What a coincidence; my first day here and this...
Last night, I sent an e-mail to the leadership of NBP-USA.
They will be merging with my own organization, which will now span both Canada and America. While lacking numbers, they seem to be a healthy addition and I am looking forward to working with them.

To the misguided folk attacking the NBP or National Bolshevism as a whole, I'll deal with you on an individual basis. What I will not do is apologize for myself nor the Party.

That aside-- it is good to be here. It seems to be the one of the few forums I'll actually stick around in.

This post has been edited by Ioan on Jan 26 2005, 04:59 AM

Then prove it. I went point by point, and backed it up with their own platform, their own newspaper, and their own leaders' comments about Marx (who he refers to racistly as "that old moor").

What have you done to disprove what I've said, and what have you done to point out what about what I've said is misguided and unmarxist?

I have proven pretty conclusively their Fascism. Anyone who denies it is purposely ignoring reality, it's not as if they try to hide it much.

And what misguided organization are you from?

I've proven to you millions of times that every time you analyze something, you do it in an Anarchist manner. Have you bothered listening to me? No, you ignored me.

Here we go again. Debate #2974.2 on anarchism vs. Marxism. I get the feeling I'm going around on a vicious circle and that there is no end in sight...

Give me some text from Mussolini's papers. Compare them to the NBP, state the comparisons online. Don't just say you "proved anything," because you haven't.

Then go through my points, because I've made them. If you have anything in particular to disprove, disprove it. I've laid out my agruments pretty clearly in this thread. You can't eliminate that many posts just by saying "you're an Anarchist", you have to go through it and counter it.

It's obvious you've either not read the thread, or are just acting a fool.

This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on Jan 26 2005, 06:06 AM

How about you give me some of Mussolini's papers connecting Fascism and NBP?

Mussolini's isn't the only Fascism that is important, in fact in this case I would say it is Nazi Fascism that is most pertinent.

Something I've already adressed extensively. How about you show me the differences now, or challenge the similiraties I've shown if you disagree with them?

Seriously, CyM, I want you to actually give material proving the link between fascism and the NBP, from the major advocates of each system. I beg of you to do this...

I have already given the material and made my case.

Argue the points I have made or move on, do not ask me to repost everything I have said in this thread.

You haven't made a case, you've only stated your opinion.

Just for once, I would really like to see you give a solid link between the NBP, and the Fascists, and not just call the NBP "Fascist."

mim3 for the Maoist Internationalist Movement:

NBP is fascist.

NBP Russia is distributing Mussolini, free and uncriticized.
You can see for yourself here:
http://nbp-info.ru/new/lib/mus_df/

This is a thread where Mr. Marijuana and Berserk are right about each other. Trotskyism does lead to neo-conservatism and NBPs are fascist.

Limonov is advocating the "final solution" for the Chechens.
That's not hidden.

Berserk's re-translation of "living space" is laughable.

Now Berserk is kissing Che-Lives moderator RAF's butt, of course, because RAF is an ignorant yokel who licks neo-Nazi boots. Combining the illiterates, cops, druggies and pseudo-communist misleaders just about any noise is possible on these boards.

MIM was first to expose this neo-Nazi b.s. on these boards. The people who fail to join in the exposure of it only expose themselves more over time.

Much as it pains me, Mr. Marijuana has proved to be most perceptive scientifically-speaking on this question. Damn, it's too bad.

Just because Liberals, Trotskyists and fascists all do some good things sometimes, there is no reason to deny that NBPers are fascists or that Trotsky thought imperialism was progressive. It's in black-and-white.

This post has been edited by mim3 on Jan 28 2005, 07:14 AM

But I'm not a trotskyist

I'm in between Marxism and Anarchism.

Anyways, thank you for chiming in, it seems people here have gone blind.

As for Red Skyscraper, like I have said, I provided quotation after quotation. Refute it or shut it.

This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on Jan 28 2005, 07:29 AM

OK, Mr. Marijuana. Right now I can't remember you except from the Rosa L thread on imperialism. So I'll make at least a temporary peace with you seeing as I can't remember what to say!

If anyone knows why I thought Mr. Marijuana was a Trot, I would deserve
disabusing. Of course, the Trots do distribute Rosa L and defend her as Mr. Marijuana did.

In any case, MJ, maybe you should answer the question: do you think imperialism brings progress to the Third World? Does it level things out
or preserve reaction?

My position was not well thought out on that point.

As I told you, I'm not a Leninist, so just as you would have little exposure to Anarchist ideas, I have had little exposure to Lenin. I still respect Rosa Luxembourg, who I consider important to the worker's cause, but you are right to say that she suffered from the same Eurocentrism that all political thinkers of the time suffered from.

On the other hand, I never supported imperialism, Lenin himself thought the revolution in Russia was doomed without revolution in Europe (a point he seems to have been right on, though today it would be revolution in the Asian tiger states as well). It should also be pointed out that your own characterization of Luxembourg as Imperialist is misleading to begin with however, as the entire article is a tirade against the first world war and the idea that the working class has anything to gain from supporting our bourgeoisie. This is the position I hold. Revolutionary defeatism. The working class should, in all cases, work against the wars of our ruling class, even sabotage the war effort to ensure a defeat. Organize general strikes and factory occuprations while the military is stretched thin, forcing the bourgeoisie to either pull out of the war, or risk revolution at home which will end the war anyways.

The point of the labour aristocracy, I will point out again that I have still not read enough on it, but to dismiss the entire advanced working class as oppressors is not something I believe in.

Working today with the general strike movements in Quebec, I can tell you it would be wrong to assume the world doesn't care. Give the working class the chance to prove themselves. Just as Russia gave independance to its imperial colonies after workers' revolution, so too will the west, though hopefully none will be left to give independence to by then.

My belief that Imperialism may still exist when the revolutions in the advanced Capitalist states begin stems from the fact that Capitalism, left to its own devices, is self-destructive. I believe we are already seeing the beginnings of that self-destruction today, with sharp, even catastrophic contradictions to become clear over the next 10, 20 years.

Anyways, my appologies if I have been rude to you, I welcome principled disagreement and having someone to differ with here without doubting your intentions is refreshing.

This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on Jan 28 2005, 10:18 AM

mim3 for MIM:

You know, the reason this concerns me is that Trotsky jumped on Lenin's bandwagon on defeatism in Russia, but only on a tactical basis. In his core, Trotsky did not believe that imperialism should always be defeated for the permanent reasons Lenin gave--imperialism's decadence.

Fascists are also random about whether they want imperialism defeated. Obviously they supported Italian, German and Japanese imperialism at one point--
World War II. Given who the fascists organized--homophobes, anti-Semites and xenophobes--we could not expect much else. Such a motley crew had no potential of taking down capitalism.

Now take this idea of the "advanced" working class of the West. Does it not follow for example that "advanced" workers would join to the Peace Corps to spread some of their advancement? Does it not follow that the Peace Corps would actually be bringing advanced people to the Third World and should not be criticized?

For that matter, you mentioned the burka. In the military museum at Fort Bragg, there is a burka to show people allegedly why advanced U.$. soldiers are in Iraq.

http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitatio...ornemuseum.html

Trotsky and RosaLux still had one foot in the pre-imperialist world. I'd say we should be able to see that now. The most solid basis for anti-imperialism is in Lenin.

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible in several or even in one capitalist country, taken singly." Lenin

Note the fact that Lenin says "capitalist" country, Russia was imperialist at the time, so he noted the fact the socialism is also possible in a capitalist third world country.

That's the only quote you have to prove, however vaguely, Lenin's support for "Socialism in one country." I can find you ten quotes to prove his support for world workers' revolution for every quote you can find to prove his support for socialism in one country.

EDIT: It took me 5 seconds to find a couple.

"Anglo-French and American imperialism will inevitably strangle the independence and freedom of Russia unless world-wide socialism, world-wide Bolshevism triumphs."

"He is no socialist who will not sacrifice his fatherland for the triumph of the social revolution."

This post has been edited by seraphim on Jan 29 2005, 06:55 AM

Since this quote is the most recent, it is clear what Lenin's position was, please find a more recent quote of Lenin supporting "permanent revolution.

Socialism in one country is in essence supporting the world workers revolution, half of the fucking world became socialist, are you blind?

Why did China and Russia turn on each other if they were so socialist? Why did they lapse so easily back into capitalism?

Since you refuse to accept the fact that China under Mao and the USSR under Kreschev were not "Stalinist" (read the links i gave in the "if socialism was so great" thread) you get stuck with stupid assertions that Mao and Kreschev just hated each other because Kreschev thought Mao was too fat.

I think it was uncle Trotsky who said it was impossible.

This post has been edited by Marxism-Leninism on Jan 29 2005, 07:01 AM

That's right M-L, only Mao said it was possible and as easy
to restore capitalism as it actually happened:

Mao:
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/classics...eacefulevol.txt

Trotsky:
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/classics...tskyrestore.txt

And Seraphim, it's been 80 years since Lenin died and you Trots
are still counting quotes? How about counting revolutions?
Are you a literary analyst or a revolutionary?

What is it: Trotskyism is not revolutionary or there were no conditions for it (Menshevism) anywhere in the world for 80 years?