What the hell is 'Third positionism'?

[Rafiq]

How in hell is it possible that there is a 'Third position'? What do they intend to do with the means of production? If the workers do not control it it is capitalism. If they do, it is Socialism.

What do they plan on doing? Giving workers ownership over the means of production and then give rabbits control over the state or something? What is this?

There, cannot be such a thing as the 'third position'... Can there?

[hatzel]

It's simple, really...the good white aryan workers own the means of production, everybody else gets sent to the gas chambers. It's pretty much just Stalinism, really :rolleyes:

(Okay, that last sentence wasn't needed, sorry...and I'm not claiming this is an entirely accurate representation of the Third Position, but it's sure getting there...)

[GPDP]

Third positionism is basically the closest thing to fascist economics. It basically takes after the class-collaborationist "corporatist" model, wherein top-down "syndicates" (if you can even call them such) of businesses and workers collaborate, with mediation by the state.

While essentially the means of production still remain private, third positionist corporatism is distinct from liberal capitalism (whether laissez-faire or social-democratic) in that it takes aspects of central planning and a bastardized form of syndicalism to manage the economy.

[Nolan]

It's a blanket term for corporatist economics and ultranationalist politics. It's capitalism yes, but it's a "third position" in the sense that it's against liberalism and free market economics.

[Rafiq]

But it's still Capitalism if surplus value is extracted from the labour of workers. So there is no 'third way' with Socialism and Capitalism.

[Nolan]

Third positionism is basically the closest thing to fascist economics. It basically takes after the class-collaborationist "corporatist" model, wherein top-down "syndicates" (if you can even call them such) of businesses and workers collaborate, with mediation by the state.

Fascism is a form of third positionism.

They're called "corporations" from an Italian term meaning guild. Hence corporatism.


While essentially the means of production still remain private, third positionist corporatism is distinct from liberal capitalism (whether laissez-faire or social-democratic) in that it takes aspects of central planning and a bastardized form of syndicalism to manage the economy.

Essentially? Fascist states in fact tended to privatize the means of production. In Germany liberalism involved more direct state ownership than fascism.

Also it doesn't necessarily involve syndicalism. That was a thing of early Italian fascism and to a large extent falangism in Spain.

It's also distinct from liberal capitalism in that it explicitly rejects the enlightenment. It strives for a society like a military barracks rather than individualism.

[Garret]

Third Positionists seem to not like corrupt rich politicians, and think that things would be better of as long as they had leaders concerned with their "nation". Of course, the thing they don't realize is that class is important, and that these leaders have far more in common with each other that the average worker.

[Dimentio]

How in hell is it possible that there is a 'Third position'? What do they intend to do with the means of production? If the workers do not control it it is capitalism. If they do, it is Socialism.

What do they plan on doing? Giving workers ownership over the means of production and then give rabbits control over the state or something? What is this?

There, cannot be such a thing as the 'third position'... Can there?

Basically, their ideals tend to vary from country to country and from time to time, but in the "anti-capitalist/anti-communist" essence (in Europe at least), they tend to want to recreate a caste society where people are given positions and privileges according to their racial background, their gender and their intelligence.

Some of them want to preserve a capitalist structure, some of them want a planned economy, and the most hardcore want a reintroduction of feudalism.

They are actually not pro-capitalist, but their opposition to capitalism is that it is "too progressive". That is also why they call themselves "radical reactionaries" or "conservative revolutionaries", because they want to see a counter-revolution not only against 1968 and 1917, but also against 1789.

[Sasha]

Other 3th positionist currents among others are peronism and khadaffi'ism

[Dimentio]

Third positionism is basically the closest thing to fascist economics. It basically takes after the class-collaborationist "corporatist" model, wherein top-down "syndicates" (if you can even call them such) of businesses and workers collaborate, with mediation by the state.

While essentially the means of production still remain private, third positionist corporatism is distinct from liberal capitalism (whether laissez-faire or social-democratic) in that it takes aspects of central planning and a bastardized form of syndicalism to manage the economy.

Wrong. That was Mussolini's feeble rhetorical attempt to place his movement in "the middle" of Italian politics.

Modern Fascism - Third Positionism - has been more inspired by Ernst Junger, the Strasser Brothers and Julius Evola. The Fascist politician they tend to like the most is Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, who probably was crazier than Hitler.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Problem is, as others in this thread have indicated, it ranges from nationalist fascism, to theocracy, to collectivized militarism, it seems pretty diverse. I think all of them in history have either (1) fallen back into capitalism, be it liberal or oligarchic, (2) stagnate at some arbitrary point of development, or (3) create a totalitarian empire that gets obliterated in a shitstorm of its own creation, due to the contradictions inherent within their state ideology. An example of (1) might be Argentina, (2) perhaps would be modern Libya or Syria, and (3) would obviously be Germany or Japan from WWII.

[syndicat]

I don't think the American Third Position Party (similar to the BNP in UK) is necessarily very clear nor do they use traditional fascist rhetoric. the economic politics they advocate on their website are: a nationalist/protectionist trade regime that would abrogate the "free trade" pacts, merger of the semi-private Federal Reserve into US Treasury dept (this is an attack on the banks). They also talk about "the ruling elite" but are vague as to what that is, and like traditional fascist movements they are big on supporting "small business."

"third position" because supposedly they are neither "capitalist" nor "communist". they're also racist but in somewhat subtle way as far as rhetoric is concerned.

[Dimentio]

Problem is, as others in this thread have indicated, it ranges from nationalist fascism, to theocracy, to some kinds. I think all of them either (1) fall back into capitalism, be it liberal or oligarchic, (2) stagnate at some arbitrary point of development, or (3) create a totalitarian empire that gets obliterated in a shitstorm of its own creation, due to the contradictions inherent within their state ideology. An example of (1) would be Argentina, (2) might be modern Libya, and (3) would obviously be Germany or Japan from WWII.

And those who want to reestablish caste relations on some kind of weird spiritual racial basis?

[SamV]

Basically, it is like the white trash version of national socialism. The cultural revolution would be in favor of the reactionary but they want to stop free trade and tend to have economic positions similar to those of Mike Huckabee oppose to those of Mitt Romney or Ron Paul.

Think of the smelliest, most white trash part of, lets say Arkansas. Now pretend that was the whole untied states. There you go, stromfront would be proud.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And those who want to reestablish caste relations on some kind of weird spiritual racial basis?

They're the ones in the third category, getting their nation destroyed for strange ideologically motivated lies like Nazi Germany did

[Nolan]

Basically, it is like the white trash version of national socialism. The cultural revolution would be in favor of the reactionary but they want to stop free trade and tend to have economic positions similar to those of Mike Huckabee oppose to those of Mitt Romney or Ron Paul.

Think of the smelliest, most white trash part of, lets say Arkansas. Now pretend that was the whole untied states. There you go, stromfront would be proud.

:rolleyes:

And no, that's completely stupid.

Have a negrep.

[Dimentio]

They're the ones in the third category, getting their nation destroyed for strange ideologically motivated lies like Nazi Germany did

Check out Savitri Devi. There we could talk insanity.

[SamV]

:rolleyes:

And no, that's completely stupid.

Have a negrep.


Why? Anyone who seriously likes 3rdP is clearly white trash.

[Dimentio]

"White trash" is a prejudiced statement, which is based on the idea that poor, rural whites somehow are bad people because they are living in trailer parks and have no education.

[hatzel]

Weren't the Nation of Islam kind of a bit third positionist sometimes? White trash! :)

[syndicat]

Basically, it is like the white trash version of national socialism. The cultural revolution would be in favor of the reactionary but they want to stop free trade and tend to have economic positions similar to those of Mike Huckabee oppose to those of Mitt Romney or Ron Paul.

Think of the smelliest, most white trash part of, lets say Arkansas. Now pretend that was the whole untied states. There you go, stromfront would be proud.


this is a very elitist, class biased formulation.

the leader of the American Third Positionists in California is a professor at CSU Long Beach. hardly "white trash."

[SamV]

White trash implies racist god fearing hillbillies and yes there is something wrong with being that reactionary.

[SamV]

this is a very elitist, class biased formulation.

the leader of the American Third Positionists in California is a professor at CSU Long Beach. hardly "white trash."

Right because the rich NEVER get votes from the middle class, THATS for sure.
:laugh:

They are getting taken advantaged of and deserve it for being so reactionary.

[Dimentio]

Right because the rich NEVER get votes from the middle class, THATS for sure.
:laugh:

They are getting taken advantaged of and deserve it for being so reactionary.

They are reactionary because they are taken advantage of. No one deserves to live in poverty and destitution.

You are sounding like Cicero.

"The Mob deserves to be poor because they are loud and they stink!"

Elitist.

[SamV]

The funny part is that I managed to troll revleft into defending the third position party. :cool:

[Dimentio]

No. You didn't.

Those who support the Third Position in America are elitists like Steve Sailer and Kevin McDonald, or the teen trolls from A.N.U.S.

Those living in Ozark, Alabama are mostly trying to survive.

[Nial Fossjet]

What is inherently bad about corporatist economics and class collaborationism? Fascism is evil because of the will to power ideologies, the militarism and authoritarianism, and the use of a scapegoat which leads to racial and religious persecution. But what is inherently bad about the proposed economics system, other for the fact that they are unworkable? I don't quite understand why corporatism is more evil than say capitalism.

[The Douche]

What is inherently bad about corporatist economics and class collaborationism? Fascism is evil because of the will to power ideologies, the militarism and authoritarianism, and the use of a scapegoat which leads to racial and religious persecution. But what is inherently bad about the proposed economics system, other for the fact that they are unworkable? I don't quite understand why corporatism is more evil than say capitalism.

Whats inherently bad? We're communists here, we oppose any economic system which isn't based on working class control of the means of production...

[Nial Fossjet]

Yeah but what makes it worse than capitalism? I know that fascism in general is seen as obviously more evil than capitalism, for the reasons I mentioned (such as war and genocide), but is there something about fascist economics that makes it essentially more evil than capitalism?

[Black_Rose]

Yeah but what makes it worse than capitalism? I know that fascism in general is seen as obviously more evil than capitalism, for the reasons I mentioned (such as war and genocide), but is there something about fascist economics that makes it essentially more evil than capitalism?

Some fascists and those on the American right would say that about communism too.

Just being glib here.
----

Actually, fascist economics can incorporate Keynesianism. I agree with your point though.

http://www.henryckliu.com/page105.html (Nazism and the German economic miracle)

[ZeroNowhere]

Wow, this thread was more dead than a good fascist.

[Rafiq]

Oh shit...

Yeah sorry, this was one of the threads I made during my less knowledgable times...

To answer my own question, Capitalism is not defined by worker's not owning the means of production. (A capitalist system can exist in which the worker's own the means of production, still).

And I think it's quite obvious that 'third positionists' do not understand what exactly capitalism is in the same sense we do. I imagine the more theoretical fascists would understand that Fascism retains the capitalist mode of production and is just a different way of running it, (But rejecting the rhetoric of 'Wild West' capitalism as we see today) without running the Soviet Model (which still ran the CMP).

Back in those days I didn't understand that the Mode of production defines a system, not necessary just ownership over the means of production.

That being said a system in which worker's manage factories can still exist within both Fascism and the capitalist mode of production all together.

I thought our endgoal was just about ownership. It is not. The end goal is for the proletariat to exert it's interests in every last corner of society, bringing about a new mode of production as a whole, and abolishing this one. I didn't understand that capitalism was, no matter which way you ran it, moral or immoral, bound to systematic destruction.

Obviously I am a different person politically then I was in febuary. So I'd appreciate it if the mods put this in the invisible trash, as it represents one of the more.... Dark stages in my quest and hunger for knowledge and theoretical skill.

[Rafiq]

What is inherently bad about corporatist economics and class collaborationism? Fascism is evil because of the will to power ideologies, the militarism and authoritarianism, and the use of a scapegoat which leads to racial and religious persecution. But what is inherently bad about the proposed economics system, other for the fact that they are unworkable? I don't quite understand why corporatism is more evil than say capitalism.

It isn't. In this sense, Neo-Liberalism has no moral authority over Fascism, as it has been responsible for a good number of deaths as well.

The problem we have with Fascism is that it carries the inherit class and systematic contradictions within all capitalist systems. Fascists knew there was a class war, and seeked to stop it. We know today it can never be stopped.

But in reality, Fascism, Like Neo liberalism was a desperate attempt by the Bourgeoisie to retain it's position in class power and destroy the emancipation of the proletariat.

If we are talking about the Fascism proposed by Mussolini, if it truly worked I see no reason why we should be against it, if it was more efficient and provided itself as a solution to the problems put forward by capitalism. But it does not, and never will.

It is better for us to resort to scientific positions against different forms of the rule of capital, rather then moral ones, when necessary.

Fascism is a very muddled word. It is best to know about your enemy as much as possible, lest you should lose a squabble with them.

[CAleftist]

I have my suspicions about those who "warn us" of a "fascism" coming again.

It just seems like a tactic to divert attention from present-day ideologies that are every bit as dangerous as fascism.

[Black_Rose]

I have my suspicions about those who "warn us" of a "fascism" coming again.

It just seems like a tactic to divert attention from present-day ideologies that are every bit as dangerous as fascism.

I would think that there is a realistic concern about the revival of fascism during times of crisis. It seems that many in the US are conditioned to align their belief system with fascism than socialism. Since many people in the United States believe that the poor are parasites (and not victims of the system), the beliefs of most people in the US are congruent with fascism than socialism.

[NewSocialist]

what the fascists meant by “third position“ was a third way between liberal capitalism and socialism. there “solution“ was a authoritarian capitalism and they didnt pretend it wasnt capitalism like the Nazis did. whats worse are the nationalists who attempt to appropriate *our* socialist economics and incorporate them into a bastardized nationalist vision.

[Nial Fossjet]

Isn't that what Peron, Vargas, and other Latin American populists did in the 20th century?


Fascism is a very muddled word. It is best to know about your enemy as much as possible, lest you should lose a squabble with them.

That is very true. I think sometimes people on this forum attempt to label any ideology that half-attempts to synthesize elements of left and right as fascist or third positionist. That's not necessarily true. Just because an ideology may be disagreeable doesn't mean it's fascist.