National Bolsheviks are fascists in ("Bolshevik") socialist disguise. Great video, comrade. Keep up the good work on debunking these fools. Communism calls for internationalism, connecting the proletariat in solidarity and preserving the internationalism in the workers front. National Bolsheviks are tools, they lie, manipulate, distort facts, racist scums. A what used to be a party until it broke away into a movement because of the argumentation that was normally seen in the leadership, their third-positionist, proto-fascists leaders have nothing in common with socialism or communism, no matter how they present themselves in publicity, people of Russia and abroad can't be deceived and simple-minded about this. This is why the national Bolsheviks attract a lot of the youth, the ones in society that are barely educated in the political and economical sphere, and haven't come to an answer to what is their world-view. These national Bolshevik fellows preach nationalism in a socialist disguised sense. They label Stalin, Mao and Castro to be these wonderful nationalist leaders that situated their focus more on the national pride than that of the construction of a egalitarian socialist workers state. Truth of the matter is that Stalin, Castro and Mao, all three were followers of the application of Marxism, and they stuck to their word of emancipating the workers of their respected nations from the stranglehold's of capitalism. Down with these diabolical, supporters of fascism and national socialism. Two ideologies that were married in the same ideals, warriors of the hierarchical structure of capitalism.The usage of the hammer and sickle flag is to distract you, to make you believe that they are socialists, fighting for a cause to unify the proletariat in the struggle to overthrow the liberal model of Russian capitalism. Their model of a "New World Order" is to proclaim Russia as the new global hegemony. The firm alignment of Europe and Asia (Eurasia) into a new empire ruled by the Russian elitist at the top, similar imitation of the current empire that is ruling the world today, United States of America. Their stance is not against capitalism, but only an angry stance of the western style of capitalism. Covertly do they embrace capitalism, but not the Neo-liberal style economic system of the west. This was originally intended as a response to some anonymous on Youtube, but I decided, why not write my thoughts on it, seeing as I've always wanted to. I copy and pasted the text from one of the Facebook documents I created, so the text is going to look a little disoriented and incompatible with the text format on here. /problem fixed with the text.
We shell fight against one another for the rest of all history, you should see are arguments on Facebook Hoxha vs Maoist, Trotskyist vs Stalinist I can assure you without any doubt nothing is ever going to get done.
Dude, I saq what you wrote and you wrong when you say that the ideals of nationalism and bolshevism are incompatible are not true. But they actually are. If you analyse the stalinist ideal of "socialism in one country", you will see why. National Bolsheviks are against capitalism and the "evil" west. The movement also exists in former republics of the Soviet Union. And fascism and nazism are not capitalist. Enough with such non-sense demagogary.
Fascism is a politcal and ideological movement, capitalism is an economic system. One thing does not excludes the other.
The same happens with socialism, in the nazi case. The economic system of nazi germany became a type of non-marxian socialism in 1936, when the nazi state started controlling the economy indirectly, by de facto, owning the substantive power of property. This controll was made by setting prices, wages, interest rates and what dividends the private owners would receive. Ludwig Von Misses prooved this in his studies and called this system "socialism on the German pattern".
Mr Von Misses forms part of the Austrian school, any little intervention is socialism for him. And I don't know how he "prooved" it, as the Austrian school doesn't use the scientific method (although economy is a social science, but yeah) Nazi Germani was mainly a Keynesian economy.
Nonsense. It is against empirical observation and uses logical analysis, but it does not reject the scientific method. And being the economy a social science, you cannot apply it to empiricism, which is used for the natural branch of sciences. He was an economist and yes, he prooved it. You last phrase is false.
No, it isn't. What you said it's interventionism (mostly Keynesianism), which is still capitalism. I prefer "empicil observation" rather than "logical analysis" when proving a point.
There was no form of nationalism that was ever encouraged or pushed forward by the Bolsheviks, Lenin, and many Bolsheviks rejected nationalism. As for the "Stalinist" "ideal of 'socialism in one country", well, any formal analysis on the theory of "socialism in one country" equating it to the adversary of nationalism is utterly ridiculous, and let's face it, but Stalin was not a nationalist, but factually he was a Marxist-Leninist internationalist. National Bolsheviks are only against the NEO-LIBERAL capitalist model of the west, they would only embrace their own form of capitalism. I know there is movements that exist in other former republics, I do know for certain that many groups exist outside of the former republics, such groups even exist in western countries. (National Socialist) - German Worker's Party was arguably a left-wing party originally that was headed by a guy named Anton Drexler. It displayed many leftist attributes, it certainly rejected the capitalist system, merely because a system of capitalism is only suitable for the rich class while the poor/working class even middle-class have to live and work in misery and disspair. Such a system is completely flawed and worthless in a modern context according to the early Nazis. But, soon, Hitler came along and changed a lot of the policies of the movement, including its official party name. Hitler later on went on to side with the authoritarian conservatives and rightist forces to consolidate even more power to his will. Have you ever heard of Strasserism? or Rohmism? You may understand that both of these factions that existed within the NSDAP were completely opposed to Hitler's right-wing ideals, although they both swore adherence to the 25 point thesis that Hitler and his early young movement introduced exactly during his first public meeting (taken from Mein Kampf). But getting back on to those two factions that I was talking about. Rohm would later on oppose Hitler and bring about the second revolution which unfortunately never happened, but the Strasser brothers were strongly opposed to Hitler, mainly of his betrayal of the party and his loyalty to the right-wingers. Enough is enough, I won't proceed with this. Fascism is a dash of socialism and capitalism another word to call this is corporatism. One point noted is Mussolini expressed along with his party comrades a very anti-Bourgeois trait, even in particular the Falange even openly admitted to the rejection of the capitalist system. Again, I won't continue with all this, I've managed to type up roughly everything, so I'm a little finished as it is. Edit: I usually like to throw the term fascism about to anyone/anything that is remotely violent or aggressive, or just simply in contrast to my views. So, apologies for that, I know the term can be thrown about only for sole meaningless of nothing pretty much, same can go with the term "totalitarianism" such a term shouldn't be applied as it doesn't support any credibility to be applied, and another term that is utterly useless.
Communism,leftism,socialism,marxism,stalinism,lenism. Whats the friggin point to separate them? Just stick to what you think as best for you.
I still openly declare Leninism to be relevant in our day and age, as there is still a great upsurge of imperialism being witnessed as of now, and I recognize the Proletariat to be a class of itself that will be eventfully in the stages of Marxism-Leninism take political power - hence (The Dictatorship of the Proletariat). So, I'm regarded as a Marxist-Leninist. Splitting them up has caused a great deal of argumentation of whom has contributed more to Marxism and whom stands out to be the emulation of the Marxist application. However, many of the terms you've pointed out are just other usable terms that can be applied, however Stalinism doesn't really exist, and it's used as a derogatory in most cases, so.
It is because of demaguoguery, creation of separatist ideologies withine the marxist movement and his fantasious view of the western capitalist democratic world as evil and oppressive, that such movement will never succeded in achieving their goals.
