Otto Strasser

[YugoslavSocialist]

Could Otto Strasser be considered a Left Wing nazi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What is a left-wing nazi?
Is there a left-wing way of hating jews?

[Sasha]

Yes. Not left-wing but indeed on the left-wing of the extreme right. Maybe shit with a taste of steak but still shit..

[Ostrinski]

Perhaps Strasserism is merely a more populist oriented strand in Nazism that is more keen on appropriating the aesthetic, rhetoric, and imagery of the radical left. This wouldn't be the first or last time parts of the far right have done this.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Strasserism is what happens to Nazism when it's supporters realise that they are now being hunted by both the locals and government.

"We aren't necessarily anti-semitic, but-but you can't deny that many of the evil bankers are JEWS! Don't hang us! We don't support Hitler, we just take from his ideas a little! We aren't left or right- please don't jab me with that pitchfork!"

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No he was a Nazi. Once the party had support from the ruling class, he and the other vestiges of the Nazi's 'working class' credibility were no longer needed and they were purged.

[l'Enfermé]

He was in the left-wing of the NSDAP. That doesn't make him "left-wing".

[TheGodlessUtopian]

As Psycho said, yes, but that doesn't make him a revolutionary Leftist, it simply makes him a populist Nazi.

[Nial Fossjet]

Perhaps Strasserism is merely a more populist oriented strand in Nazism that is more keen on appropriating the aesthetic, rhetoric, and imagery of the radical left. This wouldn't be the first or last time parts of the far right have done this.

Could the inverse exist? A strand of Marxism that is keen on appropriating the aesthetic, rhetoric, and imagery of the reactionary right?

[Ostrinski]

Could the inverse exist? A strand of Marxism that is keen on appropriating the aesthetic, rhetoric, and imagery of the reactionary right?No, because the reactionaries necessarily require demagoguery, ideological obfuscation, and the employment of abstract ideals for their political project. The communist project by contrast is an emancipatory one that can only knock down the walls of ideology, not build them back up (not taking into account the codification of Communism as a bourgeois ideology, of course, which has been done but that's another issue).

[Nial Fossjet]

Come, now, there must be some certain strains of revolutionary left thinking that you would label as distasteful and incorrect and thus fit my hypothetical.

[greenjuice]

Otto Strasser was right-wing, but not an extrimist:


In various parts of my Deutsche Revolution and in numerous articles in the international press I have expressed the utmost disapproval of the shameless and inhuman anti-Jewish campaign that has characterized the Hitler System; and I may also mention that as early as 1923 in a party periodical, I protested editorially against antisemitism of the Streicher brand, voicing the war-cry, 'Antisemitism is dead. Long live the idea of the People!'

This advocacy of the idea of the People logically implied the disavowal of any valuation of peoples or nations as good or bad, as better or worse, since they all have equal rights, equal needs, and equal duties, in accordance with the will of the Creator, who gave each of them its own kind, its own nature, and its own tasks. This profound respect for organic life, and the fact that it is necessary for us and incumbent on us to recognize and maintain human dignity, imply that it will be an unconditional part of the social and political organization of New Germany to maintain the equal rights of all human beings.


In accordance with my conviction of the diversity of human beings and of their right to self-determination, I hereby declare myself absolutely opposed to universal military service.

In the first program of the Black Front we demanded that army duty in Germany should be a voluntary affair.

About economy, he says:


To deproletarianize the Germans must therefore be the main task of German socialism.

This deproletarianization is only possible by finding possessions for every German. Nothing but possessions of his own can give that independence of thought and development, that stamp of creative energy, and that experience of the sense of responsibility which can really and truly satisfy a German.

This brings us to two apparently contradictory demands of German socialism:

(1) No German shall any longer have private property in land, the raw materials that lie beneath the surface of the land, and the means of production in general;

(2) Every German shall have possessions in these same things.

...

To make this demand intelligible we must briefly distinguish between 'private property [Eigentum] and possession [Besitz].

To have a thing as one's 'private property' means that one can do what one likes with it can sell it, injure it, or destroy it at will.

To have 'possession' of a thing means usufruct, that one is entitled to use the thing, to exploit it, but subject to the will and supervision of another, the substantial owner, whose 'private property' it is.

The proprietor of the entire German national economy will henceforward be no one other than the community at large, the whole nation. But the nation, or its organizational form the State, will not run this economy itself. It will hand the national economy over, fragmented and in 'entail' (usufruct), for use by German individuals or German groups.

Although he did support a strong state that would intervene in the economy, he also had somewhat of a "libertarian socialist" sentiment:


The fascists and the communists rival one another in glorifying the State, in suppressing economic and personal independence, in unduly extolling power and the successes of organization, of decrees, of planning, and as a last requisite the police.

It is precisely in the economic field that the German socialists deliberately aim at the utmost independence and autonomy of all fit members of the population; and in their system those who do not achieve individual economic autonomy will, by combining to form co-operatives, acquire a considerable measure of that independence which is the only soil where firm characters can grow.

His critique of USSR:


Under private capitalism the State (since the worker who has a complaint to lodge is anyhow subject much like another, being a taxpayer and a soldier) must always be fairly impartial in its attitude towards the employer, and this benefits the worker.

But under State capitalism there is no such impartiality since employer and State are one and the same person, one and the same authority.

I know that the revolutionary Marxians try to invalidate this argument by pointing out that their "State is the proletarian dictatorship, in which there can be no antagonism between employee and State. However, so long as a bureaucracy exists, there is no genuine proletarian dictatorship, but only the rule of a class - the official class, over the great mass of the working people, who are far more effectively subjected to the class dominion of the bureaucracy than today under capitalism where they are subjected to the class dominion of the owners of the means of production.

All quotes are from Strasser's book Germany Tomorrow.

[Ostrinski]

Come, now, there must be some certain strains of revolutionary left thinking that you would label as distasteful and incorrect and thus fit my hypothetical.If you are asking if there is some asshole somewhere that considers him or herself a communist while also harboring socially conservative or reactionary views, without a doubt there is plenty of those out there (we've had the pleasure of interacting with some such people on this very site :ohmy:).

But if you are asking for an example of a concerted effort on the part of communists to consciously appropriate the language and aesthetic of the right then we are at an impasse as I do not recall ever hearing about or reading about such tactics.

[Rurkel]

Greenjuice's post made me wonder: Is Strasserism left-wing in a loose definition of the term, according to which left-liberals are "left-wing"?

[greenjuice]

I do consider Strasser a socialist (as opposed to Lenin and the Bolsheviks which I consider state capitalist) but Strasser that's concerning only the economic field, that's where the progressivness of his ideas is contained, he is a strong nationalist, which is reactionary. I guess he was true to the name of "national socialism" (he considered Hitler and the fascists as the enemies of national socialism) and Strasserites call themselves "revolutionary national socialists".

So, I'd say that Strasserism is left-wing, but only on the economic field; concerning the questions of state and nation (and I think also culture/ morality) Strasser was a right-winger. Basically, he was an early Third Positionist (actually the only real one besides Sorel that I know of).

[Questionable]

I do consider Strasser a socialist (as opposed to Lenin and the Bolsheviks which I consider state capitalist) but Strasser that's concerning only the economic field, that's where the progressivness of his ideas is contained, he is a strong nationalist, which is reactionary. I guess he was true to the name of "national socialism" (he considered Hitler and the fascists as the enemies of national socialism) and Strasserites call themselves "revolutionary national socialists".

So, I'd say that Strasserism is left-wing, but only on the economic field; concerning the questions of state and nation (and I think also culture/ morality) Strasser was a right-winger. Basically, he was an early Third Positionist (actually the only real one besides Sorel that I know of).

Wait, how can you possibly say Strasser was a true socialist while Lenin was a mere "state-capitalist"?

Strasserists were out there beating down workers just like the rest of the Nazis. The only difference is their rhetoric.

The mode of production determines the state functions. You cannot be left-wing in economic matters and right-wing in everything else. Well, you can claim you are, but in practice it'll end up like typical fascism.

[YugoslavSocialist]

Strasserists were out there beating down workers just like the rest of the Nazis. The only difference is their rhetoric.


Actually Strasser supported the workers strikes and unions. It's why he was kicked out of the Nazi party.

[greenjuice]

Wait, how can you possibly say Strasser was a true socialist while Lenin was a mere "state-capitalist"?
In the sphere of economy, I think so. Strasser stood for a classless economy, Lenin was a technocrat.


You cannot be left-wing in economic matters and right-wing in everything else.
There are such thinkers, it's called the Third Position.

[Thirsty Crow]

There are such thinkers, it's called the Third Position.
Don't confuse (fascist) corporatism for communism.

[l'Enfermé]

In the sphere of economy, I think so. Strasser stood for a classless economy, Lenin was a technocrat.


There are such thinkers, it's called the Third Position.
This contradicts everything Lenin wrote on the subject.

[greenjuice]

Don't confuse (fascist) corporatism for communism.
Fascism was for the Third Position what modern social-democracy (welfare capitalism) is for democratic socialism.

Fascism stemmed from national-syndicalism, which was anti-capitalist, and it was basically a watered down version of it, that accepted capitalism.


This contradicts everything Lenin wrote on the subject.
He also wrote "all power to the soviets" and that worked out well. He established a technocratic economy, a rule of managers/ bureaucrats, and even though it was written in the constitution that it was socialism, it was not (afaik, socialism is supposed to "emancipation of the workers" from having bosses, not replacing the boss with another one).

[Ravachol]

Anyone who thinks Strasser advocated a classless society (a classless economy is an impossibility, communism wipes away 'the economy' as an organisational paradigm) should reconsider what they think to be 'classless'. Strasser was a corporatist, even far moreso than the more radical national bolshevik bullshitters like Wolffheim, Niekisch and Laufenberg. None of them, however, were communists.

[Thirsty Crow]

Fascism was for the Third Position what modern social-democracy (welfare capitalism) is for democratic socialism.
Good thing then that socialdemocracy and democratic socialism are practically the same, of course, with the exception of the rhetorical and merely ideological aspects.

So, how does Third Position differ from fascism exactly? Can you provide some evidence that there is continuity between 3P and communism in conceptualizing the classless society, and then that 3P actually advocates it?

[greenjuice]

Anyone who thinks Strasser advocated a classless society
Which no one says he did.


a classless economy is an impossibility
Which, whether true or not, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Strasser did advocate it.


Strasser was a corporatist, even far moreso than the more radical national bolshevik
You didn't even need to read any of Strasser's work, only the parts that I quoted, and you would see that this is not correct.


ood thing then that socialdemocracy and democratic socialism are practically the same, of course, with the exception of the rhetorical and merely ideological aspects.
I don't see how could someone who says that capitalism should not be replaced and one who says that it should have the same attitute to capitalism.


So, how does Third Position differ from fascism exactly?
Original third position (not the modern movement, which is neofascist) is basically just Sorel and Strasser, both were statist, nationalist and anti-capitalist.

[Thirsty Crow]

(on Strasser advocating a classless society):

Which no one says he did.

(on Third Position)


Original third position (not the modern movement, which is neofascist) is basically just Sorel and Strasser, both were statist, nationalist and anti-capitalist.

You seem very confused.
Or you're of the opinion that there's an "anti-capitalism" which does not rest on the advocacy of a classless society. In which case you're letting yourself be fooled by rhetoric and fail to enagage with an understanding of capitalism, common to both sections of anarchism and Marxism, which grasps it in its fundamental dimension of its social relations of production

[greenjuice]

Or you're of the opinion that there's an "anti-capitalism" which does not rest on the advocacy of a classless society.
He advocated a classless economy. There would be no capitalists, a state would exist, but it would not own land, firms and factories and control them, a Strasserite economy would be composed of workers' cooperatives.

[Thirsty Crow]

He advocated a classless economy. There would be no capitalists, a state would exist, but it would not own land, firms and factories and control them, a Strasserite economy would be composed of workers' cooperatives.
So, workers managing capitalist production with a supervisor of a state which would ensure racial purity and progress.

Yeah, a classless economy.

[greenjuice]

If the workers self-manage, it's not capitalism. A classlessness in the sphere of economy, yes.

[Thirsty Crow]

If the workers self-manage, it's not capitalism. A classlessness in the sphere of economy, yes.
That would be the case if capitalism was only a matter of management and by extension, of the legal status of ownership. It isn't though, so we're back to point one: workers' managing capitalist production, while undoubtedly better from the standpoint of distribution of the product than other regimes of accumulation, still represents capitalism.

[greenjuice]

That would be the case if capitalism was only a matter of management and by extension, of the legal status of ownership.
I find defining economic systems from that perspective most fitting. It's about what is it's definition of property, and what can be a commodity. If people can be a commodity- it's slavery, if people are a bonus commodity to land- it's feudalism, if labor can be a commodity- it's capitalism, if only objects can be a commodity, it's a post-capitalist economy.


workers' managing capitalist production
There is nothing there to define it as capitalist. There is no capitalist that is someone's boss and a buyer of his labor.

[Questionable]

Otto Strasser was opportunist scum. Greenjuice claims he was a genuine socialist, but if that's the case, he should have joined a genuine socialist party instead of one that was advocating racial purity and violence against communists. Apparently he saw the problem of antisemitism (If he isn't lying to save face after Nazism became a disaster) and said a few things about it. Great for him, but considering he was still willing to work alongside the Nazi Party, he's just as much guilty by association.

Then after WWII ended he came back to West Germany, a place that was still banning genuine socialist parties, and tried to revive the Nazi Party.

I can't believe we're even speaking to this crypto-fascist about who Strasser was. Notice how he doesn't complain about how a Strasserite state would enforce racial purity, he just tries to apologize by arguing from a flawed definition of what a classless society is.

[Thirsty Crow]

I find defining economic systems from that perspective most fitting. It's about what is it's definition of property, and what can be a commodity. If people can be a commodity- it's slavery, if people are a bonus commodity to land- it's feudalism, if labor can be a commodity- it's capitalism, if only objects can be a commodity, it's a post-capitalist economy.Yes, I'm aware that you consider commodity production as something which would still be with us after capitalism is gone. And you're most certainly wrong with that since the actual practice of generalized commodity production cannot happen if labour power is not a commodity as well - and it is evident that thos would be the case since co-ops function as enterprises, individual units of production.



There is nothing there to define it as capitalist. There is no capitalist that is someone's boss and a buyer of his labor.Of course there is. Workers' coops are isolated economic units competing in the market. Once young Franz's education is over, he will apply for a job with the board of executives responsible for hiring (elected democratically, no doubt) and it is this body that functions as a buyer of labour power. This presupposes that our young Franz would get wages, right? And as a newcomer to the co-op, probably a democratically agreed upon share of profits, and certain rights with regard to the intra-enterprise elections of management, discipline issues and so on.

Which is really a great way to salvage capitalism - make workers its functionaries.



I can't believe we're even speaking to this crypto-fascist about who Strasser was. Notice how he doesn't complain about how a Strasserite state would enforce racial purity, he just tries to apologize by arguing from a flawed definition of what a classless society is.
Suspicious much?

It doesn't matter after all as fascist, crypto or para or whatever, usually can't keep their mouth shut for long, so we'll see.

But it just may be that these erroneous understanding of capitalism is what can actually account for such an attitude to the very broad forces of "anti-capitalism".

[Questionable]

Suspicious much?

Not suspicion, just pointing out exactly what's happening. If greenjuice has an explanation for his behavior, let him speak it.

[greenjuice]

claims he was a genuine socialist, but if that's the case, he should have joined a genuine socialist partyEconomically, he was a genuine socialist, but his other views were right-wing (as I already said) so he couldn't join any party that was enteirly left-wing.

I am not saying that his statism and nationalism aren't reactionary, but his economic views are socialistic.


advocating racial purity
Notice how he doesn't complain about how a Strasserite state would enforce racial purityStrasser was not a racist, he saw nothing wrong with any non-German living in Germany or assimiliting in the German people if one would want to. As I quoted, he was for equal human rights.


And you're most certainly wrong with that since the actual practice of generalized commodity production cannot happen if labour power is not a commodity as well I don't see what are you trying to say- production of commodities would not be possible if a market would consist only of workers' cooperatives (and thus labor would not be a commodity)? Why would workers' coops stop producing after disappearence of capitalist firms?


Workers' coops are isolated economic units competing in the market.So? What's capitalist about that? There have been isolated economic units competing in the market both in feudalism and in slavery, like there have been also communal economic units not competing both in slavery (eg. Sparta) and in feudalism (medieval communes). Existence of competition and market or cooperation and communal economies is not what defines economic systems, otherwise slavey, feudalism, and capitalism would be the same economic system, which they aren't.


and it is this body that functions as a buyer of labour powerNeither that body nor the coop will extract any profit from Franz's labor, that body (or the coop's entire workers' council) will evaluate whether or not to let Franz join a coop, and after joining, he is the same as everyone else- a co-worker that is member of the coop, he is not subordinated to anyone, and that equality and direct democracy defines a coop.


Which is really a great way to salvage capitalism - make workers its functionaries.I don't see how does that "salvage" capitalism when there are no capitalists. It's like a slaves of a farm killing their slaveowner and managing the farm by themselves as equals and you say "yeah, that's salvaging slavery because you are competing on the market against other farms", but there is no slavery if there is no slaveowner, likewise there is no capitalism if there is no boss.

[Questionable]

Economically, he was a genuine socialist, but his other views were right-wing (as I already said) so he couldn't join any party that was enteirly left-wing.

I am not saying that his statism and nationalism aren't reactionary, but his economic views are socialistic.

You're really not making a great apology for the man. He apparently wanted a socialist economy, but he couldn't join any political parties that advocated pesky ideals like anti-racism or internationalism. Am I supposed to respect him for that? You're just admitting that he was scum.


Strasser was not a racist, he saw nothing wrong with any non-German living in Germany or assimiliting in the German people if one would want to. As I quoted, he was for equal human rights.

I'm glad Strasser took the time to write some words on a piece of paper saying he was a great advocate of human equality. In practice, he supported the Nazi Party, lived his life in the West while continuing to oppose the Soviet Union, and then came back to West Germany which had banned actual socialist parties and attempted to revive the Nazi Party.

This anti-Soviet in theory, anti-communist in practice stuff really bores me, and it's probably why YugoslavSocialist proposed the question in the first place. Knowing his obsession with workers' self-management, Strasserism probably intrigued him.

[Geiseric]

Could the inverse exist? A strand of Marxism that is keen on appropriating the aesthetic, rhetoric, and imagery of the reactionary right?

Well Stalinism brought back nationalism and greater russian cheuvanism, or at least made those attitudes acceptable.

[greenjuice]

You're really not making a great apology for the man. He apparently wanted a socialist economy, but he couldn't join any political parties that advocated pesky ideals like anti-racism or internationalism. Am I supposed to respect him for that? You're just admitting that he was scum.
I never was making an apology for him, not did I say he wasn't scum. But he was a civilized scum that wanted a socialist economy.


In practice, he supported the Nazi Party
He did not, he very much disliked them, even before they killed his brother.


lived his life in the West while continuing to oppose the Soviet Union
So? Pannekoek lived in the West while opposing the Soviet Union, does that make him a Nazi?


and then came back to West Germany which had banned actual socialist parties and attempted to revive the Nazi Party
He never supported the "Nazi Party" that is- Hitlerism, so couldn't have supported it's revival.

[Questionable]

I never was making an apology for him, not did I say he wasn't scum. But he was a civilized scum that wanted a socialist economy.

"Civilized scum" is an apology for his actions.


He did not, he very much disliked them, even before they killed his brother.

He was a devoted follower and was dedicated to National Socialist principals even while he lived in the West. The more likely story was that once the Strasserite faction of the Nazi Party was defeated, the opportunist shits that the Strasser Brothers were began trying to appeal to the working-class elements of the Nazis so they could retain their waning power.


So? Pannekoek lived in the West while opposing the Soviet Union, does that make him a Nazi?

Who the fuck is talking about Pannekoek?

Wow, I can't believe how badly you minced what I saying in order to defeat me. I never said opposing the Soviet Union and living in the West made you a Nazi, you dolt, however being a devoted Nazi who also lives in the West and opposes the Soviet Union makes you a pretty shitty socialist.


He never supported the "Nazi Party" that is- Hitlerism, so couldn't have supported it's revival.

Yes, he did. He started the "German Social Union" in 1951, which was viewed as a successor.

[Geiseric]

I never was making an apology for him, not did I say he wasn't scum. But he was a civilized scum that wanted a socialist economy.


He did not, he very much disliked them, even before they killed his brother.


So? Pannekoek lived in the West while opposing the Soviet Union, does that make him a Nazi?


He never supported the "Nazi Party" that is- Hitlerism, so couldn't have supported it's revival.

You can't just seperate and choose the economic and social features of fascism and socialism, that's what we call a "Demagogue,"

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Fascism was for the Third Position what modern social-democracy (welfare capitalism) is for democratic socialism.

Fascism stemmed from national-syndicalism, which was anti-capitalist, and it was basically a watered down version of it, that accepted capitalism.
Go back to socialist failanx, you troll.

[Baseball]

Otto Strasser was opportunist scum. Greenjuice claims he was a genuine socialist, but if that's the case, he should have joined a genuine socialist party instead of one that was advocating racial purity and violence against communists. Apparently he saw the problem of antisemitism (If he isn't lying to save face after Nazism became a disaster) and said a few things about it. Great for him, but considering he was still willing to work alongside the Nazi Party, he's just as much guilty by association.

Then after WWII ended he came back to West Germany, a place that was still banning genuine socialist parties, and tried to revive the Nazi Party.

I can't believe we're even speaking to this crypto-fascist about who Strasser was. Notice how he doesn't complain about how a Strasserite state would enforce racial purity, he just tries to apologize by arguing from a flawed definition of what a classless society is.

Strasser did join a "genuine" socialist party.

Men like Strasser(s), Lenin, Trotsky, ect ect lived in a time where "socialism" its definitions, efforts, movements was not an academic exercise as it is today- there was real belief that "socialism" was in their grasp.

Unfortunately- the "fathers" of socialism never spent much thinking about how a socialist community might actually function, look like, be maintained ect. on a daily basis. Get rid of the "capitalists" and things sort of fall together.

Thus, Socialism at that time became a giant scrum- the weaknesses of socialism thinking was pushed to the forefront- the failures and problems in the USSR were apparent to many in the 20s- and not everyone thought the same way on the way forward.

Then, as now.

[Questionable]

Strasser did join a "genuine" socialist party.

Nazism is not socialism. They stole the term.


Men like Strasser(s), Lenin, Trotsky, ect ect lived in a time where "socialism" its definitions, efforts, movements was not an academic exercise as it is today- there was real belief that "socialism" was in their grasp.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Theory was of extreme importance to Lenin, Trotsky, and other communists. People like Strasser were the ones who embraced the philosophy of Irrationalism.


Unfortunately- the "fathers" of socialism never spent much thinking about how a socialist community might actually function, look like, be maintained ect. on a daily basis. Get rid of the "capitalists" and things sort of fall together.

How many communist works have you read? Lenin alone wrote a whole book about how communism would come about before the revolution happened. And after the revolution, he was writing the book on how communism would come about in a more figurative but direct sense.


Thus, Socialism at that time became a giant scrum- the weaknesses of socialism thinking was pushed to the forefront- the failures and problems in the USSR were apparent to many in the 20s- and not everyone thought the same way on the way forward.

The USSR was extremely popular among many people.

I'm not sure why the fact that people disagreed and debated is a weakness of socialism. The way forward is never clear for any political system.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't see what are you trying to say- production of commodities would not be possible if a market would consist only of workers' cooperatives (and thus labor would not be a commodity)? Why would workers' coops stop producing after disappearence of capitalist firms?

You don't see what I'm trying to say because, apparently, you do not understand how commodity production works and what makes a commodity - exactly that, commodity.

The existence of the market implies that useful objects are being bought and sold, bought as commodities of course since this is the social form objects take when they are produced with the sole purpose of sale, and thus, capital accumulation and profit. And consequently, it is not the management structure of your average capitalist enterprise that makes it capitalist - it is the fact that workers produce, in the first place, value which in turn necessarily expands (not successfully always, of course) due to competition - which you accept as part of a "classless economy". Which is a phenomenon that would, no doubt, shake this projected co-op society to the bone and make all sorts of old muck and dirt real and visible again, without regard for temporary gains in wages and workplace rights.

And that is to leave out one big issue, that such a state of things would also need to be international in scope to offer a semblance of stability.


Men like Strasser(s), Lenin, Trotsky, ect ect lived in a time where "socialism" its definitions, efforts, movements was not an academic exercise as it is today- there was real belief that "socialism" was in their grasp. Fools such as yourself might benefit from what another user posted here, namely, the quote from Adolf himself, explaining the difference between what he calls Marxist socialism and national socialism.

So if you have an axe to grind, feel free and conclude that this represents a genuine socialism and that the NSDAP represented a genuine socialist party. But I won't be making an academic exercise when I'd state that this socialism of yours is nothing but naked and brutal counter-revolution.

[Baseball]

Nazism is not socialism. They stole the term.

Stole it from whom? I thought the "way forward" is never clear?




I'm not sure what you're referring to. Theory was of extreme importance to Lenin, Trotsky, and other communists. People like Strasser were the ones who embraced the philosophy of Irrationalism.

I mean that it was not all theory-- Lenin had concrete responsibilities.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]The existence of the market implies that useful objects are being bought and sold, bought as commodities of course since this is the social form objects take when they are produced with the sole purpose of sale, and thus, capital accumulation and profit. And consequently, it is not the management structure of your average capitalist enterprise that makes it capitalist - it is the fact that workers produce, in the first place, value which in turn necessarily expands (not successfully always, of course) due to competition - which you accept as part of a "classless economy". Which is a phenomenon that would, no doubt, shake this projected co-op society to the bone and make all sorts of old muck and dirt real and visible again, without regard for temporary gains in wages and workplace rights.

This is so-- worker ownership of the means of production is not what defines socialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

[QUOTE=Menocchio;2566204]



This is so-- worker ownership of the means of production is not what defines socialism.
Notice you wrote "means of production".

This, what is common to all social formations, can take on different social forms which form the basis of a specific class rule.

If you said, workers' ownership of capital, then hell yes, that does not define socialism. But one of the core characteristics of socialism - as a global mode of production - is common, workers' ownership of the means of production.

The term capital does not refer only to the physical, palpable means of production. It also refers to the way they are functioning in social production. If they function as commodities which produce commodities with a value greater than the value of the chronologically primary commodities (means of production, including labour power, and cash), then we can talk about capital.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Baseball;2566221]


The term capital does not refer only to the physical, palpable means of production. It also refers to the way they are functioning in social production. If they function as commodities which produce commodities with a value greater than the value of the chronologically primary commodities (means of production, including labour power, and cash), then we can talk about capital.

Well yes. But naturally, a socialist community must deal with capital as well, under those circumstances as you described.

[Questionable]

Stole it from whom? I thought the "way forward" is never clear?

Stolen from the Marxists.

I'm not sure what you're implying here. It's like you're trying to be clever and wise, but you're not, you're just confused. Just because the way forward is unclear at times does not mean we cannot tell reactionary ideas from progressive ones, unless you're a fool. The Bolshevik debate on NEP vs. rapid industrialization does not indicate that Marxian socialists are blind idiots by any means.


I mean that it was not all theory-- Lenin had concrete responsibilities.

Yeah, that's why I said Lenin "wrote the book figuratively" on getting to communism. Did you miss that part? But he still considered theory of the highest importance, and it guided his actions. You act like socialists were just stumbling around like blind-deaf-mutes.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one." http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1


Strasserists using liberal rhetoric to apologise for their disgusting politics? Die pigs.

[Baseball]

I'm not sure what you're implying here. It's like you're trying to be clever and wise, but you're not, you're just confused. Just because the way forward is unclear at times does not mean we cannot tell reactionary ideas from progressive ones, unless you're a fool. The Bolshevik debate on NEP vs. rapid industrialization does not indicate that Marxian socialists are blind idiots by any means.

The NEP vs rapid industrialization was a debate within a specific socialist party; does (did) Bolshevism represent "genuine" socialism?
Must all socialists worship at the altar of Marx?

Is monarchism a reactionary idea? No doubt, which explains why all the socialist parties were hostile to monarchies (including the National Socialists).
Is nationalism reactionary? That isn't so clear- nationalism is quite modern and marched hand in hand with the development of socialism .

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Strasserite Nazism seems like regular Nazism dressed up in leftist jargon and stripped of the blatant anti-Semitism inherent in regular Nazism. There's nothing 'left wing' about it.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Strasser and Rohm were to the left of Hitler. If that makes them leftists, then Bukharin is a rightest for being to the right of Kollontai or whatever.
They're fascists through and through. One of the defining characteristics of Fascism is syncretic politics.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Strasserite Nazism seems like regular Nazism dressed up in leftist jargon and stripped of the blatant anti-Semitism inherent in regular Nazism. There's nothing 'left wing' about it.

It still has the anti-semitism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It still has the anti-semitism.

I could be horrifically wrong about this, I do admit however I always thought Strasserism (in terms of racism/ethnicism) was anti-Semitic but more so in the context of historical European "old fashioned Jew hating' talk as opposed to the 'Jews are below the gnat in the evolutionary line' anti-Semitism of Hitlerite Nazism.

[Questionable]

The NEP vs rapid industrialization was a debate within a specific socialist party; does (did) Bolshevism represent "genuine" socialism?
Must all socialists worship at the altar of Marx?

Marxian Socialism has shown itself to be the most effective not just as an analytical method but as a revolutionary strategy.


Is monarchism a reactionary idea? No doubt, which explains why all the socialist parties were hostile to monarchies (including the National Socialists).
Is nationalism reactionary? That isn't so clear- nationalism is quite modern and marched hand in hand with the development of socialism .

Nationalism can be progressive when it's nationalism against capitalist-imperialist exploitation with the goal of constructing an egalitarian socialist society. Types like James Connolly had the right idea.

[Baseball]

Marxian Socialism has shown itself to be the most effective not just as an analytical method but as a revolutionary strategy.

So says a Marxian socialist. I am neither so your comment demonstrates nothing.




Nationalism can be progressive when it's nationalism against capitalist-imperialist exploitation with the goal of constructing an egalitarian socialist society. Types like James Connolly had the right idea.

Sure. When the objective is to "free" members of a particular ethnic group from foreign control and place them in a single country where they "rule" themselves.
Such was an objective of the National Socialists in Germany less than a generation later.

[Questionable]

So says a Marxian socialist. I am neither so your comment demonstrates nothing.

Then stop talking to me if you're going to reject anything I say without any critical analysis. It's pathetic.


Sure. When the objective is to "free" members of a particular ethnic group from foreign control and place them in a single country where they "rule" themselves.
Such was an objective of the National Socialists in Germany less than a generation later.

Progressive nationalism does not include racism, you silly little man.

All of your posts basically amount to spouting pseudo-wisdom that displays an ignorance of history, Marxism, and the very concept of socialism. It also consists of building strawmen, such as your above quotation where you compare progressive nationalism to reactionary fascist-syle nationalism. If your next post is written in a similar poor style, I'll simply ignore it. Nothing you're saying is a serious criticism of Marxism.

[greenjuice]

"Civilized scum" is an apology for his actions.What actions? He, like many German WWI soldiers joined the Freikorps, and when went with them to fight against the socialists, he got fot the first time acquainted with the socialist ideas, and he left the Freikorps and joined the marxists SDP, you mean that action?

Later he participates with the striking workers in stopping the reactionary Kapp Putsch, was that a bad thing?

Was leaving the party when they didn't support a workers' strike?

His only questionable action was joining NSDAP, which he naively thought was socialist, and he was kicked out of it after calling for worker strikes and revolution to abolish capitalism too many times.


He was a devoted follower and was dedicated to National Socialist principals even while he lived in the West.The problem is that you conflate National-Socialism with Hitlerism, whereas for Strasser that were two opposite things, he considered Hitler to be a traitor of both nationalism and socialism.

E.g. he never supported the Hitlerite 25 point programme, the northern section of the party where he was a leading figure had it's own non-racist, non-furher principe program, which was supported by the SA, whose members were working class. That's the reason why Hitlerite faction killed so many NSDAP and SA members in the Night of the Long Knives, including Strasser's brother.


The more likely story was that once the Strasserite faction of the Nazi Party was defeated, the opportunist shits that the Strasser Brothers were began trying to appeal to the working-class elements of the Nazis so they could retain their waning power.Strasser was consistent economic socialist troughtout his whole political life, he advocated the establishment of economy consisting of workers' cooperatives with state ownership of major industries- before joining NSDAP, after joining it, and being kicked out of it.


You can't just seperate and choose the economic and social features of fascism and socialism, that's what we call a "Demagogue,"I agree that it is inconsistent to do that, but both Sorel and Strasser did that- they were economicaly libertarian socialists, but on the national question were both reactionary. We surely are not going to agree with them, but they advocated what they advocated, I don't see the point of denying the facts.


The existence of the market implies that useful objects are being bought and sold, bought as commodities of course since this is the social form objects take when they are produced with the sole purpose of sale, and thus, capital accumulation and profit.
Selling and capital acuumulation are not connected. Let's say I'm an artisan. I can make things in order to sell them, and then burn all the money I use. Also, I could use all that money just to buy stuff to use. Also, I can use that money to improve my own production. The fact that I'm making things for sale doesn't mean that there's any capital involved, capital is produced by the social relation of alienation (transfer of the title) of labor, that is- having an employee. Without there being an employee, there cannot be any profit (in the classical economy sense of "part of the earnings that the employer takes").


it is the fact that workers produce, in the first place, value which in turn necessarily expands (not successfully always, of course) due to competition - which you accept as part of a "classless economy".I have already explained that it is not competition that makes capitalism, because that would mean that feudalism and slavery were capitalist, and they weren't, they are three different economic systems, differentiated by different notion of property (what can be property) and the social relations that are the consequence of that particular notion.


Strasserite Nazism seems like regular Nazism dressed up in leftist jargon and stripped of the blatant anti-Semitism inherent in regular Nazism. There's nothing 'left wing' about it.
Did you read the quotes from Strasser I posted? Strasser advocated abolition of capitalism and in general of an economic class that would be above the workers and he wanted an economy that would consist only of workers, that would be self-managed. That's socialism.


It still has the anti-semitism.
Strasser was neither anti-semite nor racist, he had nothing against any non-German living in Germany, or any non-German assimilating into German people if he would want to.

[Questionable]

What actions? He, like many German WWI soldiers joined the Freikorps, and when went with them to fight against the socialists, he got fot the first time acquainted with the socialist ideas, and he left the Freikorps and joined the marxists SDP, you mean that action?

Later he participates with the striking workers in stopping the reactionary Kapp Putsch, was that a bad thing?

Was leaving the party when they didn't support a workers' strike?

His only questionable action was joining NSDAP, which he naively thought was socialist, and he was kicked out of it after calling for worker strikes and revolution to abolish capitalism too many times.

I don't care what Otto Strasser said about racism in his personal memoirs, joining the NSDAP was more than "naive," it was fucking betrayal to the working class, and if you think it's anything except that, you're fucking scum, too.


The problem is that you conflate National-Socialism with Hitlerism, whereas for Strasser that were two opposite things, he considered Hitler to be a traitor of both nationalism and socialism.

Wow, it's like I'm actually on Stormfront! Or Iron March! Or Socialist *******! Or any of the other fascist forums where everyone cries "LOL NAZISM IS FINE EXCEPT WHEN ITS HITLER"

Mods, please ban this fucking Nazi apologist already.


E.g. he never supported the Hitlerite 25 point programme, the northern section of the party where he was a leading figure had it's own non-racist, non-furher principe program, which was supported by the SA, whose members were working class. That's the reason why Hitlerite faction killed so many NSDAP and SA members in the Night of the Long Knives, including Strasser's brother.

Yeah, he depended on the working class to keep his power in the NSDAP, the opportunist fuck.


Strasser was consistent economic socialist troughtout his whole political life, he advocated the establishment of economy consisting of workers' cooperatives with state ownership of major industries- before joining NSDAP, after joining it, and being kicked out of it.

You've already proven throughout this topic that your views of socialism suck ass, so I don't really care if you think Strasser was a "genuine socialist." I also noticed you don't really care that he hid in the West like a coward throughout his whole lifetime. You're fucking Nazi apologist scumbag and I sincerely think you should consider another forum where you'll fit in more with your Strasserite buddies, like Iron March.

Welcome to greenjuice's world, where joining racist parties is fine as long as you complain about it a few times, and hiding in the West while maintaining an anti-Soviet stance makes you a "consistent economic socialist" your whole life.

[fabian]

what Otto Strasser said about racism in his personal memoirs
His manifesto of Strasserism, not personal memoirs.


LOL NAZISM IS FINE EXCEPT WHEN ITS HITLER"
Nazism is Hitlerism. Strasserism is anti-hitlerist, non-racist, non-violent nationalism that wants a LibSoc economy.


You're fucking Nazi apologist scumbag
No one expressed any support neither for Nazism (Hitlerism) nor for Strasserism, no need to go histerical over facts being presented.

[#FF0000]

Nazism is Hitlerism. Strasserism is anti-hitlerist, non-racist, non-violent nationalism that wants a LibSoc economy..

Er, what? Stasserism is still plainly anti-semitic, and to say it wants a "libsoc" economy is pretty laughable since their criticism of capitalism was specifically of "jewish finance capitalism". Unless you think yellow "guild socialism" is somehow "LibSoc".

[Questionable]

His manifesto of Strasserism, not personal memoirs.


Nazism is Hitlerism. Strasserism is anti-hitlerist, non-racist, non-violent nationalism that wants a LibSoc economy.


No one expressed any support neither for Nazism (Hitlerism) nor for Strasserism, no need to go histerical over facts being presented.

Oh look, another Strasserite. I'm glad you guys keep revealing yourselves.

Like the above comrade said, Strasser's "socialism" had nothing to do with Marxian socialism, and regardless of what the man himself may have said, actions speak louder than words, and aligning with a party that was embroiled in racism from the start speaks pretty goddamn loud.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Oh look, another Strasserite. I'm glad you guys keep revealing yourselves.

Like the above comrade said, Strasser's "socialism" had nothing to do with Marxian socialism, and regardless of what the man himself may have said, actions speak louder than words, and aligning with a party that was embroiled in racism from the start speaks pretty goddamn loud. A Strasser apologist definitely, but that's not the same as being a strasserite, bro. He said pretty clearly that he's not into Strasser.
I mean, he's got a really confused view of the guy and is looking at him from a very narrow amount of material, but why not deal with that rather than accusing him of strasserism?

[Crux]

His manifesto of Strasserism, not personal memoirs.


Nazism is Hitlerism. Strasserism is anti-hitlerist, non-racist, non-violent nationalism that wants a LibSoc economy.


No one expressed any support neither for Nazism (Hitlerism) nor for Strasserism, no need to go histerical over facts being presented.
Haha. No, there is no such thing as a non-racist and non-violent strasserite. And yes they exist in real life. They're called nazis. And yes there are nazis that have some kind of pretension of being "non-racist". But it's wholly superficial.

[Questionable]

A Strasser apologist definitely, but that's not the same as being a strasserite, bro. He said pretty clearly that he's not into Strasser.
I mean, he's got a really confused view of the guy and is looking at him from a very narrow amount of material, but why not deal with that rather than accusing him of strasserism?

Me and several others have already explained over and over why Strasserism is crap in this thread. If people want to keep showing up and saying "NO, HITLERISM IS BAD, NOT NAZISM" then I don't feel like wasting my time on them anymore.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Did you read the quotes from Strasser I posted? Strasser advocated abolition of capitalism and in general of an economic class that would be above the workers and he wanted an economy that would consist only of workers, that would be self-managed. That's socialism.

No, Strasserism is Corporatist/Fascist/Third Positionist bullshit. Mussolini also was a Syndicalist before he became a Fascist and advocated the so called Third Position or 'Alternative' so what's you're point?

"This conflict must not be allowed to cancel out all our achievements of the past eighteen years, nor, more importantly, extinguish the hope of a Third Alternative held out by Fascism to mankind fettered between the pillar of capitalist slavery and the post of Marxist chaos. The proponents of these obsolete doctrines must understand that the Fascist sword has been unsheathed twice before, in Ethiopia and in Spain, with known results."- Benito Mussolini.

In practice there is really nothing that distinguishes capitalism from Third Positionism. I also find it funny that there also seems to be hints of subtle or not so subtle racial separatist views in some of the quotes posted like talking about the the "diversity of humanity and the right to self-determination," or independence or some shit. That's akin to white nationalists saying "I'm not racist, I don't believe minorities are subhumans, I just believe in the right to live separately to preserve the diversity of cultures and peoples and believe we can't all play nice."

[o well this is ok I guess]

Me and several others have already explained over and over why Strasserism is crap in this thread. If people want to keep showing up and saying "NO, HITLERISM IS BAD, NOT NAZISM" then I don't feel like wasting my time on them anymore. I get that. But still, fabian only made a single post, and it involved him saying that he's not a strasserite, so I don't think he need to be straight up banned yet.

@fabian: the fact is that he joined up with the NSDAP. Of all actual socialist parties he could have signed up for, he chose one that was not socialist and straight up racist. I mean, it speaks volumes about his priorities. And as Questionable said, he was a pretty racist guy. Whether or not his made it known in his manifesto is completely irrelevant.

[Sasha]

Also, I assume the quotes given here are by Otto strasser and written post WW2, one should consider he had a distinct incentive to greenwash his relationship with Nazism considering the Nuremberg judges really didn't care that much for the finer points of the SS vs SA hairsplitting.

[fabian]

Stasserism is still plainly anti-semitic
That's a myth. If you were to read the Germany Tomorrow, which was already mentioned, you would see that Strasser had nothing against non-Germans (Jews, Africans, whatever) living in Germany as a national minority or assimilating in the German people.


and to say it wants a "libsoc" economy is pretty laughable since their criticism of capitalism was specifically of "jewish finance capitalism".
What is laughable is that on a topic that is both contraversial and not well known, your sourse of info is wikipedia.


Oh look, another Strasserite. I'm glad you guys keep revealing yourselves.
As said, no one here supports Strasser.


actions speak louder than words, and aligning with a party that was embroiled in racism from the start speaks pretty goddamn loud.
When Strasser was in NSDAP, the party was a populist politicant party and had all sorts of people in it. The north and the south sections were totally different, they had different views about racism, anti-semitism, fuhrer-principle, economy, they had their own programs and they had their own paper, the southern section published Beobachter, the nothern published The National Socialist, the northern section had SA, the southern SS, and that was the situation all until 1934. and only in that year the Hitlerist (southern) side prevailed and the NSDAP became homogenous- after the Night of the long knives, long after Strasser was expelled from the party.

So even years after Strasser's expulsion from the party there were people in the NSDAP who were not racist, non imperialist, and against furhrer-principe and against capitalism, and that's why their leaders werel killed in the Night of the long knives, including Strasser's brother Gregor.


there is no such thing as a non-racist and non-violent strasserite.
Maybe not, but Strasser espoused a non-racist and non-violent ideology.

Maybe today's strasserites are just Nazis, Hitlerists, that use Strasser's name to avoid using Hitler's, I don't know any strasserites, but quotes were given from Strasser's manifesto, and it's available online to be read, and it's clear from it that Strasser was non-racist, non-violent and anti-imperialist.


No, Strasserism is Corporatist/Fascist/Third Positionist bullshit
He was a third positionist (mix between right and left), yes, because he was a nationalist, but he was for a LibSoc economy, not corporatism/ fascism.


And as Questionable said, he was a pretty racist guy.
And Questionable knows that from where, wikipedia?


Also, I assume the quotes given here are by Otto strasser and written post WW2, one should consider he had a distinct incentive to greenwash his relationship with Nazism
Actually, no, the quoted writing from Strasser's manifesto is not post-ww2.

[Luís Henrique]

Greenjuice's post made me wonder: Is Strasserism left-wing in a loose definition of the term, according to which left-liberals are "left-wing"?

He was a fascist. As such, he was a right-winger - much to the right of even conservative liberals. Of course, he can be considered a different critter when compared to Hitler, but saying that he was a left-wing Nazi is similar - only more ridiculous - than saying that Winston Churchill was a left wing Tory (cause compared to Halifax or Chamberlain, etc...).

His tendency lacked a correct comprehension of what was going on in Germany, and of what the role of the Nazi party was. There is not much more about him than that.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Wait, how can you possibly say Strasser was a true socialist while Lenin was a mere "state-capitalist"?

The things you read here... :rolleyes:

But both myths, that Lenin was a cappie, and that Strasser was some kind of socialist, are rampant here. It would be only a matter of time until some newby would juxtapose them and spout a gem like that.


Strasserists were out there beating down workers just like the rest of the Nazis. The only difference is their rhetoric.

Or their delusions about who would have what jobs under a Nazi administration.

Luís Henrique

[Sasha]

Actually, no, the quoted writing from Strasser's manifesto is not post-ww2.

But still after his flight from Germany into allied protection.

[fabian]

He was a fascist.
If you would consider a non-racist, non-anti-semitic, non-violent, anti-imperialist nationalist a fascist, then yes, he was a fascist.


But both myths, that Lenin was a cappie, and that Strasser was some kind of socialist
And those are myths why? Under Lenin industrial workers in Russa were all employees of the state with a bureaucrat class ruling over them, and peasants were treated no better then serfs; and Strasser advocated worker self-managment- so who's the cap and who's the soc?


But still after his flight from Germany into allied protection.
Still no, Aufbau des deutschen Sozialismus (which is the formulated manifesto of Strasserism, and which constitutes the third part [out of three] of the book Germany Tomorrow, and from which the parts quoted on this topic are from) was published in 1931, and Strasser left Germany in 1933.

[Luís Henrique]

If you would consider a non-racist, non-anti-semitic, non-violent, anti-imperialist nationalist a fascist, then yes, he was a fascist.

Strasser was racist, he believed in the superiority of the Aryan race.
Strasser was antisemitic, he believed that the world was secretely controled by a Jewish conspiracy.
Strasser was violent, took part in organised violence against communists, socialdemocrats, conservatives and liberals.
Strasser was imperialist, he believed Germany needed to subdue other countries in order to fulfill its manifest destiny.


And those are myths why? Under Lenin industrial workers in Russa were all employees of the state with a bureaucrat class ruling over them, and peasants were treated no better then serfs; and Strasser advocated worker self-managment- so who's the cap and who's the soc?Russia was a very underdeveloped country in 1917, and its economy suffered badly from the Great War and then the civil war. In such conditions, it would be impossible for anyone to retaion power in Russia without fiercely stimulating economic growth, which is only possible through disempowering workers. This, and not Lenin's ideas, is what lead to the result you describe. Strasser never questioned capitalism; his supposed "worker self-management" was still to take place within a market economy - and under a dictatorial State.

So yes, Lenin was the socialist, albeit a failed one; and Strasser was a fascist. Albeit a failed one, at that.


Still no, Aufbau des deutschen Sozialismus (which is the formulated manifesto of Strasserism, and which constitutes the third part [out of three] of the book Germany Tomorrow, and from which the parts quoted on this topic are from) was published in 1931, and Strasser left Germany in 1933.Strasser lost his bid for the party leadership in 1926 - when the Nazis had already a long history of street battles against communists and social-democrats - but remained a member of the NSDAP up to 1930 - when the Nazi history of violent repression of communists and social-democrats grew longer even worse. The final remains of his tendency were uprooted in 1933, with the murder of his brother Gregor, along with Roehm, Heines, et caterva - alten kampferer who took integral part in the NSDAP street harassing of the left (arguably, even, those who, as SA staff, indeed directed and performed the brawls, as opposed to Hitler's much more armchairish style of direction).

Luís Henrique

[fabian]

Strasser was racist, he believed in the superiority of the Aryan race.
Strasser was antisemitic, he believed that the world was secretely controled by a Jewish conspiracy.
Strasser was violent, took part in organised violence against communists, socialdemocrats, conservatives and liberals.
Strasser was imperialist, he believed Germany needed to subdue other countries in order to fulfill its manifest destiny.
I've read Strasser's works, and found none of those views. If you can substantiate you claims, do so.

It is obvious from his manifesto that he wasn't a racist, he wasn't anti-semitic, he wasn't for any sort of violent treatment of national or sexual minorities, and was anti-imperialist.


Russia was a very underdeveloped country in 1917, and its economy suffered badly from the Great War and then the civil war. In such conditions, it would be impossible for anyone to retaion power in Russia without fiercely stimulating economic growth, which is only possible through disempowering workers. This, and not Lenin's ideas, is what lead to the result you describe.
As was alread quoted, Strasser wrote:
"I know that the revolutionary Marxians try to invalidate this argument by pointing out that their "State is the proletarian dictatorship, in which there can be no antagonism between employee and State. However, so long as a bureaucracy exists, there is no genuine proletarian dictatorship, but only the rule of a class - the official class, over the great mass of the working people, who are far more effectively subjected to the class dominion of the bureaucracy than today under capitalism where they are subjected to the class dominion of the owners of the means of production."

Class dominating over another class vs. worker self-managment. Meaning- Lenin was a cap, and Strasser was a soc, unless you can prove otherwise. "Lenin had to establish state capitalism because he wanted to build factories" (so he could remain in power?!) is not an argument.


Strasser never questioned capitalism; his supposed "worker self-management"
Worker self-management means that there is no class ruling over workers in the economy, thus it cannot be capitalism, because there are not capitalists.


Strasser lost his bid for the party leadership in 1926 - when the Nazis had already a long history of street battles against communists and social-democrats - but remained a member of the NSDAP up to 1930 - when the Nazi history of violent repression of communists and social-democrats grew longer even worse.
He joind in 1925, and the Bamberg conference in '26 was far from establishing a monolithic ideology of the NSDAP, the opposition between the nothern and southern section continued up until 1934, as I mentioned.

Also, I never said Strasser was a communist or that he wasn't a nationalist. He was a strong nationalist, and in line with that, oppossed marxist and other leftist organisations, he was reactionary, but there is no need in adding to it and saying that he was something that he wasn't.

[Questionable]

Okay, let me give a few points to fabian; he's right, I've never touched Otto Strasser's "Germany Tomorrow." For this I am not ashamed, as I don't make it a habit of mine to dig into fascist texts, so fabian can laugh and call me ignorant all he wants. It's like a Christian calling me ignorant for not reading the bible.

However, for the sake of this argument, I did in fact dig up an online full text of an English translation of "Germany Tomorrow" to see what kind of brand of anti-racism and "Libertarian Socialism" Otto Strasser had in mind. The results, I think, don't speak very well in fabian's favor, or any Strasserite scum (And I know fabian will deny he's one of those bootlickers, but the fact that he possesses so much knowledge about Strasser and is so ardently defending him casts much suspicion on him).


In various parts of my Deutsche Revolution and in
numerous articles in the international press I have
expressed the utmost disapproval of the shameless and
inhuman anti-Jewish campaign that has characterized
the Hitler System; and I may also mention that as early
as 19283 in a party periodical, I protested editorially
against antisemitism of the Streicher brand, voicing the
war-cry, 'Antisemitism is dead. Long live the idea of
the People! 5

So, in this particular book, it appears true that Strasser expresses opposition to the Nazi party's anti-semitism. Whether or not he actually opposed it or if he's just trying to save face after he got kicked out of Nazi Germany, that's an argument for later. For our purposes, I'll take everything Strasser is saying at its word.

However, shortly after that passage, he has this to say:


This advocacy of the idea of the People logically
implied the disavowal of any valuation of peoples or
nations as good or bad, as better or worse, since they
all have equal rights, equal needs, and equal duties, in
accordance with the will of the Creator, who gave each
of them its own kind, its own nature, and its own tasks.
This profound respect for organic life, and the fact that
it is necessary for us and incumbent on us to recognize
and maintain human dignity, imply that it will be an
unconditional part of the social and political organiza-
tion of New Germany to maintain the equal rights of all
human beings.

Yet this fundamental principle of equality must not be
considered to invalidate the organic law that the peoples
and nations are fundamentally different, with the result
that they urgently need differences in their social and
political institutions a fact which every government
is bound to take into account.

So here we see what is essentially the "Separate But Equal" doctrine, which I don't feel I need to explain is anti-worker in nature because it allows the bourgeoisie to draw up lines of national and/or racial division between the proletariat. But let's continue. Otto Strasser says in a paragraph that the only solution to these natural differences between peoples will be the foundation of a United States of Europe (Those familiar with Lenin will recognize this slogan, btw). The then advocates this as a temporary solution:


But since this desirable joint solution will need time
to achieve. New Germany will have meanwhile to set
to work by herself to solve the problem of national
minorities (and therewith the Jewish problem) in that
modern spirit which will pay due regard both to the
organic laws of ethnical differences and to the moral
laws according to which all human beings have equal
rights. Politically considered there are three alternative
solutions:

(1) Persons of different racial origin from the majority
may be described as foreigners.

(2) Groups of persons of various racial stamps may be
deemed to constitute national minorities.

(3) Persons belonging to different stocks may be in-
corporated into the main body of the nation by assimila-
tion.

All three methods are equally possible and equally
honourable, with the urgent proviso that every adult
person of another stock than that of the majority must
himself or herself have full right to decide which method
to adopt.

So, Jews (And another minorities) must either be treated as foreigners because they're naturally different, or they must be completely assimilated into German culture. Gee, that's some fine anti-racism you have there, fabian! For anyone with the patience to read it, Germany Tomorrow spends a shitload more time discussing race and how important it is, much more than I can afford to copy+paste here. Strasser may not of been a racist in the sense that he hated other races (Although he certainly joined a party that did), but he clearly valued it heavily and considered it important in his formulation of "German Socialism." (In the chapter "The Construction of German Socialism," he spends several paragraphs ranting about European ancestry).

Although, despite all his talk about races being equal yet different, I did stumble upon this interesting passage on Marxism:


It also seemed indispensable to begin Part Three by a
clear statement of the philosophical foundations of Ger-
man socialism, that we might thus early explain the
internal and fundamental opposition of German social-
ism to international Marxism a matter to which
allusion will frequently have to be made in the sequel.
For us National Socialists, of course, there is no question
of Marxism being an invention of c the Jew Marx 5
specially designed to lead the German workers into error
or even into poverty.

So Strasser was an incredibly anti-racist champion, but I guess he wasn't above using ethnic slurs whenever he pleased!

Furthermore, Strasser cleary had no idea what in fuck's name he was talking about when he criticized Marxism, as evidenced by this:


Marxism, with its unhistorical way of looking at things,
is further inclined to describe all earlier economic
systems as capitalist, or at least quasi-capitalist, with
which socialism is contrasted as something entirely new.

Thus the Marxians fail to recognize that capitalism is
ideologically linked with liberalism, prior to the dominion
of which there was an entirely different economic system
ideologically akin to socialism, though of course differing
from socialism in form.

...and many other rants in the book's pages that are cumbersome to read.

Now for the most critical part of this post; refuting fabian's claims that Strasserism is "Libertarian Socialism" with his idol's own words. Earlier above, user ##FF0000 said this:


Er, what? Stasserism is still plainly anti-semitic, and to say it wants a "libsoc" economy is pretty laughable since their criticism of capitalism was specifically of "jewish finance capitalism". Unless you think yellow "guild socialism" is somehow "LibSoc".

The cowardly fabian cut out the emboldened bit and only responded to the rest, probably because he knew it was true. Let's look at what Strasser's vision of "socialism" means. Note that copy+pasting the entire text would prove very cumbersome, so I have merely done so to the most significant parts. If any users wishes to go over the text themselves to see if I was being dishonest, I will post it at the end of this:


The feelings of the masses turned away more and more
from the capitalist economic forms of industrialization,
the tentacular towns, and manufacturing technique, and
made the dispossessed more and more insistent In their
demand for new forms.

Therein a genuinely conservative repudiation found
utterance a repudiation of the tendency to overvalue
the technical and other recent acquirements of civiliza-
tion. Herein we have an important distinction from
Marxism, which in these matters, likewise^ shows its
mental kinship to liberalism. (We see signal examples of
this in Russia, where Marxist panegyrics on industrial
development are in high favour, and where the recent
'Stakhanoff Movement 5 reminds us so much of certain
features of early-liberal capitalism.)

[...]

Arising very urgently out of the collapse of world
economy, world trade, and the gold standard, come the
demands of German socialism for autarchy, a State
monopoly of foreign trade, and a currency standard of
our own.

. Autarchy

Autarchy, self-sufficiency, I.e. adequate domestic
sources for the supply of raw materials, is a necessary
antecedent to the satisfaction of the main demand of a
socialist national economy the safeguarding of the
food, clothing, and shelter of the community. It is also
the necessary antecedent to national freedom and popu-
lar cultural development, as Is plainly shown to the Ger-
man people by the Issue of the world war. With regard
to food-supply, autarchy must be absolute, w r hereas in
the case of our minimal cultural requirements it can be
and will be relative. We already have the bulk of the
conditions. With the necessary improvements, our agri-
culture and stock-raising could supply a sufficiency of
food for the German people. The most important raw
materials that are lacking (cotton, oil, and rubber), can
in part be replaced by such substitutes as artificial silk
and flax and in part by synthetic products.

[...]

European autarchy, however, is here deliberately ad-
vocated as the necessary economic policy of German
socialism, since this is essential to the maintenance of the
level of European culture and civilization, and can be
shown to be possible If there is a suitable adjustment of
agricultural and industrial capacities for production and
consumption. Nothing but the establishment and safe-
guarding of European autarchy can make It safe to carry
on a luxury-trade with other parts of the world without
endangering the existence of Europe. For the very
reason that European autarchy Is an aim of German
socialism, and for the very reason that extant political
and economic data are still obstacles to the reaching of
this aim, the national autarchy of German socialism is
an indispensable antecedent thereto.

Wow, good thing that awesome European autarchy exists to protect the superior European culture!


B. State Monopoly of Foreign Trade

So far as import of raw materials or luxuries seems
necessary or desirable, the German people will export
some of its own wares in exchange for the requisites,
exporting the produce either of a natural monopoly
(potash, chemicals) or of an artificial monopoly (electro-
plate, expensive machinery, etc.).

The exchange will not be effected in accordance with
the arbitrary wishes of the individual producers, but in
accordance with a plan drafted to suit the needs of the
State, and this will involve the existence of a State
monopoly of foreign trade. Such a State monopoly will
not (as does the Russian) aim at itself conducting the
foreign trade, but will merely supervise, and give licences
for export to such persons as may need them.

[...]

C. A Currency Standard of Our Own
Abandonment of the international gold standard will
be an essential preliminary to autarchy, for so long as the
foreign world can have any influence on our currency
(which is the 'blood 5 of economic life), no really inde-
pendent national economy is possible. As regards the
practicability of our having a currency standard of our
own, it might be enough to point to the German renten-
mark or to the Russian chervonets. But so great is the
interest taken in currency questions that it seems ex-
pedient to make a few general remarks upon the problem
of money and the problem of the gold standard.

I feel it important to mention that after saying this, Strasser spends a lot of them saying the exact same thing that Marx, about money being the money-commodity, a means of exchange, measure of value, etc. For someone who renounced Marxism, he sure does seem to hold its theories on money highly. However, he ultimately does not advocate the abolition of currency.


It is necessary here to remind the reader of the differ-
ence between the immediate national aim in these
matters, and the ultimate aim of the United States of
Europe.

However urgent it may be for German socialism to
establish a currency of its own, this must be supple-
mented by establishing, within the European economic
system we aspire to (brought about no matter how), a
supra-national currency available throughout the joint
region.

Various practical considerations seem to indicate that
the stable Swiss franc can and will become the supra-
national currency, this giving new tasks to a Swiss bank-
ing system, under general European control.

Continued later on, Strasser speaks on how the abolition of private property and creation of a planned economy will be necessary for German Socialism, however when he begins to contrast these demands with the Marxian demands, he goes back to talking about the unique ethnic identity of German people.


This difference is based upon our (conservative) view
of the nature of (German) human beings.

Biological and historical experience precludes the
possibility of any change in human nature, and even of
an intention to change it. Our political task is therefore
to study human nature as it actually exists in its German
stamp, and to allow for that nature in our economic and
social institutions. We must not try to force an economic
theory upon Germans, but, on the contrary, we must
deduce an economic theory from the nature of Germans,
and, more particularly, we must then formulate an
economic system under which Germans can live and
develop. (If, in what follows, we deal exclusively with
^Germans 5 , this is merely to restrict our field, and not
from any overweening presumption.)

After harshly renouncing the Marxists, Strasser then goes on to parrot their demands by asking for independence of thought and creativity amongst people to foster their growth.

But I've gotten carried away. My goal was to prove that Strasserism was not genuine socialism but guild socialism as ##FF0000 called it, and I will do so.


A. The Guild (or Corporation)

Handicraft enterprises, small shops, and also the liberal
professions, will therefore be incorporated into guilds.

The State will grant the guilds certain rights over their
members, and in return the guilds will undertake to
collect from their members the contributions which will
make up the lump sum due from each guild in the way
of taxes to the State.

They will allot the right to practise a petty industry or
trade by conceding to suitable persons the title of
'master', which can only be acquired by one who gives
definite undertakings. The guild will insist upon work
of a certain quality, and in that case will guarantee sup-
port to the guildsmen. It will decide how many appren-
tices each guildsrnan may take, etc.

These regulations will renaer it impossible for the

guildsman to pursue his own interests ruthlessly, to make
an improper use of his economic freedom, for he will

have to subordinate his interests to the needs of the com-
munity.

It will be obvious that one who is employed in such a
petty enterprise is not entitled to any share in its posses-
sion, profits, or management. Though apparently dis-
advantaged as compared with the members of the work-
ing staff of a great enterprise, this is because the position
of the former as employed members is different. In
reality they are nothing more than apprentices or pupils
who know that in due time, when they have given
proof of competence, they will become independent
masters.

This presupposes that the possibilities for such ad-
vancement have been duly considered by the guild and
the administration, working together, and bearing in
mind the public demand for persons practising such
crafts or professions. The granting of diplomas by the
authorities will be subordinated to the growth of popula-
tion, and the schools will have to guide their pupils in the
choice of avocations. Especially does this apply to the
liberal and academic professions.

Such inevitable encroachments upon individual liberty
will be more than compensated by increasing security of
livelihood and promotion; apart from the fact that the
encroachments will not be the work of bureaucratic State
officials, but will be made solely through the instruments
of a system of self-government that will have to act
within a framework prescribed by the State.

Then there's his ideas on how land should be managed:


B. Management of the Transition

Here the extant vestiges of the guilds and cooperatives
will provide stepping-stones. The advantages to the
independent handicraftsmen and the members of the
middle class that will derive from the new vocational
associations, from the fixing of maximum numbers, etc.,
will be so great that the apparent disadvantage of the
official control of prices will be fully made good all the
more seeing that the associations will be established by
self-governing bodies, and will only be subject to State
supervision.

Of great importance in this connexion will be the
abolition of the existing scale and method of taxation, in
place of which the guild will pay a lump sum, collected
by the guild from its members.

The transformation of the minor handicrafts and petty
retail establishments into the guild system of German
socialism will be all the easier because the German
handicraftsmen and small traders have a vital interest
in escaping the destruction with which they are
threatened by the capitalist system, and thus maintain-
ing their existence as independent artisans, small shop-
keepers, etc.

For the sake of completeness I must point out that
house-ownership comes within the category of 'goods
which can be augmented in quantity as much as you
please' (see above, pp. 134-5), and will therefore remain
private property. The necessary adjustment of rents will
be arranged for by seeing to it that municipalities and
cooperative building societies of all kinds shall provide a
sufficiency of new dwellings on behalf of the public wel-
fare always on the presupposition (applying to pri-

172



COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

vately owned houses no less than to others; that land is
not private property, but will merely be leased to the
houscowner as a fief for a definite term of years. This
fundamental principle will make sure that the State or

the municipality (which in general will here be trustee
for the State) shall have a decisive Influence in the build-
Ing market. Besides, the new way of dealing with banks
and mortgages will make It easy to control the building-
sites on which fantastic groundrents are now paid. Thus
from the monetary side the building market will be made
healthy once more.

He then goes into greater detail to explain how his ideas of socialism resemble something closer to feudalism with heavy state control:


8. COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

One of the main objects of German socialism is to
combine the personal egoism that Is a necessary and use-
ful part of our human equipment with advantage for the
general welfare, much as the working of the engine
propels an automobile.

This aim finds expression, for example. In the fact that
a peasant's tenure of his farm is to be arranged with an
eye to communal benefit. The surplus he produces by
working harder will be 'tax-free 5 . Another and even
more striking instance Is that there will be no limit to
the acquisition of commodities other than the natural
limit to a man's working powers. Herein,, once more, is
a sharp distinction between German socialism and
Marxian communism, for the latter only recognizes
personal freedom In such matters within marked limits.
But the decisive point Is that however much money a
man may possess, or however large a quantity 7 of goods,
these will not enable him to become an owner of land,
its mineral resources, or the means of production for

175



GERMAN SOCIALISM

they are only obtainable on c entaiP. (Apart altogether
from the heavy inheritance tax which, except for a few
taxes on luxuries, will be the only c tax' of the old sort to
remain.)

Although our picture of German socialism can be no
more than a sketch, we can at least make it plain that the
voluntary formation of producers 3 and consumers 5 co-
operatives will be strongly encouraged by the State,
which will be competent to encourage it through playing
so active a part in all great enterprises.

Though it will be uncongenial to the nature of German
socialism to introduce any kind of State coercion into
economic life, this objection is neither theoretical nor un-
conditional, but merely represents a practical inference
from the German character.

The development of cooperatives will be an important
supplement to German socialism, and the economic
counterpart to political self-government. It need hardly
be said that the individual will be free to enter or leave
a cooperative at will, partly because none but voluntary
members can be expected to work cordially in the
organization, and partly because nothing should be done
to diminish the friendly rivalry between cooperative and
non-cooperative enterprise. From this outlook it may be
taken as a matter of course that there should be no
material favouring of the cooperatives by the State,
except that the State will certainly encourage the
educational activities of the cooperatives, and this will be
especially valuable where agricultural cooperatives are
concerned.

Ideologically considered, the future trade unions will
be simply workers* cooperatives whose main task will be



PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

to promote vocational training and development; for the
economic and political interests of the workers (and em-
ployees) will be best served, directly by the workers 5
councils (or employees' councils), and indirectly by the
estates 5 chambers. (See below, pp. 197 and foil.)

I may take this opportunity of repeating that the Ger-
man temperament is equally opposed to the disposition
of western capitalism to ignore the rights of the com-
munity, and to the disposition of eastern bolshevism to
ignore individual responsibility and to despise the
creative will of the personality.

The economic system of German socialism is, therefore,
no less hostile to eastern bolshevism than to western
capitalism; and our socialists feel strongly akin to those
forms of the Middle Ages that gave expression to our
national peculiarities, and to the essentials of the German
nature.

I think I need say no more. Once fabina's claims of "Libertarian Socialism" are disproved by Strasser's ideas of socialism being complete aberrations and foreign visions for anybody here, all his other claims become moot. It matters not of Strasser was a racist (That he most certainly was) if his vision for society was basically another form of paternalistic, conservative fascism with class interests antagonistic to the proletariat.

And here is the full text as promised: http://www.archive.org/stream/germanytomorrow019874mbp/germanytomorrow019874mbp_djvu.txt

On the subject of Strasser's racism; although he may not have openly hated on other races very often (His slur towards Marx being one of those examples), Strasser certainly viewed races as having inherent biological and "ethical" differences, and as such can be described as a racist. Let's not forget in its early days racism did not necessarily mean hatred towards other races (Regardless of whatever views its adherents held in private), but merely holding onto the concept they all races are different somehow.

Lastly, I want to remind all the true Marxists here that we cannot separate theory from practice. I have absolutely no doubt that after reading this post the Strasserite fabian will dig up quotes from his hero expressing seemingly left-wing sentiments such as respect towards equality among people. It is true that "Germany Tomorrow" is full of quotes from Otto Strasser talking about how he wants free independent thought and creative development among (German) people. However, this means nothing if not compared to reality. Eclecticism is a core component of fascism. Any idiot can write a book describing his Corporativist-Primitivist-Nationalist-Whathefuckist society where all individuals will live happily ever after, and many fascists have done so, but if we do not compare words to reality, it is merely that; a man writing a book about his utopian society which can never exist in reality. When debating with Strasserites, I encourage all Marxists to remember the differences between reality and rhetoric.

[PigmerikanMao]

Is there a left-wing way of hating jews?

Ask Stalin

[Luís Henrique]

When debating with Strasserites, I encourage all Marxists to [...]

... take serious security precautions. We wouldn't want to be in physical inferiority vis-a-vis armed and dangerous fascists.

Luís Henrique

[fabian]

The results, I think, don't speak very well in fabian's favor, or any Strasserite scum (And I know fabian will deny he's one of those bootlickers, but the fact that he possesses so much knowledge about Strasser and is so ardently defending him casts much suspicion on him).
I'm defending facts, not the person. I also defend facts when they concert Hitler or Stalin, even thou I hate both of those tyrants.


So, Jews (And another minorities) must either be treated as foreigners because they're naturally different, or they must be completely assimilated into German culture. Gee, that's some fine anti-racism you have there, fabian!
the text continues:

"All three methods are equally possible and equally
honourable, with the urgent proviso that every adult
person of another stock than that of the majority must
himself or herself have full right to decide which method
to adopt.

As a matter of principle, there is no difference between
the general treatment of the problem of national
minorities and the treatment of the Jewish problem. If
the latter is separately considered here, this is because
the peculiar way in which the question has presented
itself makes separate consideration expedient.

I recommend the above tripartite approach to the
matter as regards the Jews, because the formulation is
not the outcome of any fine-spun theory, but is grounded
upon the actual circumstances which must form the
basis of any new settlement of the Jewish problem.

(1) The category of foreigners emerges from the fact
that of late years there has been a widespread develop-
ment of the movement known as Zionism, which should
be supported by all 'nation-conscious' persons and
peoples as a genuine endeavour for the renovation of
Judaism.

(2) The category of national minorities corresponds to
the political fact that European Jewry has been domiciled
in Europe for many centuries, and in each country
rightly regards itself as belonging to that country,
though it does not wish to forsake its own national
religion and its own national peculiarities.

(3) The category of assimilation is nevertheless (despite
Hitler and his materialistic racial theory) a datum of
the position of the Jews in Germany and the rest of
Europe, in conformity with the accepted humanist
doctrine that every human being is entitled to liberty
and self-determination, a doctrine which New
Germany will unhesitatingly accept.

Wow, what racism.


I feel it important to mention that after saying this, Strasser spends a lot of them saying the exact same thing that Marx, about money being the money-commodity, a means of exchange, measure of value, etc. For someone who renounced Marxism, he sure does seem to hold its theories on money highly.


After harshly renouncing the Marxists, Strasser then goes on to parrot their demands by asking for independence of thought and creativity amongst people to foster their growth.
Saying that accepting theories you accept is bad because you don't like the one accepting is not an argument.


something closer to feudalism with heavy state control:
Voluntary worker co-operatives are feudalism with heavy state control? Wow.


Lastly, I want to remind all the true Marxists here that we cannot separate theory from practice.
And look at what? An established strasserite state/ society?

[Questionable]

I'm defending facts, not the person. I also defend facts when they concert Hitler or Stalin, even thou I hate both of those tyrants.


the text continues:

"All three methods are equally possible and equally
honourable, with the urgent proviso that every adult
person of another stock than that of the majority must
himself or herself have full right to decide which method
to adopt.

As a matter of principle, there is no difference between
the general treatment of the problem of national
minorities and the treatment of the Jewish problem. If
the latter is separately considered here, this is because
the peculiar way in which the question has presented
itself makes separate consideration expedient.

I recommend the above tripartite approach to the
matter as regards the Jews, because the formulation is
not the outcome of any fine-spun theory, but is grounded
upon the actual circumstances which must form the
basis of any new settlement of the Jewish problem.

(1) The category of foreigners emerges from the fact
that of late years there has been a widespread develop-
ment of the movement known as Zionism, which should
be supported by all 'nation-conscious' persons and
peoples as a genuine endeavour for the renovation of
Judaism.

(2) The category of national minorities corresponds to
the political fact that European Jewry has been domiciled
in Europe for many centuries, and in each country
rightly regards itself as belonging to that country,
though it does not wish to forsake its own national
religion and its own national peculiarities.

(3) The category of assimilation is nevertheless (despite
Hitler and his materialistic racial theory) a datum of
the position of the Jews in Germany and the rest of
Europe, in conformity with the accepted humanist
doctrine that every human being is entitled to liberty
and self-determination, a doctrine which New
Germany will unhesitatingly accept.

Wow, what racism.

Am I supposed to be impressed? He's basically reiterating himself, along with some token support for Jewish nationalism.



Saying that accepting theories you accept is bad because you don't like the one accepting is not an argument.

Actually, I was referring to how Strasser constantly condemns Marx and Marxists for not understanding capitalism or socialism, then goes on to repeat exactly what their stance is. By the way he writes, you would think that Strasser invented that critique of capitalism all by himself, which he clearly didn't.


Voluntary worker co-operatives are feudalism with heavy state control? Wow.

Guilds with heavy state control, peasants who trade commodities, a return to medieval Christian principals, and other things that Strasser advocates in the book bear a distinct resemblance to feudalism, yes.



And look at what? An established strasserite state/ society?

You've only proved my point that arguing with Otto Strasser over his utopian society is a pain in the neck because he has little to no empirical evidence to support himself.

[Questionable]

Oh by the way, I was skimming through the book again out of morbid curiosity, and I found another very interesting bit.


EVEN within this sketchy account of the Problems of the
Peace Conference and of the European Federation it is
desirable to consecrate a section to the colonial problem,
for the Conference will certainly have to consider the
German claim to colonies. Furthermore the treatment
of the colonial problem will give a crucial example of
the new spirit that will be essential to the establishment
of a new order in Germany and in Europe.

Speaking generally, the colonial problem must not be
solved, either for Germany or for the other European
States which have or desire colonies, in such a way that
the limited (and for various reasons dwindling) colonial
areas can ever again change masters in consequence of
an intra-European war.

There must be an entirely new attitude towards this
problem, and that will entail a new solution.

The first essential is to recognize that nowadays the
colonial problem is mainly a problem of raw materials.
Subordinate to this are such questions as that of economics,
settlement, fields for investment, etc. Last of all come
questions of prestige and national security.

Such a view of the colonial problem will steadily gain
ground with the establishment of a new political and
economic order in Europe, and the consequent growing
solidarity of the European peoples.

New Germany, for instance, will not claim that she

no



THE COLONIAL PROBLEM

has more right to colonies than other States, such as
Poland or Czechoslovakia. The arguments that Ger-
many might advance on behalf of being put in possession
of colonies might be advanced with equal force by other
European countries that have no colonies.

Inasmuch as a perennial struggle for colonies (whose
size and lucrativeness cannot be indefinitely magnified)
must be rendered impossible, a new sort of solution must
be found, and this is that certain regions of Africa shall
be jointly administered by the European States which
hitherto have had no colonies.

To avert the suspicion that such a formulation may be
a cloak for a predatory campaign on the part of the "have-
nots 5 against the 'haves 5 , and also to facilitate the accept-
ance of the scheme, it must be clearly understood at the
outset that England, France, Italy, and Spain the chief
colonial powers of Europe - will deliberately stand aside
as possible beneficiaries. (The same consideration applies
to the non-African colonies of the other European
powers.)

Thus the scheme would apply to the former German
colonies in Africa and to the African possessions of
Belgium and Portugal. These large, valuable, and still
for the most part undeveloped, areas would be placed
under the joint administration of all the European
powers, with the exception of the four great colonial
powers previously named.

With this end in view, the European States other than
those purposely excluded would jointly from a 'European
Colonial Company 5 (E.C.C.) to which each State would
subscribe funds proportional to the number of its inhabi-
tants. Investments, administrative posts, and possi-

iii



THE COLONIAL PROBLEM

bilities of settlement would be allotted pro rata to the
various States that had formed the E.C.C., subject to
adjustment every decade in accordance with the census
returns of the nations concerned. Any national quota
not taken up would be open to the public on loan, but
here also subject to decennial revision and recall.

The European Colonial Company would pledge itself
to respect the rights of the previous owners or man-
dataries of the regions it would take over.

To the previous owners or mandataries must, above
all, be assigned a ninety-nine year right to the returns on
the basis of the average yield of the last ten years.
Furthermore the E.C.C. would guarantee the main-
tenance of existing material and personal rights,
especially the tenure of their posts by extant officials,
military officers, and subordinate soldiers for life or
while fit for service^ previous rights to pensions, etc,,
being scrupulously preserved. The appointment of new
officials would only be made as needed, once more pro
rata. Military officers and subordinate soldiers would be
appointed as vacancies arose, but there would be no
increase in the staffs as they existed on December 31,
1938.

The E.C.C. would also guarantee that the flags that
had flown over the respective territories should continue
to fly there, but would have the right of hoisting its own
flag beside the other; it would continue to use whatever
had been the official language in any locality, but with
the right to use a second official language as well, should
this be expedient anywhere for administrative purposes.
Thus all the administrations would be placed on an
equal footing.

112



THE COLONIAL PROBLEM

Future officials and settlers would attend, to begin
with, a course of study in colonial schools to be set up
In the respective countries of Europe, and the teaching
in these would be unified as far as possible.

The E.C.C. would lay especial stress upon the ad-
vancement of the indigenes of the colonies, regarding
itself as their guardian; and when the natives developed
they would., as far as possible, be associated in the work
of administration.

The E.C.C. would endeavour to make with the great
colonial powers agreements that would be to their mutual
advantage. The great colonial powers would also be
entitled to join with the E.C.C. in the furtherance of all
or some of the latter's possessions.

New Germany would be prepared to assign uncon-
ditionally to the E.C.C. all its own colonial rights, even
its most recent ones, for it would regard the formation of
this body as a just and generally satisfactory solution.

It seems important to point out that the joint cultiva-
tion of interests within the E.C.C. would have favourable
repercussions upon the political collaboration of the
various States; and that the great civilizing work that
would be associated with the effective opening-up of
Africa would give a powerful impetus to economics and
science and be most beneficial to the youths of Europe.
Having great duties to perform makes people young,
vigorous, and cheerful. That is what Europe needs.

What's this? Strasser advocating the colonization of Africa and other places for the sake of Europe? Sure seems like imperialism to me, but fabian said he was anti-imperialist, so I must be confused.

[fabian]

Guilds with heavy state control
Guild would be organization of branches of industry composed of self-managed workers; a strasserite state would only proscribe quality standard for goods made and services provided, and would regulate educatial standards. Strasserism is against state bureaucracy control over workers.


peasants who trade commodities
No employment there, no unearned income, which makes it perfectly socialist. Whereas peasant position in Lenin-State state capitalism where they were treated as serfs with the fruit of their labor being confiscated, or like slaves being forced into collectivist farms, is far from socialism.


and other things that Strasser advocates in the book bear a distinct resemblance to feudalism, yes.
His advocation of Christian values is reactionary (although one of his biggest friend and supporters was Rohm, who was gay), and does "resemble" feudalism, but it doesn't have anything to do with economics, and Strasser's desired economy is socialistic, not certainly not feudal, as I mentioned, such a thing might be said for peasants under USSR, but Strasser was for worker self-management.


What's this? Strasser advocating the colonization of Africa
Read it again. Strasser says that there should be no more colonization, and the already colonized lands should be taked from the colonizing countries by United Europe in order to institute a more humane administration of those colonies. On this question he was vary careful, being that wasn't even a straight up leftist (being a reactionary on the question of nation), it is not supprising that he was afraid to call for right of self-determination for colonies, as he calls for all European provincies (he's even afraid to call for applying his model to the colonies of England, Spain, France and Italy).

[Questionable]

Guild would be organization of branches of industry composed of self-managed workers; a strasserite state would only proscribe quality standard for goods made and services provided, and would regulate educatial standards. Strasserism is against state bureaucracy control over workers.

It's against state bureaucracy, yet it uses to state to regulate these (feudal) branches. Hmm...

You keep repeating that slogan about being against state bureacuracy like it means a single damned thing. On Strasser's pages, anything can happen, his system is perfect. There's no telling how the class-based society that Strasserism advocates would have actually worked in the real word, although we can make predictions. I'm sure Strasser and his followers like yourself do believe that simply saying "We're against bureaucracy!" is enough to make it disappear, but I'm more interested in how his state would have functioned had his plans actually came to fruition.


No employment there, no unearned income, which makes it perfectly socialist. Whereas peasant position in Lenin-State state capitalism where they were treated as serfs with the fruit of their labor being confiscated, or like slaves being forced into collectivist farms, is far from socialism.

Your view of what constitutes socialism is clearly very different from mine seeing as you're a market socialist who thinks "no employment" and "no unearned income" makes something socialist.

To be honest, I don't care what your atrocious views of socialism are, just as long as you admit that Strasserism and socialism are two different things.


His advocation of Christian values is reactionary (although one of his biggest friend and supporters was Rohm, who was gay), and does "resemble" feudalism, but it doesn't have anything to do with economics, and Strasser's desired economy is socialistic, not certainly not feudal, as I mentioned, such a thing might be said for peasants under USSR, but Strasser was for worker self-management.

The end-goal of peasants in the USSR was to integrate them into the socialist economy. Strasser wants to preserve the peasant class and manage them with the state.

It amuses me that Strasserites like fabian continue to show their profound ignorance of how society functions by believing that it can somehow possess an ideology that contradicts its economic function. It only goes to show that Strasserism only works in theory if one rejects key components of Marxism.


Read it again. Strasser says that there should be no more colonization, and the already colonized lands should be taked from the colonizing countries by United Europe in order to institute a more humane administration of those colonies. On this question he was vary careful, being that wasn't even a straight up leftist (being a reactionary on the question of nation), it is not supprising that he was afraid to call for right of self-determination for colonies, as he calls for all European provincies (he's even afraid to call for applying his model to the colonies of England, Spain, France and Italy).

Uhh...what? Please point out where he says there should be no more colonies. The whole passage was him explaining how colonies should be managed without an inter-European war unfolding. I don't really care if Strasser called for a "more human" administration of them, all imperialist countries describe their treatment of subjects as humane.

I'd still like to bring up the fact that we're debating some man's lone utopian vision of the world that has no bearing in reality, btw.

[Baseball]

You two are arguing over two sides of the same coin. A pox on both your houses.

However, to give the devil its due, it is ludicrous for more conventional socialists to express curiosity - as a form.of condemnation - how a strasser typr society might function considering their longstanding lack of curiosity into their own.
And for the strasser types to try to draw some substantive distinction between between themselves and their more extreme brown colleagues...
Grave diggers of Europe, all of you all.

[fabian]

You keep repeating that slogan about being against state bureacuracy like it means a single damned thing.
It means a pretty big thing- workers managing their own factory or firm, and not having a state appointed manager bossing them around.


but I'm more interested in how his state would have functioned had his plans actually came to fruition.
Well either it would enact his ideas and thus be a Strasserite state, or it wouldn't and it wouldn't be a Strasserite state, those are the only two options.


Your view of what constitutes socialism is clearly very different from mine seeing as you're a market socialist who thinks "no employment" and "no unearned income" makes something socialist.
Yes, that is what constitutes socialism- a classless economy without unearned income.


The end-goal of peasants in the USSR was to integrate them into the socialist economy.
Broy firstly treating them like serfs in confiscating their pduct, and then treating them like slaves in forcing them in collectivist farms? And I have atrocious view of what socialism is?


in theory if one rejects key components of Marxism.
A lot of leftists reject marxism, too.


Please point out where he says there should be no more colonies.
"New Germany, for instance, will not claim that she has more right to colonies than other States such as Poland or Czechoslovakia." [which had no colonies] "a perennial struggle for colonies must be rendered impossible".


I don't really care if Strasser called for a "more human" administration of them, all imperialist countries describe their treatment of subjects as humane.
That is true. He does pretty much goes whimp there with advocating self-determination for Europian provinces but not for colonies, but I don't care about his inconsistencies or cowardness, I'm not a Strasserite, I don't have any bias in his favour (or against him, for that matter, I'm just objective).


I'd still like to bring up the fact that we're debating some man's lone utopian vision of the world that has no bearing in reality, btw.
I just found it interesting when reading him that he wasn't a "nazi", that is, what is normally assumed by it- a racist conquer-all-europe, kill-all-jews, colaborate-with-big-capital idiot, but a pretty moderate and civilized nationalist who was for worker self-management, and just saying that I don't see the point in trumping up his reactionism.

[Questionable]

It means a pretty big thing- workers managing their own factory or firm, and not having a state appointed manager bossing them around.

It's a nice sentiment, but not socialism.


Well either it would enact his ideas and thus be a Strasserite state, or it wouldn't and it wouldn't be a Strasserite state, those are the only two options.

Errm..okay.


Yes, that is what constitutes socialism- a classless economy without unearned income.

Which is not what Strasser had in mind, as evidenced by his writings.


Broy firstly treating them like serfs in confiscating their pduct, and then treating them like slaves in forcing them in collectivist farms? And I have atrocious view of what socialism is?

Leave your rhetoric to someone who gives a shit. I explained (very briefly) what the Soviet plan was. If you're going to cry and complain about slavery like some sort of liberal, you're wasting my time.


A lot of leftists reject marxism, too.

Probably because they don't understand it, like you.


"New Germany, for instance, will not claim that she has more right to colonies than other States such as Poland or Czechoslovakia." [which had no colonies] "a perennial struggle for colonies must be rendered impossible".

Oh, so these two sentences, the first one when taken literally, totally disprove everything else he said about settlers speading European culture and Africa being needed to bolster the economy in Europe! You sure got me!

First sentence; Regarding everything else he said, particularly the importance of colonies and his plans for managing them, I have no reason to believe that he wasn't merely trying to advocate the equal distribution of imperialist territory, not the complete abolition of it.

Second sentence: The definition of "perennial" is "lasting for an indefinitely long time." Here Strasser feared another outbreak of war between imperialist powers similar to WWI, and his solution was to equally distribute colonies among the United States of Europe so that they could all equally benefit from exploitation of the third-world.


That is true. He does pretty much goes whimp there with advocating self-determination for Europian provinces but not for colonies, but I don't care about his inconsistencies or cowardness, I'm not a Strasserite, I don't have any bias in his favour (or against him, for that matter, I'm just objective).

You defend Strasser as a genuine socialist. You are a Strasserite.


I just found it interesting when reading him that he wasn't a "nazi", that is, what is normally assumed by it- a racist conquer-all-europe, kill-all-jews, colaborate-with-big-capital idiot, but a pretty moderate and civilized nationalist who was for worker self-management, and just saying that I don't see the point in trumping up his reactionism.

Oh my fucking god, now we have the closet racist sentiment that infects all fascists. Words like "civilized" are always a red flag from you lot. I wonder if your civilized heroes like Strasser exist in contrast to uncivilized slavs like Lenin?

That said, all Strasser was was a different kind of fascist. He may not of been the same Nazi as Hitler, but that doesn't make him any better. All fascists deserve what they get, and the only reason someone can have for defending one is if they secretly sympathize with them, which you most certainly do.

[fabian]

Which is not what Strasser had in mind, as evidenced by his writings.
He advocates abolition of property in land and other means of production and a classless economy.


I explained (very briefly) what the Soviet plan was.
Which is idiotic. "I want to emancipate you from exploatation, so I will enslave you" is not a plan, it's a mobid joke.


Oh, so these two sentences, the first one when taken literally, totally disprove everything else he said about settlers speading European culture and Africa being needed to bolster the economy in Europe! You sure got me!
The only thing he says Europe needs is it's youth to have great duties to perform, and he names civilizing the colonies as one.


I have no reason to believe that he wasn't merely trying to advocate the equal distribution of imperialist territory, not the complete abolition of it.
Other then him mentioning the right of national self-determination a dozen times elsewhere in the book.


The definition of "perennial" is "lasting for an indefinitely long time."
"continuing."


You defend Strasser as a genuine socialist. You are a Strasserite.
So if I say that Hitler was a human (and I'm pro-human, not anti-human), that makes me a Hitlerite?


I wonder if your civilized heroes like Strasser exist in contrast to uncivilized slavs like Lenin?
Strasser was definetly more civilized then Lenin, he wanted abolition of conscription, and a worker self-managment economy, Lenin established a involuntary army to police a class economy where workers were employees of the state bossed around by party bureaucracts and peasants were treated like serfs. If Leninism is socialism, then socialism sucks big time; and if you consider an economy where workers self-manage "fascism", there's something wrong with you.

And what's with the "slav" part? I'm a Slav.

[Baseball]

Oh, fuck off. Only someone with their head so far up their ass they can taste their last meal would say that socialists have no curiosity into how their own society works. It's the only damned thing people want to talk about on Revleft.

You spent the last couple days being bested in a debate about the life and times of otto strasser. But that's ok- you were able to demonstrate that the distinctions between he and a fellow like hitler were basically tactical. It was a very good few pages.

But step out of your shoes for a second and look at those pages again- you two are simplyarguing over the nature of socialism.

[Rurkel]

Well, the line between nationalistic social-democrats and left-fascists can be blurry at times, see some fascist-like tendencies in organizations like CPRF.

But yeah, corporatism, even in theory =/= "classless society".


The only thing he says Europe needs is it's youth to have great duties to perform, and he names civilizing the colonies as one.
White man's burden FTW, rite?

[#FF0000]

That's a myth. If you were to read the Germany Tomorrow, which was already mentioned, you would see that Strasser had nothing against non-Germans (Jews, Africans, whatever) living in Germany as a national minority or assimilating in the German people.

Sure, neither did Mussolini in Italy. Doesn't mean they weren't/aren't xenophobic.


What is laughable is that on a topic that is both contraversial and not well known, your sourse of info is wikipedia.Nah, I ignore wikipedia links when I look stuff up (aside from perusing for sources). My source he was actually a strasserist/strasserite blog -- which itself apparently borrowed from Wikipedia.

So if you had another source, that'd be great. I am really interested in what you have that could possibly convince me that yellow/guild socialism has anything to do with Libertarian Socialism.

[#FF0000]

Strasser was definetly more civilized then Lenin, he wanted abolition of conscription, and a worker self-managment economy, Lenin established a involuntary army to police a class economy where workers were employees of the state bossed around by party bureaucracts and peasants were treated like serfs. If Leninism is socialism, then socialism sucks big time; and if you consider an economy where workers self-manage "fascism", there's something wrong with you.

Meanwhile Strasser advocated for nationalism, imperialism, and cultural chauvinism. Radical populism, no matter how anti-capitalist, does not equate to socialism. Plus, a xenophobic, nationalistic society by definition can't be a classless nor stateless one, nor could possibly be "on the road" to a classless or stateless society, no matter how capital is managed by the chosen whites within those borders.

[Questionable]

You spent the last couple days being bested in a debate about the life and times of otto strasser. But that's ok- you were able to demonstrate that the distinctions between he and a fellow like hitler were basically tactical. It was a very good few pages.

But step out of your shoes for a second and look at those pages again- you two are simplyarguing over the nature of socialism.

You've contributed nothing to any of these conversations except more Nazism = Socialism bullshit that's been refuted over and over, and now you're just fucking trolling me by saying I've "lost" this debate.

Have fun being on my ignore list. It will be a great pleasure to never have to read what happens when you get stoned and smash your face into the keyboard on Revleft anymore.

[Questionable]

##FF000 pretty much covered everything else I had to say about your post Fabian, so I'll just limit myself to addressing the part about imperialism.


The only thing he says Europe needs is it's youth to have great duties to perform, and he names civilizing the colonies as one.

You're either foolish or dishonest, I'm not sure which is worse. Let me just pick out all the parts where Strasser clearly supports the exploitation of colonies for the sake of the European economy. Not that I really need to because anyone with the most elementary knowledge of imperialism knows that "civilizing countries" is always codespeak for raw exploitation, but perhaps Fabian's response will help me determine if he's being dishonest or if he really does think Otto Strasser was an anti-imperialist.


The first essential is to recognize that nowadays the
colonial problem is mainly a problem of raw materials.
Subordinate to this are such questions as that of economics,
settlement, fields for investment, etc. Last of all come
questions of prestige and national security.

Such a view of the colonial problem will steadily gain
ground with the establishment of a new political and
economic order in Europe, and the consequent growing
solidarity of the European peoples.


Inasmuch as a perennial struggle for colonies (whose
size and lucrativeness cannot be indefinitely magnified)
must be rendered impossible, a new sort of solution must
be found, and this is that certain regions of Africa shall
be jointly administered by the European States which
hitherto have had no colonies.


It seems important to point out that the joint cultiva-
tion of interests within the E.C.C. would have favourable
repercussions upon the political collaboration of the
various States; and that the great civilizing work that
would be associated with the effective opening-up of
Africa would give a powerful impetus to economics and
science and be most beneficial to the youths of Europe.
Having great duties to perform makes people young,
vigorous, and cheerful. That is what Europe needs.


Other then him mentioning the right of national self-determination a dozen times elsewhere in the book.

If you read the chapter, he clearly draws a distinction between nations and colonies, the latter which he envisions as being subordinate to the former.

I'm sure Fabian is just going to contort what Strasser wrote and tell me that he was actually the greatest anti-imperialist who ever lived, but at this point I'm pretty much just making sure that no uneducated leftists-in-training believe any of his drivel and are misguided from genuine socialism.

[fabian]

Still, facts remain that Strasser was not a racist and that he was for a socialistic economy. If you don't know what socialism is, that's your problem.

[#FF0000]

Still, facts remain that Strasser was not a racist and that he was for a socialistic economy. If you don't know what socialism is, that's your problem.

What a cop-out. "Well I don't have an argument but what I'm saying is simply fact"

Socialism in any progressive sense certainly isn't a guild system within a national borders, guy. I can't even really give you the benefit of the doubt here and say "oh well he's using socialism in the broadest sense of the term and including reactionary and anti-Marxist yellow, guild, and Prussian socialism", but then you somehow describe his ideas as libertarian socialist.

And siding more with the Italian fascists than the Nazis on the issue of race and culture isn't enough to get someone off the hook for being a bigot. Dude was undeniably a xenophobic chauvinist.

[fabian]

Socialism in any progressive sense certainly isn't a guild system within a national borders, guy
Why not? The central feature of Socialism is an economy of worker self-managment.


Dude was undeniably a xenophobic chauvinist.
He undeniably wasn't. He said that all non-germans could either live in Germany as foreigners or as integrated national minorities or assimilate in German people, as they wish. Don't see what's xenophobic of chauvinist about that.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why not? The central feature of Socialism is an economy of worker self-managment.
Nope.


He undeniably wasn't. He said that all non-germans could either live in Germany as foreigners or as integrated national minorities or assimilate in German people, as they wish. Don't see what's xenophobic of chauvinist about that.



The first essential is to recognize that nowadays the colonial problem is mainly a problem of raw materials. Subordinate to this are such questions as that of economics, settlement, fields for investment, etc. Last of all come questions of prestige and national security. Such a view of the colonial problem will steadily gain ground with the establishment of a new political and economic order in Europe, and the consequent growing
solidarity of the European peoples.

Cut the crap.

[#FF0000]

Why not? The central feature of Socialism is an economy of worker self-managment

No, the central feature is the abolition of capital. A bunch of co-ops and guilds does not make a socialist society. Further, I think it's pretty strange that someone with so little love for the bolsheviks is down with the idea of "socialism in one country".


He undeniably wasn't. He said that all non-germans could either live in Germany as foreigners or as integrated national minorities or assimilate in German people, as they wish. Don't see what's xenophobic of chauvinist about that.

I really don't see any difference between his take on ethnic minorities and foreigners and the stance taken by contemporary "vanilla" fascist movements, which were brazenly xenophobic and chauvinist, despite their tamer rhetoric.

And the rhetoric isn't even that tame. As LinksRadikal pointed out, Strasser clearly saw the rest of the world (or at least the East and global south) as subordinate to Europe. How is that anything but chauvinist?

[Thirsty Crow]

N As LinksRadikal pointed out, Strasser clearly saw the rest of the world (or at least the East and global south) as subordinate to Europe. How is that anything but chauvinist?
But he didn't claim openly that they were all subhuman. That's enough now, isn't it, we wouldn't want to go too far? After all, they should be happy with their position of near slave labour (of course when quasi-slaves need to extract ore they need to be fed well - so no abuse here) for another power hungry for African minerals and raw materials, that's okay.

[fabian]

Cut the crap
New Germany will have meanwhile to set
to work by herself to solve the problem of national
minorities (and therewith the Jewish problem) in that
modern spirit which will pay due regard both to the
organic laws of ethnical differences and to the moral
laws according to which all human beings have equal
rights. Politically considered there are three alternative
solutions:

(1) Persons of different racial origin from the majority
may be described as foreigners.

(2) Groups of persons of various racial stamps may be
deemed to constitute national minorities.

(3) Persons belonging to different stocks may be in-
corporated into the main body of the nation by assimila-
tion.

All three methods are equally possible and equally
honourable, with the urgent proviso that every adult
person of another stock than that of the majority must
himself or herself have full right to decide which method
to adopt.

As a matter of principle, there is no difference between
the general treatment of the problem of national
minorities and the treatment of the Jewish problem.


Jews are semites, and he had no problem with Jews living as foreigners, or as integrated national minirities or assimilating into Germans. I don't see any racism there.


No, the central feature is the abolition of capital. A bunch of co-ops and guilds does not make a socialist society.
The profit of the employer being the central type of capital, others being interest, rent and intellectual property profits. Worker self-managment invalidates the employer-profit type of capital.


Further, I think it's pretty strange that someone with so little love for the bolsheviks is down with the idea of "socialism in one country".
Socialism has nothing in it's definition demanding it to be world-wide. The best definition of socialism you gave yourself- abolition of capital, which is the same I said- worker self-management + there no being unearned income.


And the rhetoric isn't even that tame. As LinksRadikal pointed out, Strasser clearly saw the rest of the world (or at least the East and global south) as subordinate to Europe. How is that anything but chauvinist?
It is, I was talkin about his views of people inside Germany. No one claims that Strasser wasn't reactionary, all that was said is that he wasn't what is meant by "Nazi" (racist, conquer-all-europe, kill-all-jews totalitarian), and that he wanted a socialist economy.

[#FF0000]

Jews are semites, and he had no problem with Jews living as foreigners, or as integrated national minirities or assimilating into Germans. I don't see any racism there.

I said "xenophobic" and "chauvinist" for a reason. One's "otherness" for Strasser depends on their adherence to "German" or "European" culture, rather than being decided by some pseudo-scientific racialism.


The profit of the employer being the central type of capital, others being interest, rent and intellectual property profits. Worker self-managment invalidates the employer-profit type of capital.


No, there is more to capitalism, and a bunch of guilds and co-ops operating within national borders certainly doesn't equate to abolition of the wage system, of property and profit.


Socialism has nothing in it's definition demanding it to be world-wide.

It sure does, because to have socialism, one must abolish capitalism, and that's a global system. Capitalism requires constant growth and can't really abide a cut of land the size of Germany existing outside of it. It'd be under constant siege.

But that's considering a country like Germany could even produce everything it needed to be entirely self-sufficient in the first place.

Either way, what you'd end up with is what we've had with every isolated so-called "socialist" country in history. Weirdo hermit states that manage capital in a slightly different manner than the rest of the world.


and that he wanted a socialist economy.

Only if you're using the archaic 19th century form of the word "socialist", which means anything that isn't laissez-faire capitalism.

[fabian]

No, there is more to capitalism
If there are no employer-profits, no interest, no rent and no patent-profits, what can make an economy without such things capitalist?


It sure does, because to have socialism, one must abolish capitalism, and that's a global system.
If a country establishes socialism it has abolished capitalism in it. Being under siege doesn't make someone a capitalist.


Weirdo hermit states that manage capital in a slightly different manner than the rest of the world.
If there are no employer-profits, no interest, no rent and no patent-profits - there is no capital, and there being no capital means you can't manage it in any way, normal or different.


Only if you're using the archaic 19th century form of the word "socialist", which means anything that isn't laissez-faire capitalism.
I use socialism for any economy that doesn't have capital.

[#FF0000]

If there are no employer-profits, no interest, no rent and no patent-profits, what can make an economy without such things capitalist?

Wage. Currency. Class. Imperialism and colonialism. None of which "worker self-management" necessarily does away with.



If a country establishes socialism it has abolished capitalism in it. Capitalism is a global system. You cannot abolish capitalism in one geographic location and nowhere else.

[Thirsty Crow]

Jews are semites, and he had no problem with Jews living as foreigners, or as integrated national minirities or assimilating into Germans. I don't see any racism there.

The mere fact that he poses the colonial question, yet not in the sense of the abolition of national oppression and socialism, really speaks for itself. You fail to engage the argument in fact, and shift it to a very specific problem, that of the Jews. As if the racism of national socialims, either in its hitlerite or strasserite variant, is exhausted with this reference. Now, you are either a fool, or a proponent of one kind or another of, probably, pan-European nationalism in the guise of workers' self-management - and imperialism.



The profit of the employer being the central type of capital, others being interest, rent and intellectual property profits. Worker self-managment invalidates the employer-profit type of capital.Profit is not a "type" of capital.
Furthermore, workers' self-management does not invalidate what you call employer-profit capital since the restructuring of management and legal ownership does not equal the elimination of profit, due to the fact that the basic unit of commodity production, the isolated and competing enterprise, would remain intact and produce commodities for exchange, thus raking in profit (or would the strong national socialist state subsidize subpar enterprises?). I know that the situation when there is no identifiable individual owner might bring about confusion. But the simple fact remains, that you can make all workers of an enterprise legal owners of capital, and thus shareholders, but does this amount to the aboliton of capital in all its forms (land, financial capital, commercial capital, industrial capital)?

The answer is no.



Socialism has nothing in it's definition demanding it to be world-wide. The best definition of socialism you gave yourself- abolition of capital, which is the same I said- worker self-management + there no being unearned income.
The abolition of capital is possible only on a global scale. And the issue with self-managament has been dealt with.

[#FF0000]

Furthermore, workers' self-management does not invalidate what you call employer-profit capital since the restructuring of management and legal ownership does not equal the elimination of profit

We all know Mondragon Corporation doesn't turn a profit, after all.

[Thirsty Crow]

We all know Mondragon Corporation doesn't turn a profit, after all.
And they neither employ wage workers outside the framework of workers' ownership and sack them as they please.

I missed this curious bit:


New Germany will have meanwhile to set to work by herself to solve the problem of national minorities (and therewith the Jewish problem) in that modern spirit which will pay due regard both to the organic laws of ethnical differences and to the moral laws according to which all human beings have equal rights. This is highly ambiguous and might amount to nothing more than rhetorical flourish.

The mere fact that Otto here states that there is a Jewish problem is telling. Now, had he framed it as a problem of oppression and persecution, fabian's argument could stand. But this is not the case.

The second problem arises from the ambiguity of the dichotomy between the "organic laws of ethnical difference" (does the alarm bell go off by now?) and the moral law of equal rights. Anyway, the passage is highly ambiguous and cannot be taken as a confirmation that Otto didn't subscribe to anti-semitism.

[fabian]

Wage. Currency. Class.
Wage and class cannon exist in a economy of worker self-managment. Existence of currency doesn't constitute capitalism.


Imperialism and colonialism.
I don't see an argument for separating internal economy and foreigh relations of a country, seems you are correct.


Capitalism is a global system. You cannot abolish capitalism in one geographic location and nowhere else.
Why not?


Furthermore, workers' self-management does not invalidate what you call employer-profit capital since the restructuring of management and legal ownership does not equal the elimination of profit
It does, beng that there's not employer there can be no employer-profits.


I know that the situation when there is no identifiable individual owner might bring about confusion. But the simple fact remains, that you can make all workers of an enterprise legal owners of capital, and thus shareholders, but does this amount to the aboliton of capital in all its forms (land, financial capital, commercial capital, industrial capital)?

The answer is no.
Shareholding is IMO still capitalism, all firms need to be given into ownership and managment of the workers that work in them but as a collective, not as shareholders. and ofcourse, when that self-managemant must be complemented with the abolition of other unearned income, rent, interest and patent-profits in order for it be socialism.


I recant my position that Strasser was a socialist, although I'm still impressed by the fact of a reactionary espousing worker self-managment, which I consider the central tenet of worker emancipantion, that is- socialism.


Anyway, the passage is highly ambiguous and cannot be taken as a confirmation that Otto didn't subscribe to anti-semitism.
I'm pretty sure he want's an anti-semite he just says how having different dissent although a fact is not defining and that it is the moral sphere that counts, he say that a few times in the manifesto, and he says also that he doesn't consider the "jewish question" different from any national minority but covers it individualy because every does so.

[Thirsty Crow]

I recant my position that Strasser was a socialist, although I'm still impressed by the fact of a reactionary espousing worker self-managment, which I consider the central tenet of worker emancipantion, that is- socialism.
I don't see what's so impressive in a project of co-optation of certain traits of socialism for the purpose of rallying workers - the largest demographich - behind the NSDAP.

[fabian]

Well many people who called themselves left-wind, socialist and communist didn't support worker self-managment.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:


Oh, fuck off. Only someone with their head so far up their ass they can taste their last meal would say that socialists have no curiosity into how their own society works. It's the only damned thing people want to talk about on Revleft.

Fuck off? Head up their ass?

Oh look, it's Questionable flaming somebody! The "Restricted" tag doesn't mean "Open Season For Flaming", it means they're restricted to OI for some reason. If you're going to post here I fully expect you to treat Restricted users the same way you would anybody else. Or you'll lose your posting privileges, eventually. If I see you flaming somebody again, I'm going to infract you! Be civil and polite if you're going to post, or otherwise, "fuck off"!

This post constitutes a warning to Questionable.