Mediaboss Marketing

In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through conscious economic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]

This view is consistent with, and helped to inform, early conceptions of socialism where the law of value no longer directs economic activity, and thus monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest and wage labor would not operate and apply to socialism.[2]

The Marxian conception of socialism stands in contrast to other early conceptions of socialism, most notably early forms of market socialism based on classical economics such as Mutualism and Ricardian socialism. Unlike the Marxian conception, these conceptions of socialism retained commodity exchange (markets) for labor and the means of production, seeking to perfect the market process.[3] The Marxist idea of socialism was also heavily opposed to utopian socialism.

Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote very little on socialism and neglected to provide any details on how it might be organized,[4] numerous social scientists and neoclassical economists have used Marx's theory as a basis for developing their own models of socialist economic systems. The Marxist view of socialism served as a point of reference during the socialist calculation debate.

Socialism is a post-commodity economic system, meaning that production is carried out to directly produce use-value (to directly satisfy human needs, or economic demands) as opposed to being produced with a view to generating a profit. The stage in which the accumulation of capital was viable and effective is rendered insufficient at the socialist stage of social and economic development, leading to a situation where production is carried out independently of capital accumulation in a supposedly planned fashion. Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels understood planning to involve the input and decisions of the individuals involved at localized levels of production and consumption, planning has been interpreted to mean centralized planning by Marxist-Leninists during the 20th century. However, there have been other conceptions of economic planning, including decentralized-planning and participatory planning.

In contrast to capitalism, which relies upon the coercive market forces to compel capitalists to produce use-values as a byproduct of the pursuit of profit, socialist production is to be based on the rational planning of use-values and coordinated investment decisions to attain economic goals.[5] As a result, the cyclical fluctuations that occur in a capitalist market economy will not be present in a socialist economy. The value of a good in socialism is its physical utility rather than its embodied labor, cost of production and exchange value as in a capitalist system.

Socialism would make use of incentive-based systems, and inequality would still exist but to a diminishing extent as all members of society would be worker-owners. This eliminates the severity of previous tendencies towards inequality and conflicts arising ownership of the means of production and property income accruing to a small class of owners.[6] The method of compensation and reward in a socialist society would be based on an authentic meritocracy, along the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".[7]

The advanced stage of socialism, referred to as "upper-stage communism" in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, is based on the socialist mode of production but is differentiated from lower-stage socialism in a few fundamental ways. While socialism implies public ownership (by a state apparatus) or cooperative ownership (by a worker cooperative enterprise), communism would be based on common ownership of the means of production. Class distinctions based on ownership of capital cease to exist, along with the need for a state. A superabundance of goods and services are made possible by automated production that allow for goods to be distributed based on need rather than merit.[8]

The period in which capitalism becomes increasingly insufficient as an economic system and immediately after the proletarian conquest of the state, an economic system that features elements of both socialism and capitalism will probably exist until both the productive forces of the economy and the cultural and social attitudes develop to a point where they satisfy the requirements for a full socialist society (one that has lost the need for monetary value, wage labor and capital accumulation). Specifically, market relations will still exist but economic units are either nationalized or re-organized into cooperatives. This transitional phase is sometimes described as "state capitalism" or "market socialism". China is officially in the primary stage of socialism.

The fundamental goal of socialism from the view of Marx and Engels was the realization of human freedom and individual autonomy. Specifically, this refers to freedom from the alienation imposed upon individuals in the form of coercive social relationships as well as material scarcity, whereby the individual is compelled to engage in activities merely to survive (to reproduce his or herself). The aim of socialism is to provide an environment whereby individuals are free to express their genuine interests, creative freedom, and desires unhindered by forms of social control that force individuals to work for a class of owners who expropriate and live off the surplus product.[9]

As a set of social relationships, socialism is defined by the degree to which economic activity in society is planned by the associated producers, so that the surplus product produced by socialized assets is controlled by a majority of the population through democratic processes. The sale of labor power would be abolished so that every individual participates in running their institution as stakeholders or members with no one having coercive power over anyone else in a vertical social division of labor (which is to be distinguished from a non-social, technical division of labor which would still exist in socialism).[10] The incentive structure changes in a socialist society given the change in the social environment, so that an individual laborers' work becomes increasingly autonomous and creative, creating a sense of responsibility for his or her institution as a stakeholder.

In Marxist theory, the state is "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule. Thus, it is only in a society which is divided between hostile social classes that the state exists."[11] The state is thus seen as a mechanism that is dominated by the interests of the ruling class and utilized to subjugate other classes in order to protect and legitimize the existing economic system.

After a workers' revolution, the state would initially become the instrument of the working class. Conquest of the state apparatus by the working class must take place to establish a socialist system. As socialism is built, the role and scope of the state changes as class distinctions (based on ownership of the means of production) gradually deteriorate due to the concentration of means of production in state hands. From the point where all means of production become state property, the nature and primary function of the state would change from one of political rule (via coercion) over men by the creation and enforcement of laws into a scientific administration of things and a direction of processes of production; that is the state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control, and would no longer be a state in the Marxian sense.[12]

See more here:
Socialist mode of production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism refers to a set of related socio-economic systems based on social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to a small class owning them) and a cooperative management of the economy (where every individual has a degree of influence in the workplace), and ideologies that seek to promote social equality maximize opportunities for full human "self-actualization". The exact forms of socialism differ; with some forms advocating for cooperative enterprises within a market economy, while other forms advocate for a more comprehensive transformation with economic planning substituting capital markets and all means of production being held in common.

Socialism is typically opposed to plutocracy and emphasizes in some form or another that people who work and produce the value in society should be rewarded in monetary terms in accordance to their work effort. In the developed world during the Industrial Revolution, deliberate under-paying of workers for their labour combined with dangerous working conditions was commonplace; while this has diminished in the developed world as a result of successes in demanding reforms, multinational corporations have succeeded in expanding to less-developed countries where there are either fewer or no working rights laws or minimum wage laws, allowing them to underpay workers in sub-standard factories to reap huge profits. Socialism has thus always supported the labour movement, including trade unions, but often as part of a "minimal program" within capitalism distinct from its ultimate goal of replacing capitalism with a socialist system.

The question of whether the standard Marxist-inspired definition of socialism involving social ownership of the means of production and economic planning is economically feasible has been ongoing, with social democrats having abandoned this pursuit. Historically, most attempts to establish comprehensive planned economies have either collapsed for being politically unsustainable or resulted in horrifying dictatorships. Classical Marxists maintain that socialist planning is only attainable once technology has advanced to a point where non-market planning becomes technically feasible, and that the historical attempts to introduce socialist planning by Marxist-Leninist states in the 20th century were insufficiently developed for socialism to be feasible. In the 21st century, however, a few countries in South America have taken up the mantle again, partly because nationalization of foreign-owned infrastructure and natural resources began to be perceived as a more expedient way of bringing wealth into those countries than getting more loans from the International Monetary Fund. However, except for Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, in practice these new socialists have not gone much beyond the social democracy prevalent in mid-20th-century Europe. In the West, socialism in a revolutionary sense has become a symbol of rebellion against the capitalist economic order, with radical chic bohemians and hippies who support socialist doctrine as an act of rebelliousness and assertion of self-righteousness but who have no conception of and no plan for the development of a socialist economy.

People who believe in socialism are referred to variously as "socialists" or "communists," the difference being that socialists believe in socialism as an end in itself, while communists only believe in it as a "transitional phase" leading into the development of a "communist society," a classless, moneyless and stateless form of social organization. This was a distinction originally made by Marx and Engels to distinguish their theories from previous utopian socialist theories.[1]

The founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, played a major role in formulating the first in-depth and scientifically-based description of socialism combined with detailed description on how to achieve it, in comparison or previous versions that were vague or unrealistic. The Marxist-inspired definition of socialism is social ownership of the means of production. This is the dominant and most common definition of socialism accepted by Marxist socialists, many non-Marxist socialists, and capitalists. The vast majority of present-day socialists believe this would be best done by transferring ownership of the means of production and distribution (e.g., factories and railroads) to the working class. What this most often means in practice, however, is the transfer of the means of production to the state (the state, in turn, is supposed to foster the creation of a classless society and in time aid the 'withering away' of the state as the working classes eventually assume the means of production). The fact that this never happens - as states by their very nature exist to perpetuate their own power - is probably the most glaring and obvious internal contradiction in Marxist-inspired socialist dogmatism.

Disagreements with Marx's and Engels' revolutionary approach to achieving socialism occurred outside and then inside the Marxist movement. The most devastating internal condemnation of the revolutionary approach came from revisionist Marxist Eduard Bernstein, who had been a close friend of Marx and Engels and presumed heir apparent of their views, who came to believe that capitalism could be gradually reformed into socialism through reformist parliamentary means and he rejected class conflict. Bernstein's views formed the basis of the beginning of what is now known as social democracy. Among the social democratic parties, attempts to reconcile their reformist efforts with the prevailing post-war economic order, resulted in many of them redefining "socialism" to no longer mean social ownership of the means of production, but to a vaguer conception of "socialism" as support of social justice and acceptance of Keynesian capitalism.

The rise of popularity of neoliberalism promoted by people like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan resulted in a collapse in support of Keynesianism, leaving many social democrats in the political wilderness in the 1980s to mid-1990s. The British Labour Party had a Marxist-inspired definition of socialism until its new leader Tony Blair scrapped this definition and abandoned Keynesianism in favor of a watered-down definition of "socialism" that recognized "social interdependence of people." In the aftermath of the failures in neoliberal economies, the Third Way is viewed with disgust and contempt among many social democrats; many of them desire a neo-Keynesianism or post-Keynesianism, while more radical wings favor a restoration of a Marxist-inspired socialism based on social ownership of the means of production.

Before Marx and Engels began writing, it referred largely to those ideologies that they referred to as "utopian socialism." Utopian socialists imagined a perfect egalitarian society, but couldn't figure out how to get there.[2]

Socialism can be divided into several branches, some of which are enumerated here.

Revolutionary socialists view social revolution as the primary way to transition from capitalism to socialism. Revolutionary socialists usually wait for 'revolutionary potential' which the current system of oppression is supposed to lead to.

"Utopian socialism" was used by Marx to refer to those who generally believed in a classless and stateless society, but who had not hammered out any specific theories for getting there. He analogized the difference between utopian socialism and his own theory with the difference between scientists and engineers: the scientists identify what can be done, the engineers hammer out how to do it.

Most utopian socialists believed in the term, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need." This saying was coined by Marx, but was a reference to a very similar quote from another revolutionary socialist, Louis Blanqui, which was itself an apparent paraphrase of Acts 3:34-35. Most communists nor most Christians seem terribly eager to admit the connection. This in turn is interesting because Acts 3 only has 26 verses, leaving verses 34 and 35 . . . ...in limbo?

Blanquism is described by Engels as follows:

Marx used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" to differentiate Marxism from the Blanquist style of socialist dictatorship. This is why he mainly used the term when discussing the Spring of Nations and the 1871 Paris Commune, in both of which Blanquism was fairly influential.

Many Blanquists came to join the First International with Marx after the Commune was crushed; perhaps having an influence on later events. Specifically, Leninists and Trotskyists are put in a bit of a tight spot by the parallels between the above Engels quote and the unfolding of events during the Bolshevik Revolution; since this event had more of the characteristics of a coup than a popular revolution, the Leninists have a hard time explaining why their beliefs are Marxist and not Blanquist.

Stalinists, on the other hand, would just argue that these parallels were all fabrication by the oppressive bourgeois media and then send thugs to beat up anyone who said otherwise.

Marx believed that all socio-political orders, with the exception of the mythical pure communism, were "dictatorships" in which one class dictated to the rest; the "bourgeoisie" (comprising those who owned their means of livelihood, from free-farmers on up to large industrialists) was assigned that role in his characterization of capitalism. For Marx, socialism would not be any less of a dictatorship, but it would be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" where the workers would dictate to everyone else.

The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" was originally coined in order to differentiate between Marx's idea of a grass-roots worker-run state and the more elitist ideas of Blanquism; but the "dictatorship" part is not meaningless, since he said in the Communist Manifesto that this dictatorship would have to resort to "despotic" measures at first (e.g., control the army to conquer other capitalist territories).

But in his defense, he firmly believed that this despotism would be temporary, since in his view the state was created by the existence of class differences, and the proletarian dictatorship's actions would eliminate these, thus eliminating the state.

The idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat was denounced by Mikhail Bakunin, Marx's contemporary. Bakunin believed that the state instituted classes, rather than the other way around, so he asked his famous rhetorical question, "Over whom will the proletariat rule?" He rightly predicted that this state would grow a new ruling class, with the proletariat still ruled.

Marx used the term "socialism" to refer both to this transitory dictatorial phase, and to the "pure communist" classless and stateless society that he believed would follow it. "Classless" and "stateless" were tightly bound together in Marx's theory, and "stateless" meant that there would be no armies or other extrinsic forms of class-oppression in that there would be no armies or class-oppression. Marx did not go into depth in terms of what this would look like, presumably because he didn't know either, that is, it would be decided by the workers after a revolution. Unfortunately for him, either the workers have never gotten around to doing this, or they have done so but have not acted how Marx thought they would act.

Although anarchism and Marxism share many common goals and enemies, they diverge on a number of points. The most notable is that anarchists believe that social classes are created by the State, rather than vice versa, so their aim is to destroy the State and "build from the ashes."

Hence, unlike Marxists, they reject any attempt to participate in electoral politics, instead working entirely outside the system; mostly in a peaceful manner, but sometimes not, which is why one sometimes hears about anarchists bombing something-or-other, or anarchists inciting a riot.

Bakunin believed, as opposed to Marx, in spontaneity of organization, that is, that a revolutionary organization has to come into existence during a time of crisis with little forethought, while Marx believed in forethought and planning in terms of a collective. Anarchists fault Marxist groups for sitting on their rears while anarchists and other groups are out on the front lines; for example, anarchists note that the Bolsheviks were opposed to workers taking strike action at the time of the Russian February Revolution.[3] Bakunin's view is currently reflected by modern Council Communists. He also believed in secret societies that could just mix with workers, and that people had a natural instinct to revolt, and thus it was not worth educating the workers, nor organizing them. He thusly accused Marx of ruining the workers by making theorists out of them."

The differing definitions of the state led to disputes over methodology and the "dictatorship of the proletariat," as noted above. For example, Bakunin said, There are about forty million Germans. Are all forty million going to be members of the government?, to which Marx's response was, Certainly, because the thing starts with the self-government of the commune," apparently supporting a federated bottom-up system of communes as anarchists proposed.

Bakunin also concluded that under Marxism, the state would be no different than that under capitalism, and that Marx simply wanted to make it stronger. This is partly because of there being many contradictory views in Marx's writings, for instance supporting central state ownership and planning from above in the Communist Manifesto, similar to what actually happened in the USSR and the other "socialist" states.

Marx also criticized Bakunin by saying that the latter believed in a universal revolution that included the lumpenproletariat (beggars, etc.) and the peasant farmers as well as the workers, while Marx had ruled both these groups useless for revolution. Marx thus accused Bakunin of superficiality: knowing many political phrases, but not believing in the existence of false consciousness or making any detailed study of economic conditions.

Bakunin responded by predicting that Marxism would lead to a new despotic "Red bureaucracy" that would be far more dictatorial than a capitalist system; to date, this has been an accurate description of every self-described communist state.

Reformist socialist tend to reject the call for revolution and instead choose to work within the current system in order to change it. Most reformist socialists advocate social democracy instead full nationalization of all industry.

Ethical socialist argue that socialism is necessary because it respects human rights, social justice, and civil rights. They may find capitalism to be an oppressive force and therefore believe that socialism is the best alternative. They are more lenient on capitalism because of their belief in individual freedom.

Liberal socialist are not opposed to capitalism and tend to favor a mixed economy. They support government intervention in the market and a strong welfare state. They differ from ethical socialist by stressing economic growth instead of morality. They may support the Third Way over social democracy.

Democratic socialism is perhaps the least clearly defined of the types of socialism; the general view of democratic socialists is "the more democracy, the better," and attempt to create a socialist economy in coexistence with a democratic government. Or, in many cases, they simply seek to combine the two: democratic principles in the process of economic production and management. They advocate democratic workplaces and cooperatives, fully democratic communities, and of course the retention of democratic government.

Libertarian socialism, which describes most forms of anarchism, is when the government is destroyed immediately after the revolution, and there are no hierarchies. Regular Marxists criticize it, as anarchists are largely apolitical, often preferring sabotage and such to organization, and also often don't believe in any form of governance. Marx and Bakunin had a strong rivalry due to conflicting views in the First International, but since then, many Marxists have integrated elements of libertarian socialism into their belief system, such as in De Leonism, which adds elements of anarcho-syndicalism to orthodox Marxism.

Of course, "libertarianism" is now used in the United States to refer to a particularly doctrinaire spin on classical liberalism; but as used in "libertarian socialism" it refers to an older sense of the word, still current in Europe, that just means "anti-authoritarian."

The adoption of this name is probably in criticism of Marxism, which was often referred to by libertarian socialists such as Bakunin as being too "authoritarian."

It is claimed by anti-Soviet socialists that the Soviet Union under Stalin was a departure from socialism, on account of the means of production being in the hands of the government instead of the workers (although this was not a disqualifier for the "socialist" label in other cases, as discussed below). It is occasionally referred to as "state capitalism," "bureaucratic state despotism," or a "degenerated worker's state," by Trotskyites. Anarchists, most of whom were opposed to Lenin's takeover from the outset, would also refer to Lenin's Russia as "state capitalist"; even he himself did.

Recently, the right wing in the US has been trying to redefine the term "socialist", with the desired meaning being, "a person who flouts the Republican party line on more than two issues."[4]U.S. President Barack Obama has become the poster-boy for this sort of "socialism" (despite having no socialistic tendencies), as also discussed below, though he does not stray too far, too often from the Republican Party Line considering he's a New Democrat.

There have been a number of communist internationals. The First International was founded in the 19th century, but dissolved in the midst of the Bakunin-Marx infighting; the Second International followed, but dissolved in the midst of infighting over support of World War I; the Third International (Comintern) was a Soviet-funded body dissolved in World War II. The Fourth International, a Trotskyist organization, still exists.

Some people say that the Democratic Party in the United States are socialists, specifically Barack Obama and the 2008 version of Hillary Clinton.

This is bullshit; the Democrats are centrists, at most center-left. If they moved left enough even to approach socialistic beliefs, even so far as such factions as the right wing of the Socialist Party USA, they would start being ignored by the Biased Conservative Media.

Why are the Democrats not socialist? Well, it's quite simple. Rather than going into every single way in which they're not, let us look at possibly the most important aspect of socialism, common ownership of the means of production, thus the abolition of class. The Democrats do not support this, hence are not socialists. At the very most they would support a welfare state.

The only mainstream American politician approaching socialism on the federal level is Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who self-identifies as a democratic socialist, although he does caucus with the Democrats out of convenience.

Some Democrats, such as Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, may adhere to social democracy. Social democracy being a "middle-way" between democratic socialism and capitalism (the stuff you see in Scandinavia).

Historically, the Labour Party were social democrats, or 'reformists', and Labour governments have made some lasting changes in terms of universal welfare, especially the founding of the National Health Service.

"New Labour" (Tony Blair etc.) were arguably conservatives in all but name, and indeed much has been said about the similarities between their policies and those of Thatcherism.[5][6] Clause IV of the Labour Party's constitution, which expressed a long-term commitment to redistribution of wealth and common ownership of the means of production, was rewritten in 1994, under Blair's leadership, as a more vague expression of striving for equality, causing some internal conflict and outrage from "Old Labour" socialist members of the party.

A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.

According to some people (whose identities you may only guess at), socialism advocates the redistribution of wealth. This view of socialism is only held by idiots who are too benighted to realize that when left-wingers yowl about the wealth gap until they are blue in the face, they are really just having a friendly chat about the weather. In reality, socialists are actually just interested in redistributing the means of production; Marx advocated abolishing the money system in favor of truck, specifically "labour vouchers," which are given out based on work done and do not circulate. Still others, such as the members of the World Socialist Movement, believe that there should be "free access," with no labour vouchers, money, etc., just like in the markets in Thomas More's Utopia, i.e. a gift economy.

The above understanding of socialism is generally held outside the United States, and within the United States by thinking people; however, within the context of United States airwaves, mediaspace, and blogspace, socialism is any expressed belief insufficiently right-wing for the taste of the most right-wing person exposed to it.

To right-wing groups and politicians, particularly conservatives in the United States who can't distinguish American liberals and European social democracy from socialism, socialism means high levels of income tax, welfare programs to help the unemployed or poor, or to taking from the rich to give to the poor. This is nonsense - socialists don't advocate taking money from the capitalist class to give to the poor, they advocate the elimination of the class system by making every citizen a co-owner of the means of production, thus eliminating the conditions that cause poverty and unemployment.

Even with non-dictatorial forms of socialism, when it comes to redistributing the means of production, "working class" has in practice generally meant the government; indeed, socialists have been found protesting the sale of government-owned companies to their workers, as in the worker buyout of the British National Freight Corporation under the premiership of Margaret Thatcher.[7]

In their defense, these privatizations were simply the sale/distribution of shares of stock to the workers, with nothing preventing the workers from then selling the shares at a higher market price to a conventional capitalist later on (which almost invariably happened). The predominant form of "privatized socialism" would be a cooperative, under which workers own the firm for which they work and cannot sell or transfer their ownership -- it's tied to their job.

It is an axiom of socialism that on Day 1 of access to power by a truly socialist government, the stock exchanges would be burned to the ground, and all the brokers would forfeit their dishonest monetary gains and be sent to the streets to beg.

This raises the question of how useful entrepreneurship would then be financed. The obvious pragmatic answer is that community-run (mutual) banks would store and lend credit for investment in said community. The standard answer is that, if people have investment money to spend, it should be funneled through a state-maintained industrial fund, that would decide where to invest the dosh in the best interests of society as a whole. The opportunities for corruption in such a system are too obvious to be worth detailing. In practice, the sad truth is that predatory entrepreneurship does not thrive under socialism, except as a part of the black market.

Marxism explicitly criticizes religion, with Marx referring to religion as "the opiate of the people" to which a pre-socialist state of existence has given rise. Communists have made heavy persecutions of churches when in power, and in some cases even banned religion altogether. Anarchists are also known for their anti-clerical church-burning activities.

But Marx did not advocate the banning of religion, instead saying that it is simply a way to cope, and to see something bright at the end of the tunnel when one is faced with the injustices of feudal and capitalist society, and says that the criticism of religion is thus the criticism of the conditions that breed it.

There are also currents of religious socialism, as will be mentioned right now.

We'll give you a few hints: he is generally portrayed as a tall, blue eyed white man with long hair, wearing a flowing robe, or nailed to a cross, although he was more likely short, had short hair, brown skin, brown eyes (provided he existed at all) and would have never worn a robe, as it would have been a terrible hazard in his carpentry work. A few quotes:

As recounted in Acts2:44, the early Christian church practiced a form of religious communism with "all things common." Today, there are many Christian socialist movements throughout the world, particularly in South America, which hold that the teachings of Jesus Christ and Marx line up nicely, and see Christ as a great social reformer and the first socialist agitator. However, these people have been criticized for equating the poor, spoken of at length by Jesus, with Marx's proletariat; specifically, Jesus said, "For the poor always ye have with you" (John12:8), while Marxism aims to do away with the proletariat altogether. There are also small Christian groups such as the Hutterites who also practice a form of voluntary religious communism. Monasteries and other similar religious institutions may also do so.

Oddly enough, his message has been largely ignored by his North American followers, who seem to think he was actually ye olde Ronald Reagan or a long-haired John Galt. Cognitive dissonance sure is great, isn't it? Although in their defense, Jesus never said give your money to the poor through government. He talked about private self-decided socialism. Of course, they don't do that either.

Socialism and patriotism/nationalism are typically in opposition and socialists are generally against the concept of nations, seeing them as an unnecessary division. To quote Eugene V. Debs, early leader of the SPUSA (he started as a social democrat, and then turned to socialism along the lines of De Leonism. He ran for President while locked in jail for protesting against the first World War), "I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world." They often view patriotism and nationalism as simply ways to divide the working class, like racism and sexism.

This has, unfortunately, led to some people using socialism as a front to push hatred of whatever ethnic group they can paint as coterminous with whatever class of people are judged to be the "oppressors" this week; the bloodiest example of this was Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. It is also seen in some left-wing anti-American sentiment, as criticized in the Euston Manifesto.

While socialism is revolutionary, in that it seeks to change the mechanisms of society, it does not necessarily require violent revolution. Many socialists support a revolution through the ballot, while others, such as De Leonists, advocate both industrial and political organization (although they may still think that "where the ballot is silenced, the bullet must speak").[8]

Read more:
Socialism - RationalWiki

Welcome! The U.S. Freedom Socialist Party is a revolutionary, socialist feminist organization, dedicated to the replacement of capitalist rule by a genuine workers' democracy that will guarantee full economic, social, political and legal equality to all who are exploited, oppressed and repelled by the profit system and its offshootimperialism.

We are unionists, antiwar activists, free speech advocates, environmentalists, gay freedom fighters and rebellious people of color and youth. There are branches of the party in San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Los Angeles and Portland and a sympathizing section in Australia. Our sister organization Radical Women is the leftwing of the feminist movement and the feminist wing of the socialist movement.

Learn more about the party by subscribing to the bimonthly Freedom Socialist newspaper. It carries analysis, commentary, humor, and cartoons on the worldwide struggle for human emancipation. Or order books and pamphlets by socialist feminist theorists and revolutionary poets from Red Letter Press, the party's publishing house.

The rest is here:
Freedom Socialist Party | http://www.socialism.com

At present it is difficult to be anything but pessimistic about the future. Environmental calamities are now facts of life. The drive for profit leading to the neglect of everything that stands in the way of this has created ecological havoc in every part of the world. The history of environmental degradation is a history of greed, poverty and ignorance. By greed we do not mean the individual idiosyncratic greed that might yearn for three yachts where two would do. Rather it refers to the institutionalised greed of business that has to expand to survive, that is always looking for new products, ways to create new needs, ways to cut costs by reducing environmental safeguards or evading the enforcement of existing ones.

While ecological necessity seeks sustainability, the commodified economy needs growth. This growth can be achieved by producing more of the same things, or by making familiar commodities bigger, more complicated or with more elaborate packaging. Growth can also be achieved by inventing new ways of turning natural conditions into resources for exploitation, by finding technical means for making more and more of our lives marketable, and by investing great effort into creating new needs for consumption.

Ecology values the uniqueness of materials, places and living things, but the economy sees them all as interchangeable commodities measured on the single scale of economic values. Therefore there is no special virtue in preserving a resource, only in making profit. It may be economically rational to use up a resource totally and then move to the next investment. While ecology values diversity, economic rationality favours going for the single most profitable crop, and great quantities of a single commodity, to benefit from economies of scale.

Poverty allows environmental degradation as a lesser evil when there is the urgent need to have food or money for food. It shortens the time horizon to the immediate urgencies. It forces people to use up their capacity to produce forests, water reserves, soil quality, rare species even when they know the new problems they are creating. It encourages governments, and local authorities of poor communities in rich countries, to tolerate violations of ecological standards and even to invite the dumping of toxic materials on their land in order to gain income. Poverty is usually accompanied by a lack of control by the poor over what will happen to them.

Greed creates and maintains poverty and promotes ignorance. Ignorance justifies greed as natural and inevitable while rejecting all criticism of greed, thus guaranteeing poverty.

Over the last few centuries average agricultural yields increased as a result of mechanisation, the use of chemicalisation (including fertilisers and pesticides), plant and animal breeding, and scientific management. Although problems arose, it was widely believed that such problems were the price of progress and would be solved by the same means that created them.

The Green Revolution

1. Modern high-tech agriculture has not eliminated hunger.

2. It undermines its own productive base through erosion, soil compaction and salinisation, depletion of water resources and depletion of genotypic diversity.

3. It changes land use patterns, encouraging deforestation, draining of wetlands and planting crops according to market criteria even in unsuitable climates. It promotes a loss of crop diversity by specialisation and commercial seed production and reduces overall biodiversity through its chemical inputs and extensive monocultures.

4. It increases vulnerability to nature, especially to climate and microclimate change, pest outbreaks and atmospheric and water pollutants. This is because of large scale monoculture, the selection of varieties for maximum yield under optimal conditions and the loss of beneficial fauna and flora.

5. It makes farming increasingly dependent on inputs from off the farm. This means that cash flow becomes increasingly important as fertilisers replace natural nitrogen fixers, irrigation replaces the broken hydrological flows and storages of water, and also because pesticides replace natural enemies of pests and hybrid seeds must be bought. Dependence on external inputs increases the vulnerability to price instability and politically motivated trade policies.

6. It debases food quality as regional specialisation increases storage and transport time and crops and techniques are chosen for quantitative yield. Specialisation makes even farmers dependent on buying food.

7. It increases the gap between rich and poor. The rich are able to buy, or get credit to buy, the new inputs, establish the marketing connections and average their returns across years. The poor, however, need to be successful every year. Modern agriculture especially undermines the economic independence of women. The new technologies are usually given to men, even in places where women traditionally did most of the farming. The new technologies make the domestic chores of women, such as gathering firewood and fetching water, more time consuming. Womens diverse activities in the home conflict with the extreme seasonality of commercial monoculture.

8. It poisons people, first the farm workers who handle pesticides, then their family members who handle the pesticide soaked clothing and drink water where pesticides and fertilisers have run into ground water. Finally it reaches those who eat the crops produced with pesticides and animals raised with antibiotics and growth hormones.

9. It also poisons other species, and the environment as a whole, with eutrophication of our waterways from fertiliser runoff, accumulation of pesticides in the body tissues of fish and birds, and nitrification of the air.

The final conclusion, therefore, is that the commercialised, export oriented, high-tech agriculture is a non-sustainable successional stage in the ecology of production, like the shrubs that squeeze out the grasses and herbs of an abandoned field only to create the conditions for their own replacement by trees.

...all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free. These are the words of Thomas Mnzer, the leader of the German Peasants Revolt in the early sixteenth century quoted approvingly by Marx in On the Jewish Question What attracted Marx was Mnzers view that under the dominion of private property and money, nature is treated in such a contemptuous way that it is debased. For Marx, humanity is always part of nature In the third volume of Capital he speaks of humanity achieving freedom within the realm of natural necessity, whereby the associated producers govern the interchange with nature in a rational way under conditions most worthy and appropriate for their human nature. Human society must therefore build upon our natural inclinations in formulating a social order that will bring both peace and prosperity to our species.

Here is the original post:
Socialism or your money back

A great idea had been misused by small men. Himmler was the evil symbol of that. Alfred Rosenberg

National Socialism is theideology which Hitlerappliedin Germany from becoming Chancellor in 1933 until WWII destroyedthe NSDAPregime in 1945. Nazism, on the other hand, is a separate phenomenon which occurred after WWII ended: the result of Zionist Allied wartime propagandato demonize National Socialist Germany combinedwith selective confessions elicited via deception and duress during the Nuremberg Trials, which subsequently became the official version of Hitlerismfor the Zionist Allies in WWII, the backdrop to the endless stream of Holocaust fiction. This misrepresentationwas then applied by some British and American racists who saw in Nazisma reactionary solution to petty fears of their day (for Britain theloss of empire and the influx of immigrants, for America the 1960s Civil Rights movement). Thus, Nazism a malicious distortion of National Socialism originating in Zionist Allied countries, consisting of traditional Westernbigotry decorated with anachronistic Germanic symbols, and later ironically spread back(!) into Germany(e.g. NPD) has largely replaced authentic National Socialism in the worlds eyes and become the ideology of modern neo-Nazis.

If people actually bothered to calm down and think, they would realize that National Socialism, which condemns democracy, could not possibly be compatible with belief in white superiority, considering that democracy was auniquely white creation.

The easy way to distinguish neo-Nazis and authentic National Socialists from the mainstream is thatboth wish that the Third Reich had been victoriousin WWII, rather than the Allies.But the easy way to distinguishneo-Nazis from authentic National Socialistsis that, whereas they (neo-Nazis) wish theThird Reichhad won because they believe the Third Reichwas more racist than the Allies, we (authentic National Socialists) wish theThird Reichhad won because we believe theThird Reich, which was already practicing integrationin the 1930s, and which despised Western treatment of colonized peoples, was less racist than the Allies, which were still practicing segregation during the same period, and which refused to admit Western wrongdoing towards the colonized.Whereas neo-Nazis want to vindicate Hitler by making racism socially acceptable, authentic National Socialists want to vindicate Hitler by showing that he actually fought against the racism of his era.

I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. Winston Churchill (Jew)

I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America. Harry Truman (Jew)

External link: Black Nazis! A Study of Racial Ambivalence in Nazi Germanys Military Establishment

Whyare scenes like thisneverdepictedin Hollywood movierenditions of Nazi Germany?

And why dontHollywood moviesmentionhow the propaganda of National Socialist Germanystereotyped the US astheKlu Klux Klan?

Indeed the attitude of the NSDAP, as seen inits celebration ofthe fact that the swastika was used by ancient cultures in almost every continent, and moreover in its various research expeditionsto distant locations (including Japan,the Himalayas, South America, etc.) to search forsigns of prehistoric Aryan settlements, was to useracial theory as a way to connect Germanswith non-Jews of other nationalities all over the world by emphasizing hypothetical common roots cutting across ethnic lines,in stark contrast to the traditional Western approach (Jim Crow, Apartheid, White Australia Policy, etc.) of using racial theory to emphasize ethnic differences. In short, it was the West that stood for racism and National Socialist Germany whichstood for non-racism the total opposite of what is popularly presented.

In order to prevent the truth getting out, Zionist media had to claim insteadthat Hitler wastrying tobuild UFO bases or findthe Holy Grail(see Indiana Jones movies for details..).

Whereas it was a standard practice of mainstream Westernmedia of the timeto disparagingly portrayblack people as subhuman apes, Hitler made a point of not onlyrejecting this view but moreover turning the negative stereotypes back on their creators. For example, two of themostcommon colonial-eranegative stereotypes about black people were that they are unhygeinic and superstitious. To the first, Hitler retorted: In the state of nature, negroes are very clean. To a missionary, the smell of dirt is agreeable. From this point of view, they themselves are the dirtiest swine of all. They have a horror of water. To the second, Hitler retorted: A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.As such,neo-Nazis (who unanimously look down on black people as a group) are in fact much more closely aligned with the traditional Western worldview than with Hitlers worldview. Authentic National Socialists oppose ethnic stereotyping and will always defend victims of ethnic stereotyping.

In relation to Jewry, neo-Nazis see no fundamental problem with Jewish tribalism but only encourage similar tribalism among theirown groups,in contrast to authentic National Socialists who simply oppose Jewish (and all) tribalism. In relation to Christianity, neo-Nazis believe that the New Testament is the mainproblem, in contrast to authentic National Socialists who believe that the Old Testament (a.k.a. Tanakh) is the main problem. Similar inversions can be found acrossa widerange of issues. The only point on which neo-Nazis and authentic National Socialists happen to agree is anti-democracy, and even then for opposite reasons: authentic National Socialists consider the majorityof peopletoo self-interested; neo-Nazis consider the majorityof peoplenot self-interested enough!

Hitler warned us: The Jew has demonstrated an uncanny ability to sniff out like a bloodhound anything which was dangerous to him. Having found it, he uses all his cunning to get at it, to divert it, to change its nature, or, at least, to deflect its point from its goal. Schopenhauer called the Jew the dregs of mankind, a beast, the great master of the lie. How does the Jew respond? He establishes a Schopenhauer Society. Andin the same way that Jews reacted to Schopenhauer who merely exposed the Jewish problem, they have since the end of WWII even more viciouslyreacted to National Socialism that offers us a realistic solution to it.

1930s Nationalism vs 2010s Nationalism

The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. Joseph Goebbels

At thecore oftheconfusion is popular failure to recognize that nationalism in thepre-WWII period refers to a completely differentidea than whatis commonly and erroneously* called nationalism in the present day. 1930s Nationalism was about achieving total economic and politicalindependence (autarky and autonomy) for a country as opposed to bondage by international banking and finance or thrall by foreign powers. This was the origin of Hitlers German folkish state: a rejection of the Treaty of Versailles(whose contentshe bitterly describedas: Instead of general reconciliation, punishment of the defeated. Instead of international disarmament, the disarmament of the vanquished. Instead of general security, security of the victors.) and, by extension, all the assumptions of Western civilization underlying it. On the other hand, 2010s Nationalism more accurately identitarianism -is mostly about sowing division within a country between so-called indigenous-descended and so-called immigrant-descended, and agitating hostility towardsthe latter by the former.If anyone politicianof theprevious generationis tobeheld to account for promoting this attitude, it should be Enoch Powell (Gentile), not Hitler.

(* This does not include genuine present-day nationalist parties such as Sinn Fein in Ireland or the SNP in Scotland. As a matter of trivia, Arthur Donaldson of the SNP sided with National Socialist Germany in WWII.)

Needless to say, the objectives of 1930s Nationalism and 2010s Nationalismare fundamentally incompatible. In order to achieve independence for acountry, as the 1930s Nationalists intend, it is necessary to firstachieve unity within the country; in Hitlers own words: The national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our folk.This is political common sense: a country divided within isa country susceptible to influence by foreign states backing one or other side (or even all sides) of the civil strife.Even the pre-NSDAP groupswere avowedbelievers in the importance of national unification; the old DAP of Anton Drexler, for example, was founded on the idea of rapport among all members of society in Germany, burying all old quarrels and making a fresh start together, as Alfred Rosenberg recalls: Drexler was not any too well acquainted with economic problems, but he was a man with a simple, direct heart. As a toolmaker foreman in one of the machine shops of the German railroads, he had personally experienced a great many of the sorrows and cares of the German workingman, and understood that any solution to the problem depended upon the unity of the entire people. Yet national unification is, of course,the exact opposite of what the 2010s Nationalists are doing by theirspreading of distrust, stereotypingand self-segregation along ethnic lines. Hence it has often been joked that, had neo-Nazis actually lived in National Socialist Germany, they would have been together with Jews and Gypsies -among the first groupsthrown into concentration camps by Hitler.

The confusion is then worsened by many neo-Naziscalling themselves National Socialists thinking that it sounds cooler. Bottom line: if you are a racist, you are for national division rather than nationalunification, and therefore you are not a National Socialist.

This commenter gets it.

This poster gets it.

While neo-Nazism itself has remained a fringe phenomenon in the politics of most countries (the only exception so farbeing the openly racist Golden Dawn in Greece),it has indirectly benefited opportunistic racists (including the aforementioned 2010s Nationalists) who have perniciously set up anti-racists as one extreme and neo-Nazis as the other extreme, and thenpresented their so-called common sense racism as a false middle ground, thus generating interethnicconflicts exactly in accord with the Zionist agenda. While many anti-racistsbelieve that the best way to combat racism todayis to denounceHitler ever more vehemently, we disagree. We believe that the rise of neo-Nazism and racism in generalshould be courageously met with the return of a reborn authentic National Socialism, whereupon the impostor will easily be destroyed by the real thing. Thereforebe not distracted by neo-Nazi attempts to pass for authentic National Socialists with meaningless platitudes about how they dont hate people of other ethnicities; as long as they are even abstractly separatingpeopleliving in the same countryinto ethnic categories and proposing discriminatory policies based on such categories, they are neo-Nazis and no better thanthe Jews in Israel who do exactly the same thing.

Kampfers vs Mein Kampfers

National-Socialist Germany what it had evolved to be by the beginning of The First Zionist War was a modern mostly unconscious expression of the numinous, honourable, warrior ethos, and stood in complete and stark contrast to the materialism, the hubris, of the West, represented by the arrogant, profane, White Hordes of Homo Hubris. David Myatt

Why did the Zionist Allies, who on one hand suppressed so much information about National Socialist Germany (to this day many official documents of the regime remain locked away, andothershave been burned), on the other hand actively promote Mein Kampf as the one-stop sourcefor learning about Nazism?Can you figure out what is going on?

Awarenessof authentic National Socialism as a systemwholly distinct fromNazism was initially restricted to a few apolitical historians, whose main advantage overthe neo-Nazis was that they studied the real policies of National Socialist Germany post-1933 and the factional power plays within the NSDAP, as opposed toassuming that Hitler personally read and authorized every statement made or action taken by every single subdivision in National Socialist Germany (when in reality Hitler was far too busy with the major issues to monitor minor affairs), or worse, that National Socialism is defined by whatever iswrittenin Mein Kampf. It was the Allied Powers which had actively reinforced among Weimar Germans the idea that they were fellow white people(via propaganda such as 1910s-1920s Hollywood movies with their notoriously demeaning portrayals of ethnic minorities), as thisobscured the reality that the Weimar Republic itself was inall but namea Western colonial possession no different than non-white colonies such as India, Algeria, Kenya, etc.. (This is the same trick as the House vs Field trick applied to slaves in Antebellum-era US.) The masses whohad alreadybought into this viewpoint were, unfortunately, the masses whom Hitler had to say whatever it might take to get them to vote NSDAP, and it is this which accounts forthefewbigoted statements that can be found in Mein Kampf, as well as why Hitler in later yearswanted it removed from circulation, as Otto Wagener recalled.

The society which was created after the NSDAP achieved power was in many ways a compromise. Hitler himself admitted (to Leon Degrelle among others) that it would be the next generation the Hitler Youth generation which would create a genuine National-Socialist society. Organizations such as the SS and the Hitler Youth were steps toward the creation of such a National-Socialist society, and it was these organizations which implemented the ideal of personal honour, and respect for others, of whatever race and culture. As Hitler and his true followers, such as Rudolf Hess, matured in understanding, so too did National-Socialism. National-Socialism was not born, fully-developed and fully-understood, in the early years of the NSDAP it developed slowly, over several decades. Thus, as Hitler admitted, Mein Kampf was never intended to be some kind of bible of National-Socialism: it was the product of its time. David Myatt

Yetamong these historians who understood all of the above (ie. that Eurocentrism was certainly not something that Hitler started, butwas ratherthe status-quoin the Weimar Republic and which Hitler thus had to reluctantly flow withprior to achieving power), most either lacked the philosophical perception to see the abstract unifying principles underlying the policies and party decisions, ordid not wish to compromise their academic impartiality by taking on philosophical beliefs. Thus while they knew what National Socialism was not,onlythe fewest of them allowed themselves to seewhat it truly was.

External link: Gnostic Origins of Alfred Rosenbergs Thought

Theother camp claiming torepresent National Socialism were the few eccentric ideologists commonly known as esoteric Hitlerists, who unlike the historians were unafraid to make bold philosophical speculations from the outset, albeit often cloaked in mystic language. But they could not even agree with each otherwhat was canonical National Socialism, beyond shared acknowledgementthat it was nothing like Nazism. In fairness, within Hitlerscabinethad been similarly dramatic ideological divergence and corresponding personal feuds and factional rivalries, which became so bad in the later years that Hitler eventually had to stop issuing written orders to his subordinates so that they could not possess any physical documentation of his views to use as ammunition against each other. This breakdown in communication was further exacerbated by the traitor Martin Bormann, as Alfred Rosenberg recalled: It had become completely impossible to see the Fuehrer. Every attempt to do so was thwarted by Bormann, under the pretext that Hitler was too busy with war problems. This led to a humourous claim of the timethat there were as many versions of National Socialism as NSDAP members,most of whom Joseph Goebbels evaluated with pessimism: Not one of them has the qualities of a mediocre politician, to say nothing of the calibre of a statesman. They have all remained the beer cellar rowdies they always were. Among these, the Zionists of course chose the worst (e.g. the traitor Heinrich Himmler, whom everyone else in the cabinet hated) to officially represent the party.

While some communication occurred between the esoteric Hitlerists and a few honest leaders of neo-Nazi groups shortly after WWII, itquickly became apparent (to the dismay of both parties) thatbloc-conversion of neo-Nazis to authentic National Socialists was not feasible, for the very reason that the vast majority of those attractedby Nazism had exactly the wrong type of personality for National Socialism.

Dear Savitri, You simply must try to understand the almost unbelievable difficulties I face in working here with Americans they are just plain ignorant and often unbelievably dumb. George Lincoln Rockwell

I am forced to walk a careful line between what I should like to say and what the enemy would like to hear me say. Unless I deliberately sound at least halfway like a raving illiterate with three loose screws, such an interview would never be printed. This is another thing that most people fail to understand about my Nazi technique. George Lincoln Rockwell

National Socialist whopretended to bea neo-Naziin order to more easily get numerical support against Jewish power. Result: Zionist agents saw through the ruse and assassinated himso thathe would be replacedbyhis followers, who are actual neo-Nazis.(The same thing happened to Malcolm Xwho had around the same timealso revealed his rejection of racism.)

Correspondingly, those with personalities most suitable for National Socialism were exactly those most likely to be put off by Nazism andhence unlikely to study the subject deeply enough to discover the misrepresentation. This simple Zionist trick of associating a noble ideology with aselectively repellentlabel has madegaining support for authentic National Socialism extraordinarily difficult. This trick is hardly new. The same has been done with Gnostic Christianity- the true teachings of Jesus being given the label Luciferianism which is then deliberately mixed up with Satanism, with similar effects. Indeed,perhaps thesimplest way of putting it is to say that neo-Nazism is to authentic National Socialismas Judeo-Christianity is to Gnostic Christianity.

For example, authentic National SocialistsviewMuslims asallies by default, both remembering the former support of Hitlerfrom the worldwide Islamic community and seeing the continuing sacrifices of Muslims in their struggle against Zionism. Neo-Nazis, on the other hand, typically hate Muslims out of plain xenophobia, and are instead typically fans of historicalslaughterers of Muslimssuch as Charles Martel (whom Hitler wishes had lost hisbattle), Ferdinand and Isabella (Isabella the Catholic the greatest harlot in history Adolf Hitler),or VladTepes a.k.a. Dracula (no comment necessary..). When David Myatt personally converted to Islam, hoping to lead by example and reforge this much-needed alliance for the 21st century, neo-Nazis responded bycalling him a traitor and slandering him in many ways.

The sad fact is that there is little truth, little truthful knowledge, in the West, about either Islam or National-Socialism. Adherents of authentic Islam, the Islam of Jihad and Khilafah, are the natural allies of honourable, genuine, National-Socialists, and the fact that most who call themselves National Socialists neither understood nor feel this just showshow successful the Zionists have been in manipulating the peoples of the West and how successful their anti-NS propaganda has been, for this propaganda has obscured, for most peoples, the honourable, non-racist, reality of National-Socialism itself. David Myatt

Every single country thatNational Socialist Germany attackedwas a white country, including most ofthe major Western colonial powers thattogethermaintained whitehegemonyaroundmost of the world at the turn of the 20th century and whichwould have lasted to this day if not for Hitler. Yet neo-Nazis somehow manage toconvince themselves thatNational Socialism isabout advancingwhite interests..

On the other hand, many neo-Nazis have an extremelyhigh opinion ofRussia and other formerEastern Bloccountries due to their relativelygreater preservation oftradition (especially traditional gender roles). Some, who call themselves National Bolsheviks,are even fans of Stalin! Thisin stark contrast to the NSDAPs relatively low opinion of thesecountries and indeedits emphasis on defending Germany from their influence, to say nothing of Stalin being one of Hitlers greatest enemies in WWII, about whom Hitler said: Stalin pretends to have been the herald of the Bolshevik revolution. In actual fact, he identifies himself with the Russia of the Tsars, and he has merely resurrected the tradition of Pan-Slavism. For him Bolshevism is only a means, a disguise designed to trick the Germanic and Latin peoples. Neo-Nazis especially dislike being reminded that, during WWII,National Socialist Germany sided with the (mostly Muslim) Chechens(whom Stalin persecuted) against the Russians, just as Hitler himself as aschoolboy sided with Japan in the Russo-Japanese war, in his own words: When we learnt of the fall of Port Arthur, the little Czechs in my class at school weptwhile the rest of us exulted! It was then that my feeling for Japan was born. While present-day authentic National Socialists harbour no ill will towards present-day former Eastern Bloc countries, we certainly do notconsider their tendency towards traditionalism something worth admiring or emulating.

The ethnic mixture that we called Russia before 1917 and the Soviet Union thereafter has been a riddle to our part of the world. That had nothing to do with tsarism then or Bolshevism today. It simply has to do with the fact that the various peoples joined together in this monster of a nation are not a folk in our sense of the word. The average person has less worth than a bicycle. A rapid birthrate quickly replaces any losses. They have a type of primitive toughness that one cannot call bravery. It is entirely different. Bravery is a kind of spiritual courage. The toughness with which the Bolshevists defended their bunkers in Sevastapol was more a bestial drive, and nothing could be more mistaken than to assume that it was the result of Bolshevist views or education. The Russians were always like that. Joseph Goebbels

With the Russian, there is an instinctive force that invariably leads him back to the state of nature. For the Russian, the return to the state of nature is a return to primitive forms of life. The family exists, the female looks after her children, like the female of the hare. Adolf Hitler

In Hungary, National Socialism could not be exported. In the mass, the Hungarian is as lazy as the Russian. Hes by nature a man of the steppe. Adolf Hitler

Ribbentrop, if I come to terms with Russia today I shall only attack her again tomorrow I simply cant help it. Adolf Hitler

Stalinist propaganda retorted byportraying Hitler as an Ogre-Vegetarian.

Adding further confusionare the Strasserists, who supposedly accept the authentic National Socialist portrayal of Hitler rather than the neo-Nazi portrayal, but then argue that Hitler himself is a traitor to what National Socialism was meant tobe according toits true foundersGregor and OttoStrasser, whose ideologyHitler supposedly usurped. Thus theymake a double U-turn to arrive back at what is essentiallyneo-Nazism (minus Hitler). (Strasserism itself is far from a clearly defined movement, considering that Gregor supported the Kapp Putsch whereas Otto opposed it, so nobody is really sure which Strasser brother represents canonical Strasserism..)

As if things werent complicated enough already..

The next significant mark in the revival of authentic National Socialism is recent, beginning with 21st century anti-Zionistslooking forpositive political options and culminating in the short-lived OWNP (One World Nazi Party). Its explicitly multiethnic presentation was unprecedentedly effectivein breakingthe monoethnic stereotype, and once and for all drew a definitive line between authentic National Socialists and neo-Nazis, but did not result in mass conversion to authentic National Socialism.The majority of anti-Zionistsof that time came from the post-9/11 truthseeker circles and thusprided themselvesin theirscepticism, a quality which enabled them tounravel Jewish conspiracies in the first place, but which by the same token made it hard for them to take theidealistic leap of faith necessary for an ideology as radical as National Socialism. Instead, many of them preferred tosuspect Hitlerhimself of beinga Zionist agent or even a Jew somego asfar astopromote rumours thathe was an illegitimate Rothschild.

If one enters a military operation with the mental reservation : Caution! this may fail, then you may be quite certain that itwill fail. To force a decision one must enter a battle with a conviction of victory and the determination to achieve it, regardless of the hazards. Adolf Hitler

OWNP banners (2009)

It is from this background that the true struggle the Kampfof the 21st century -continues today in the hands of a few dedicated souls. We are slowlygrowing in number, but so are the neo-Nazis, and it would seem that they are growing faster than we are. We do not have much time left. We need to become a real political force within a matter of years, or else thespirit of authentic National Socialism will be drownedbeneathan ugly delugeof the far-right, perhaps never to recover again.

Aryanism vs Foppery

I distrust officers who have exaggeratedly theoretical minds. Id like to know what becomes of their theories at the moment of action. Adolf Hitler

To us it is clear that little further progress will be made so long as the discussion continues totolerate academics interested only in endless historical nitpicking, barbarians prepared todebase National Socialism to thelowest possible level in order tosuit themselves, and cynics who join the conversation withoutactually believing that the ideologyis viable. So how should we proceed? Rudolf Hess provides asolution thatwe recommend: Do not seek Adolf Hitler with your mind. Youwill find him through the strength of your hearts!

Aryanism categorically rejects reconstructing National Socialism fromhistory alone, for we proposeit is buta name forthe onepolitical system thatwill inevitablybe expressed bytruly noble thinking.In this we resonate with the last warning of Jutta Ruediger before her death:National Socialism is not repeatable. One can take over only the values which we espoused: comradeship, readiness to support one another, bravery, self-discipline, and not least honour and loyalty. Apart from these, each young person must find their way alone. We seek not those who convert to Hitlerism from without, but those who have sought their own path from withinonly to finallyseethat Hitler walked a parallel path in his own time.Furthermore, we emphasizehow what we saw in National Socialist Germany was hardly the completed system, but only the tiniest first steps towards it. David Myatt saw this when he said:The duty the wyrd of Vindex and of the clans of Vindex is not to strive to try and restore some romantic idealized past or even be in thrall to some perceived wyrdful, often numinous-filled, past way of living, such as that which Adolf Hitler brought to Germany but rather to establish an entirely new and conscious and thus more potent expression of the numinous itself.

Wewho live today on the one hand have more detailedinformation on genetics and other subjectsthan the NSDAP ever had,andon the other handface situations of a scale and of a gravity that Hitler never had to deal with,from global resource shortages toa nuclear-armed Israel. If we are in this to change the world for the better, then the only worthwhile discussion for us isnot what National Socialism was or is, but what it should be and what it needs to be. With three words UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY -the Aryanist movementhas already begun this discussion, and we welcome all who agree with our motto to contribute to our work.

Further Information

Related Information

Read more here:
ARYANISM | National Socialism and Nazism