What exactly is National Bolshevism?

Home Forums General & off-topic What exactly is National Bolshevism?

Viewing 12 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #63014
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Can someone explain this ideology for me? Any good books in English (other than Dugin) on it? Is National Bolshevism and National Communism the same thing?

    • #63015
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The bonked up, inbred bastard child of Russian-style Ostalgie and nazi interpretations of the hyper-nationalist culture that is diffused in Putin’s Russia. Basically neo-nazis larping as soviets minus the slav hating.

    • #63016
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I read the biography of Limonov, and what I gathered there was that nazbol was mostly just people being counter-culture, it was like the punk of politics. It united a lot of differents kinds of people, at first ultranationalists like Dugin but also rather normal youth that just liked Limonov’s rebellious style.

      The book didn’t dwell on nazbol as much as I would have liked, it was more about Limonov’s earlier life, but in a way that earlier life made it easier to understand his thought regarding politics. He never wanted to be mainstream, and he really liked shocking other people by doing things considered inappropriate, and in a way, Nazbol was the peak of that show. More of a rebellious performance than a truly cohesive, real ideology.

      • #63029
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Absolutely this. I freaking cannot comprehend how people can view national bolshevism as an actual ideology and not opposition against everything.

      • #63030
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this

        NazBol was just an aspect of the post soviet punk scene, it isnt a cohesive ideology.

      • #63035
        Anonymous
        Guest

        /thread

    • #63017
      Anonymous
      Guest

      > Can someone explain this ideology for me?
      Extreme social-traditionalism.
      Economically left and right on cultural issues.

      • #63018
        Anonymous
        Guest
        • #63019
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >I don’t understand. Aren’t the Italian Fascists and National Socialists exactly this?
          No, Nazism had massive support from industrial interests and privatized the country’s previously state-owned assets. Italian fascism did pretty much the same thing.

          • #63021
            Anonymous
            Guest

            practice = / = theory
            it wasn’t true fascism

            • #63023
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Theory doesn’t matter. What makes "fascism" is what the actual fascists do, not what they wrote in their books.

          • #63022
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I know they did privatize many industries, but they remained under the power of the state. Corporations clearly didn’t run the Reich, Hitler did. They were allowed to operate and make money, but they were not allowed to get out of line on cultural issues. And they had strict labor laws (before the war) and am excellent welfare system. They even provided free vacations for working families, Strength Through Joy. Italy had a harder time achieving his goals, and fought conservatives within the country for about 10 years before he could achieve much of agenda. Towards the end, Fascist Italy was only second to the USSR in terms of state ownership of industry. So clearly these guys weren’t just capital shills.

            • #63024
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >And they had strict labor laws (before the war)
              Quite literally not true, anon. Nazis *relaxed* workplace legislation and dismantled the unionist apparatus before creating new state-backed union system that had no purpose but to serve as their yes-man.
              Sure, their state ownership and welfare system pushes them economy left. But their general hatred of socialism/communal-ownership, fierce defense of private property, support of industrial interests and privatization pushes them to the right, *harder.*
              In the end, they’re far-right culturally, and very auth-right economically.

              • #63026
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >dismantled union/labor apparatus
                I believe this. These areas were filled with Communists, and Reds were enemies of the state. I’d like to more research into their labor apparatus, I don’t think they were just yes man. And they still had great social programs.

          • #63039
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Italian fascism did pretty much the same thing.
            scrotebrain

        • #63020
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Socialism in one country was the central bloc under Stalin’s refuation of Troskyite philosophy.

        • #63025
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Aren’t the Italian Fascists and National Socialists exactly this?
          Thinking of these ideologies as comprised of "positions" has been a disaster. Fascists saw themselves as overturning the whole Enlightenment. The Nazis constructed their worldview in part around a collective race Ubermensch which would appeal to myth, blood and authority — no longer be bound by petty Christian slave morality! *pulls out sword*

          The Nazis absolutely rejected Hegel and Marx and any kind of "non-German" rationalisms. Alfred Rosenberg formulated a concept that "intuition" guides man even though man lacks a soul. Races and nations were graded like hierarchies in the animal kingdom.

          Ontologically it’s just different. Nazbol stuff in the 90s in Russia was a punk shock art thing. As a political movement, it doesn’t really makes sense because it’s like crossing DNA from two different creatures, but that’s why it works as a "freak" art thing. It was also anti-Russian in the same sense that punks in the U.S. would burn American flags. Limonov would talk about the Russian words sounding like disgusting, fat grubs. He just really hated liberals.

          There was a desperate catch-all coalition called the National Salvation Front but it was just whether you were pro-Yeltsin or not.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Salvation_Front_(Russia)

          >I know it use to be a legitimate idea, Socialism in One Country.
          Revolutions failed to spread, which created an ideological problem since it was believed that the USSR couldn’t hold out when isolated. So "socialism in one country" is a tidy little way to resolve that problem. It’s more national than international, but it still agrees in the need for world revolution, it just thinks it’s impossible without first having a powerful base country with a powerful state that can develop the economy.

          Personally I would prefer "socialism in one country" to national socialism. Seems to have a more upbeat attitude.

          https://youtu.be/Net9YgT7qMM

          • #63028
            Anonymous
            Guest

            (me)
            A related ideological problem btw with socialism is whether socialism (or communism) can exist without a world revolution that takes over the whole planet. But that’s probably not going to happen anytime soon, or it wasn’t in the 20th century, so does that mean you don’t try to make revolution? Obviously not.

            That’s kinda why Trotskyism was only ever a thing in the western developed capitalist countries. If you’re living in the third world, some Trots will say "well, your revolution against colonialism isn’t really socialist because the whole world hasn’t had a revolution yet." It’s a paralyzing thing to believe. So… no way… and fuck that and fuck you, basically. Stalinism or "socialism in one country" therefore is both more "national" but it’s also much less Eurocentric.

    • #63027
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Commies coping with the true nature of socialism

    • #63031
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There’s no such thing as Nazbol.
      Nazism is already racial nationalism + socialism, if that’s what you want you are just a Nazi. At any rate you could be a Strasser brand of Nazi, ie the State should not only control the economy but also manage it in it’s entirety directly.

      Trying to make a distinction between Nazbol and Nazism is the result of people who still maintain that the Nazis weren’t socialists.

    • #63032
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Nazbols
      Nicolae Ceausescu Romania
      Partisans faction PZPR Mieczyslaw Moczar
      North Korea

    • #63033
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Its communism with natsoc characteristics

    • #63034
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Basically they wanted to remake the ussr

    • #63036
      Anonymous
      Guest

      High level scrotebraination.

    • #63037
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The final culmination of mankind’s dialectical opposites: the termination of liberalist-post modernist-capitalist rhetoric woke af on blind self assured arrogance.

    • #63038
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What’s the difference between National Bolshevism and Strasserism?

    • #63040
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It is basically just having fun being the exact opposite of what is acceptable. It is an ideology for contrarians who want to be contrarian to even other contrarians.

Viewing 12 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.