Difference between a National Bolshevik and a Fascist?

[Dictator]

I've just noticed in the rules that 'National Bolsheviks' are not allowed as they are considered Fascists.

So, what is the difference?:confused:

Stalin, for example, seems to fit that description.

A full on Marxist but with fascistic tendencies.

How to separate the two?

[Hrafn]

There's nothing Marxist about NBism.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

NazBols are an indigenous species of goblin originating in the bowels of Siberia. They are best captured and euthanized as they present a great danger to the local populations and wild life. A vermin.

[Wonton Carter]

Also they bite.

[Dagoth Ur]

Stalin had zero "fascistic tendencies". He would have sent Nazbol scum to the gulag faster than any liberal.

Nazbols are a weird type of soviet-identity national chauvinists. They're not really important at all.

[Red Economist]

National Bolsheviks are nationalists who think 'Bolshevism' or 'communism' is the best way to further the interests and increase the power of the nation state (and hence supporters of Stalin's Socialism in one country but not because they are Marxist-Leninists). basically, the nationalism comes before the communism.

Stalin was not a National Bolshevik, as Communism and the goal of proletarian (even world) revolution still came before the nationalism; socialism in one country was (supposed to be) a means to an ends, nationalism was not the ends in itself.

[Dictator]

ok, thanks for the ideas.

So, how about a communist/socialist who is also racist, homophobic, sexist etc.. that occurs - how would you label them?

[Sinister Intents]

ok, thanks for the ideas.

So, how about a communist/socialist who is also racist, homophobic, sexist etc.. that occurs - how would you label them?

I'd label them as not communist

[synthesis]

I'd label them as not communist

So, like, 90+% of all communists from at least the 50's on back were... what?


ok, thanks for the ideas.

So, how about a communist/socialist who is also racist, homophobic, sexist etc.. that occurs - how would you label them?

I'm tempted to say they should just be labelled as "a racist/homophobic/sexist communist," but I think there are still some shaky grounds in that regard. If someone is racist like, "all Asians are good at math," for example, and won't have his mind changed about it, I think he'd just be a racist communist. But if someone is racist or sexist or homophobic in a way that directly relates to reinforcing economic oppression - say, supporting segregation or keeping women confined to household labor - then I think you'd be on more tenable grounds in saying that s/he is not a communist.

[blake 3:17]

National Bolsheviks and National Anarchists are fascists.

[Ele'ill]

So, like, 90+% of all communists from at least the 50's on back were... what?

fascists

[Sinister Intents]

So, like, 90+% of all communists from at least the 50's on back were... what?

True... Kinda stoned, so thanks for pointin that out. I'd have to more say they're not consistent socialists/communists/anarchists. To discriminate against other workers based on skin color but to support the liberation of worker's is shitty, or only the liberation of certain workers is shitty, pardon ad hominems, I"m not very eloquent. Does that sound better a bit?

[#FF0000]

Stalin had zero "fascistic tendencies". He would have sent Nazbol scum to the gulag faster than any liberal.

Nazbols are a weird type of soviet-identity national chauvinists. They're not really important at all.

They're what chauvinistic nationalists become in a country which was nominally "communist" in its "glory days".

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Also they bite.

A NazBol bit my sister once... >.>

But seriously, as has already been said, NazBols are a type of extreme Russian nationalism combined with 'socialist' views towards labor. Basically, they're the Russian version of Strasserites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism).

And no, Stalin would not have been a NazBol. That doesn't stop him from having been a gigantic asshole, mind you....but at least in this regard we can safely absolve him of this particular reactionary tendency.

(And that is one of the FEW good things I will ever say about Stalin).

[synthesis]

If Stalin was a fascist then the word has no meaning whatsoever but he cannot at all be absolved from the rather extreme turn towards nationalism and the right that occurred under his reign, the turn away from those "rootless cosmopolitans" that were so crucial in the initial October uprising, and of course their policies like allowing openly gay men to serve in high ranks of the party, effectively legalizing abortion and divorce, and freeing women from their confinement to household labor. (In 1949 the USSR had its own "freedom fries" moment, renaming "French buns" to "urban buns.")

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So, like, 90+% of all communists from at least the 50's on back were... what?
Social conservatives.

[synthesis]

Social conservatives.

I guess so. I admit I really dislike this whole "Political Compass" system of analysis and don't think it's particularly useful or sufficiently complex. It claims to provide a more nuanced alternative to the (literally) one-dimensional "left-right spectrum" by adding... another axis. Now the spectrum is (literally) just two-dimensional; "left" and "right" can now be either "social" or "economic." It might be handy as a quick heuristic for, say, younger people who are still building the foundation of knowledge for their political analysis, but in discussions of - for example - social history, where all political labels inherit relativized and ephemeral definitions and connotations over time, that purportedly objective x-y axis analysis is just too simplistic, in my opinion.

Were they socially conservative for their time? I don't have any easy answers for that myself but it is still an absolutely important question to ask if we're going to just dismiss their faults as "social conservatism." My impression is that they generally were not noticeably conservative for their time, even if today some of their positions would make a rabid Republican blush.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Were they socially conservative for their time? I don't have any easy answers for that myself but it is still an absolutely important question to ask if we're going to just dismiss their faults as "social conservatism." My impression is that they generally were not noticeably conservative for their time, even if today some of their positions would make a rabid Republican blush.
For their time? I don't know. They were able to break free of the dominant ideology to advocate revolutionary politics, but for whatever reason they weren't able to apply that to the entirety of the social sphere.

There are still people like that. I left my previous organization because I was tired of dealing with a comrade whose economic positions were sound, but who was a social conservative when it came to LGBT people and women.

[exeexe]

The difference is quite simple because they are not even in the same category. Fascism is an ideology while National Bolsheviks is a political party.

[Dictator]

There are still people like that. I left my previous organization because I was tired of dealing with a comrade whose economic positions were sound, but who was a social conservative when it came to LGBT people and women.

What issues did he have with LGBT's and women?

[synthesis]

There are still people like that. I left my previous organization because I was tired of dealing with a comrade whose economic positions were sound, but who was a social conservative when it came to LGBT people and women.

Of course there are, that's the point. They are socially conservative for our time. It just doesn't make sense to apply the same political metrics to people who lived and died before "LGBT" was a concept that existed or at least was universally recognized; same goes for the tenets of second/third-wave feminism, civil rights, so on and so forth. (This is, of course, not to excuse the beliefs of people from eras past; in fact I think it is the opposite, it is understanding those beliefs in the proper context in order to more fully repudiate them.)

[exeexe]

Also read here
http://www.answers.com/topic/bolshevism

and keep in mind fascism is opposed to socialists taking over the means of production

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What issues did he have with LGBT's and women?
He opposed same-sex marriage. Not because marriage itself should be abolished, but because he held the social conservative line that marriage is for one man and one woman, and the state should protect that.

He opposed women having the right to choose abortion or even to use contraception.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Of course there are, that's the point. They are socially conservative for our time. It just doesn't make sense to apply the same political metrics to people who lived and died before "LGBT" was a concept that existed or at least was universally recognized
A utopian socialist like Charles Fourier defended what would now be called gay sexuality, and he was born in the 1770s.

[synthesis]

A utopian socialist like Charles Fourier defended what would now be called gay sexuality, and he was born in the 1770s.

Sure, I mean, there's a reason why the phrase "ahead of their time" was invented.

[PhoenixAsh]

The difference is quite simple because they are not even in the same category. Fascism is an ideology while National Bolsheviks is a political party.

No. National Bolshevism is a quite distinct set of ideologies that were already present during the revolution against both which Lenin and Stalin argued during the following decades and which finally formalized in the last few decades into an distinct party. Before that National Bolsheviks were present in most political parties in the Russian Revolution starting out in cadet/white parties but not unknown within the Bolshevik party.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Sure, I mean, there's a reason why the phrase "ahead of their time" was invented.
Apparently so, considering so many revolutionary socialists were homophobic up into the 1970s or later. I mean, even bourgeois liberals were ahead of revolutionaries at times on sexual matters. That's a fucking sad commentary on "revolutionaries".

[Red Economist]

ok, thanks for the ideas.

So, how about a communist/socialist who is also racist, homophobic, sexist etc.. that occurs - how would you label them?

The Communist movement has them, as people reflected their times and their social attitudes. Ours is defined by the gains made by the New Left, and so is more progressive and socially 'liberal' (but the capacity for reaction remains so long as capitalism, nationalism, the family etc, exist). As a Bisexual- I'm hardly going to argue against this or want to end up in prison doing five years hard labor for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#LGBT_history_under_Stalin:_ 1933.E2.80.931953

I think you need to make a distinction between those who had these attitudes and those who wanted it to become official policy, but basically I don't think you can label a communist by their prejudices; what matters (in terms of finding the right label) is their attitude towards the revolution and the post-revolutionary state as this usually defines their tendency.
Marxist-Leninists were arguably more socially conservative than most but it is debatable as to whether this is a product of the authoritarianism of their ideology or a product of the times (and their success in them compared with other tendencies); criminalizing (male) homosexuality; forced relocation of ethnic minorities; the anti-Semitic overtones of the attack on 'rootless cosmopolitanism' (Zionism and the campaign for a Jewish homeland by soviet citizens) in the early 50s; mass rape by the red army accross eastern europe (not as an official policy, but certainly there was a level of indifference when it came to how the Russian solders treated German women).

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Also they bite.

They suck and they are allegedly terrible at it, a seagull told me.

[Dictator]

He opposed same-sex marriage. Not because marriage itself should be abolished, but because he held the social conservative line that marriage is for one man and one woman, and the state should protect that.


The government should be withdrawn from ALL marriage.

[Dictator]

A utopian socialist like Charles Fourier defended what would now be called gay sexuality, and he was born in the 1770s.

Perhaps he was homosexual himself?

[Dictator]

Apparently so, considering so many revolutionary socialists were homophobic up into the 1970s or later. I mean, even bourgeois liberals were ahead of revolutionaries at times on sexual matters. That's a fucking sad commentary on "revolutionaries".

Not so sure about that - because I would figure that same sex marriage is actually a bourgeois, liberal concept anyway.

It's hardly Marxist in nature.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The government should be withdrawn from ALL marriage.
Sure, but that's different than a supposed revolutionary who supports marriage, but just not for same-sex couples.

[Per Levy]

nazbols are fascists that adore the soviet union under stalin not because of its "socialism" but because russia was at its strongest and most glorious at that point.

[Remus Bleys]

Apparently so, considering so many revolutionary socialists were homophobic up into the 1970s or later. I mean, even bourgeois liberals were ahead of revolutionaries at times on sexual matters. That's a fucking sad commentary on "revolutionaries".

Were these people actually revolutionary socialists though or were they just opportunists/bourgeois revolutionaries disguised in red coating?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Were these people actually revolutionary socialists though or were they just opportunists/bourgeois revolutionaries disguised in red coating?
I'm sure some of both.