DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist ideological camps in the big picture; Socialism, Mar
xism, True Leftism, etc.
By: Zea_mays Date: March 14, 2022, 2:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not only have Marxists usurped the term Socialism, but
apparently the term (and general meaning of) Communism pre-dates
them as well:
[quote]One of the first uses of the word in its modern sense is
in a letter sent by Victor d'Hupay to Restif de la Bretonne
around 1785, in which d'Hupay describes himself as an auteur
communiste ("communist author").[32] In 1793, Restif first used
communisme to describe a social order based on egalitarianism
and the common ownership of property.[33] Restif would go on to
use the term frequently in his writing and was the first to
describe communism as a form of government.[34] John Goodwyn
Barmby is credited with the first use of communism in English,
around 1840.[30][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
The French Revolution was as recent to Marx as the
Counterculture is to us, so consider that the ideological
foundation of Marxism isn't even an 1840s ideology, but has
roots into the late 1700s!
[quote]During the decade of the 1840s the word "communist" came
into general use to describe those who supposedly hailed from
the left wing of the Jacobin Club of the French Revolution.[1]
This political tendency saw itself as egalitarian inheritors of
the 1795 Conspiracy of Equals headed by Gracchus Babeuf.[1] The
sans-culottes of Paris which had decades earlier been the base
of support for Babeuf — artisans, journeymen, and the urban
unemployed — was seen as a potential foundation for a new social
system based upon the modern machine production of the day.[2]
The French thinker Étienne Cabet inspired the imagination with a
novel about a utopian society based upon communal machine
production, Voyage en Icarie (1839).[2] The revolutionary Louis
Auguste Blanqui argued in favor of an elite organising the
overwhelming majority of the population against the "rich,"
seizing the government in a coup d'état, and instituting a new
egalitarian economic order.[2]
One group of Germans in Paris, headed by Karl Schapper,
organised themselves in the form of a secret society known as
the League of the Just (Bund der Gerechten) and participated in
a May 1839 rebellion in Paris in an effort to establish a
"Social Republic."[3] Following its failure the organisation
relocated its centre to London, while also maintaining local
organisations in Zürich and Paris.[4][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_League
The idea that there used to exist multiple types of non-Marxist
_Communism_ should really hammer home the idea about the wide
variety of ideologies existing under the broader label of
_Socialism_. If Marxists are technically merely one among many
strands of "Communism", then orthodox Marxist Socialism is even
more minuscule in the grand scheme of the various _Socialist_
ideologies.
If these French guys aren't Marxists or even "Communists" in the
way the word is used today (with its Marxist connotations), why
should we continue to view non-Leninist forms of "Communism" as
Marxist Socialism/"Communism" rather than their own distinct
forms of Socialism?
----
You've certainly seen present-day Communists dogmatically repeat
their definitions of Communism and Socialism, but even these did
not originate with Marx. Indeed, apparently Marx and his
immediate successors used many terms interchangeably. It was
only with Lenin that there arose some apparent distinction
between "Socialism" and "Communism".
In other words, it is accurate to use the term "Marxist
Socialism" in place of "Communism" in order to stress Marxist
Socialism is merely one variant of Socialism among many. This
also makes the Communist argument that we can't be Socialists
because we don't agree with the Leninist definition of Socialism
even more absurd.
[quote]Since the 1840s, communism has usually been distinguished
from socialism. The modern definition and usage of the latter
would be settled by the 1860s, becoming predominant over
alternative terms associationist (Fourierism), co-operative, and
mutualist, which had previously been used as synonyms; instead,
communism fell out of use during this period.[35]
[...]
By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism which
had come to be considered an old-fashioned synonym for the
former. It was not until 1917, with the Bolshevik Revolution,
that socialism came to refer to a distinct stage between
capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a
means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against
traditional Marxist criticism that Russia's productive forces
were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution.[36] A
distinction between communist and socialist as descriptors of
political ideologies arose in 1918 after the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian
Communist Party, where Communist came to specifically refer to
socialists who supported the politics and theories of
Bolshevism, Leninism, and later in the 1920s those of
Marxism–Leninism,[37] although Communist parties continued to
describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism.[35]
[...]
Friedrich Engels stated that in 1848, at the time when The
Communist Manifesto was first published,[39] socialism was
respectable on the continent, while communism was not;
[...]
According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many
terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism,
socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free
association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely
interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are
distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered
the lexicon of Marxism after his death."[42][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
With the understanding that, historically, referring to
something as "communism" was not strictly synonymous with the
Marxist definition of Communism, and the understanding that even
Marx himself often used "Socialism" and "Communism"
interchangeably, it becomes easier to examine historic
manifestations of Socialism.
That is a long-winded way of saying things that historians call
"early communism", "Pre-Marxist communism", etc. aren't Marxist
hammer-and-sickle Communism at all. Marx tried to claim certain
historic Socialist and other practices superficially resembled
his interpretation of Communism, but he has no exclusive claim
to these practices. It should not be considered toxic to us to
praise certain ancient practices that academics label as "early
communism". Using more precise vocabulary, it makes more sense
to call many of these practices "early Socialism" or "primitive
Socialism".
At the very least, with the definitions quoted above, we see
that Marx wouldn't have been thinking "early communists" were
hammer-and-sickle red flag waving Marxist-Leninists, and that
his camp would not have had exclusive ability to draw
inspiration from historic practices. This should all be obvious,
but many historians and anthropologists seem to really get
caught up in the idea of suggesting ancient societies with
Socialist-like customs would have been red-flag-waving
Marxist-Leninsts, rather than, you know, some other type of
Socialist.
As I pointed out in a previous post, from briefly examining
Wikipedia articles, it seems like orthodox Marxist use of the
term "primitive communism" focused largely on pre-state
societies--i.e. hunter-gatherers. As we touched upon, these
so-called "primitive communists" should not be considered
candidates for Socialism (since they aren't statist nor have the
capacity for empathy to non-humans), and Marx and Engels
probably shouldn't even have considered them to be "Communist"
forerunners, since hunter-gatherers have strong social "class"
structures (although not necessarily "capital accumulation" to
the same extent as more "materially productive" state
societies).
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/leftist-ideological-camps-in-the-big-picture-socialism-marxism-true-leftism-etc/msg11337/#msg11337
Later generations of archaeologists, anthropologists, and others
have expanded "early communism" to cover many early state
societies as well. But, as I explained, we can completely ignore
the claim that these societies had anything to do with
"Communism", and simply consider them Socialist in the broad
sense.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/ancient-candidates-for-socialism/
#Post#: 12015--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist ideological camps in the big picture; Socialism, Mar
xism, True Leftism, etc.
By: Zea_mays Date: March 14, 2022, 2:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suppose at this point, I should try to give a general
definition of how I am thinking of the vocabulary I've been
using.
Socialism = as we have previous defined: "Socialism is the
belief that state intervention is essential to realistically
combatting social injustice, and that it is the moral duty of
the state to so intervene."
Marxist Socialism = A more precise term for the statist
interpretation of "Marxism" in order to stress that it is merely
one form of Socialism. Can also be used to refer to "Communism"
(i.e. the political implementation of Marxist theory. Consider
that there is no vocabulary distinction between National
Socialism as an ideological theory and National Socialism as a
political movement/party).
Orthodox Marxism = Strictly referring to the ideological
theories developed by Marx and Engels. The word "orthodox" is to
stress that subsequent theorists over the centuries who have
"added" to Marxist thought are deviating from "actual" Marxist
ideology--often to large degrees and often in sharp disagreement
with one another.
Communism = In conventional use, Communism is the general term
for the political implementation of Marxist ideological theory.
For the sake of precision, I think we should try to avoid using
the word Communism in this thread, since such a wide range of
political parties and ideological positions are labelled as
"Communism", many of which deviate from orthodox Marxist
ideology (and each other) by a considerable degree.
Marxist-Leninism = In conventional usage, it seems this term is
often used as a catch-all for various 'standard' implementations
of Communism that aren't given their own -ism, and Communists
stress that Marxist-Leninism is sort of the core "essence" of
"real" Communism. Stalin coined this term and applied it as the
state ideology of the USSR (and considered himself a
Marxist-Leninist, even though his policies are frequently called
"Stalinism" due to his deviations from Leninism.)
Just as the term "orthodox Marxism" makes it easier to isolate
the real ideological core of Marxism and helps our aim of
cleaving away Socialist ideologies that aren't fundamentally
Marxist, by ditching the word "Communism" and narrowing down
what we conventionally think of as Communism to include only
Marxist-Leninism, this will make it easier to re-examine the
so-called "Communist" ideologies which barely have anything in
common with Marxism--finally allowing them to exist on their own
as unique forms of Socialism.
(Why not simply use the term Leninism or Bolshevism? Convenience
I guess, since Marxism-Leninism is an established term.
How is Marxist-Leninism different than 'Marxist Socialism as a
political implementation'? It is a specific/more precise -ism to
be used as needed, just as Hitlerism is a specific -ism of
National Socialism. Theoretically, there could be a different
attempt to implement orthodox Marxist Socialism, but seeing how
impractical orthodox Marxism is, it is unlikely to be attempted
again.)
I am open to thoughts on the Marxist-Leninist vocabulary, but I
think everything else should make sense. De-emphasizing the word
"Communism" when discussing in this thread and being precise
about "Marxist Socialism" meaning 'statist Socialism of the
Marxist variety' will also help us down the road when trying to
discuss how Anarchism, Anarcho-Communism, and Marx's stateless
vision of end-stage "communism" (which isn't Socialist at all by
our definition) fit into things. As I said in the other thread
when discussing about "primitive communism", it is confusing
that the term "communism" is used to refer both to statist
Socialism and stateless "communalism".
----
Some additional definitions and final thoughts.
National Socialism = A non-Marxist form of Socialism. [Since we
already know what National Socialism means, we can insert a
better definition here later; the one that was one the main site
is probably fine.]
nationalist-socialism (uncapitalized) = Socialism which rejects
the orthodox Marxist belief that Socialism must be
internationalist/borderless/not confined to a particular nation.
Internationalism vs nationalism is one major character trait
where we can simply compare/contrast the views of various
"Communist" varieties and other forms of Socialism. Ultimately,
we want to show that "nationalist-socialist" variants of
"Communism" (e.g. Stalin's Socialism in One Nation or Socialism
with Chinese Characteristics) are qualitatively closer to
National Socialism than actual Marxist Socialism at this
specific character trait.
We don't need to give a name to every character trait, but I
think having the general term "nationalist-socialism" will make
it conceptually easier for people to (1) make the connection
that National Socialism can conceivably be a Socialist variety
(by being able to dissociate it from historical connotations of
Hitler and think about it academically/theoretically) and (2)
make the connection that, dating back to Stalin, all(?)
implementations of "Communism" have actually rejected orthodox
Marxist internationalism by being "nationalist-socialist" (but
obviously not National Socialist.)
This means they qualitatively differ from the Marxist form of
Socialism that they claim to be! If we can so undeniably hammer
home that they differ on this character trait, this makes it
easier to pose the question to leftists about how many other
character traits they could possibly differ on without them
realizing it.
In other words, leftists will begin to make the mental
separation between "orthodox Marxism" and the particular
"Communist" ideology they are favorable towards. They don't have
to wholesale reject leftism/Socialism in order to acknowledge
orthodox Marxist theory has failed to hold up, and potentially
reject Marxist Socialism in its original form completely. When
rightists argue against Marxism they are trying to get leftists
to abandon leftism altogether. But when the True Left argues
against Marxism, we are trying to get leftists to choose a
superior form of Socialism that they have been held back from
seeing, due to the 'sacred' shadow Marxism has undeservingly
cast over leftism.
Once we have conducted a detailed examination of the various
"Communist" and Socialist ideologies in this thread, we can boil
down the key ideological positions on major topics/character
traits into a simple list/table. From this table, it will then
be easy to show that (as a made up example) Socialism with
Chinese Characteristics shares 4/5 similarities with National
Socialism or Fascism and only 1/5 with orthodox Marxism. Or, at
the very least, we can show that it deviates from orthodox
Marxism on 4/5 points, and is therefore qualitatively dissimilar
to actual Marxist Socialism and must logically be a distinct
form of Socialism.
Even if it is not (yet) National Socialism, it is still not
Marxist Socialism, as leftists have conventionally believed.
And, again, it will be easier to process this if we can mentally
cleave the word "Communism" apart from "Marxism". You know what
I mean? Doofuses think the Chinese Communist Party _has to be_
Marxist, since it is "Communist" and has red flags, right? They
say, "Marxism and Communism are synonyms, how can Socialism with
Chinese Characteristics not be Marxist!?" They can conceive of
things no other way, simply because of the power these words and
their conventional definitions have over their mind.
But we will have clearly shown how they ideologically differ.
And, maybe, if we can de-emphasize the word "Communism" to make
it more of a vague term, it will mentally help things fall into
place for the doofuses. The Chinese Communist Party _doesn't
have to be Marxist_--not only because their current ideology is
qualitatively different from Marxism at numerous critical
topics--but because the word "Communism" isn't even exclusively
Marxist at all. It was used before him, used by non-Marxists
during his lifetime, and even fell out of favor during Engels's
lifetime!
Leftists already accept that "Communism" can have a broader
meaning than just "Marxist-Leninism", but why stop there? Why
not decouple the word from Marxism entirely? Not that we need to
'reclaim' the word Communism in the way we are reclaiming
Socialism, or claim Communism doesn't have significant overlap
with Marxism or anything--but why should it so strongly connote
Marxism to leftists? The absurdity of Bernie-Sanders-style
"Socialism" connoting pure Marxism to brain-dead rightists is
already evident. So why should leftists be just as brain-dead in
acting like every "Communist" party actually follows orthodox
Marxism just because they use the word "Communist"?
To give another example, democracy has a real ideological
meaning, but the political connotations of the word itself have
become so general that everyone from North Korea to the
Democratic Party in the US uses it. No one finds it weird that
the _word_ democracy has become so decoupled from John Locke and
other theorists that even North Korea uses the word. So, why
should red flags and the _word_ communism be a stumbling block
preventing leftists from acknowledging that the actual
ideological content of something isn't actually Marxist?
I guess that's using "Critical Theory" against them--by pursuing
multiple fronts to get them to break down their pre-conceived
notions. This is why words are so important in propaganda.
To summarize these ramblings: we desperately need to pry apart
Marxist Socialism from the grip it needlessly holds over even
the most mundane aspects of leftism, via multiple routes.
#Post#: 12017--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist ideological camps in the big picture; Socialism, Mar
xism, True Leftism, etc.
By: Zea_mays Date: March 14, 2022, 3:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Further ramblings on this train of thought:
When people think of "communism", what do they imagine? Red
flags, the USSR, hammer and sickles, etc. What I am saying is
that they are actually thinking of Marxist-Leninism, not
"communism". Communism is a general term and Marxism has no more
of a monopoly over it than it has over the word Socialism.
Communist China and other nations tried to implement and emulate
aspects of Marxist-Leninism, certainly. But over time they
continuously drifted apart ideologically.
Conventionally, "communism" connotes statist Socialism
(specifically, Marxist Socialism, which people incorrectly
believe to be the only form of statist Socialism), but
anarchists also lay claim to "communism"--based off of Marx's
own description of end-stage "communism" being stateless!
Statist Marxists may argue the anarchist interpretation of
"communism" is impractical, but even they cannot argue that
anarcho-communists are imposters with no claim to the word
communism. Furthermore, historically "communism" and "socialism"
were used interchangeably and the word communism even fell out
of fashion until Lenin(!) assigned them specific meanings. So,
just as we must break Marxist Socialism's monopoly over the
general word Socialism itself, we need to arrive at the
understanding that Marxist-Leninism never had a monopoly over
the word "communism" either.
Really, this is all a matter of propaganda strategy. I don't
care about an academic battle over semantics. But it is kind of
difficult to argue the the Chinese Communist Party is not
actually communist. It is easy to argue the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea is not actually democratic, but how can one
convincingly argue the red-flag-waving Chinese Communist Party
is not communist?
Instead, we say that Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,
Chavismo, and maybe even Stalinism, etc. are not
Marxist-Leninism, and therefore not orthodox Marxist Socialism.
Stalinism has probably not deviated too far from orthodox
Marxist Socialism/Marxist-Leninism, but Socialism with Chinese
Characteristics has deviated so far that it is no longer truly
Marxist.
It is its own form of Socialism. Who cares if both China and
Stalin were "communists"? Who cares if anti-statist
anarcho-communists also call themselves "communists"? Who cares
if North Korea and the Democratic Party are both "democrats"?
These words do not have bearing on the actual ideology and their
similarities/dissimilarities. Does it really matter if
"communism" continues to connote certain types of statist
Socialism after we have explained "Chinese Communism", etc.
aren't actually Marxist Socialism?
If we accept the Marxist-Leninist assertion that Deng, Stalin,
Lenin, etc. are categorically similar on a deep and meaningful
way because they are all "communist", then it will be much more
difficult for us to pry so-called "communist" ideologies apart
from one another. We should do all that we can to dissolve any
unnecessary categories and concepts binding ideologies
conventionally grouped as "communist" and "Marxist". This seems
like the only practical way for them to truly take off their
shackles and exist as unique forms of Socialism.
In other words, we need to get into the mindset where we don't
automatically assume a political party or ideology is Marxist
Socialism/Marxist-Leninism just because it uses the word
"communist"--just as we don't assume the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea is actually "democratic", or that the US
Republican Party believes in Platonic Republicanism, or that the
Whig Party dresses up in whigs and throws parties at their
political meetings.
(And in theory, present-day "communists" would actually agree
with us! "Communists" since the collapse of the USSR frequently
argue that no nation, including the USSR, was ever "actually"
communist... What a meaningless word then, if every communist
party in existence never came close to actually being
"communist"! Lol.)
I'm not saying we need to stop using the term communist outside
of this thread, and certainly not saying we should call
ourselves communist. But inside this thread, we should do all we
can to break down pre-conceived notions in order to properly
give the category of Socialism a radical re-examination.
TL;DR: Non-Marxist-Leninist varieties of "communism" (which
encompasses basically everything except actual Leninism) have
one foot in Marxist Socialism and one foot in non-Marxist
Socialism. It us up to us to help them make the leap away from
Marxist Socialism. Marxist-Leninism is, by definition, Marxist
Socialism and not salvageable; it aims to keep divergent
Socialist ideologies trapped in Marxist Socialist thinking by
unreasonably keeping them trapped under its self-defined
umbrella of "communism".
If we expose the meaninglessness of this category, so-called
"communist" ideologies will be faced with the choice of going
their own way as unique forms of Socialism, joining True Leftist
National Socialism, or ridding themselves of their "revisions"
and returning to orthodox Marxist Socialism (which has proven to
be a failed ideology).
#Post#: 12018--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist ideological camps in the big picture; Socialism, Mar
xism, True Leftism, etc.
By: Zea_mays Date: March 14, 2022, 3:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have come to realize that, if we want to be thorough, the
objectives set out in this thread basically amount to an
academic thesis. Honestly, that seems like too much work for
what appears on the surface to be simple questions.
I will try to be as succinct as possible, but I think it will
take some time to go through and learn all the details necessary
to fully accomplish our task. I don't want to be overly-reliant
on secondary or tertiary sources (i.e. I like quoting primary
sources and understanding the full context of what the original
ideologists were thinking), but, for the sake of our sanity, we
may have to limit our scope a bit.
----
Breaking things down, what do we need to examine to be able to
understand the various Socialist ideologies?
1) Modern pre-Marx Socialist ideologies that existed from the
late 1700s to ~1840s (when Marx and Engels began their work). In
my opinion, the purpose of studying this era is to (1)
definitively demonstrate that Marxist Socialism was only one
form of Socialism during his lifetime and that he did not invent
modern Socialism, and (2) understand the milieu Marxism
developed in, in order to really be honest about whether or not
the ideology even has any relevance in a 21st century world. To
be honest, I am less concerned about the ideological content of
these early modern forms of Socialism. Although maybe some of
them will have some inspirational viewpoints.
2) The views of Marx and Engels. Not as 20th and 21st century
Marxist Socialists _want_ to revise and reinterpret their views,
but the actual ideology Marx and Engels believed themselves. In
other words, orthodox Marxism. Clearly understanding this is
important, because this will allow us to precisely demonstrate
how later "Marxist" theorists have deviated so profoundly from
actual Marxism that it is absurd to call them "Marxists" (as I
have already pointed out in this thread:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/leftist-ideological-camps-in-the-big-picture-socialism-marxism-true-leftism-etc/msg11339/#msg11339<br
/>).
3) The development of Socialist ideas and Socialist political
parties from the ~1840s (when Marx and Engels entered the scene)
to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. I may be wrong, but it is
my understanding that Marxist Socialism soon became dominant
over earlier forms of Socialism. However, there were many
different opinions on how to best implement Marxist Socialist
ideas, many of which were democratic compromises and not very
radical. By understanding this part of history, we will
understand the milieu in which Lenin and Hitler developed their
political views and what they had to contend with when trying to
find political success.
4) Bolshevist/Leninist ideology and all the ways it held true to
orthodox Marxist Socialist ideology. From what I understand so
far, Lenin tried to, as far as practical, implement Marx's
ideology. It will be important to understand Bolshevist/Leninist
ideology, because Marxist-Leninism will set the "standard"
against which we will compare later developments of "Communism".
(The point being that subsequent "Communist" ideologies which
profoundly differ from Marxist-Leninism aren't really Marxist
Socialism.)
5) The development of Socialist ideas and Socialist political
parties from the Bolshevik Revolution to the end of WWII. A.
James Gregor put it most succinctly by declaring this was an era
of 'competing Socialisms' (i.e. Marxist-Leninism, National
Socialism, and Fascism). This period is also important because
these various forms of Socialism began influencing political
movements throughout the world. For example, Indian Socialist
Subhas Chandra Bose said he was attempting to make a synthesis
of aspects from National Socialism and Communism. In the "Middle
East", National Socialism led to nationalist-socialist movements
(e.g. Ba'ath Party in Syria, whose founders were explicitly
non-Communist Socialists.)
Hitler himself believed a three-way Cold War would develop in
the future:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10914/#msg10914
with it being important to bring non-Western nations around the
world into the National Socialist sphere of influence and assist
in spreading Socialism to them:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg11183/#msg11183
And Hitler also believed "Communism" would evolve away from
Marxist-Leninism and towards nationalist-socialism (which
already began to happen under Stalin):
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10718/#msg10718
But with the end of WWII, National Socialism became not just
unfavorable, but outright illegal in most places--therefore
forcing aspiring non-Western Socialists to turn to the USSR and
Marxist Socialism. Nevertheless, nationalist-socialism and other
thoroughly un-Marxist forms of Socialism continued to gain
traction.
5.1) The most important component of point 5 is demonstrating
that National Socialism really was a form of Socialism, which we
have already completed. But we will need to delve deeper into
its ideology to thoroughly compare it with other forms of
Socialism.
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/
6) Development of Socialist ideologies post-WWII. During this
period (the 1st Cold War), "Communist" parties gained influence
across the globe. It was during this time period that a massive
variety of new Socialist interpretations came into play. Many of
these were influenced by principles like anti-colonial struggles
and religion and deviated profoundly from Marxist-Leninism. With
the context of point (5), it becomes easy to imagine how
National Socialism could have been the ally and inspiration for
these religious and nationalist-socialist forms of Socialism had
it continued to exist, instead of Marxist-Leninism (especially
considering that actual Marxist-Leninism directly contradicted
key elements of these new Socialist ideologies!).
7) The 21st century. This is where Aim 3 really comes into play.
We want to unshackle Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and
other Socialist ideologies from Marxist Socialism, so they can
stand in the light as their own unique forms of Socialism. We
can also demonstrate how the "tankies" who claim to remain
inspired by statist Socialism after the fall of the USSR are
really just NazBol Duginists now, rather than serious
Marxist-Leninists or salvageable Dengists! Lastly, we form the
True Left--to gather all salvageable Socialists who mistakenly
believe themselves to be "Communists" and leftists who are
disenfranchised and apathetic because they never felt at home
with "Communists" or "Progressive" democrats.
#Post#: 12019--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist ideological camps in the big picture; Socialism, Mar
xism, True Leftism, etc.
By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 14, 2022, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"National Socialism = Non-Marxist form of Socialism. [Since we
already know what National Socialism means, we can insert a
better definition here later; the one that was one the main site
is probably fine.]"
Does this imply that any form of socialism that rejects Marxist
assumptions will eventually converge onto National Socialism? I
don't think we can be sure this is the case. We should try, as
an exercise, to come up with forms of socialism that are
incompatible with both Marxism and National Socialism.
Eventually we could put it all on a Venn diagram.
"faced with the choice of going their own way as unique forms of
Socialism, joining True Leftist National Socialism, or ridding
themselves of their "revisions" and returning to orthodox
Marxist Socialism"
This is what I was thinking, which is exactly why we cannot say
"National Socialism = Non-Marxist form of Socialism".
I can even think of forms of True Leftist Socialism that are not
National Socialist!
#Post#: 12020--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist ideological camps in the big picture; Socialism, Mar
xism, True Leftism, etc.
By: Zea_mays Date: March 14, 2022, 3:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I changed it to "A non-Marxist form of Socialism", since this is
what I meant.
#Post#: 12896--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist ideological camps in the big picture; Socialism, Mar
xism, True Leftism, etc.
By: Blue Kumul Date: April 19, 2022, 2:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For comparison, my analysis:
1. Traditionalist camp
1a. religious universalists seeking to spread their tradition
around the world: Catholic social teaching, Protestant dominion
theology, Islamism
1b. identitarian traditionalism: Confucianism, Judaism,
Duginism, Trumpism, right wing of Nazism (e.g Heinrich Himmler)
2. Modernist camp
2a. liberalism: social liberalism, libertarianism,
neoconservatism
2b. socialism: social democracy, Bolshevism, post-scarcity
socialism (e.g. Zeitgeist Movement or Venus Project)
2c. liberation nationalism: Chavismo, Baathism, left wing of
Nazism (e.g. Otto Strasser)
3. Countercultural camp
3a. green politics (including anti-civilization anarchists like
Ted Kaczynski)
3b. left-wing identity politics (I coined the term Inclusivism
for them)
#Post#: 20501--------------------------------------------------
National Socialism =/= Fascism
By: antihellenistic Date: June 19, 2023, 4:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
National Socialism (1)
It goes without saying that we have no affinities with the
Japanese. They're too foreign to us, by their way of living, by
their culture. But my feelings against Americanism are feelings
of hatred and deep repugnance
...
How can one expect a State like that to hold together—a State
where 80 per cent of the revenue is drained away for the public
purse—a country where everything is built on the dollar? From
this point of view, I consider the British State very much
superior. - Adolf Hitler
Source : Adolf Hitler - Table Talk page 190
It is, of course, possible to make out a case for the success
achieved in peopling continents which before had been empty. The
United States and Australia afford good examples. Success,
certainly - but only on the material side. They are artificial
edifices, bodies without age, of which it is impossible to say
whether they are still in a state of infancy or whether they
have already been touched by senility. In those continents which
were inhabited, failure has been even more marked. In them, the
white races have imposed their will by force, and the influence
they have had on the native inhabitants has been negligible -
Adolf Hitler on 7th February 1945
Source : Martin Bormann Testament of Hitler page 13
Fascism (1)
The American nation is a creative nation, sane, with
straight-lined ideas. When I talk with men of the United States
it does not occur to me to use diplomacy for winning or
persuading them. The American spirit is crystalline. - Benito
Mussolini
Source : My Autobiography, Benito Mussolini Chapter III - The
Book of Life
gopher.createaforum.com:70 /forums/trueleft/p/1130/1:638: line too long