National Socialism is Fascism.It has no connections to actual socialism.
Results 1 to 20 of 45
Differences between "socialist nationalism" & national socialism?
Socialist nationalism refers to left-wing nationalism, like that espoused by Fidel Castro's 26th July Movement, James Connolly, Sinn Fein, IRSP, RSF, 32CSM,the ANC pre-corruption, the Scottish SNP, etc.
But what's different between this and the "national socialism" as espoused in by the followers of Hitler, and more importantly, Rohm and the Strassers? Is there any real difference other than the espousing of racial discrimination and hatred?
National Socialism is Fascism.It has no connections to actual socialism.
THE REV-LEFT STUDY GUIDE PROJECT
Contribute today and help facilitate the spread of revolutionary knowledge.
Right-wing nationalism is extreme nationalism: anti-internationalist, xenophobic and supremacist, racist or racialist.
I think left-wing "nationalism" is only giving importance to the national question instead of talking about the accomplishment of "world revolution", but it's internationalist, against racism and everything mentioned before. We could say that in non-aligned socialist countries, specially in Indochina, there was left-wing "nationalism" as well.
Another view of Stalin, by Ludo Martens (RIP)
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/
Trotskyism, Counter-Revolution In Disguise, by Moissaye J. Olgin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgi...yism/index.htm
The Red Comrades Documentation Project
http://redcomrades.byethost5.com/red.../articles.html
It doesn't seek to elminate classes but wants class collaboration to keep people in 'their place' basically. That is among other not so pleasant things like the racism and xenophobia stuff.
Freedom before Peace
No there isn't.
Nationalism is nationalism, it's not internationalism. If you think that some people have 'rights' based on 'nation' ('right of nations to self determination', 'right of abode' based on national/ethnic criteria, right of bourgeoisie to dominate its 'own' working class) then you are arguing for nationalism not internationalism.
As the working class has no country, as workers of the world must unite to overthrow international capitalism, all 'nations' (a bourgeois construct) can go get fucked in my opinion.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
We've all had this discussion in a past thread discussing how things like black nationalism are different than bourgeois nationalism.
Freedom before Peace
Indeed, would left communists deny the right for an oppressed nationality to split off, and maybe take other oppressed nationalities with them? such a thing would surely weaken capitalism, but would left coms would deny any attempt for anything short of an international revolution's legitimacy?
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
socialist nationalism is a distraction, national socialism is an deception
The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less than he Whom thunder hath made greater?
Here at least We shall be free
The concept of a nation is far older than the bourgeoisie, older than "nation-states". Just because they use it in a twisted manner (just as they use words like "freedom" and "equality") doesn't mean that the concept in itself is bourgeois.
national liberation can be and usually is internationalist. it can be devoid of racism while still fighting colonialism and attempting to establish self-governance of a certain nation/ethnicity. And, generally, it is fought for by the working class(not always ideologically) and has great benefits for the working class. Sometimes they end up as bourgeois natioanlist states, proletarian states, or degrade into comprador states.
FKA Vacant
"snook up behind him and took his koran, he said sumthin about burnin the koran. i was like DUDE YOU HAVE NO KORAN and ran off." - Jacob Isom, Amarillo Resident.
Socialist nationalism (also known as left-wing nationalism) usually emphasizes the liberation, autonomy, or sovereignty of a national group within a larger context, while also advocating a socialist government to be the system for the theoretical sovereign state--for example, Welsh nationalists within the United Kingdom or Basque nationalists in Spain and France.
National Socialism, or Nazism, does not emphasize the liberation of a national group. Rather, it is militantly nationalistic (i.e., jingoistic and expansionistic). It is only "socialist" in the sense that it provides some semblance of social programs for people of the particular nationality being emphasized--for example, welfare programs for Aryans existed in Nazi Germany. National Socialism is vehemently opposed to Marxian socialism. Marxian socialism places class interests and solidarity above national interests, while National Socialism (and fascism in general) place the interests of the nation and state above all else; National Socialism advocates cross-class alliances to further the "betterment" of the nation/state.
"The dictatorship of the proletariat means a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative -- against the forces and traditions of the old society." - V.I. Lenin
Left Communists in general (though not all, in particular) would deny the possibility of any 'national liberation movement' either 1 - weakening capitalism or 2 - helping the proletariat.
I cannot for the life of me see why it benefits the working class to be exploited by capitalists who have the same accent or wear the same kind of hat, rather than capitalists who speak with a different accent or wear a different hat.
If 'the workers have no country' and 'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a world to win' aren't crystal clear slogans then I have obviously been doing this communism thing wrong for a long time now. Perhaps what Karl and Fred meant was 'workers, foreigners are worse than exploiters from your own country' and 'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but the chains imposed on you by people who don't speak your language, you have a country to win that you can then hand over to local oppressors, won't that be nice'.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
So would you say that national liberation movements fighting against colonialism is pointless if they aren't communist? You can pick and choose some slogans and quotes to base your views on but I can throw out slogans and quotes too. They aren't logically arguments.
That "all or nothing" mentality is harmful because you will denounce anything that isn't perfect in your eyes.
Freedom before Peace
Whether "communists" have decided to support this or that group of bourgeois nationalists/populists, basically. I could never detect any real ontological difference.
Whereas, I would say this "lesser evil" mentality is harmful because you will support reactionaries and murderers with your eyes wide shut.
Please explain why enrolling workers behind an incipient bourgeoisie against a more powerful foreign bourgeoisie is better than urging all workers to attack all bourgeoisies.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
There is no such thing as "socialist nationalism", that's one difference. (Nationalism can never be socialist; the right can never be left.) Tough luck to all you Irish republicans, if your new Irish state is capitalist you will have accomplished fuck all.
That's not true. It just means that I won't go "Oh it's not the perfect communist revolution I'm looking for? Fuck that."
Your question is ridiculous. That's like saying "Well it does matter to me if the USA was colonized by a foreign power because it's just trading one bourgeoisie for another." I believe in national liberation even if it isn't communist at first. First, we should get the power more in the hands of the people who live in the area and fight the big imperialist powers. It's not exactly a "lesser of 2 evils" but a progress to get where we want. It won't always be perfect nor all at once.
Freedom before Peace
^This, if you look at the actual politico-economics of Nazism whether it be Hitlerian or Strasserite (if there is even a genuine difference) it's pretty clear that there is nothing Socialisitic about it and that it has no connection whatsoever to genuine Socialism or the worker's movement despite bullshit posturing and terminology.
As others have pointed out, Nazism is Fascism; there is very little if anything distinguishing the two.
And if he start to scream, BAWM BAWM, have a nice dream, a true mothafucka going out for the loot.
"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."-Col. Gaddafi.
"Damnation seize my soul if I give you quarters or take any from you."-Edward Teach.
Then you're a nationalist not an internationalist, a supporter of bourgeois murderers instead of the international proletriat. To claim that there are progresssive factions of the bourgeoisie is ridiculous; it's almost as if WWI hadn't happened, Rosa Luxemburg had never written the Junius Pamphlet, Lenin had never urged the Russian workers to 'turn the Imperialist war into a civil war', Trotsky had never written the statutues of the Communist International, or Marx even had never written about the complicity of the Prussians with the Thiers government in the suppression of the Commune. In fact, it's Bernstein and Revisionism a hundred years on, it's social democracy with bayonets.
Really if you want to believe in 'progressive capitalism' it should be the big powers you support, not the small ones, because it should (if capitalism were still progressive) be the biggest powers that are the ones spreading advanced capitalism. That would only make you 140 years out of date as a Marxist, but a Marxist nevertheless. Supporting national liberation movements makes you what, exactly? A radical Liberal? A bourgeois democrat? A Romantic?
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
