Talk:National Bolshevism

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)

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)

mao used same flag in 20s and 30s, even post 1949 I think, dose that make the ccp neonazi too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobri (talk • contribs) 04:45, 6 June 2009 (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)

That's really quite the stretch, MqDuck. I mean there is quite a large and profound gap between a slight philosophical difference on the role of private property and being an proponent of a "capitalist paradise". And for the record, the National-Socialists were never advocates of capitalism and all genuine National-Socialist ideologues deplored capitalism. The quote itself makes it quite clear that they strongly identified with socialism -which is obvious in far more than just that quote (look into Goering's speeches, the writings of Gottfried Feder, the Party Program, etc.)- just not Marxism. That is indeed an important distinction. And anyone acquainted with their socialism and Marxism knows that Marxism was not the first socialist theory and one does not have to be an [orthodox] Marxist in order to be a socialist. If allowances made for some degree of private initiative is not socialist -and is consequently the most conspicuous and vulgar form of capitalism (for the record, that's absurd)- then Lenin was not a Socialist, due to the NEP. I would argue -and it has been argued- that it certainly was a policy that severely compromised Lenin's Marxism. And on that point I should emphasize that the National-Socialist [ideological] position on the question of private initiative shares very strong commonalities with Lenin's NEP; with perhaps a little more transcendence. They sought to protect and support small businesses and additionally allowed for private property/possessions. They sought to manage the economy through its higher, more significant, functions, as did the Soviets.

One thing I should also point out is how many people confuse National-Socialism automatically with Hitlerism and Third Reich. While Hitler, no doubt, played an integral part in shaping the ideology, the Third Reich was obviously not a genuine manifestation of that ideology or program. To argue that the Third Reich was the quintessential embodiment of National-Socialism is akin to arguing that Stalinism was a genuine manifestation of Marxism-Leninism.

So let's not get into a game of what constitutes being "far-right" or "far-left". People cannot even determine whether or not Statism is necessarily right-wing or left-wing. Now there is ample evidence in practically every manifestation of Communism in the world to demonstrate very strong correlations to National-Socialism and yes, even Fascism overall. Whether it be in Stalin's "Socialism in one country", militarism -or the nationalism, chauvinism, etc. that seems to infect most other Communist regimes. One thing is clear, however, many Communists still refuse to accurately characterize these blatantly hypocritical regimes and policies, because they use/used their various forms of Marxist revisionism to justify themselves. Well, that's certainly convenient. One can hate the National-Socialists and Fascists till the end of days -and believe me I detest this all- but one fact remains clear, they at least were a little more transparent than most of these Communist orders. They did not have to make excuses for their totalitarianism and countless policies by rationalizing them through a corruption of Marxist theory. If anything the Communists have done a thorough job at disgracing the integrity of Marxist theory. ForbiddenZone (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

New Message with Questions

I want to ask questions on to whether National Bolshevism is anti-Semitic. This is an ideology that is promoted by, amongst others, Julius Evola who supports anti-Semitism since he ‘’supported Fascism for his own ends’’ and was "attracted" by ‘’National Socialism’’, worked ‘’as a researcher on Freemasonry’’ ‘’in Vienna’’ for the ‘’SS Ahnenerbe’’ and had influenced people who were anti-Semitic like the "Miguel Serrano" who believes in ‘’Esoteric Hitlerism’’.

National Bolshevism seems to be promoted by organizations like National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party since the Wikipedia article on this party explained that its ‘’theories allow them to be placed within the wider context of the Eurasianism that forms a part of National Bolshevism.’’

Does this mean that because Eurasianism is a part of National Bolshevism that NSJAP also supports the latter of these two ideologies? If so, is it because National Bolshevism is described by the Wikipedia article on it as combining nationalism with extreme left wing ideologies like "socialism", "communism" and having an "anti-capitalist" orientation. Japanese user:Aotake replied to one of my messages by saying he didn’t know if NSJAP opposes or supports National Bolshevism. Yet NSJAP says on its website that they "fight for the Freedom of Eurasia" and for the "FREEDOM OF THE WORLD against communism, race-mixing, Freemasonry and Zionism."

NSJAP also supports the Holocaust revisionism, Aum Shinrikyo cult and seems unaware of its far right Japanese ally called Issui-Kai, involved in a previous demonstration with NSJAP we can see on NSJAP’s website and this website called http://www.mkimpo.com/. Yet Issui-Kai and its leader called Kimura who is a “friend of French right-winger Jean-Marie Le Pen.” Also Kimura’s Issui-Kai group supports Jean Marie Le Pen. France’s Front National is supported by South Korea’s “Unification Church” which user:Aotake explained was a cult that NSJAP criticized. Is NSJAP aware of this or even that the leader of that cult worked with previous Japanese war criminals to create an organization called the International Federation for Victory Over Communism as well as having “his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons".”

As Holocaust revisionists NSJAP says on the roughly translated version of their website that the Holocaust is a “fiction” and a “Big lie”. Even though it seems NSJAP believes the Holocaust doesn’t exist, please could somebody check, if they read Japanesethe big Japanese text about the Holocaust of this previous message. Could you explain to me from this what evidence NSJAP uses to question whether parts of the Holocaust exist

When I questioned the meaning of this assertion on the Wikipedia article’s talk page on this cult, an ex-member called Steve Dufour replied to the question in my message that he would want both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin to oppose the ideologies they created and any political parties in the world that promote them. Yet He said they would be unable to do so from the spirit world. Does NSJAP have a view on this?

Apart from that Russia’s National Bolshevik Party of Eduard Limonov has “In recent Q and A on the internet on the website nazbol.ru the NBP has made sincere attempts to sever any ties with fascism, nazism, and racism.” and “Statements have been issued opposing antisemitism, xenophobia, and racism as being contradictory to national bolshevik views.”

Yet in what appears to contradict all of what is being said above, the National Bolshevik Party of Russia has had a “number” of “its” "Units working with the growing Movement Against Illegal Immigration”

[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=435440 The “Movement Against Illegal Immigration” and its leader called “Alexander Belov” “supported” American far right winger Preston Wiginton who ”was an “international coordinator” of an “action” “called "March Against Third World Invasion".” March Against Third World Invasion is also known by an acronym called MATWI that is used by people on the Stormfront website since Stormfront showed the website of it called “http://www.matwi.com”.] However MATWI describes itself on its website not as an action but as a “project” that “is about people dedicated to stop the invasion of their homelands by the third world.”

[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=435440 Yet MATWI which the Movement Against Illegal Immigration supports, is described by Stormfront as an “action” was supported by European far right wing political parties like “Front National (France)”, Swedish Democrats (Sweden), BNP (Great Britain) Serbian Radical Party, and Patriotic Movement of USA.”] Yet even though the Movement Against Third World Invasion that is supported by the Movement Against Illegal Immigration, used anti-Semitic symbols like celtic crosses which are on shields with eagles on them which a re Neo-Nazi symbols since not only anti-hate groups like the Anti Defamation League say they are but people who try to explain the meaning of it come from websites like http://flagspot.net/. Yet an essay from Preston said “We simply want what the world has blessed Israel with and praises. We ask for nothing more. The right to exist. The right to a future. The right for out children to live in peace and prosperity.”

As well as that, Eduard explained that ‘’among his idols’’ were anti-Semitic people who were ’Mikhail Bakunin’’, ‘’Yukio Mishima’’, ‘’Alain de Benoist’’, “”Radovan Karadzic and “Julius Evola”. The problem here is that the Wikipedia article that mentions those people that Eduard supports, does not give any source or sources to support this. Apart from that “National Bolsheviks have historically defended” Strasserism, that was created by Gregor and Otto Strasser.

While Otto Strasser in the Wikipedia article on him says ‘’Following his expulsion, he set up his own party, the Black Front, composed of radical ex-Nazis, in an attempt to split the Nazi Party. Here his lack of anti-Semitism was displayed by his willingness to associate with Jewish persons’’. Yet the article also explained that he supported the Nazis since he ‘’attempted to create his own, new, "nationalist and socialist"-oriented party in 1956, the German Social Union (often called a successor to the 1949-1952 forbidden Socialist Reich Party of Germany)’’. I don’t know if Strasser knew that the Socialist Reich Party had previously ‘’denied the existence of the Holocaust’’. The article on Otto Strasser ended by saying that he ‘’continued to call for and propagate neo-Nazism until his death in Munich in 1974.’’ And that final point was not supported by any reference.

The article about Otto Strasser says his ideas are supported by ‘’racist propagandists, such as National anarchist founder Troy Southgate and those of the American Strasserite group Folk And Faith.’’ These examples show that, contrary to the Wikipedia article on National Bolshevism that mentioned him as having turned away from Nazism, he seemed to support that ideology, opposing Jews. The Wikipedia article on his brother called Gregor Strasser had shown him to be anti-Semitic, since the ‘’course for NSDAP” “was heavily affected by antisemitism’’. A newspaper he wrote called “Die Schwarze Front” was (named after Otto Strasser's Black Front political organisation)’’. It seems unsure whether Gregor Strasser’s Die Schwarze Front newspaper supported and promoted the ideas of Otto’s Black Front organisation, since was an anti-Semitic until his death. It therefore seems Gregor Strasser was anti-Semite until his death. Strasserism itself as the Wikipedia article explains that it was an ideology that opposes ‘’Jewish finance capitalism’’, therefore it would’ve been ‘’shared by Adolf Hitler’’.

To conclude, can any Wikipedian answer my question on whether National Bolshevism is anti-Semitic. It seems to be an ideology that is influenced by or promoted by individuals, political parties, organizations that are opposed to anti-Semitism; yet some of them may by contrast support this viewpoint, namely those who were mentioned above. Please reply here or on my talk page, thank you. Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.200.233 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Who can really say? But if it declares it's origins from Strasserism - Otto Strasser seems to have been antipathetic towards antisemitism - and from Stalinism - Stalin persecuted any "suspect" power that wasn't communist, and some that were, there's nothing inherent in the definition of the ideology that makes it specifically antisemite. But who can really say: if it is idiosyncratic in nature needing an external enemy to engage adherents, Jews may be randomly accused of all the evil again? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed as National Bolshevism has taken many forms over the last ninety years, I do not think it is question which can readily be determined. One of the founding figures Fritz Wolffheim was Jewish, for example.Leutha (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

New Response

Whoever has taken away my long message with questions in it could that person please show their user and discussion link here so we may be able to communicate, discuss and ask questions on this subject if possible? Political Dweeb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC).

• Your message was vandalized by an anonymous IP user. I have repaired the damage.Spylab (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Russian?

I have removedthe word Russian from the lede, as this is not a defining feature of the movement, even if Russian NB has become more significant in recent years.Leutha (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the differance?

quote from current article "Nevertheless, National Bolshevism is separate and distinct from National communism."

ok, BUT what is it that seperates/distincts National Bolshevism from National communism?

that is not really clear (to me) - can somebody please clarify 78.42.252.102 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In Germany these terms meant the same ideology, but in Russia not.

simplifying we can say that "National Bolshevism" is "communism + Russian nationalism"; "National Communism" is "communism + nationalism of non-Russian ethnic minorities"

SankyaF1 (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Two different Nazbols?

I don't know how we should portray this, but there are two different strands of National Bolshevism.

(1) a group within the original Bolsheviks (in particular Karl Radek) who advocates reaching out to German nationalists, partly for tactical reasons (the Germans had already helped the Bolsheviks by allowing Lenin to return to Russia, for example). Ernst Niekisch and Ernst Junger for a time would be an example of this.

(2) the Limonovite épater le bourgeois shlock-Nazbolism. Flirting with Nazi symbols to "shock", while Limonov himself was a product of post-modernist literature and decadent American punk rock subcultures. Maybe this developed into something more serious because of Dugin, but there is a massive 70 years between the two currents.

As the article stands we just present the two as the same thing, including the use of the Nazi-inspired flag at the top, which I don't think Radek would have had much truck with. Neither would Niekisch who himself was arrested by the Gestapo and opposed the Hitlerites. They appear to be two different movements which share the same name. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree. In fact there are many different strands of National Bolshevism.

(1) Yes, there was a group within the original Bolsheviks (Karl Radek) who advocates reaching out to German nationalists. But they didn't describe themselves as "national-bolsheviks"

(2) A group of German far-left revolutionaries (Ernst Niekisch, Heinrich Laufenberg etc) who develop the idea of National Bolshevism

(3) A group of Russian conservative emigrants (Nikolay Vasilyevich Ustryalov and Smenovekhovtsy) who accepted the October Revolution and Bolshevik government.

(4) modern National Bolshevism in Russia with the main representative National Bolshevik Party

a) more conservative (Aleksandr Dugin, who left the NBP)

b) more leftist (leader of the NBP Eduard Limonov)

So, there are not "two different movements which share the same name", but there is an ideology of National Bolshevism with many trends.

By the way, the National Bolshevik Party always opposed racism and neo-Nazi attacks

SankyaF1 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Nazbol just Strasserism under a different name? Or is it the ideology between Strasserism and communism?

I've heard some Nazbol basically parrot Strasserism line by line, about how they're basically economically left white nationalists who see jewish people as the bourgeois and whites as the proletariat. However I've heard others merely express it as "conservative communism" where they're socially conservative (opposed to modern feminism, limited LGBTQ+ support but no hatred of them either, express racist views that are standard Rush Limbaugh conservative racism) while expressing opposition and disgust towards antisemitism and white nationalism (citing Lenin and Stalin on why antisemitism is unacceptable and evil) but differentiating between the Jewish proletariat and Jewish bourgeois, expressing support for "family values" and maybe even religion, also I'd hear talk of secure borders and strong nationalism but not of a racial variety. Basically one's Strasserist the other is communism with socially conservative views.

So, which is the real National Bolshevism, a modern variant of Strasserism or a more conservative form of communism? Or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.208.120 (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nazbolism and Strasserism have over time converged quite a bit. They're mostly different due to their ideological roots, strasserism is nazism borrowing ideas from socialism while nazbolism is stalinism borrowing ideas from nazism. Nazbolism isn't really concerned with the aryan race while strasserism is, that's about it though. I've never seen a nazbol reject anti-semitism though, every nazbol I've seen is staunchly anti-semetic. FAISSALOO_(talk) 11:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding classifying national Bolshevism as fascism

links showing national bolshevism is opposed to fascism https://www.economist.com/europe/2007/07/26/a-bolshie-bolshevik https://socialhistoryportal.org/news/articles/109936 http://libcom.org/library/excerpt-national-bolshevism-martin-lees-beast-reawakens some links proving that national bolshevism is not part of the fascist movement and never have been. National communism / Stalinism is not mixed up whit Volkish nationalism used under National socialism. It should be noted that A movement that is derived from a neo-soviet / neo-Stalinist standpoint and a soviet socialist patriotist standpoint and Russian nationalist standpoint. should not be linked to fascism.

I think afflicting national bolshevism whit fascism is a form of vandalism that is not fact-based. and neither is proven.

2. it is often an American standpoint that national bolshevism is fascism while other Russia the successor to the national bolshevik party. is in the Other Russia coalition which is both an anti-Putin / anti-fascist coalition.

This is not a personal viewpoint but a viewpoint-based as an international member of other Russia the successor party to National bolshevik party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.221.118.59 (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It would perhaps be instructive to read Otto Rühle's seminal text The Struggle Against Fascism Begins with the Struggle Against Bolshevism. Rühle of course had to deal with Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim back in 1920. Nikolay Vasilyevich Ustryalov was the sort of patriot who picks up ideas from an alien culture. As for being a neo-stalinist, he miscalculated there and would up with a bullet in the back of the neck like so many genuine Old Bolsheviks.Leutha (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The impact of National Bolshevikism on the Internet Culture

I think there should be a section that talks about its prescience on the political meme side of the internet...seen as that is where most people nowadays know of it, I just wouldnt know where to begin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 01:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

@EmilePersaud: You'll need to find published (not self-published) books, newspaper articles, and/or academic journal articles that talk about that concept. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Misleading

I think it should be clarified that while you can find similarities with 'National-Bolshevism' in Smenovekhovtsi, Evraziytsi and the like, they weren't called and didn't call themselves 'National-Bolsheviks'. I doubt many of the Germans in the previous sections called themselves that either. You get the impression that this is an established self-identified current with a long history, when it's just a number of different groups in different times and places that have had some similar tendencies that are identified post factum by modern scholars, and the Limonov crowd after the fall of the USSR are the only ones who actually called themselves Nazbols.--178.249.169.67 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Fascism

Of the sources currently used in the article, Lee's "The beast reawakens" calls national bolshevism: [...] one of of several non-nazi fascisms that percolated germany's conservative revolutionary mix before hitler seized power. (p314). And, Klemperer's paper discusses the national bolshevism from the premise that it is a convergence of fascism and communism (p191-2)—blindlynx 20:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I think overlap with fascism can be mentioned but I do not think in general it can be classified as a form of fascism to the point that this is in wikivoice in the first sentence. It varies on a case-by-case basis. For example, National Bolshevism is sometimes used to refer to the state policy under Stalin and there are clear differences between German and Russian proponents. And I am not sure why "neo-fascist" was restored, this is clearly unsourced and incorrect. Mellk (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Progressive socialist party of Ukraine

I'm not going to edit war. There are plenty of sources for this party being NazBols. They are also well documented as Dugenists and fascist apologists. eg. [1]—blindlynx 21:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC) @Korrektor1917: please read WP:RSPRIMARY. Primary sources aren't needed there are two academic sources that call the party national bolshevik. Kindly self revert you deletion—blindlynx 19:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Dugin is not a fascist and you have only cited equally uninformed sources as yourself. Kindly read a book. Korrektor1917 (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have, i've even cited it!—blindlynx 00:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Alexander Dugin in the lead section

Although Dugin is a prominent representative of national Bolshevism, however having him in the lead and portraying it as if he is currently the sole leader of national Bolshevism around the world is erroneous and misleading. Considering dugin doesn't self identify as a national Bolshevik anymore, and that the Russian national Bolshevik movement has been dead for many years by this point. I believe the previous lead section was more accurate. Rahammz (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation 12 ("The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right") is outright wrong

While I think the citation serves a purpose in showcasing the false assessment of [German] National Bolshevism as a variant of fascism, which is still popular among many, the citation does directly contradict with primary historical sources. The outright condemnation Niekisch had for Italian (original) Fascism as per "Hitler - ein deutsches Verhängnis" pp. 8-9 directly contradicts with the claim that he had endorsed "'real' fascism" in any shape or form, neither did he ever even consider himself a fascist at any point from what I have read. I'm asking for input - are there any primary sources in which Niekisch spoke positively of fascism (nonetheless 'real' fascism) or considered himself one thereof that I might've missed? If not, is keeping the citation with a counter-factual claim appropriate and how should it be phrased/contextualized? Frijfuhs (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:PST we base articles on secondary sources—blindlynx 15:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I changed this back and also changed "Bolshevism" to "communism" in line with the source. The other sources (which I moved) are pretty old (1950s) and only focus on Germany, so I do not think these can be used for the general definition since the use of "national bolshevism" is quite broad. Of course, if there is disagreement with this definition, we can try to discuss a new definition and examine different sources. I do not think the views of Niekisch really are useful here. Mellk (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the revert i didn't realize i was reverting the lead. That's a good definition for the lead that said, i think National Bolshevism was among several early ultranationalist, and according to some, fascist movements in Germany that predate Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party. doesn't follow sources that explicitly call early versions in germany 'fascist'. Better more recent sources are needed though—blindlynx 15:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, since the references do not include specific pages and the articles are dozens of pages, I cannot really find such statements that explicitly support this. For example the article by Ascher and Lewy says "Since National Bolshevism had adherents among both extremes of the German political scene, it never really emerged as one well defined doctrine with the same meaning for all its advocates". The article by von Klemperer says: "More concretely the term stands for a rapprochement between German nationalism and Russian Communism" and mentions similarities between fascism and communism, but again, I couldn't find something that would explicitly support such a definition. Have you been able to take a look or have you read the sources before? Mellk (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I read them when editing before, they might have gotten shuffled. we spoke about this before see #Fascism, but i agree better sources—or specific pages in the current ones—are needed—blindlynx 15:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right" doesn't seem to directly cite any source for its claim which directly contradicts with the primary source as well as some secondary sources. When talking about the ideas of people, is it really more valid to take to word of some academic decades later over what the person themselves said? If you were to say "I hate fascism" and someone 50 years says that you did actually like fascism, seemingly without direct source, it's not really valid, is it? I did also read WP:PST, and point 3 of the "Primary sources" sections seems to agree, there is no analysis involved. He literally said "Fascist German nationalism is as pure and genuine as Bavarian loyalty to the Reich with the reservation of its own state. Fascist nationalism is only a nationalist facade; behind it only hides a broken German spine." That's a pretty clear condemnation in my opinion and most certainly the furthest you can be removed from striving for a "'real' fascism", especially one that calls it as such as the source seems to imply. Frijfuhs (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I am in dispute with the clause following the relevant sentence: despite Niekisch explicitly condemning fascism in "Hitler - ein deutsches Verhängnis". It is referenced to two sources, one from 1932 and another from 1957; the former is primary, and the latter is contemporary to Niekisch who died in 1967. Furthermore, the statement that Niekisch condemned fascism is not explicit in any of the two quotes, and it seems to rather come from an editor's interpretation, a form of original research. All you need there is a secondary source that explicitly and succinctly states: Niekisch [explicitly] condemned fascism. These quotes are irrelevant for the text they are cited for. –Vipz (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

How is "fascist nationalism is fake nationalism nationalism" not an explicit condemnation when written by a nationalist? I would say, based off of that alone, it is very explicit, though the word "explicit" can also be interpreted to mean that he directly addressed fascism in a negative light. Though sure, if we cannot come to terms on the word "explicit" it can be removed until I, or another editor, finds a better source. Frijfuhs (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

i would disagree that that is 'an explicit condemnation' or in fact a condemnation at all. It is certainly a criticism, but using it as a basis for anything else is a stretch—blindlynx 19:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Different Things

It is misleading to mix the old (real) Nationalbolschewismus with recent movements (this has been said here before), but it is also wrong to think that Nationalbolschewismus was a Nazi/ NSDAP thing, even if there was Strasser. There were tons of nationalist groups in Weimar Germany, the classic work on those is Otto- Ernst Schüddekopf's "Linke Leute von Rechts" from 1960; (shorter ) paperback edition 1973) [S. is on german WP]. It is impossible to talk about Nationalbolschewismus without this book. It is also misleading nonsense to call the Nazis fascists (or Franco a fascist), the communists simply didn't like the "...Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei" part of "NSDAP".

The "Niekisch Translation Project"- blog, linked in this WP article is really interesting (e.g. on Hugo Fischer [on deWP]). See also Oliver Römer's book review of Hugo Fischer (in German).--Ralfdetlef (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)