Talk:National Bolshevism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Still cant figure there flag out... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  National Bolshevism 

message: 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” 
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.”
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New Message with Questions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Response 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Russian? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is Nazbol just Strasserism under a different name? Or is it the ideology between Strasserism and communism? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding classifying national Bolshevism as fascism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The impact of National Bolshevikism on the Internet Culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: Of the sources currently used in the article, Lee's "The beast reawakens" calls national bolshevism:  (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fascism 

message: 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. —blindlynx 21:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have, i've even cited it!—blindlynx 00:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive socialist party of Ukraine  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alexander Dugin in the lead section  

message: 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? JonahF (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:PST we base articles on secondary sources—blindlynx 15:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I read them when editing before, they might have gotten shuffled. we spoke about this before see #Fascism, but i agree better sourcesor specific pages in the current onesare needed—blindlynx 15:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

text: 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. JonahF (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in dispute with the clause following the relevant sentence:  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: . These quotes are irrelevant for the text they are cited for. –Vipz (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. JonahF (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation 12 ("The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right") is outright wrong 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Different Things