Both have to understand… otherwise you’re just talking passed each other. And I think that’s what happens half the time in political arguments. I think all these terms–liberalism, socialism, conservatism, authoritarianism–have as many meanings as there are people (bit of an exaggeration but you get the point). And the worst part is everyone thinks we all share the same meanings–so we end up just talking past each other.
When I hear, for example, socialist conservative, I can’t help but to think it’s a contradiction in terms. Usually, socialism is what conservatives are against. So I have to pry into what you mean by “socialism” and “conservatism” in order to understand how they’re compatible. ← This is why I ask you to paint a picture of the world as you, a socialist conservative, would have it. If I understand the state of affairs in the world that such terms denote for you, then I’ve got it.
Do you see it being anything like Hitler’s Third Reich?
Well, let’s just start with my definitions of socialism and conservatism. You tell me: do those come close to the mark for you?
Ok, so much like most Western nations today, except with an autocrat instead of a president or prime minister, a dictatorship instead of a republic/democracy.
If you study Strasserism it is one of the main proponents of conservative national socialism. There really isn’t anything contradictory of having a political ideology that is both conservative and socialist where I would challenge anybody that says there is. Yes, it is a relatively unheard of ideology because of the dominance of neo liberal capitalism here in the west that overshadows such a notion into relative obscurity. Again I am not sure how to specifically describe what conservative socialism is until you give me some specific questions which I will be more than willing to answer the best that I can. Give me all the questions that you have.
Globalist democracy I mean democratic political structures that revolve around global civicism.
Yes, different nations for different races and at this rate of ethnic or racial balkanization here in the west nations are going to splinter splitting themselves apart eventually.
There would be some commonalities with Hitler’s Third Reich yes, but it wouldn’t be entirely the same thing either. Otto Strasser under Strasserism and who was the original architect of German national socialism had many disagreements with Adolf Hitler for instance ideologically.
He didn’t think Adolf Hitler was socialist enough.
Come close to the mark? What?!
Except most western nations are not even remotely socialist enough where capitalism pervades everything. Total destruction of capitalism and marxism is the maximum ideal of a conservative national socialist. Yes autocracy would be the norm, fuck this democratic shit show that promotes the illusion of free choice.
No man or woman is an island. Radical individualism is a poisonous ideology that sets people against each other. It divides people and does nothing in uniting them collectively or socially.
We need to stop looking at society in terms of class and economic output where instead we look at all of society as one whole or one biological super organism. We need to stop looking at the rights of individuals and be more concerned with the rights of society as a whole that encompasses all individuals.
Got none at the moment. But just to linger a bit more on your conservative socialism–would you describe that as a balance between conservative values and socialist values? Like a mixed market?
Yeah… probably… so who gets Alabama?
Ok. Could we say that Hitler is to Strasser as Stalin was to Marx? A lot of people believe that Marxism could still work, that Stalin just misapplied it, and that it should be given another chance. The same argument, I suppose, could stand for Strasser, that Hitler just misapplied it, and it should be given another chance.
Neo liberal capitalism essentially is what dominates all western nations these days. Political conservative movements are effectively dead despite what their supporters might say because essentially conservatives have become too moderate where they act or behave much like their liberal counterparts. Any more there is very little difference between conservatives and neo liberals anymore where they act much like the same party with feigned pretend cosmetic differences for public consumption of their political bases. There use to be fiscal financial conservatives for instance but anymore all parties agree upon on reckless unlimited amounts of government spending where fiscal conservatism has become a sort of laughing stock of an ideal. What exactly anymore are conservatives conserving? The answer to that question is nothing. Neo liberalism dominates western civilization now and conservative political movements has been absorbed or co-opted by that. In the west essentially all political affiliations are being controlled or co-opted by the oligarchy that directs and controls everything where it is abundantly clear that neo liberalism is their preferred ideology for mass public consumption.
For me the reason that not many people have heard about conservative socialism is because much of the political process in the west is controlled by the economic power structure and because of that dominance they don’t want the public at large to know about any kind of social political alternatives out there that might threaten their tightly knitted system of control.
Democratic movements in the west are effectively globalist and anti nationalism, they’re entirely international in scope. The west has become all about internationalism, unlimited foreign immigration, military imperialism, economic exploitation, and anti nationalism to its very root.
Yes, I am a promoter of a mixed market economy but one of which leans more towards a socialist economy.
I have somewhat of an idea what’s going to happen when balkanization eventually fractures and splinters entire nations a part. At some point I am going to write more on this subject. There are two options when this occurs. A.) Go through a very violent and horrendous civil war revolving around total war ethnically.
B.) Transitional secession with minimal conflict in which all ethnic groups compromise or negotiate separation amongst themselves something that all can agree upon.
At this point I am not sure which will happen but I do have a basic rudimentary understanding of both in terms of possibility.
Hitler was to Strasser what Stalin was to Marx? In some ways we could say that, yes. I would say that I have a frustrating understanding of Adolf Hitler revolving around admiration but also harsh criticism. Many of the things he did and said I like however there is also some things that he did that was disastrous that I don’t like which ultimately cost the Germans to lose the war in World War II. Adolf Hitler had many faults and certainly wasn’t perfect where he made many mistakes but I don’t think this in any way detracts his importance in history or the national socialist movement. There wouldn’t be much of a movement without him to his credit.
I aspire towards a more evolved, rejuvenated, and well adapted model of national socialism. The one I have in mind doesn’t revolve around a bunch of skinhead swastika brandishing individuals or people wearing world war II regalia shouting seig heil everywhere. The movement I support is an intellectual one with individuals wearing suits and ties, dresses, or just casual wear. It is is a movement that is philosophical, intellectual, social, political, and economic.
It is a movement of ideas, justice, social order, nationalism, and permeates the idea that we as Europeans have the right to exist.
I am serious about my comment on democracy in the west as I view it to be rotten and corrupt to its core. I don’t see how anybody but the naive and stupid can deny this.
Anti-nationalism and internationalism go hand-in-hand… don’t they?
So tell me, ZS, are you against internationalism because nations in today’s world don’t seem to be able to get along in the first place? I mean, let’s take your ethnic segregationism for example. What if you lived in a nation that had an extremely long history of people living amongst different races and ethnicities, and it was that way since before they could remember. Everybody seems to be able to get along and race antagonisms doesn’t seem to crop up any more than antagonism between any other groups. Would you still say there would be a need to separate the different races and ethnicities into different nation states? In other words, do you believe in segregation because, as things stand in the present day, different races in American seem irrevocably incapable of getting along in the first place? Or do you believe in segregation regardless?
You come dangerously close to liberalism here. Liberals are the ultimate socialists.
Most likely.
It’s a shock, ZS, you have more faith in humanity than I do (when did this happen? ). I give it a 0/100 chance. 0 chance of a peaceful settlement, 100% of out right bloody war! ← Because I’m a complete fucking pessimist.
Oh, he was definitely important as a historical figure, and yeah, you might say he had a few faults (just a few), but no one is 100% evil (wait, I’m supposed to be a pessimist). He was a genius and I’m sure one could extract a few virtues and good ideas from a mind now considered the world over to be a vortex of madness.
In my not so humble opinion, I think any movement that capitalizes on philosophy and intellectualism stands a far better chance of surviving than a movement that doesn’t. It invites smart people. But I think more than that, it needs openness to new and risky idea, ideas that challenge the status quo. Part of what it is to survive is to be flexible and adapt to change.
Everybody does.
By democracy, do you mean public voting for officials or the original meaning: majority rule?
A very powerful, inspiring, and thorough analysis of social economics or the economy of national socialism. It explains the dynamics of third positionism very well. A bit of a warning though, this documentary is almost three hours long.
When I first watched this video I imagined to myself what society could be once again.
Three hours, eh? Good to know this video’s available, but I don’t think I’ll get through it anytime soon. I might come back to it from time to time, but if you want to carry on this discuss, we might have to put it aside at least in the short run.
Well technically conservatives are supposed to be conserving a lot of things like culture, nationhood, and so on besides mere fiscal oversight but looking at the world I see all of that as abysmal failure on their part since it would appear they all lack a consensual political will.
How much is the United States in debt? Simple answer: Way too much! A ridiculous and absurd amount that can never be paid back. (It grows exponentially every year of course.)
What the United States and much of the west has is unrestrained capitalism. There is no other way to describe it and that is the least mild way of describing it. (It is a predatory economy and equally predatory in terms of the representative government that enforces it onto everybody else.)
I believe in racial segregation regardless. There are certainly some nations that are naturally multicultural and multiracial but they developed that kind of identity over hundreds if not thousands of years.[Indonesia, India, and Malaysia as examples]
In the European west however all of this is done by coercion and the enforcement of the state overnight [eighty something years now] where since its very beginnings was never wanted to begin with.
There’s a big difference between liberal or communist socialism compared to the socialism I advocate especially in terms of government, laws, and general economy. Similarities? Maybe, but nonetheless radically different.
It could also be a manifestation of both instances. A prolonged ethnic conflict that is an extremely violent that afterwards amongst the devastation it causes forces people from all ethnic or cultural backgrounds to negotiate with one another. In my youth I somewhat glorified violence but now that I’m older having witnessed, experienced, and seen a lot of it I don’t anymore. Violence should never be glorified or encouraged as it is something that should be avoided if possible. If there is a way to avoid violence I’m all for it but as you say there probably isn’t a way to do so going fourth into the future. I’m definitely not a pacifist and understand that in some instances there is no way to avoid violence or war however I do sincerely believe that nonviolent methods in anything should be pursued first. Violence, death, and war takes its toll on all those it involves. This is what I’ve learned over the years that is a much different stance compared to my younger years where consequences of such things never was even a thought for me.
)
). I give it a 0/100 chance. 0 chance of a peaceful settlement, 100% of out right bloody war! ← Because I’m a complete fucking pessimist. 