National-Communist, National-Bolshevik

I've lost the websites where this guys gather. I'm interested in the Marxist nationalism the most. I know /pol can find me links to this guys. Thanks.

Other urls found in this thread:

aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/10/oerter-and-indeterminacy-of-physical.html
amazon.com/Stalin-Enduring-Legacy-Kerry-Bolton/dp/1908476427
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I saved to my shuffling wallpaper folder without even thinking... oh well...

Are they still alive?

Nationalism is bad, goyim. Submit to your israeli shecklebers

Has Monre ever been penetrated on film

If not thats hot

If so thats hot

You are in the wrong place pinko faggot.

I think she was not!

Fuck commies

She does twitch now doesn't she?

C'mon /pol. You can't completely reduce yourself to one current.

She is out of business. Having a dayjob, lol.

Fuck man I don't know. Go ask /leftypol/ on 8ch

Marxism is inherently anti-nationalist, Strasserism is the closest thing you'll find to it.

It is not inherent. I'm a nationalist Marxist. Mao was national Marxist. Stalin was also on our side, but more left. Everything progress. Marxism as well. You totally can combine class and nation.

Mao destroyed thousands of historical Chinese artifacts and traditions in order to try and recreate the Chinese identity. Definitely not a nationalist.
National Socialism (especially Strasserism) combines class and nation

Easy to be a "socialist" on a full stomach in the wealthiest time in history.

Strasserism is a total failure. It reduced science of Marxism to an idea. It reduced an Idealism to fairy-tails. There is nothing in it. Except the proximity on the left-right coordinates.

Recreation is nice. Even developing of something new is nice. Nationalism is not always reactionary. Give new thought a try.

Give me the damn links!!!

All forms of forced economic collectivism are idealistic fairy tales.
But he wasn't a nationalist of China, he was a nationalist of the Marxist ideology.

Why is he criticized from the left side for nationalism?

Because any mention of your country will get you criticized for nationalism by the far left. If you really want a nationalist communist figure Tito is probably the best you will get.

because they needed a way to escape the blame for all their atrocities. If you ever justly criticize a communist it will turn out that they weren't "really" communist.

Can you describe the criticism you are making your opinion of? How many critics from left of Mao did you read? Name them.

Why the fuck would I have to read leftist critiques of Mao to understand that the far left cries "ahh nationalism from the evil bad man" every time someone is within a 4km radius of a nation's flag?

To make an opinion on something you need to know about it.

fascism combines class and nationality (in theory)
nat socialism was Hitlers form of fascism and put a heavy emphasis on race theory and the Jews

The wrong class.

>implying that I have to understand a very specific and relatively irrelevant part of an idea to understand the overall idea.

Trotskyists attack "socialism in one country" aspect of non-revisionist ideology as being an affront to the internationalism of marxism, and being a kind of fascism. They thinks this gets them off the hook for things like the cultural revolution and Holodmor, while Trotsky advoccated constant world war until every one was communist, because the workers revolution had to be a global one.

but basically since communism can't actually work all communist regimes make compromises. These compromises, then allow other groups to free Marxism of criticism based on the compromised regimes because they were not "true" Marxists

Ideas are not easy. You may want to study basics before making high-level conclusions. Education works this way. For example. Not the opposite way.

To understand that 2 hydrogens bond to 1 oxygen to make water you don't have to understand everything about elementary particles.

Knowledge is not "understanding". To understand you actually need to learn why

> These compromises, then allow other groups to free Marxism of criticism based on the compromised regimes because they were not "true" Marxists
Not true "communism" maybe? Because Marxism can be different in every single head. Anyway. Trotskie was an agent who fought against rising communist power. He did not attempt to legitimate communism. Quite the opposite. Do you see all this kids posing communist today? They are in fact left-liberals, not more. It is in part the work of Trotskie.

Was that not a shift in his ideology due to being ran out by Stalin?

Anyway I do not see how the communist orthodoxy of Trotsky has anything to do with my original comment. Tankies are not going to be criticizing Mao for his nationalist tendencies and people who are neither tankies or trots are just hipster faggots LARPing communism.

>Was that not a shift in his ideology due to being ran out by Stalin?
Shift never happened because he was not into Marxism in the first place. He was very good in planning, organizing and doing propaganda for the party but every single time shifted from the Marxist system of thought. He was expelled from the party for that and excused twice. Even before Stalin.
>Anyway I do not see how the communist orthodoxy of Trotsky has anything to do with my original comment.
Because it is not a criticism from the left. It is a criticism from a Jew manipulator that fought against the left. Which makes him a very smart rightist.
Also, Mao:
1) made peace with the upper class of China.
2) made a 3rd-world theory which is completely a nationalist invention.

>He was very good in planning, organizing and doing propaganda for the party but every single time shifted from the Marxist system of thought.
>Because Marxism can be different in every single head

I think you proved what I was saying in the original post.
>Because it is not a criticism from the left.
Do you consider Nationalism leftwing. If not, then it is a criticism from the left, just not from a leftist.
>Which makes him a very smart rightist
>rightist
>being against the Czar

Mao tried to destroy every part of traditional Chinese culture, up to executing people for knowing how to make traditional bows

>made peace with the upper class of China
see the second paragraph of Mao also did everything he could to annihilate traditional chinese culture

>I think you proved what I was saying in the original post
Communism is a defined thing. Marxism is a science. So Marxism changes every time a new fact is presented or by studying. Communism is hard to change, Marxism is not.
>Do you consider Nationalism leftwing.
I consider nationalism right-wing.
Trotskie made a leftwing criticism. But it is not a legitimate criticism as it is only a form of manipulation. In this case the wrong thing is to listen to a manipulator with a false left-wing agenda.
>rightist
>being against the Czar
Yes, most of them are.
>Mao tried to destroy every part of traditional Chinese culture, up to executing people for knowing how to make traditional bows
>Mao also did everything he could to annihilate traditional chinese culture
This is why Chinese are one of the most traditional nation ATM? I was in China so many times personally. In fact my step-grandfather is Chinese. They are more traditional than anybody.

>Marxism is a science
It is an ideology that has certain Ideological presuppositions. The Ideology is destructive to others and itself. To ignore this most advocates hide behind the "its never been tried" argument.
> But it is not a legitimate criticism as it is only a form of manipulation.
Are you therefore a proponent socialism in one country and if so, what is it about Mao that makes him a nationalist?
>Yes, most of them are.
I disagree, but we probably have different definitions of right wing
>This is why Chinese are one of the most traditional nation ATM?
That is both debatable and irrelevant. Easter Europe is more traditional than Western Europe. One the most hilarious ironies is that the leftists that wanted to destroy European culture preserved better than the leftists who claimed to be defending it.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. Eastern Europe is more traditional than Western Europe. One the most hilarious ironies of the 20th century is that the leftists that wanted to destroy European culture preserved it better than the leftists who claimed to be defending it.

sorry

>The Ideology is destructive to others and itself.
There are two types of ideology. One is based on materialism and science. Second is based on idealism. Ideology which is based on science is a true, progressive ideology.
>To ignore this most advocates hide behind the "its never been tried" argument.
Its never been used arguments is coming from the ignorance of people that claim the end point(communism) to be an equivalent of a starting point(socialism). Every single time you can see some idiot clams the starting has failed calling it "communism". If communism was never introduced it is right to say it was not.
>Are you therefore a proponent socialism in one country
There is no therefore. Stalin and Mao were up to proceeding with the rest of the world. "socialism in one country " is as well a Trotskie manipulation.
>what is it about Mao that makes him a nationalist?
Giving ruling power to the national upper class.
> but we probably have different definitions of right wing
I use the one from the dictionary. Just in case.
>That is both debatable and irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. Chinese traditions were preserved. I'm not traditionalist. I'm against traditionalism as I'm progressive nationalist. That is why for me is important to know how to get rid of the traditions. And Mao did the opposite. He preserved traditions.

I don't care about Socialism but Americans should have prohibited the use of Guevara symbols.

>One is based on materialism and science
Any political ideology assumes the true existence of abstract forms. Thus no political ideology could be anything but Idealist.
> If communism was never introduced it is right to say it was not.
Why was it never introduced? Why has it been impossible to get past the dictatorship of the proletarian phase? Communism is Utopian and can never be manifested in our fallen world. Would you accept that Theocracy has never been tried because Jesus has yet to come back and make the new Jerusalem.
>Giving ruling power to the national upper class
That is an idiosyncratic definition of nationalism.
>I use the one from the dictionary.
Webster says; "the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right" which at the time would exclude anyone opposing the Czar.
>And Mao did the opposite. He preserved traditions.
He tried to destroy traditions he failed. Just like communists the world over failed. If you want to destroy tradition, your best bet is capitalism.

>Any political ideology assumes the true existence of abstract forms. Thus no political ideology could be anything but Idealist.
Why? The second doesn't come from first.
>Why was it never introduced? Why has it been impossible to get past the dictatorship of the proletarian phase?
Because it is not easy. You need to make it happen. It is not going to be done by itself. If you will not make it happen - it won't.
>That is an idiosyncratic definition of nationalism.
This is not a definition. It is a causality.
>Webster says
Didn't know such a definition exist.
>He tried to destroy traditions he failed.
>He tried
Trying doesn't count.

I FOUND THE LINKS, YAHOOO! Thank you guys.

>Why?
The actual existence of abstract forms negates materialism. That leaves merely pragmatic, anti-ideological politics, such as conservatism, or Idealism.
> Because it is not easy. You need to make it happen. It is not going to be done by itself. If you will not make it happen - it won't.
>Trying doesn't count.
So no communist is alive or has ever lived. I had only ever dreamed that this day would come.
>Didn't know such a definition exist.
It is a bad definition, but you wanted to use a dictionary.

>The actual existence of abstract forms negates materialism.
How?

Materialism asserts that only material things exist.
Abstractions are not material.
Therefore if abstractions exist, materialism is wrong.

But abstractions ARE material.

abstraction
n. the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.

> apart from concrete realities
>concrete

>Marxist
>nationalism

Now, I'm not one of the bird-brained morons who go out and say "Marxism and nationalism don't mix, communist state is oxymoron hurr," but you can't have socialist economics mashed together with fascist foreign and government policy. It doesn't work. Engels proved that you can't have socialism in one country indefinitely.

That is why you push for expansion.

The way Stalin figured it, it was up to the USSR to kick-start all those revolutions that failed in western Europe. Then Mao came along and said you need to liberate the agrarian peasants first before you came knocking on the West's door.

Now, what do Mao and Stalin have in common? They died before they could get their ideas off the ground, and their successors cared more about keeping themselves in power than communist ideology. And the state bureaucracies in both countries obstructed progress even during those two people's lifetimes because it was in their own personal interest.

A lot of people who say "communism can't work because of human nature", don't know *how* human nature prevents communism, but they're right. It requires a sort of political unity and cohesion that just isn't possible in human society. The far-left as of recent is the most sectarian political group in the whole world, and that's mainly because there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians, and no chief wants to downgrade to Indian.

Which I take to mean hard, material. There are material circles. there is no material circleness.

I agree with most of your analysis.
But my conclusion is right the opposite. Not too many people are able to work hard to become chiefs. Look at the left today, they can't figure anything. They don't study, but protest. Their mama was tough with them. Didn't buy a new porshe. So they "rebel". It is not a material you can do something with. We need a group of theoreticians, organizers, income finders. Not the kids, who can follow. We will easily find people to follow, they are 6 billion of them. But there shall be a sovereign, group, or party which is capable of leadership. And there is non.

There are material circles in your head. In the form of electrical signals. Or in position of transistor 11001010100100001

but circleness is not dependent on any of my thoughts or any particular circle. Thus it is not material.

Also material objects are non-determinative. whereas formal thought is inherently determinative. Therefore formal thought is immaterial. Political ideologies involve formal thought, and thus require the immaterial.

>Or in position of transistor 11001010100100001
aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

/thread

OP is a retard.

>but circleness is not dependent on any of my thoughts
It is dependent. Why not? Where it is? Only in the signals.
>Also material objects are non-determinative. whereas formal thought is inherently determinative.
Why?

>

>Marxist nationalism

no such thing

>It is dependent. Why not? Where it is?
If no humans existed to think of circles physical circles would still exist. if no physical circles existed but humans did, we could still come up with circleness, if only through geometry. so circleness is not dependent on any physical nor mental circle. It has an abstract existence thus the question where is meaningless.
>Why?
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/10/oerter-and-indeterminacy-of-physical.html

>if no physical circles existed but humans did, we could still come up with circleness
Which would be based in the material signals of their brain.

>Which would be based in the material signals of their brain.

This does nothing to address my point also
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/10/oerter-and-indeterminacy-of-physical.html

Your point is that abstractions are not material. They are.

OP you should read this
amazon.com/Stalin-Enduring-Legacy-Kerry-Bolton/dp/1908476427

Extremely well written book and very relevant and you will understand why Donald Trump is so important and what he is doing and that he is not a joke.

Joking, right?

no

Even if the formal thought required to discover circles, without any physical circle to go off of, was a material process, which it objectively is not, that would in no way contradict my argument. since I was demonstrating that circlness was not dependent on any physical or mental instance of a circle.

Provide me short thesis from the books of this gentleman please.

Why is it important to be dependent on the outer matter if it depends on inner matter. Dependence on any matter is solely enough to be materialistic.

Stalin was anti-marxist
The US cultural empire is pro-marxist

When Leon Trotskys widow wrote that "Stalin betrayed the (marxist) revolution" and from now on she had to supported USA imperialism instead because it promotes modern lifestyles and modern arts/architecture.

I can't say she was wrong, Stalin DID betray the revolution.

>If no humans existed to think of circles physical circles would still exist. if no physical circles existed but humans did, we could still come up with circleness, if only through geometry. so circleness is not dependent on any physical nor mental circle. It has an abstract existence thus the question where is meaningless.
Why not keep your narrow positivism in the engineer section where it belongs? this is /pol

Read the shit yourself. But the Das kapital and get it over with it, and you might be not retarded after you read it

because matter only accounts for its particular instances which its abstraction is not dependent on.
>Why not keep your narrow positivism in the engineer section where it belongs? this is /pol
What do you when by this. because I hope it is a joke.

>Stalin was anti-marxist
I've read most of Stalin. Didn't find much
anti-marxism in it. I think the problem here that somebody didn't read him. He had to do a lot of trade offs. That's confuses many. Marxists are not idealist and can act in opposition of their ideas. Because dialectics allow that. Only dialectics can erase this confusion.

>What do you when by this. because I hope it is a joke.
Physicists should stick to their disciplin, you are such narrow thinkers that you cant contribute to other sciences.
The humanities has finally overcome your 19th century positivism, so lets keep it out of /pol.

The biggest contribution of marxism is the creation of a proletarian and burgeoise identity.

>Stalin was anti-marxist
Your head's up your ass

>because matter only accounts for its particular instances which its abstraction is not dependent on.
You are loosing me. There is two types of matter. Objective (the one you say may not exist to learn curliness) and subjective (the one you need to have a brain and use it to learn curliness). Ether is matter. If you don't depend on the first one - you depend on the second. Change of type of the matter doesn't change that it is matter.

I am essentially defending Platonism and you are accusing me of 19th century positivism. Philosophy is the humanities.

But the abstraction is neither. You are saying that any particular circle is material, which I reject but its not important currently, but we are discussing the abstraction which i not dependent on any particular circle.

It depends on a particular circle in your head. It depends on your subjective material. Try having an abstraction without brain. You can't.

>I am essentially defending Platonism and you are accusing me of 19th century positivism. Philosophy is the humanities.
Im accusing you of positivism in general, the 19th century was the last time that ontology was modernized. Refering to Plato is not really a chronological progression after that. How about reading some actual contemporary, like lets say Derrida?

But the abstraction is not dependent on my brain. Circles would still be circles, even if no humans were around to think of them as such.

I have, it nonsense.

Just by another girls hand ;-)

It does depend of your brain. Abstract circles would not exist without it. Because they exist solely in you head.

here you go :)

They do not exist solely in my head but every other rational creatures head as well. Even with out rational creatures circles would still have circleness in common, and thus the abstraction would still be real.

Words either represent real things or they don't. If they don't, we can't even have a discussion. If they do, you have not made an argument

There would still be a need for someone subjectively having it in their head.

you are so narrow minded :( all you will be able to contribute is to fix my car or toilet, those, we surely can agree, are your beloved "real things".

Last time it was worse. Someone arguing that I'm his imagination. We can say this subject is a step ahead!

Why?
I have deconstructed the meaning of your words and reconstructed them into my own cultural idiom as you saying that you have surrendered and completely agree with me. Also that you think its foolish to expect Derrida fans to work anywhere other than starbucks.

you know what the problem is? If they talk their physics and formulas, everyone who doesnt have a clue would shut up and not dare to interfere.
But if we humanists talk our science, every dork in the village thinks they would have a right to make objections, wtf?

hoho the "sociologists are all unemployed" card, welcome to the bottom

better than the platonic plumber meme

>Why?
Because abstract does not exist outside of the brain. But there are common laws, yes. Material laws of how matter behaves which make it form a lot of similar object. Circles, even! And by using our brain we can find similarities of the material objects and use our grey matter to form a common abstractions for groups of objects. Common laws, similar objects =! abstractions. First exist in objective, abstractions exist in subjective.

Formulas do not change the worldview and are not connected with "I". You don't need to change yourself to calculate. Integrity is an important part of how brain works. You ruin them the whole world, what you expect? You don't want people to stop functioning, right?

but Circleness would exist without us though, circleness is an abstract entity. Circlness objectively exists. Thus abstractions objectivly exist.

>but Circleness would exist without us though
How? Show me circleness without us.