Talk:National Bolshevism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.

This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Still cant figure there flag out...

Why they took the german Nazi Flag, took out the swastika, and added a hammer and sickle. The artical doesen't exactly tell us if they have any Nazi ties. I, being a communist am bothered by the deamonization of the hammer and sickle. Oh, and I am the one who made the new National Bolshevism flag seen at the top of the artical. --76.179.141.31 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Karl popper formulated geopolitics?? This must be vandalism or rubbish - user:max rspct 23.10 2nd Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left/Right

"(although this last influence is largely because of his rejection of left and right labels which is also a feature of National Bolshevism)." The final line here contradicts the initial line of the current article denoting it squarely as a 'left wing' ideology. Of course, this can only spark endless debate as to the meaning of "left" & "right", but I'll at least point it out. Nagelfar 17:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed it, because their is absolutely no justification for calling the Nazbols Leftwing. There is almost no leftist group anywhere in the world that will allow them to events and demonstrations.

Also, based on investigation and research I conducted persynally, they aren't neo-Nazis. Well they are anti-immigrant (a right-wing trend BTW) they don't seem to have racial theories. They seem to have anti-Semitic undertones though, I'm not sure what that's about. They might just be anti-Zionist, and don't voice that in a proper way. They claim to have Jews on their central committee and they have Jews in some of their chapters. They don't like Hitler, but they like the pre-Hitler brownshirts. They like Strasser and Moussolini. They claim to be a "mix" of fascism and communism, something like third positionism. As a communist, that makes my skin crawl. Anyways, they most use communist symbols and rhetoric as recruitment means. Their real agenda is strictly irrational and neo-fascist. --Mista-X 23:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

They sound like a radicalized Russian version of the Greek Popular Orthodox Rally. It seems incoherent mixes of ultra-nationalism, neofascism and communism are the ideology of choice among the politicized fundamentalist Orthodox. How Kasparov can claim to represent the open society while including these people on his coalition is beyond me. Awan23 07:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Not neo-Nazi? Dude, their flag is the Nazi flag with the swastika replaced with a sickle and hammer. --MQDuck 12:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Don't know how to edit Wikipedia, but I thought I'd add: the head of NBP Canada is a practicing Jew, and nobody (in Russia or Canada) have anything to say about it. Also, "Mista X" is quite 'POV' as you say, I can only pray he didn't edit anything relating to this page. ;) --24.122.49.101 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Claiming they have an ulterior agenda is very POV. That is a common thing ascribed to all Fascisms from without, however I believe erroneously. Rarely do extremist movements have an ulterior agenda of any kind than what they actually say, or attempt to recruit those who do not actually believe in what they proclaim to be for. It is the same as the Useful idiot concept. Though as long as you keep such suspicion out of the article itself I have no problem. Nagelfar 18:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure it's POV, but they pretty much say it in their writings (they are very clear about irrationalism being the bases of their ideology). As I said, I have conducted the research and have interviewed and had conversations with their members. If having pictures of Communists (like Stalin and Lenin) AND "Nazbol girls" (viking wimmin and such) is not juxtaopposed opportunist garbage I don't know what is. --Mista-X 03:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for personal opinions. Not that I have any idea what 'juxtaposed opportunist garbage' is, I certainly don't see any opportunism in what you are saying, just an individual aesthetic approach, which doesn't seem to apply to the ideology itself, just some ad hominem circumstantial(?) association from something somewhere. Nagelfar 20:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I hope my small addition shows more clearly that it isn't recognized to be leftist while maintaining an unbiased approach. Noses 16:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems National Bolshevism has been positioned on both the "extreme left" and "extreme right". Ofcourse this make sense, since socialism and fascism (nazism) are both authoritarian totalitarian regimes with no respect for individual private property. On a 2D political compass, both movements would be in the same corner. Intangible 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. Nazi Germany was a capitalist's paradise. From Wikipedia's own Nazism article:
[Party spokesman Joseph Goebbels] was clear to point out that Nazism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[35] He further said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".
--MQDuck 12:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Bolshevism

Is national bolshevism a form of fascism (nazism) or socialism? It does not seem to trace it roots to Italian Fascism, but more to members of the NSNAP who sought connections to Russia. Furthermore, the article should talk more about the roots of NB than just the representation of a small marginal Russian party. Intangible 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a main part of the problem is that the article is really describing two different things. The first is a nationalist tendency within Communist parties of the 1910s, 20s, and 30s, particularly organized around opposition to the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. That movement is represented by Radek, Wolffheim, Laufenberg, and some others. The second is a modern fringe Russian movement, which is more of an attempt to revive the faction of the NSDAP led by Ernst Röhm that took the "socialism" in "national socialism" more seriously than Hitler did. The second movement may have some influence from the first, but it is quite distinct, and the article currently muddles the discussion of the two considerably. --Delirium 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is very misleading. It seems to be mainly talking about nationalist communism, and says nothing about the link between fascism and actual National Bolshevism. --MQDuck 11:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonapartism

To me this current is a very good example of bonapartism. It does not really take a class stance, exept that it uses some pro working class rethoric for populist reasons. Further, they support the legacy of bonapartist regimes such as stalinism (wich was ofcourse, not a communist current, but a counter revolution against communism/bolshevism) and SA-nazism. Dispite there use of the hammer and sickle in their flag, and rethoric of thirt position (not on the right, not on the left) they can be concidered to be far right and fascist for that matter (fascist according to the Trotskyist definition). Then they come to power, they will not distroy the capitalist system, they would keep it alive. However, they will try to subvert the power of the bourgeoisie (AKA the capitalist class, the ruling class) in order to further their own gains. Meanwhile, they would implement populist policies toward the working class to gain support from them. At the same time, they will attempt to distroy any kind of worker's organisations such as trade unions and marxist parties. Wich would satisfy the needs of the bourgeoisie. In this way the Nazbol will carefully try to balance between the interests of the classes, while having their own power, and with that the preservation of capitalism, as their highest aim.

Dispite it would be a staunch defender of capitalism, the Russian bourgeoise is not very welcoming to this party. And this is unerstandeble. They have learned the lessons of the past. While Italian Fascism and German Nazism (in fact just 2 slight variations on the bonapartism theme) did "exilent" work for the bourgeoisie rooting out any workers' revolutionairy elements from society, the bourgeoisie of those countries and internationally lost controll over these movements. The second world war was ofcourse very profiteble for capitalism, however due to the recklessness of nazism the bourgeoisie lost the entire east european market plus parts of germany to the stalinists.

Fascism/nazism/nazbolism (in my humble trotskyist opinion they are basically the same) is only used and financed by the bourgeoise as a last resort, the very last attempt to stop a socialist revolution of the working class. Before that, they like to try with their own recourses. But when the work to be done gets nasty, they rather have fascists do it. The bourgeois do not like to have their hand and image stained by the blood of workers. This is bad for their propaganist ends.

Thus yes, National Bolshevism is a variant of Nazism.

I'm not someone who draws conclusions from the use of symbolism, but one should note that the name "national bolshevism" has strong paralels with "national socialism", since bolshevism is in much cases, especcialy in Russia, synonimous for socialism. And, when one looks at the flag of the Nazbol, one can see that the composition and color use is exactly the same as that of the flag of nazism. The shwastika being replaced by a hammer and sickle. A remarceble symalarity!

As a last thing, I would like to stress that these guys are hated by the left. Even modern day stalinists (dispite the nazbol defending certian characteristics of stalinism) hate them. By Trotskyist marxists they are treated as fascists. They are especially hated for their use of the hammer and sickle and the therm "bolshevism". Wich only further stains the image of the name and the symbol afte the horreble crimes of stalinism against the revolution and marxism. The interesting thing is that ther are left parties in eastern europe who want to go back to the old stalinist system. This might seem rediculous in the first place, but there is someting to say for the better social and job security that was present before the fall of stalinism. By many "ostalgists" it is noted that they would like these things back without the dictatorial features of the former system. The nazbol however, don't especcialy want stalinism back for its social gains, but mainly for its harsh authoritarian "dicipline". The bad things about the system.

Bobby Siecker, 26-7-2007