Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

NAZBOL political programme

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 866
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Mar 2003, 16:07
Komsomol
Post 11 Dec 2007, 16:50
This is the current programme of NBP, dated 29.11.2004:

  1. Let Russian civil society develop freely. Limit the interference of state into public and private activity of the country's citizens. Political parties and organizations should not, and will not be artificially created in Kremlin's cabinets, like in chemical vials. We are not afraid of our people and initiatives from "below".
  2. Simplify registration of political parties. Cancel it if possible. 200 000 signatures in support of a party will be enough to proof its viability and allow it to participate in national elections.
  3. Do not interfere into activity of independent mass-media. Allow criticism of president and other high-ranking officials on television.
  4. Let the society control law enforcement bodies: activities of FSB and Ministry of Internal Affairs threaten safety of Russia's citizens not less than Chechen terrorists. Stop the practice of extrajudicial repressions and fabricated political processes that throw our country in the past.
  5. Restore system of social guarantees ("privileges") in the interests of the majority of people. Everything that is taken away from oligarchs must be given to people, not new oligarchs from Kremlin. Current oil prices allow to improve the life of our people and pull them out from poverty in no time.
  6. Cancel all privileges for bureaucrats and officials. They must live like all the other people do.
  7. The reason behind terrorist acts in Russian cities is war in Chechnya, not some mythical "international terrorism". Therefore, Chechen problem most be solved fairly and directly, with participation of all parties involved. This bloody massacre must be stopped.
  8. In foreign policy: concentrate on protecting the rights of Russian and Russian-speaking population in those CIS and Baltic countries that suppress these rights (Latvia, Estonia, Turkmenistan...). Use all admissible methods for this purpose, including economic sanctions and cutting diplomatic relations.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 129
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Sep 2007, 23:24
Pioneer
Post 18 Dec 2007, 00:24
From my limited research on National Bolshevism it seems to me that it is just a racist version of Soviet style State Socialism.

I used to be a white Nationalist and to be fair to alot of modern white Nationalists they, like me, were very anti-Capitalist.

The problem is though is that white Nationalists are blaming all their problems on the wrong people (Non-whites) instead of the real problem makers (The Bourgeoisie).

Of course this is quite a simple mistake to make as the Bourgeoisie always use racism as a way of dividing the workers along non-existent racial and national lines to prevent class unity and to prevent any revolution happening which would overthrow the Bourgeoisie (So you can see why they would use these tried and tested divide and conquer tactics).

Now what National Bolshevism does, IMO, is fall right into this carefully constructed Bourgeoisie racist trap which is why they shouldnt be given a second thought by any serious anti-Capitalist.

Always remember that the Proletariat has no country and that Nationalism in whatever disguise (Anti-Capitalism, racism, etc) is reactionary and is a tool of the Bourgeoisie aimed at dividing the Proletariat!
Image
J.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 605
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2003, 22:15
Komsomol
Post 18 Dec 2007, 00:52
Socialism? Last time I checked, the nazbols wanted something akin to a "permanent NEP", an institutionalised state-capitalism. Not that I'd take their 'economic program' seriously in any case.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1598
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Feb 2004, 22:46
Party Member
Post 18 Dec 2007, 07:22
Here is a good document critiquing black nationalism that was put out by the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA back in the 80's... While I don't support the RCP anymore, I believe a lot of this document still holds pretty true and has some good things to say, and is pertinent to the question of nationalism in general:


Nationalism and Internationalism


Nationalism has played a major role in the struggles of Black people in the U.S. and in the struggles of other oppressed peoples. But the basic question is: Whose interests does the ideology of nationalism represent and can nationalism lead to all-the-way liberation?

Nationalism as an ideology actually favors the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and in the final analysis it promotes capitalism. Of course, not all nationalism is the same. Black nationalism is hardly the same as white nationalism. The nationalism of an oppressed nation is very different from the nationalism of an oppressor nation. The nationalism of an oppressed people does have to do with fighting against oppression--against discrimination and inequality--while the nationalism of an oppressor nation only has to do with enforcing oppression and trampling on justice and equality. There is a fundamental distinction between oppressor and oppressed nations, and it is crucial to recognize this fundamental dividing line, or else you will end up siding with the oppressors.

But when all is said and done, nationalism, of any kind, is still the outlook of the bourgeoisie and ultimately serves capitalism. It is still the outlook of exploiters and wanna be exploiters, even if those exploiters and wanna be exploiters are held down and discriminated against by bigger, more powerful exploiters. Black capitalists may not be big sharks like the white capitalists who rule in the system of U.S. imperialism--and it may be possible to some degree to unite with Black capitalists against this system of imperialism--but one basic truth remains: capitalism means exploiting people. Nobody has ever accumulated capital except by exploiting other people --and nobody ever could--that's the nature of the beast.

...

Nationalism may claim to stand for everyone--for the nation as a whole--and not just the upper classes within the nation. It may even declare itself most in favor of the working classes and poor people of the nation. But to really represent the working class and poor people--the proletariat--a different ideology is needed. Because the proletariat, as a class, can win its emancipation only by ending exploitation and oppression, in every form, everywhere, the outlook that serves the interests of the proletariat is not nationalism but internationalism. Above all, the allegiance of the proletariat is not to any one nation but to the cause of emancipation--of ending all exploitation and oppression--worldwide.

The question for the proletariat is: What ideology can unite the oppressed and exploited people to fight for their highest interests? How can nationalism--even a revolutionary kind of nationalism that stands up against the system in the name of the oppressed peoples--build the highest and broadest unity? How can it build unity among all who must be united, on the best, the most powerful basis and with the most all-the-way revolutionary line in the lead? It cannot. Nationalism may be a powerful and a positive force in the struggle of an oppressed people up to a point. But nationalism cannot take things as far as they need to go--it cannot be the guide to complete liberation.

Nationalism falls short in uniting oppressed people of different nationalities. If nationalism is the guide, then everybody must look out for their own nationality first and before all else--that is what nationalism means.

Nationalism can't tell us what the fundamental interests of different classes and groups are, who should lead in the struggle against oppression, and how the leading group (or class) should relate to other groups and classes in the struggle.

Nationalism doesn't give a full picture of our struggle as a world struggle and it isn't good enough as a guide in uniting with real friends to fight common enemies, not just in one nation or country but worldwide.

Nationalism doesn't begin to give the answer to the question of how to end all oppression, including the big question of how to end the oppression of women and how to fully unleash the fury of women as a mighty force for revolution. Even when nationalism includes equality for women in its program, it will not be able to carry through on this--it will not be able to end the domination of women by men because it cannot make a complete break with capitalism and its outlook.

Fundamentally, nationalism goes along with the interests of the capitalist class, which seeks to strengthen its control over the territory and economic life of "its" nation and to promote "its" nation above others. It is not in the basic interests of the capitalist class to promote the equality of all nations and the unity of the masses of people of all nations. The capitalist class does not want to work for the day when national barriers will have been overcome on the basis of equality. Nationalist ideology is in accord with the capitalist class on this. In expressing the viewpoint of "my nation first," nationalism actually promotes relations of inequality and the division of the world into nations that are in conflict with each other, a world divided into oppressor and oppressed nations. And this goes along with the division of society into classes, into exploiters and exploited.

To bring it all together: Nationalism can't point all the way to the final goal of moving human society forward, beyond the stage where it is divided into masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed--forward to a new world of freely cooperating human beings, no longer divided by class or nation.

There is only one ideology that can do all this: the revolutionary communist ideology of the international proletariat: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.


-from http://revcom.us/coldtruth/index.htm

and that's all I'll say on the matter.
Comrade Andrei Mazenov
2007 Winner of Soviet-Empire's A View to Kilt Award

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 57
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Sep 2005, 13:44
Pioneer
Post 01 Feb 2008, 03:14
I can't -indeed, I will NEVER- understand the words "national" and "communism" coming together.

Sure nationalism, under specific conditions, may be a weapon against external imperialism.

But we communists are internationalists. Our commitment is to working class and the masses all around the world; and never to any specific country. Even our own country.
*só é comunista verdadeiro quem queima as pontes de retirada*
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 03 Feb 2008, 02:03
Say what you want, but they're fighting against Russian authoritarian officials and against corrupt Russian capitalism. You're just talking crap on an internet forum. I have nothing but respect for our NBP comrades. They have stood by our (AKM, CPRF) side many times and never have they backed down. When you stand there on that town square and see the plastic wall of anti-riot shields coming towards you, you not someone else, then come back and talk to me.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 129
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Sep 2007, 23:24
Pioneer
Post 03 Feb 2008, 17:08
Quote:
Say what you want, but they're fighting against Russian authoritarian officials and against corrupt Russian capitalism. You're just talking crap on an internet forum. I have nothing but respect for our NBP comrades. They have stood by our (AKM, CPRF) side many times and never have they backed down. When you stand there on that town square and see the plastic wall of anti-riot shields coming towards you, you not someone else, then come back and talk to me.

Would you be saying the same thing about the Nazis who stood side by side with Socialists during the numerous strikes and protests in the late 1920's?

People who self describe as Communists are for the liberation of all of humanity, no matter your ability, gender, race or sexuality.

The NBP dont hold these beliefs and thus cant be considered Communists or Socialists of any sort.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 03 Feb 2008, 21:55
Building socialism in a single given country? Keep in mind modern day Russia is both highly favorable to Communist ideas, because they're associated with the success of the Soviet era, but highly against major international involvements and entanglements. Internationalism might ride by on the post-Soviet arena only as a movement to unite the ex-USSR. Most certainly not as a precursor to a world revolution of any sort. Both us (AKM), CPRF and NBP make sure to cash in on the political credibility of communism and nationalism. Without making use of both it's almost impossible to mobilize true people power.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 04 Feb 2008, 02:24
Quote:
But we communists are internationalists. Our commitment is to working class and the masses all around the world; and never to any specific country. Even our own country.


last time croatian communist party tried to "internationalise" minorities they did it with pickaxes
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 02 Mar 2009, 23:32
this is an old topic. i think, so sorry. but since national-bolshevism is the ideology i identify myself the most to i have to comment.

first off national-bolshevik is at least for me a very weird concept, it will and is supposed to attract possible fascists and red alert stalinists. it was in itself a contradiction.

i do not identify as the old 1920 national-bolshevik,which is what limonov which itself proclaim that only 1 nation on earth is ever alive and it is one living in it's golden age germany and italy are proletarian nations which must reverse the rule of britain france and the usa. the most optimal social system is what they glorify. in short they claim a direct link to hegel,father of idealism. while at the same time they seem to accept what can be called as anthropological consciousness behind civilization and nationalism. yes it sounds like old nazi ideas that white people can subconsciously 'read' into each others mind,and spiritual non sense. but it was more along the lines of even with a first,second, or third world, there were different form of economies. not just stage of development. cultural differences are integrated in the economic system. living with your grand-parents in russia is more socially accepted. the anglo-saxon kick their childrens out of their house by 18, some wait a while longer.

the national-bolshevik party attracts white nationalists who are both afraid of discriminations in the workplace and social exclusions, some homosexuals for example,scared of the violence within their own movements and/or those whose position are not of anti-abortion, anti-immigration,patriarchism,even anti-miscegenation. or just one of these issues. under national-socialism there are the ultranationalist and the pan-aryan. the first chose it's life mate strictly among it's nation and skin color, while the latter is into real politics and allows 2 member of different nation of the same skin color together. they questioned the difference between communists and fascists, speaking of terms, as if the 2 had different language which meant altogether part of the same thing.

thus they are fascists with communist symbols. at the same time, it attracts disenchanted communists or socialist who have different stands than most communists, on illegal immigration, internationalism, population control.

deep ecologists like me, green anarchist who felt that anarchism was a dirty word anymore. wished to form a party to the side of a regular communist party, while disagreeing and agreeing at the same time, it really do strive to be the one party state. and it is composed of fascists to the right and communists to the left. it allows people of very different opinions to shout at each other. all of it just for the spectacle. we were disenchanted by both regular politics and extremists which the first was nothing but demonization of the president or prime minister, while the voting base which was betrayed each elections had no confidence in their government. while on the extremists side nothing better was going on, the state had too strong a technology for any armed revolution in a first world country. we were reduced to do nothing but name calling. the 1970s flq crisis in quebec was the only such thing that could remotely look like an armed revolution. and as expected ( and would be insanely stupid to ask otherwise) the whole population did not rise to the tanks in montreal the capital of quebec.

there was a single murder, many bombs,some called superbombs and quite scary 10-11 person killed by accidents. i do not a bunch of nutjobs, and it was avoided very well by the flq, but the resistance was very small and met with an overwhelming amount of force, typical of first world nations who are not in a deep enough crisis, i would like to point out something obvious about the first world, lack of physical fitness of the general populace, and the well organized and trained police force are probably in a better shape than second or third world's. and since national-bolshevik is not maoist, but strange ultranationalism, it is normal to consider, from my point of view. myself as a citizens of a first world nation. and strive to create something suitable for the non-violent society that we have in quebec( keep in mind i have no illusions). both extremely militant and non-violent, nbp should in some way be an inspiration, for throwing mustard and mayonaise at each and every politician
. but rejected in some way because limonov broke a wine bottle over an author's head. plus an insane amount of other things. i cannot defend my party with somebody breaking bottle of wine over people's head
.

the almost whole majority of those who claim to be national-bolshevik are antisemitic and nazi with no balls . but some real one from slavic countries are not, and my particular self isn't. i admire lenin's description of the ascetic professional revolutionary, all dedicated to his causes. without physical fitness like i said earlier, how are you supposed to run from the cops?

in short, i am sectarian and assume myself. i am interested in the intellectual debate behind it. i have clearly lost all hope yet it is something that still interests me alot. nietzsche's idea of will to power was highly attractive to me when i was 15. and communism also, i saw absolutly no problem with the 2, as i grew up i saw that the communist nowdays were mostly humanist. and it was not at all what vision i had. in fact i do not want the name of what i create to start with national.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 29
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Apr 2009, 14:32
Pioneer
Post 03 May 2009, 16:49
I am of the national-Bolshevism
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 03 May 2009, 20:34
Quote:
I am of the national-Bolshevism


Cool story.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 11
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Mar 2010, 20:57
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 10 Mar 2010, 22:54
I consider myself a National Communist, but jeez, they're insane! Thats not communism!
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 10 Mar 2010, 23:07
k.
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9396
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 11 Mar 2010, 05:32
lol this is like the worst thread ever now
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 252
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Apr 2009, 21:22
Komsomol
Post 09 Sep 2010, 04:34
I can remember a time when to even express positive interest in National Bolshevism would get you expelled as a Nazi, on this site. I'm glad that we may discuss this subject, as long as no one advocates ethnic hatred, or anything. The problem I have with Nazbols is that a number of them are supportive of Strasserism, and treat Otto Strasser as if he was the Trotsky to Stalin's Hitler. http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/National_Bolshevism So I feel that it has a negative connotation, and association. I feel that if one were to want to create a third way, distinct from both American style capitalism, and Soviet style Communism, a better way to go would be mutualism , Titoism , and/or Bukharinism.
Soviet cogitations: 1384
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2009, 03:41
Party Member
Post 09 Sep 2010, 23:01
was it the same way about mtw? some mtwist complained about this in the past.
Soviet cogitations: 3448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 15:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 12 Sep 2010, 21:31
No, our first regular MTWist got banned for trolling, racism and generally being a kkkunt.
The moment one accepts the notion of 'totalitarianism', one is firmly locked within the liberal-democratic horizon. - Slavoj Žižek
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 12 Sep 2010, 21:45
Its not our fault that MTWists so regularly come here to tell all of us that we're wrong and not only that but racist imperialists as well. If anything the MTWists have been banned more often for their own racism than any anti-MTW aspect of S-E.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 13 Sep 2010, 06:16
Our latest MTW is at least civil. And occasionally, I agree with him.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.