In depth what is third positionism?

[Sinister Intents]

From my understanding of it: Third positionism is just racist capitalism. It's a third position outside of capitalism and socialism, but in essence its socialism for the dominant ruling class, race, and so on, and capitalism/slavery for those deemed inferior. In reality though it's just a part of fascist politics to say they've a better economic position to take, something they insist is better.

What am I missing? What else is there? Is there a fourth position? What else is there outside of socialism and capitalism and related systems thst would be a third position?

[Zoroaster]

Here's the Wikipedia link to it, which did pretty well in my opinion.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position

[Sinister Intents]

Here's the Wikipedia link to it, which did pretty well in my opinion.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position

Thanks, I've asked this before on my forum, but I was looking for thoughts outside of the anarchist flavors (which most likely won't really differ.) That does illustrate it well and gives me an idea how to fight it in discussions. Where can I find these people without going to scumfront?

[Zoroaster]

Sorry, couldn't help you on that one.

[Sinister Intents]

Sorry, couldn't help you on that one.

I'm sadly going to read fash literature for extra perspection. I could go out into the streets with my soviet flag and pamphlets I print on anarchism and Marxism and distribute them to people. With my experience in marketing I could do something legit

[Slavic]

I've lately come to see these political expressions as methods within the current production relationship, ie. capitalism.

The current system is capitalism which birthed from feudalism. From this birth came Liberals whom are the ruling class in this new system. Liberalism and related ideologies support and strengthen the bourgeoisie as the ruling class.

Socialism is the reaction to Liberalism and supports and strengthens the proletariat.

Third Positionists (PC for Fascist) do not fall along proletariat and bourgeoisie class lines. They do not seek class rule, they seek racial supremacy. This is why they are "beyond left and right" because they seek supremacy with what ever tools they can use, corporatism, communalism, nationalism, socialism etc. It doesn't matter as long as their race is the ruling class.

Liberals want the bourgeoisie to the be ruling class
Socialists want the proletariat to be the ruling class
Fascists want their race to be the ruling class

In over gross simplistic terms.

[Sinister Intents]

I've lately come to see these political expressions as methods within the current production relationship, ie. capitalism.

The current system is capitalism which birthed from feudalism. From this birth came Liberals whom are the ruling class in this new system. Liberalism and related ideologies support and strengthen the bourgeoisie as the ruling class.

Socialism is the reaction to Liberalism and supports and strengthens the proletariat.

Third Positionists (PC for Fascist) do not fall along proletariat and bourgeoisie class lines. They do not seek class rule, they seek racial supremacy. This is why they are "beyond left and right" because they seek supremacy with what ever tools they can use, corporatism, communalism, nationalism, socialism etc. It doesn't matter as long as their race is the ruling class.

Liberals want the bourgeoisie to the be ruling class
Socialists want the proletariat to be the ruling class
Fascists want their race to be the ruling class

In over gross simplistic terms.

You said that better than the Wikipedia page!!!! Essentially though, couldn't you say they want to make all "whites" the bourgeoisie? Tgey want racial supremacy, but what they really want is to be in utter control and have socialism for what they perceive as the dominant race. They'd ensure capitalism, barbarism, and slavery for those they deem inferior. It also strangely makes me think of the U.S.A.

[Slavic]

You said that better than the Wikipedia page!!!! Essentially though, couldn't you say they want to make all "whites" the bourgeoisie? Tgey want racial supremacy, but what they really want is to be in utter control and have socialism for what they perceive as the dominant race. They'd ensure capitalism, barbarism, and slavery for those they deem inferior. It also strangely makes me think of the U.S.A.


Third Partyism does not pre-suppose a white supremacy, its just that white people have historically always held power over other races and the ability to maintain supremacy has always been a possibility.

I'm not sure how internationalist Third Party people are since they state that they ideally want separate countries for separate races, sorta like a separate but equal for states. This usualy stems from racism in that members of other races can't possibly get along with one another so it is better for them to be separated.

So you can say Third Party is Racial Supremacy in One Country and fascism is Racial Supremacy for all. Lol fucking socialism in one country threads polluting my mind.

[#FF0000]

I think it's very inaccurate to say third positionists/fascists want "their race" to be the ruling class, because fascist movements aren't necessarily ideologically racist. Fasicsts reject the idea of "class rule" and defend anti-egalitarianism on the basis that each class is part of a Whole, each playing a specific role in the functioning of the State and rebirth of the "Nation".

Economically, Fascists are all over the place, because fascists don't have economics. They are hardcore philosophical idealists and seek to solve economic and social problems through this national rebirth. They reject Liberalism and Marxism because, as they see it, they are both materialist and internationalist systems/ideologies

[Slavic]

I think it's very inaccurate to say third positionists/fascists want "their race" to be the ruling class, because fascist movements aren't necessarily ideologically racist. Fasicsts reject the idea of "class rule" and defend anti-egalitarianism on the basis that each class is part of a Whole, each playing a specific role in the functioning of the State and rebirth of the "Nation".

Economically, Fascists are all over the place, because fascists don't have economics. They are hardcore philosophical idealists and seek to solve economic and social problems through this national rebirth. They reject Liberalism and Marxism because, as they see it, they are both materialist and internationalist systems/ideologies

The "Nation" that fascists fetishize always involves a dominant culture from which all others are judged upon. Maybe racist was the wrong word to use, fascists pride a specific culture above all others and will use violence to see that this culture is not "threatened" by foreigners.

[#FF0000]

The "Nation" that fascists fetishize always involves a dominant culture from which all others are judged upon. Maybe racist was the wrong word to use, fascists pride a specific culture above all others and will use violence to see that this culture is not "threatened" by foreigners.

Yeah, I think "chauvinistic" is the better word.

[Slavic]

Yeah, I think "chauvinistic" is the better word.

Agreed,

Let chalk this up as a successful thread. Drinks are on me.

[ckaihatsu]

Also:





X factor (plural X factors)

(idiomatic) An unknown or hard-to-define influence; a factor with unknown or unforeseeable consequences.




http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/X_factor#English


I think Third Positionism tries to be an 'x-factor' on the political spectrum, so that makes it national chauvinism, basically.




[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)

[RedWorker]

Third Positionism, at least as it is used here, is an euphemism for fascism, which is obviously pro-capitalist despite claiming the opposite.

[bropasaran]

Third positionism is basically just neo-fascism. They usually say that they're "a synthesis of far-right and the far-left".

What's far-right about them? They explicitly advocate authoritarianism and ultranationalism. Concerning race- some are racial supremacists, some ignore racial rhethoric, some (most, at least formally) espouse a somewhat wierd sounding ideology of something like internationalist racial separatism, where they advocate cooperation among racial separatists of all races. As a rule, they are socially/ culturally conservative. They are strongly opposed to the marxist and anarchist movements.

What's far-"left" about them? They proclaim themselves as fierce "anti-capitalists" because they are against neo-liberalism, or any liberalism for that matter. They hold any number of economic views, almost all of them being basically just a different form of capitalism- some want a social-democratic economy, some explicitly talk about fascist corporatism sometimes calling it national-syndicalism, some espouse producerism, distributism, or guild-socialism, some talk about "socialism" in the mainstream sense of a nationalized planned economy, some even talk about communism, anarchism and classlessness.

[#FF0000]

I don't think anti-capitalism is necessarily a left-wing position.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The "Nation" that fascists fetishize always involves a dominant culture from which all others are judged upon. Maybe racist was the wrong word to use, fascists pride a specific culture above all others and will use violence to see that this culture is not "threatened" by foreigners.

No, I think "racist" was the correct term to use. People on this site fall for fascist apologetics about how fascism isn't "necessarily" racist far too much (and they are fascist apologetics - having lived through something of a fascist renaissance in this corner of the world, I've heard the argument so many times it's not even funny anymore). Can anyone name one fascist state that was not racist? I don't think so.

Generally, focusing on the overt ideology of fascists, Third Positionists included (3Ps being fascists who want to be socialists), misses the point, and the stated ideology of the various fascist movements is too diverse to say anything meaningful about it. Fascism is distinguished not by its ideology (in fact you could probably change a few words in the documents of the fascist Congress of Verona and get something most of RevLeft would happily undersign - democracy, co-ops, blablabla), but its function in the preservation of the bourgeois dictatorship.

[Atsumari]

Even though Juan Peron took in many Nazis and their collaborators into his country, his regime was most certainly not dictated by racial supremacy and even allowed Jews to participate in his government and did not persecute them. There is a good reason why many Jews were immigrating to Argentina instead of fleeing the country.

But one could argue that Peronism is too broad and anything you want it to be since it has been the guiding ideology of anti-communist rightists and leftists and eventually a liberal democratic political party which ultimately seems to prove that his policy more opportunist rather than an idealistic.

[#FF0000]

No, I think "racist" was the correct term to use. People on this site fall for fascist apologetics about how fascism isn't "necessarily" racist far too much (and they are fascist apologetics - having lived through something of a fascist renaissance in this corner of the world, I've heard the argument so many times it's not even funny anymore). Can anyone name one fascist state that was not racist? I don't think so.

Every Fascist state has been racist, but not ideologically so.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Even though Juan Peron took in many Nazis and their collaborators into his country, his regime was most certainly not dictated by racial supremacy and even allowed Jews to participate in his government and did not persecute them. There is a good reason why many Jews were immigrating to Argentina instead of fleeing the country.

But one could argue that Peronism is too broad and anything you want it to be since it has been the guiding ideology of anti-communist rightists and leftists and eventually a liberal democratic political party which ultimately seems to prove that his policy more opportunist rather than an idealistic.

Peron was also a minister in the government that severely curtailed Jewish immigration but, more importantly, his regime continued the racist policy of the Argentine state toward indigenous Argentinians.

You won't find a non-racist fascist state since you won't find a non-racist bourgeois state.


Every Fascist state has been racist, but not ideologically so.

But what does that mean? That they didn't go around extolling the virtues of racism? Well, the neo-Confederates, for example, don't do so either. Saudi Arabia doesn't officially proclaim itself misogynist and Iran doesn't proclaim itself homophobic. So, yeah, I'm not sure the distinction makes much sense or has any political impact. From my experience, people generally use it to defend themselves from charges of racism because, see, they like one of the "good, non-racist" fascists like Mussolini or Vargas or...

[#FF0000]

But what does that mean? That they didn't go around extolling the virtues of racism?

Yep, pretty much this.

You're totally right, though. I just think the distinction is important because it shows that one doesn't need to have a stringent, overtly racialist worldview to have a virulently racist system.

[Mad Frankie]

Fascism is closely related to social democracy, it's the same petit-bourgeois story, class collaboration, yellow socialism, corporatism, structural antisemitism (usury as enemy), attempts to find a third way, a common good...