Russian Nazism. How did this happen?

[The Something]

I see such an increase in russian nazi groups. I mean straight up swastika and sieg heil. They don't even have to make up lame coverup nationalistic name anymore.

On youtube I type russian nazi's and so many videos come up, news reports of russian racial violence is going through the roof.

How can they sit there and support a group that killed so many of their great grandfathers? This is just so absurd to me.

Another thing that is odd to me is that while this new surge of neo-nazism is in effect, the country of russia still takes pride in the fact that they were the soviet union. Like the marches with putin watching of soldiers and hammer and sickle flags. It seems kinda ass-backwards when now they are the complete opposite of anything even remotely resembeling communism.

I don't understand russians. :\

[luxemburg89]

As E.M. Forster said 'man is no nearer to understanding man'. I live in hope that Russia will one day return to socialism (i say return but what i mean is actually get there for the first time - Lenin set it in motion and Stalin fucked it up, by being a totalitarian paranoid prick).
People talk a lot of crap about Gorbachev but i reckon, to an extent, he humanised the monster that the Soviet Union had become (as a result of Stalinisation) and gave the word Communism (not actual communism itself that is above blame) a human face. Obviously this is only looking at the face value and I'm sure there is a lot of stuff I don't know about Gorby that may refute or support what I just said.

[Anton]

Originally posted by The Something@May 15, 2007 07:58 pm
I see such an increase in russian nazi groups. I mean straight up swastika and sieg heil. They don't even have to make up lame coverup nationalistic name anymore.

On youtube I type russian nazi's and so many videos come up, news reports of russian racial violence is going through the roof.

How can they sit there and support a group that killed so many of their great grandfathers? This is just so absurd to me.

Another thing that is odd to me is that while this new surge of neo-nazism is in effect, the country of russia still takes pride in the fact that they were the soviet union. Like the marches with putin watching of soldiers and hammer and sickle flags. It seems kinda ass-backwards when now they are the complete opposite of anything even remotely resembeling communism.

I don't understand russians. :\

I was born in the USSR and am very familiar with Russia, although i don't live there now.
I attribute the growth of nazi-ism to several factors:
1. After the fall of the USSR, millions of peopl who once held a job, had shelter, food and other general needs satisfied were thrown into poverty. Considering the historical rebeliousness of the people, the new elite and government were pretty frightened. So they what is so often done in such situations - using propaganda and other dirty tricks they usually have the blame was pinned on "non-Russians". It is much easier for people to hate people they can easily distinguish from themselves (hence why Jews are not often the target now - the ones targetted are those easily identified as foreigners - darker skin, accent, etc.) and the elite can sleep peacefully as the proletariat tear each other apart.
2. There was anti-antisemitism in Russia and some other countries for a very long time - the source of this is mainly the orthodox church (perpetrated for mainly the same reason ad in 1). It was considered a service to god to "cleanse his lands of the non-believing Jews" It had largely disappeared during the Soviet times but was still present - in fact my mother vividly remembers receiving death threats in the mail (Jews, leave or die, etc.) in Ukraine in the late 80's.
3. Lately, certain factions in the political and capitalist sector of Russia found the neo-nazi skinhead (bonehead) groups to be very convenient. They are mostly poor, unemployed, almost braindead young people, whose ideology is quite easily manipulated. They are being used for business and political purposes for money. Among Russian AntiFa there also seems to be some information about certain neo-nazi groups receiving funds from foreign sources in the West.
4. The Russian judicial system pretty much ignores them and almost never persecutes them fully. Recently, a group of nazi-fucks killed a 8 or 9-yard old girl simply for being a Tajik. A few of them were found guilty of "hooliganism" and the heaviest jail sentence was 1.5 years. On the other hand, AntiFa folks usually feel the "hand of the law" pretty hard.
5. Most of the nazi groups support the current government so they bring quite a large following, therefre receiving a virtual carte-blanche on what they do.

It's sad really, but from what I've been seeing on the net and hearing from people over there, AntiFa is growing steadily. :banner: h34r:

[Coggeh]

I believe its a surge of right-wing nationalism , nationalism was present in Russia and was strong from the days of Stalin but now because of the new found immigration and such its taken a new radical switch to Nazism and Fascism .Its the result of a society without racial differences in the sense that they never had the chance to scapegoat minorities as they were equal , but now since capitalism has been restored this fiasco of racial hate has been completely blown out of proportion.

In a country where their are as much (if not more) socialists than Nazi's it amazes me that these scummy ill-minded idiotic fucks can bee seen roaming the streets without any real backlash from leftists apart from some fights at football matches.

[Anton]

Originally posted by Coggy@May 16, 2007 07:09 pm

In a country where their are as much (if not more) socialists than Nazi's it amazes me that these scummy ill-minded idiotic fucks can bee seen roaming the streets without any real backlash from leftists apart from some fights at football matches.

most of the "party-line" leftists - like the Communist party and others are siding the the nazi-groups, openly marching with them in fact. The opposition to this force is made up mostly of Anarchists, Punks, Skater-kids, (Of whom there is obviously not as much) and plain-old mostly non-political folks who are plain-old fed up of the Nazi crap.

[Question everything]

I think they just got bored with stalinism. <_<


Edit- Seriously though it looks like a serious problem...

[RedArmyFaction]

Russian and Nazism ? Aren&#39;t they both contridicting each other ? Hitler hated Russians and other eastern europeans...........especially polish people. I can only burst into laughter. If Hitler had won the war, he would have exterminated Russians by marching them to the gas chambers. Obviously "Russian Nazis" don&#39;t have the brain power to realise this.

[bolshevik butcher]

After the collapse of stalinism as had been mentioned there has been a huge economic crisis.

These unemployed working class people, particularly frustraited youth will look for a way out. Since Russia does not have a large militant labour movement, and given its past, socialism is not looked to as this way out fo fascism is able to gain support. However this is a phenonema that goes beyond Russia and effects the rest of Eastern and to an extent also western Europe, eg the BNP, or the national fron in France.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by luxemburg89@May 16, 2007 10:06 pm
As E.M. Forster said &#39;man is no nearer to understanding man&#39;. I live in hope that Russia will one day return to socialism (i say return but what i mean is actually get there for the first time - Lenin set it in motion and Stalin fucked it up, by being a totalitarian paranoid prick).
People talk a lot of crap about Gorbachev but i reckon, to an extent, he humanised the monster that the Soviet Union had become (as a result of Stalinisation) and gave the word Communism (not actual communism itself that is above blame) a human face. Obviously this is only looking at the face value and I&#39;m sure there is a lot of stuff I don&#39;t know about Gorby that may refute or support what I just said.

there&#39;s no such thing as totalitarianism. The Soviet Union and Maoist China were fundmentally different than Nazi Germany. Socialism in China and the Soviet Unleashed the dissent and power of the masses through collectivization which gave control of the administration of the land to the masses and the factories were run by soviets or factory comittees. Stalin broke down the contradictions between mental and manual labor and pushed forward by having 10,000 workers mix in with the peasantry to figure out and to act on how to collectivize, woman were given equal rights in all aspects of society. In China, socialism went even farther with the cultural revolution actively having dissent pave the road to communism. This was fundamentally different than Nazi Germany which kept woman at home, committed genocide, protected capitalist-imperialist coporate interests by giving them the protection of the state and having them run the economy, and break the back of the working class by breaking down the communist party and all trade unions and sending them to the concentration camps. If they weren&#39;t fundamentally different, they wouldn&#39;t be on opposite sides.

[Rawthentic]

I dont know about totalitarianism, but I do about state-capitalist, which Russia was since very early after the revolution. There was wage-labor, the capitalist law of value, polarization of wealth, private property, soviet cartels, trusts, private enterprises and forced labor.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria@May 20, 2007 12:24 am
I dont know about totalitarianism, but I do about state-capitalist, which Russia was since very early after the revolution. There was wage-labor, the capitalist law of value, polarization of wealth, private property, soviet cartels, trusts, private enterprises and forced labor.

No that stuff really was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, some of that exsisted because of the NEP but it was from the begining called a very temporary, very necessary step backwards which was overturned quickly with a more aggressive socialist plan. The stuff you mention only really came under Krushchev when the socialist economic planning was weakened and loosened creating an opening for these manager kabals to form private capitalist markets. Mao talks about this in Krushchev&#39;s phoney communism, he realized this and he also looked at the shit the Soviet Union had started to do all around the world and said this shit needs to be renounced

[Rawthentic]

Wrong. Two men cannot reverse capitalism. Russia&#39;s isolation made it subject to the capitalist laws VERY soon.

And its not like Mao&#39;s China wasnt state-capitalist either, but in a different form and conditions of course.

And the NEP was not "socialist" thats just ridiculous. USSR took a step back but never recovered. Only worldwide proletarian revolution could have helped it.

And private capitalist markets, plus ALL I stated before was under Stalin, signified by that Stakhanovist model.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria@May 21, 2007 12:15 am

Wrong. Two men cannot reverse capitalism. Russia&#39;s isolation made it subject to the capitalist laws VERY soon.

Russia was hardly "isolated". And I&#39;m not saying that 2 men can reverse socialism to capitalism. I&#39;m saying that the leadership of a man and his cabal of followers can slowly reverse a state to capitalism. It&#39;s not like they came straight out and said they were done with socialism. They still kept the welfare programs, but slowly and surely, they rolled back socialism.

And its not like Mao&#39;s China wasnt state-capitalist either, but in a different form and conditions of course.

Um it wasn&#39;t state capitalist. You should Read this speach

and don&#39;t just skim through it or dismiss it as stalinist garbage or something. You can really learn a thing or 2 from it.

And the NEP was not "socialist" thats just ridiculous. USSR took a step back but never recovered. Only worldwide proletarian revolution could have helped it.

And private capitalist markets, plus ALL I stated before was under Stalin, signified by that Stakhanovist model.

no they weren&#39;t. The 1933 Soviet Union constitution declared all property in the Soviet Union Public or Communal. All agriculture was collectivized in this time period and while class struggle continued, class distinctions were destroyed after the class war against the kulaks was finally won

[Rawthentic]

Russia was hardly "isolated". And I&#39;m not saying that 2 men can reverse socialism to capitalism. I&#39;m saying that the leadership of a man and his cabal of followers can slowly reverse a state to capitalism. It&#39;s not like they came straight out and said they were done with socialism. They still kept the welfare programs, but slowly and surely, they rolled back socialism.

No, they did not roll back "socialism", capitalism and the world market that Russia was subject to did.

That was a very good speech from that Maoist economist, but it is important to note that when the Kuomintang and imperialist forces defeated the revolutionary proletarian movement in China, Mao switched to the peasantry, and the peasantry was the one that won the civil war, not the proletariat, who never had a voice until the Cultural Revolution and even then it was crushed.

All agriculture was collectivized in this time period and while class struggle continued, class distinctions were destroyed after the class war against the kulaks was finally won

No doubt it continued, but it was working class against the state bourgeoisie, the official "Communists" in power. State capitalism is not just a term that is thrown around for pleasure, it marks a definite historical period and the best model for capitalism to stay in power, as it happened under Stalinist Russia, nazi Germany, China, the New Deal in the US, and even Japan for a while. "Socialism in one country" is a paradox.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I think that anti-semitism has been a long tradition in Russia. Some widely published authors, such as Lev Kornneev, even questioned whether millions of Jews had been killed by the Nazis. Korneev&#39;s books, which were published by the state-run Pravda, received it&#39;s funding and texts from the financing of the Kremlin itself. Of course, law had technically forbade racist publications of all forms, but authorities tolerated widespread circulation of falsified literature that blamed the "Yid-Masonic conspiracy" for all of the social ills that existed at that time. It should be noted that many officials, such as Dmitri Vasiliev and Aleksandr Barkashov, later went on to form fascist cells within the Soviet Union throughout the 1980&#39;s.

This is the expression of a dreaded historical relationship, forged in the course of social and political struggles, between the main classes in society, it is not the sum total of all the prejudices and hatreds of the population. But it should be noted that with the collapse of a &#39;safety-net&#39; that promotes a certain degree of subsistence to workers, the desperation caused by the lowering of wages, the collapse on healthcare benefits, and lay-offs that was created by the swift privatization, would move the working people to search for a scapegoat to target, and a solution to their obstacles. Since working class organizations are virtually non-existent, or highly bureaucratized and ineffective in the long run, we are at the disadvantage, as membership in these fascist bands increasing far more than the overall membership in the trade unions.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria@May 20, 2007 12:24 am
I dont know about totalitarianism, but I do about state-capitalist, which Russia was since very early after the revolution. There was wage-labor, the capitalist law of value, polarization of wealth, private property, soviet cartels, trusts, private enterprises and forced labor.

"Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears."

The First Phase of Communist Society

[Rawthentic]

Of course, I agree with Marx, but he is still referring to socialism, where the workers own the means of production and control state power.

Stalinist Russia does not fit that. It was capitalist.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria@May 21, 2007 10:44 pm
No, they did not roll back "socialism", capitalism and the world market that Russia was subject to did.

well the Soviet Union was able to push forward socialist programs like collectivization even when it was the only socialist nation in the world. Albania survived for decades surrounded by Soviet imperialists, and American imperialists and having its only ally being China, which after the death of Mao broke with Albania. China the same, it managed to turn itself from a shithole backwards country into a booming self-sufficient economy while at the same time, pushing forward socialist programs like for example, the people&#39;s communes where everyone worked collectively on the same level to produce for each other. Where every lived together, ate together, and hung out together on an equal level, where top down oppression and exploitation was virtually liquidated. As well as the factory committees during the cultural revolution and the elected managers before that and the garuntee of the necessities of the people to everyone through socialist planning and rationing. Why were they able to do this? Because the theory of permanent revolution is flawed. Oppressed nations ARE able to become self-sufficient and to become even world powers through the bold step forward into socialism. I think China and Albania prove that, and even the Soviet Union pre-Krushchev and Brezhev. Because the Soviet Union was not in any kind of significant economic trouble when Krushchev took over. It was a superpower that was scaring the shit out of the capitalist class everywhere.

That was a very good speech from that Maoist economist, but it is important to note that when the Kuomintang and imperialist forces defeated the revolutionary proletarian movement in China, Mao switched to the peasantry, and the peasantry was the one that won the civil war, not the proletariat, who never had a voice until the Cultural Revolution and even then it was crushed.

You should read Red Star Over China. The book is thick as fuck but is a really good read and a quick read. I had it for a while and was pretty scared of how big it was, but once I picked it up I couldn&#39;t put it down. Basically its about an American bourgeiosie journalist who went into the liberated territories of China during the People&#39;s War and the Anti-Fascist War and studied life in Red China, interviewed Mao, Lin Piao, Zhao Enlai, and other leaders, and learned about the history of the communist movement in China, and what the future would be. He was the first one in there, and he came out a strong communist sympathizer. You can find it at you local revolution books or online at Amazon or ebay or something. It probably won&#39;t be that much if you buy it used. I personally took it from the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade Library at my local revolution bookstore so it was free for me.

The reason I bring this up is because he devoted a chapter to the political system of Red China and why it WASN&#39;T a dictatorship of the peasantry but a dictatorship the proletariat and peasantry. All descisions were made through Democratic Centralism in the Soviets of China, but political power was distributed in a fashion that ensured the dictatorship. The poor peasantry and the village proletariat and the farm workers had the most power when it came to voting. The petty bourgeiosie had less, and the bourgieosie had none. This ensured that while China was essentially a peasant nation with a tiny proletariat population, it remained a dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry. This type of system lasted until the destruction of the people&#39;s communes and the dispersal of the red guards and other maoists from 1976-1978

No doubt it continued, but it was working class against the state bourgeoisie, the official "Communists" in power.

well yes, but not all the leadership. There will always be capitalist elements everywhere fighting against socialism in the party and the state during socialism and until communism. Weither it is Trotsky and Bukharin trying to stop the moving forward of socialism, or it is Deng Xioping and Liu Shaqui doing the same in China.

State capitalism is not just a term that is thrown around for pleasure, it marks a definite historical period and the best model for capitalism to stay in power, as it happened under Stalinist Russia, nazi Germany, China, the New Deal in the US, and even Japan for a while. "Socialism in one country" is a paradox.

To compare the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany and the People&#39;s Republic of China to Nazi Germany and New Deal America is upsurd. Like I said, read that speach. I know its long but take it section by section, try to print it out, etc.. because it really explains what society was like and just how upsurd it is to compare Nazism to socialism

[Rawthentic]

To compare the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany and the People&#39;s Republic of China to Nazi Germany and New Deal America is upsurd. Like I said, read that speach. I know its long but take it section by section, try to print it out, etc.. because it really explains what society was like and just how upsurd it is to compare Nazism to socialism

Im in a hurry to translate some League articles to spanish to distribute to farm workers, so I&#39;ll hurry on this.

It wasn&#39;t comparing it for no reason. They all represent state-capitalism, the model best suited for the buorgeoisie to stay in power. Its an historical perspective.

And on China, it was built on the defeat of the revolutionary proletariat, and the peasantry won the civil war, not the proletariat.

I can write more, but gotta go.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

no i&#39;ve dealt with that. See if you read my posts, and you read what I&#39;m reccomending, then we can get somewhere