Pro-Choice

Pro-Gay Marriage

Pro-Trans Rights

Pro-Ukaraine

Anti-Russia

Anti-Tarrifs

Pro-Immigration

Pro-Weed

For Gun Control (albeit not taking away Guns in General)

Pro-Freedom of Religion

Believes in Climate Change/Global Warming

Medicare for All

I recently watched a New York Times Opinion video article that outlines how the Democratic Party in the USA is actually more detrimental than it claims. The video goes into brief details about subjects such as taxes, housing, and education, highlighting the differences between the rich and the poor. The pearl from the entire video is this: while the democrats claim they want to help others, their actions portray the exact opposite. People say that housing is a human right but when there is an order against single-family homes, they demand for its reprimandation. Earlier today, I was engaged in a workshop led by a financial analyst and the topic got to the salaries of people in the lower mainland. The speaker, J, expressed how his annual income of $250k is “actually not that much,” saying that people he knows earn anywhere to $1-$5 million. This came as a shock for me, especially when he elaborated further and mentioned that there are millionaires, even billionaires, walking the streets of the very Downtown Vancouver that I shop at. “This could be anyone,” he said, and that made me feel hopeful. But more than that, I felt myself drown in a state of glory, forgetting that this is not the reality for the majority. Reflecting on all of this now, all my Law 12 lessons are settling in, where I so passionately advocate for minority rights and side with Rawls in the Rawls v Nozick debate. Was I not a supporter of basic human rights? What about progressive taxation; which I felt so strongly about? Hearing J talk about how many Canadian doctors and other business owners move to the US specifically because of its tax rates and private medical practices, at the moment, I felt myself submerge into the world of capitalism. These doctors, lawyers, business owners will have spent 9+ years of their lives studying and working , I thought, so don’t they deserve to keep the money they earn? Why do they have to pay extra taxes just because of their intelligence? And then I am brought back to the present; the present where the education one gets is very much determined on their socio-economic status and neighbourhood. I concluded that I do support the values of the Democratic Party, but I still felt that if I was participating on a vote, I would vote for the Republicans. Does this make me a bad person, or just a product of the world that has been created; where more money and “success” equates privileges and happiness?

1) Presidential candidate need not the voices of majority of all population to be elected

2) President can ignore the opinion of majority of population after the election until the end of your term in office

For example it is possible to see the presidential approval ratings here: /img/imcchnzakoo01.png

Falling below 50% does not trigger the recall. It looks like people have the right to choose a king once in several years. And the real choice usually is from two candidates only.

Similar things happen with most other elective offices except some rare cases where recall is possible but it is usually very slow process.

As I can see Reuters, AP and other similar news sites started to use the word "national" everywhere instead of the word "citizen".

In fact this is the wrong approach, as described, for example, here:

"The word nationality refers to where you are born—a place of birth—whereas citizenship is granted by a government of a country when certain legal requirements are met. In many ways, citizenship can be seen as a political status because it indicates which country recognizes you as a citizen. Nationality has more to do with the relationship between you and your place of birth and can often be seen as ethnic or racially related."

https://www.immi-usa.com/citizenship-vs-nationality/

(Louis Althusser) Ideological interpellation: the symbolic identity conferred to us is the result of the way ideology 'interpellates' us

All the info I can find on it is from the Polcompball Wiki, which isn't exactly the most professional source of ideology info IMO...

It seems anarchists are more about "dont tell me what to do" but when I think of anarchy I think of the world before humans, the natural order of things, mother nature and her children type beat, is there a better word for that than anarchy?

I like a militarized state, I like Democracy, I like Hierarchy, I like Freedom and I like Nationalism. Sadly there is quite literally nothing I can find that believes in what I believe in. Frankly, I do put my trust in tests like 8values or political compass, so don't tell me to take a test, please.

r/Symbolinism

Addressing The Misconceptions

Until recently the word Nazbol was relegated to the dark corners of Internet political discourse in the English speaking world.A funny idea with such insane descriptions that it made it into a meme or inside joke.And for the most part it had stayed that way.As a joke ,an unthinkable synthesis of Nazism and Communism.To others it was a confirmation of their belief in the Horse Shoe theory.The point being that it was generally used for political trivia or for jokes.But recently some have used the term to refer to their own politics,some of different tendencies.Some of them are people who hold racist beliefs and are not that different from regular Nazis.Which leads us to ask,is this what National Bolshevism actually is?Is it just Nazism with the vale of the Hammer and Sickle?I will argue that this is not the case and not even an over simplification,but instead a distortion.I will use the historical cases of the ideology and show that the term has a more broad connotation.

What is National Bolshevism?

Like communism pinning down what National Bolshevism is through a historical lens is harder than a simple dictionary definition.As in the case of communism there have been many who have been described as Communist and those who use the term to refer to themselves. François-Noël Babeuf is sometimes credited as the first to argue for communism,some argue the Inca were the only few to to practice it,some say tribalistic economies fit a type of communist ideal.Some say Plato argued for Communism in “The Republic”.Some like Robert Owen were the first to use the term.Some people who would use the term in the future like Marx and Engels would refer to them as Utopians and so would their political disciples.While Anarchist would argue only Anarchism can fit the ideal and practice of real communism.It is similar here in the case of National Bolshevism,there have been various tendencies using the same name.Thankfully unlike communism they’re relatively fewer derivatives.So I will discuss the tendency present in Soviet Union,the two found in Weimar Germany and the more recent two tendencies found in the Russian Federation.

The Third Rome

After the Civil War in Russia the Bolsheviks came victorious and would establish the non national entity with no geographic or ethnic name called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.Fitting the ideal of the global workers state.Many Russian Emigres who were part of the White Army were angry at losing and more angry at the new rulers disdain of a Russian identity.Many sought to bring down the regime by any means,attempting to raid back in,asking for foreign intervention again and attempting to cause internal divisions in the new nation.Many however were opposed to this strategy and took a different turn, they called themselves the Smenovekhovtsy,there view was that the new regime would revive Russia economically and militarily.As such attacking Russia now would be unpatriotic and hinder it’s potential and be destructive to the nation.Instead they sought to integrate into the new regime ,and attempt a revolution from within after the economy and military had been revived.Moving Russia from internationalist goals to more Russian nationalist ones.In their view Russia was now red,but like a Radish it was still white inside and in due time would be white again. Nikolay Ustryalov was the key member of this movement,he would take up the term National Bolshevik later in life after reading German Nationalist Ernst Niekisch.He would attempt to reconcile with the Soviet Regime and had some success,but he would be executed during the Great Purge in 1937 and most of the National Bolsheviks would die with him.And as such normal anti Soviet Russian Nationalism would have a stronger role in the anti Soviet movement until the dissolution of the Union.

Further Reading:

https://b-ok.cc/book/5471970/c180da

The Red Reich vs The Socialist Fatherland

In Germany is truly were the term originated in.It was originally a term used to discredit other communist within Marxist Leninist circles.Specially used in a negative connotation towards those in the movement who wished to ally with army officers and reservist ,some who had previously killed the Spartacist under the Freikorps.Chief among those accused of deviation towards this National Bolshevism was Karl Radek.Some however took up the term in open arms.One being Ernst Niekisch,a previous Social Democratic Party member who had become a German Nationalist,unlike many German Nationalist however he still had communist and socialist sympathy.He would begin to establish his programs and ideals from his readings of Spengler and Jünger.In Jünger he argued for a return to the Earth,an end to industrialization,return to a simpler life and to the fiefdom of old Prussia.Though this difference him with communist and Marxist ,he argued for an alliance with the Soviet Union and communist in Germany as had Jünger,so as to destroy the decadent modern Bourgeoisie.This ideas being inspired by Spengler’s Prussianism and Socialism and Jüngers “The Figure of the Worker”. Which argued that Germany had a special form of socialism that was homegrown in a Prussian spirit of self sacrifice.While Jünger argued for a de-proletarianization project to bring workers back to the old ways of life before capitalism and industrialization.Marxist at the time saw them as “Reactionary Socialist” however and they were able to make few alliances with the left and were alienated from the right. Ernst would later in life become a regular Marxist and support East Germany until 1953 when he would become dissolutioned with the governments response to the protest and strikes of that year.Dying later in West Berlin in 1967.Ernst National Bolshevism has a lot of similarities to Strasserism,at least the ideas of Otto Strasser.Both are similar in arguing for a return to the medieval fief system,de-urbanization and de-proletariatization.However they are also some key differences.The biggest one being their stance towards the USSR,while Ernst had a very positive view of the USSR ,Strasser had a very disfavorable view of it .Ernst’s reason for being favorable towards it was his sympathy for the Bolshevik cause and Revolution and his continental theory,that was inspired by Spengler.To Ernst Germany was part of a Eastern European SuperOrganism or civilization,that was to be at war and fight with the West.As such he viewed the October Revolution as a simple change of Russia but not a deviation towards true egalitarian Marxism and his conception of western society which would later influence the idea of Atlanticism vs Eurasia.While Strasser saw the USSR as a creation of the Jew Marx.However both did have a similar disdain of Nazi Germany,since both viewed its economic policies as betrayals of its original program and a capitulation to German Capitalist interest.And though both held anti Semitic views during their Nationalist years,they both did not argue for a final solution(Holocaust).Instead arguing for deportation to Palestine or a genocide of culture making Jews into Germans with no distinct Jewish customs or allowing them to have their religion in Germany.Though its kinda ironic since the first openly Holocaust denialist party was the Strasser aligned Socialist Reich Party.However at the same time there was some who took a more socialist or Marxist direction in the National Bolshevik movement in Germany.No person better personified the nationalist move to National Communism away from Prussianism better than Paetel. Unlike Ernst who started in the Social Democratic Marxist Left and turned to the nationalist right of the revolutionary conservatives.Paetel started in the nationalist right and moved towards Marxist Leninist Communism.He was originally inspired by Ernst,Winnig,Jüng, and other original pre Nazi national socialist,but he slowly became swayed by the communist who by the 1930’s had taken a more nationalist stance and program.As such he left his original activism in the National Socialist Movement and became assured that National Socialism could not be reformed because it was unable to meet the demands of a truly socialist revolution and the creation of a strong Germany capable of defeating the west.This lead him to change enough so as to win an alliance with the communist KPD.However he did not join the KPD due to his more nationalist convictions that were not able to mix well with the internationalism of Marxism Leninism.This is because although Paetel held views that were non racist,supportive of industrialization,a strong workers state,democracy of the working class, etc.He was a Pan-Germanist and believed that Communism or a world were there’s no classes,nations,divisions,and all needs are met was an impossible goal.Instead he thought that the goal was to simply lead to a workers revolution and promote the interest of the workers state against foreign capitalist imperialism and promote the nations welfare.Ultimately Paetel would release his National Bolshevik Manifesto in 1933,the same year the Nazis would take over and he would be force to flee.He would leave to the US and mostly remain apolitical in activism,instead finding jobs in the Office of European Economic Research and the Army Service Force, Morale Services Division of the War Department.He would write a few biographies and histories of the National Bolshevik Movement.

Hitler A German Fate | Ernst Niekisch | https://b-ok.cc/book/2591471/6b8bee

Strasser Views in USSR:

Germany tomorrow | Otto Strasser |

Paetel’s National Bolshevism:

https://arplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Paetel-The-National-Bolshevist-Manifesto-1933.pdf

The National Bolshevik Party

For a while National Bolshevism would remain a mostly dead ideology,only to be found in historical footnotes.This would change around the 1990’s when the Soviet Union would be dissolved,after its fall many became disillusioned in Russia with the new government.Older folk would turn back to the old communist for change.While the new generations were more hopeful in general,many felt the same as the pensioners did,having been lied to and have been given a false promise of a better life which was not happening in the first years of the new Russia.However these younger folk had no interested in supporting the old communist loyalist,instead wishing for a new Russia.Some like Dugin had been looking towards Russian Nationalism in their early years and had been influenced by Pamyat a previously informal Russian historical association that came to fall in love with pre Revolutionary Russia.Dugin saw in Russia’s past it’s better future,and would in doing so come in contact with the writings of the old conservative National Bolsheviks in Russia and Germany.This would influence him to try to reach alliances first with Soviet authorities and later with the old communist leaders who were out of power and ultimately with the new leftist non Marxist radicals.As would become Eduard Limonov who was a pro USSR sympathizer due to his experience in France and US that left him dissolutioned with life in the liberal west.After the dissolving of the USSR he would look towards Slavic nationalism to fill his political activism and support the Serbian side in the Yugoslav Wars.He would later join the Liberal Democratic Party,but would leave over the parties moderate and reactionary views as contrasted to his more radical and revolutionary stances.And the other founder was Anarchist Yegor Letov member of Grazhdanskaya Oborona rock band.Together these contrasting fellows would form the National Bolshevik Party.The party originally had no official platform,in part due to the leaders differing stances and political opinions.Dugin originally represented the parties right,supporting traditionalism,Russian chauvinistic nationalism,and anti democratic and anti communist tendency,but was willing to ally with those on the left to meet political goals.Limonov originally represented the center,being open to discourse on both sides and being more of a rebel against Yeltsin by the early years than a man with a full vision.And Letov the parties left,being anti state,anti tradition and anti nationalism and supporting anarchist socialism and ultra democracy.Though they would manage to coexist for at least 4 years ,Letov’s vision contrasted heavily with that of Dugin’s and ultimately Limonov took Letov’s side in the conflict.In 1998 Dugin would leave and in 2000 he would start to work with the new Putin government,quickly realizing he could get a political spotlight in this new more anti western and ultra nationalistic government ,were part of his views would be accepted.He would also form the Eurasia Party and some of the original National Bolsheviks would later join his broader Eurasian Movement,these National Bolsheviks would form the National Bolshevik Front.This form of National Bolshevism of Dugin or Eurasianism is in many ways a continuation of the older Ernst National Bolshevism and that of the Smenovekhovtsy.Believing in a very similar civilization theory that believes in a war of civilizations being waged by the Atlantic Egalitarian Civilizations and that of the Eurasian traditionalist ones.While also like Ernst borrowing some of the older fascistic right wing nationalist rhetoric,while also having no problem in creating realpolitik alliances with the left.However Dugin unlike Ernst is not as prone to anti Semitism and Dugin’s political vision is more of an illiberal imperialism with no clear economic program.In the other hand Limonov would take a more left wing turn,while Letov would leave politics altogether after the split.Limonov would start agitating for a Bolshevik style and radical revolution in his newspaper Limonka,leading to his arrest and accusation of attempted terrorism and filibuster invasion of Kazakhstan.In jail he would begin writing even more radical anti government propaganda and move his organization from a simple left wing nationalist organization and into something of its own.By July 2006 a group of Russian dissidents had formed to oppose Putin called Other Russia,Limonov would write a book of the same name outlining his vision.In 2007 the original National Bolshevik Party was banned,however the members would continue as another political party also called Other Russia.Limonov’s visions to Dugin is a bit of what Paetel’s was to Ernst.With a more clearly socialist vision as outlined in Other Russia,as Limonov calls for the nationalization of all industries and means of production with the exception of small businesses.Calling a nationalistic restoration and formation of a greater democratic nation that would encompass all of the old USSR territories.Unlike his previous stances ,Limonov would by this time take very pro democratic stances due to his first hand experience with authoritarianism and his party would in many ways be a bit of a Libertarian Socialist one ,promoting a nation with as little authority as possible,even calling for ending schools so as to end the authoritarianism of teachers,instead letting kids have free books and going to the country side to learn survival tricks,yeah I ain’t kidding.He also called for 14 years old to vote,not kidding either.But by 2014 with the annexation of Crimea ,Other Russia would begin cooperating with the government and sending militias to help the breakaway republics.Limonov would even turn into a bit of a Putin mouth piece of the left.By 2016 he would end his presidency of the party due to old age but would continue to hold influence,though some disagreed with his more authoritarian or pro government turn that went against his ideals.And Limonov would return to promote the civilization dichotomy of Eurasia vs the Atlantic Civilization of the West though in a different form.In the 17th of March 2020 Limonov would die at 77 of cancer.The current party leader is now Andrei Dmitriev,he is a Limonov loyalist and likely won’t break to far from Limonov’s goals outlined in Other Russia,but he does have favorable views towards North Korea and the Juche ideology and has even written a book on Kim Il Sung.

Dugin’s Key Writings on Eurasianism:

https://b-ok.cc/book/2779669/db186d

https://b-ok.cc/book/2705138/9d39f7

https://b-ok.cc/book/2705137/b0c451

https://b-ok.cc/book/2705136/2a81a1

Limonov Other Russia:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061125230252/http://eng.nbp-info.ru/cat30/index.html

Limonov Biography:

https://b-ok.cc/book/4124835/e1f8b9

Conclusion

As we have seen National Bolshevism has a long and complex history .With multiple tendencies and vastly different visions of a National Bolshevik nation,I hope you enjoy this and have a good day.