho-Communism, and Marx's stateless vision of end-stage "communism" (which isn't Socialist at all by our definition) fit into things. As I said in the other thread when discussing about "primitive communism", it is confusing that the term "communism" is used to refer both to statist Socialism and stateless "communalism".

----

Some additional definitions and final thoughts.


National Socialism = A non-Marxist form of Socialism. [Since we already know what National Socialism means, we can insert a better definition here later; the one that was one the main site is probably fine.]

nationalist-socialism (uncapitalized) = Socialism which rejects the orthodox Marxist belief that Socialism must be internationalist/borderless/not confined to a particular nation.


Internationalism vs nationalism is one major character trait where we can simply compare/contrast the views of various "Communist" varieties and other forms of Socialism. Ultimately, we want to show that "nationalist-socialist" variants of "Communism" (e.g. Stalin's Socialism in One Nation or Socialism with Chinese Characteristics) are qualitatively closer to National Socialism than actual Marxist Socialism at this specific character trait.

We don't need to give a name to every character trait, but I think having the general term "nationalist-socialism" will make it conceptually easier for people to (1) make the connection that National Socialism can conceivably be a Socialist variety (by being able to dissociate it from historical connotations of Hitler and think about it academically/theoretically) and (2) make the connection that, dating back to Stalin, all(?) implementations of "Communism" have actually rejected orthodox Marxist internationalism by being "nationalist-socialist" (but obviously not National Socialist.)

This means they qualitatively differ from the Marxist form of Socialism that they claim to be! If we can so undeniably hammer home that they differ on this character trait, this makes it easier to pose the question to leftists about how many other character traits they could possibly differ on without them realizing it.

In other words, leftists will begin to make the mental separation between "orthodox Marxism" and the particular "Communist" ideology they are favorable towards. They don't have to wholesale reject leftism/Socialism in order to acknowledge orthodox Marxist theory has failed to hold up, and potentially reject Marxist Socialism in its original form completely. When rightists argue against Marxism they are trying to get leftists to abandon leftism altogether. But when the True Left argues against Marxism, we are trying to get leftists to choose a superior form of Socialism that they have been held back from seeing, due to the 'sacred' shadow Marxism has undeservingly cast over leftism.


Once we have conducted a detailed examination of the various "Communist" and Socialist ideologies in this thread, we can boil down the key ideological positions on major topics/character traits into a simple list/table. From this table, it will then be easy to show that (as a made up example) Socialism with Chinese Characteristics shares 4/5 similarities with National Socialism or Fascism and only 1/5 with orthodox Marxism. Or, at the very least, we can show that it deviates from orthodox Marxism on 4/5 points, and is therefore qualitatively dissimilar to actual Marxist Socialism and must logically be a distinct form of Socialism.

Even if it is not (yet) National Socialism, it is still not Marxist Socialism, as leftists have conventionally believed. And, again, it will be easier to process this if we can mentally cleave the word "Communism" apart from "Marxism". You know what I mean? Doofuses think the Chinese Communist Party _has to be_ Marxist, since it is "Communist" and has red flags, right? They say, "Marxism and Communism are synonyms, how can Socialism with Chinese Characteristics not be Marxist!?" They can conceive of things no other way, simply because of the power these words and their conventional definitions have over their mind.

But we will have clearly shown how they ideologically differ. And, maybe, if we can de-emphasize the word "Communism" to make it more of a vague term, it will mentally help things fall into place for the doofuses. The Chinese Communist Party _doesn't have to be Marxist_--not only because their current ideology is qualitatively different from Marxism at numerous critical topics--but because the word "Communism" isn't even exclusively Marxist at all. It was used before him, used by non-Marxists during his lifetime, and even fell out of favor during Engels's lifetime!

Leftists already accept that "Communism" can have a broader meaning than just "Marxist-Leninism", but why stop there? Why not decouple the word from Marxism entirely? Not that we need to 'reclaim' the word Communism in the way we are reclaiming Socialism, or claim Communism doesn't have significant overlap with Marxism or anything--but why should it so strongly connote Marxism to leftists? The absurdity of Bernie-Sanders-style "Socialism" connoting pure Marxism to brain-dead rightists is already evident. So why should leftists be just as brain-dead in acting like every "Communist" party actually follows orthodox Marxism just because they use the word "Communist"?

To give another example, democracy has a real ideological meaning, but the political connotations of the word itself have become so general that everyone from North Korea to the Democratic Party in the US uses it. No one finds it weird that the _word_ democracy has become so decoupled from John Locke and other theorists that even North Korea uses the word. So, why should red flags and the _word_ communism be a stumbling block preventing leftists from acknowledging that the actual ideological content of something isn't actually Marxist?

I guess that's using "Critical Theory" against them--by pursuing multiple fronts to get them to break down their pre-conceived notions. This is why words are so important in propaganda.


To summarize these ramblings: we desperately need to pry apart Marxist Socialism from the grip it needlessly holds over even the most mundane aspects of leftism, via multiple routes.
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: March 14, 2022, 02:16:28 am »

Not only have Marxists usurped the term Socialism, but apparently the term (and general meaning of) Communism pre-dates them as well:
Quote
One of the first uses of the word in its modern sense is in a letter sent by Victor d'Hupay to Restif de la Bretonne around 1785, in which d'Hupay describes himself as an auteur communiste ("communist author").[32] In 1793, Restif first used communisme to describe a social order based on egalitarianism and the common ownership of property.[33] Restif would go on to use the term frequently in his writing and was the first to describe communism as a form of government.[34] John Goodwyn Barmby is credited with the first use of communism in English, around 1840.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

The French Revolution was as recent to Marx as the Counterculture is to us, so consider that the ideological foundation of Marxism isn't even an 1840s ideology, but has roots into the late 1700s!
Quote
During the decade of the 1840s the word "communist" came into general use to describe those who supposedly hailed from the left wing of the Jacobin Club of the French Revolution.[1] This political tendency saw itself as egalitarian inheritors of the 1795 Conspiracy of Equals headed by Gracchus Babeuf.[1] The sans-culottes of Paris which had decades earlier been the base of support for Babeuf — artisans, journeymen, and the urban unemployed — was seen as a potential foundation for a new social system based upon the modern machine production of the day.[2]

The French thinker Étienne Cabet inspired the imagination with a novel about a utopian society based upon communal machine production, Voyage en Icarie (1839).[2] The revolutionary Louis Auguste Blanqui argued in favor of an elite organising the overwhelming majority of the population against the "rich," seizing the government in a coup d'état, and instituting a new egalitarian economic order.[2]

One group of Germans in Paris, headed by Karl Schapper, organised themselves in the form of a secret society known as the League of the Just (Bund der Gerechten) and participated in a May 1839 rebellion in Paris in an effort to establish a "Social Republic."[3] Following its failure the organisation relocated its centre to London, while also maintaining local organisations in Zürich and Paris.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_League

The idea that there used to exist multiple types of non-Marxist _Communism_ should really hammer home the idea about the wide variety of ideologies existing under the broader label of _Socialism_. If Marxists are technically merely one among many strands of "Communism", then orthodox Marxist Socialism is even more minuscule in the grand scheme of the various _Socialist_ ideologies.

If these French guys aren't Marxists or even "Communists" in the way the word is used today (with its Marxist connotations), why should we continue to view non-Leninist forms of "Communism" as Marxist Socialism/"Communism" rather than their own distinct forms of Socialism?


----

You've certainly seen present-day Communists dogmatically repeat their definitions of Communism and Socialism, but even these did not originate with Marx. Indeed, apparently Marx and his immediate successors used many terms interchangeably. It was only with Lenin that there arose some apparent distinction between "Socialism" and "Communism".

In other words, it is accurate to use the term "Marxist Socialism" in place of "Communism" in order to stress Marxist Socialism is merely one variant of Socialism among many. This also makes the Communist argument that we can't be Socialists because we don't agree with the Leninist definition of Socialism even more absurd.
Quote
Since the 1840s, communism has usually been distinguished from socialism. The modern definition and usage of the latter would be settled by the 1860s, becoming predominant over alternative terms associationist (Fourierism), co-operative, and mutualist, which had previously been used as synonyms; instead, communism fell out of use during this period.[35]
[...]
By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism which had come to be considered an old-fashioned synonym for the former. It was not until 1917, with the Bolshevik Revolution, that socialism came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticism that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution.[36] A distinction between communist and socialist as descriptors of political ideologies arose in 1918 after the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, where Communist came to specifically refer to socialists who supported the politics and theories of Bolshevism, Leninism, and later in the 1920s those of Marxism–Leninism,[37] although Communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism.[35]
[...]
Friedrich Engels stated that in 1848, at the time when The Communist Manifesto was first published,[39] socialism was respectable on the continent, while communism was not;
[...]
According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death."[42]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

With the understanding that, historically, referring to something as "communism" was not strictly synonymous with the Marxist definition of Communism, and the understanding that even Marx himself often used "Socialism" and "Communism" interchangeably, it becomes easier to examine historic manifestations of Socialism.

That is a long-winded way of saying things that historians call "early communism", "Pre-Marxist communism", etc. aren't Marxist hammer-and-sickle Communism at all. Marx tried to claim certain historic Socialist and other practices superficially resembled his interpretation of Communism, but he has no exclusive claim to these practices. It should not be considered toxic to us to praise certain ancient practices that academics label as "early communism". Using more precise vocabulary, it makes more sense to call many of these practices "early Socialism" or "primitive Socialism".

At the very least, with the definitions quoted above, we see that Marx wouldn't have been thinking "early communists" were hammer-and-sickle red flag waving Marxist-Leninists, and that his camp would not have had exclusive ability to draw inspiration from historic practices. This should all be obvious, but many historians and anthropologists seem to really get caught up in the idea of suggesting ancient societies with Socialist-like customs would have been red-flag-waving Marxist-Leninsts, rather than, you know, some other type of Socialist.


As I pointed out in a previous post, from briefly examining Wikipedia articles, it seems like orthodox Marxist use of the term "primitive communism" focused largely on pre-state societies--i.e. hunter-gatherers. As we touched upon, these so-called "primitive communists" should not be considered candidates for Socialism (since they aren't statist nor have the capacity for empathy to non-humans), and Marx and Engels probably shouldn't even have considered them to be "Communist" forerunners, since hunter-gatherers have strong social "class" structures (although not necessarily "capital accumulation" to the same extent as more "materially productive" state societies).
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/leftist-ideological-camps-in-the-big-picture-socialism-marxism-true-leftism-etc/msg11337/#msg11337

Later generations of archaeologists, anthropologists, and others have expanded "early communism" to cover many early state societies as well. But, as I explained, we can completely ignore the claim that these societies had anything to do with "Communism", and simply consider them Socialist in the broad sense.
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/ancient-candidates-for-socialism/
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: March 04, 2022, 10:35:06 pm »

I have come to realize that aim 1 (exploring pre-"Enlightenment"/pre-Marx/ancient examples of Socialism) is going to involve a lot of discussion and will be more a matter of history and archaeology, rather than strictly ideological.

So I have made a new thread:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/ancient-candidates-for-socialism/


In the current thread, we can stick to the ideological focus of aims 2 and 3. I would say it's ok to talk about Socialism from the 1700s to mid-1800s in this thread as well, since the development of these ideologies are important to understand the milieu in which Marxism developed. From what I'm reading, it seems like Marxism emerged as the dominant ideology of the "communalist" camp of Socialism (the other major one being Anarchism, which soon succumbed to Marxism via "Anarcho-Communism"). This "communalist" camp was itself merely one type of competing Socialism at the time.
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: March 01, 2022, 06:28:57 pm »

I think all 'Gentile-Chosenism' ideologies like that can be said to be derived from (b1) Old Testament traditionalism and (b2) 'White' Supremacy. So, maybe 'Gentile-Chosenism' as a general category can be put as a Tier 3.2 derived ideology stemming from earlier (b1) and (b2) ideologies. And then specific types of 'Gentile-Chosenism' like "British Israelism" and "Christian Identity" can be placed in Tier 4? Maybe?


-------

Unrelated:

As a thought to follow up my previous post--the term "Dark Enlightenment" or "Neo-Reactionary Movement" is sometimes used as a catch-all to describe emerging rightist ideologies which reject either humanism/egalitarianism or democracy.

Maybe this could be its own Tier 2 classification, deriving from both the "Enlightenment" (since some groups do value democracy, and probably all of them value the empiricist aspects of the "Enlightenment") and Traditionalist-Tribalism (this part should be obvious; also some "Dark Enlightenment" ideologies do reject most ideological foundations of the "Enlightenment", rendering the inclusion of another category necessary).

This would include Alt-Rightism, Nouvelle Droite, Generation Identity/Identitarian Movement, what we call ZC, etc. It seems like Duginism should be included in this as well.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web


I don't want to get too side-tracked into discussing rightism in general in this thread. Although in redefining Socialism, it will be important to show how True Left criticisms of democracy, humanism, egalitarianism, the "Enlightenment", and so forth are different from the "Dark Enlightenment"/"Neo-Reactionary" criticisms of them. Therefore we can include them in our ideological comparisons/contrasts in our discussion on these topics.
Posted by: guest55
« on: March 01, 2022, 05:43:45 pm »

Quote
Where would Alt-Rightism fall? Dashed lines from Conservatism, White 'Nationalism', and Judeo-Christian traditionalism?

What about "Christian Identity"? Is it even Judeo-Christian? I would argue it's entirely Judaism? All CI really argues is that the Jews currently occupying Palestine are "fake Jews" and that the "real Jews" are Western Europeans?

Quote
Christian Identity (also known as Identity Christianity)[1] is an interpretation of Christianity which advocates the belief that only Celtic and Germanic peoples, such as the Anglo-Saxon, Nordic nations, and/or Aryan people and people of kindred blood are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and are therefore the descendants of the ancient Israelites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

Christian Identity's New Role On The Extreme Right
Quote
With its ideology linked to numerous domestic terrorist attacks in the late 20th century, Christian Identity (CI) has significantly influenced the development of American far-right extremism. As an antisemitic and racist belief system, Christian Identity provides religious justification for violence and domestic terrorism. Although the traditional CI movement has declined, Christian Identity has risen in importance as a radicalizing and mobilizing force within existing neofascist accelerationist communities. After examining the Christian Identity movement’s history, belief system, rhetoric, decline, and resurgent presence on Telegram, this paper will evaluate the current state of the modern CI movement.
https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/academics/centers-initiatives/ctec/ctec-publications/christian-identitys-new-role-extreme-right

Apparently, it's "anti-Semitic" to argue that you're the "real Jew"!?  ??? ::) :D
Posted by: Zea_mays
« on: March 01, 2022, 05:03:23 pm »

Recall my attempt to classify leftist ideologies in this post:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10717/#msg10717


Based on what 90sRetroFan said about "Enlightenment" attitudes being broadly rightist:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10742/#msg10742
And how Communists tend to consider regular liberalism to be "rightism", I moved Enlightenment-based democracy to rightism to see how things would look.


Here is a very basic outline of rightism I came up with. It is not as fleshed out as the tree of leftism. I am open to criticism on it. Since democracy is such an old ideology, it only made sense if I subdivided Tier 3 democratic political movements into two tiers.


Tier 0. (Temperament)
   - Rightism

Tier 1. (Abstract/general attitudes)
   - (a) Western "Enlightenment" ideas
   - (b) Traditionalist-Tribalism

Tier 2. (Ideological theories)
   - (a) Democracy

   - (b1) Traditionalism
   - (b2) Ethno-tribalism

   -- (c) I think many pre-Marx "Utopian Socialists" would have dashed lines from the Socialism (leftist) and Western "Enlightenment" (rightist) categories, placing them about halfway between.

Tier 3. (Political movements addressing the problems defined by the ideological theories)
   - (b1) Confucianism, Vedicism, Judeo-Christian traditionalism, etc.

   - (b2) White 'Nationalism'/Neo-Nazism
   - (b2) Zionism
   - (b2) others

Tier 3.1 (early democratic political ideologies)
   - (a1) Liberalism
   - (a2) Conservatism

Tier 3.2 (derived democratic political ideologies)
   -- Social Democracy/Progressivism (has dashed lines from Marxism and Democracy categories indicating influence from both. (Maybe 2/3s democracy, 1/3s social consciousness originally deriving from Marxist attitudes?))
   
   - Paleoconservatism (? has dashed lines from Judeo-Christian traditionalism and Conservatism.)
   - Neoconservatism (? derived from Paleoconservatism.)

   - Neoliberalism (has dashed lines from Liberalism and Neoconservatism.)

Tier 4. (Specific implementation of the political movement to govern based on the specific circumstances of a country and time period)
   - Since democratic governments reject strong leadership, the -isms under this category would be derived from specific party platforms, "think tank" ideological platforms, etc.


----

Would this classification make the term "False Left" more difficult to use? I don't necessarily think so. It seems our argument is that ideologies which have been categorized as False Left are built upon shaky and inconsistent ideological foundations to begin with (and hence are not actually truly leftist). I have even seen some Communists call Bernie Sanders a rightist (despite literally being the "far-left" of mainstream US politics), so I don't think we should be afraid to acknowledge some False Left ideologies are closer to rightism than actual leftism.


Further thoughts:
I kind of hastily threw Paleoconservatism and Neoconservatism in there. There may be a more precise way to indicate the dashed lines showing their evolution.

Where would Alt-Rightism fall? Dashed lines from Conservatism, White 'Nationalism', and Judeo-Christian traditionalism? However, the Wikipedia article on Paleoconservatism claims it was an influence on the US Alt-Right (and lists many Alt-Rightists as examples of "Paleoconservatives"). This influence from US-centric Paleoconservatism may not hold true for EU-based identitarian movements.

Circling back to John Locke, maybe we should spend time examining/criticizing him in order to make the particular argument "Enlightenment" democracy is broadly rightist, rather than genuinely leftist?

Should Humanism be included? A Renaissance predecessor of the "Enlightenment" category? Should Marxism be considered influenced by both Humanism and (authentic) Socialism, thereby providing a reason demonstrating why its interpretation of Socialism is poor? e.g. ctrl+F for "Marx" in the following article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

As for Social Democracy/Progressivism being influenced by Marxism, see the very last part of this post. Apparently liberalism only really began to care about 'social liberalism' after actual Socialism arrived on the scene:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10802/#msg10802
I suppose present-day "social liberals" have degenerated into mere Humanists rather than actual Socialists?