I don't think it is proper to describe Dugin as the founder of modern day national bolshevism. What he advocates for is the forth position. Forth position can be defended from a national bolshevik perspective, but it doesn't have to be. And yes, Dugin was one of the founders of the National Bolshevik Party, but he supported it because he saw it as a way of overcoming the three ideological positions characteristic of modernity. When Putin rose to power he went on to support him instead and the party split between the supporters of Dugin and those of Limonov. I don't know if either should be representative of national bolshevism, but by siding with Dugin the video basically equates national bolshevism with multipolarity.
The same could be said about Marx not advocating for Socialism or Communism. But he is definitely responsible of developing National Bolshevism in the 21st century since a lot of intellectual idea came from his philosophy.
@@mortuuslupus666 I dont understand how could Homofash or Transserism even be logically justified. Black Nationalist Bolshevism makes sense, they want a strong socialist government/state in Southern US to protect black interests. These people in Zimbabwe and the far left in South Africa are basically doing that.
Good stuff but i take issue with one detail. The poor and working classes of the USA do benefit from the current order. If multipolarity or a Chinese dominant system arose, the transition would likely cause economic decline for Americans. The results would be the poorest segments of American society would fall further into poverty initially. Food, housing, and fuel would be a serious issue for the American working poor etc who don't benefit nearly as much as the elites from the current order, but do benefit nonetheless.
But at the same time, the cost of living would also go down significantly. Your wages would be pushed down because of multipolarity but this would be countered by the fairer distribution of resources. The elite in America made the cost of medicine, hospital, cars, rent, healthy food artificially high. For example the reason rent is high in San Francisco is because all these tech companies set up their headquarters there and all the high income people move in and drive up the property price because the landlord know they can rent out even if they charge more. Or hospital and medicine are actually based on its agreement with the insurance and not even based of the normal supply demand market. The new system would be able to get rid of all that and make that avaliable in a fairer price.
@@NovajaPravda why would you assume American oligarchs would more fairly distribute resources if the current order was replaced by multipolarity or a Chinese dominant system? Prices wouldn't fall because without American dollar monopoly on oil exchanges the power of the dollar would drop and fuel among other vital American imports now being traded in other currencies would increase in price for Americans would they not? Regarding San Francisco, you're spot on with the addition of government regulations not allowing new construction in the area. Housing would be more affordable if they built new houses, though at the cost of the environment sure.
@@BaltimoresBerzerker That's because the value of commodity in America is often not based on real price but the price people are willing to pay up to. In a way the government collaborate with the private companies to make sure their profit stays high. The reason the silicon valley and Hollywood have that much money is also because of the unipolar system. The fact is that these goods are artificially kept expensive so that people on the top could make money. Of course I wouldn't advocate for getting rid of all inequality and it should exist to an extent, but the true oligarch in America are the owner of these big companies and a bigger government would be able to directly fight against them and put these firm under some form of direct public accountability.
Good question. In the context of the interwar period there were people on the fringe of German and Russian politics who described themselves or were described by others as national bolsheviks. German national bolsheviks were in a disagreement with parties like the KPD because they wanted a strong socialist Germany with an alliance with the USSR while many communists wanted a single communist state, an expanded USSR, and were skeptical of nationalism. This division basically became obsolete after WW2 as many different socialist states were formed, all being to some extent nationalist and promoting patriotism. Of course, someone today might identify themselves as national bolshevik in order to emphasize this aspect and to distance from more well represented leftists, those that are socially liberal and described as woke. Then there were the Russian national bolsheviks. These were Russian emigres promoting positive views of the USSR because they saw it as a continuation of the Russian Empire and believing that the new regime is not really communist, but that this is a good thing. Someone who says they are a national bolshevik today might also be a right winger who simply sympathizes with communist regimes. Then there are modern Russian nazbols which are ideologically inconsistent edgelords disappointed by what came after the collapse of the Soviet Union and someone identifying as nazbol might also be like this, a desperate person looking for any escape from the modern world. These are all reasons why someone might identify with national bolshevism more than orthodox Marxism. Is it better to do so? Probably not, I don't see massive support coming for something under that name any time soon, even if orthodox Marxism isn't exactly at the height of its popularity either.
Besides I don't want to associate myself with some of the Marxist either, since a lot of them are corrupted by woke idea or always tries to frame their idea as being progressive. Even the YCL, a Marxist Leninist organizations decides to celebrate pride month. I consider myself to be a reactionary because I am advocating for people of higher social status to rule the country. Which is going from the rule of the outcastes to the rule of the workers.
@@NovajaPravdamy reason that I consider myself National Bolshevik is because I’m politically heterodox hardcore socialist, I read a lot about Marxism Leninism and admire Marxist Leninist countries but I don’t consider myself to be thoroughly a Marxist per se
@@NovajaPravdaand it seems National Bolshevism itself is more of a “state of being” than an actual strictly formulated ideology, as National Bolshevism is a decentralized ideology composed around the basic ideas of typical centralized Marxist Leninist socialist structure (or at least centralized structures of socialism that are more or less inspired by Marxism) and a strongly defined organic nationalism instead of just mere patriotism, in this sense it’s is arguable that most socialist countries have achieved the “state of being” of National Bolshevism at various degrees
Ha! Resurrection by PPK - I rediscovered that earlier this year.
I don't think it is proper to describe Dugin as the founder of modern day national bolshevism. What he advocates for is the forth position. Forth position can be defended from a national bolshevik perspective, but it doesn't have to be. And yes, Dugin was one of the founders of the National Bolshevik Party, but he supported it because he saw it as a way of overcoming the three ideological positions characteristic of modernity. When Putin rose to power he went on to support him instead and the party split between the supporters of Dugin and those of Limonov. I don't know if either should be representative of national bolshevism, but by siding with Dugin the video basically equates national bolshevism with multipolarity.
The same could be said about Marx not advocating for Socialism or Communism. But he is definitely responsible of developing National Bolshevism in the 21st century since a lot of intellectual idea came from his philosophy.
Here in the south we have a group similar to the nazbols called the black hammers
Hmm, Nazbol plus black nationalism
@@NovajaPravda not as bad as femboy nationalism
@@mortuuslupus666 I dont understand how could Homofash or Transserism even be logically justified. Black Nationalist Bolshevism makes sense, they want a strong socialist government/state in Southern US to protect black interests. These people in Zimbabwe and the far left in South Africa are basically doing that.
@@mortuuslupus666wow, I never knew America had such based parties
You should reference karl otto paetel
dugin just wants to reenact planet of the apes
Québec must become a nation through all this. Otherwise there is little point to any of it.
kek
Good stuff but i take issue with one detail. The poor and working classes of the USA do benefit from the current order. If multipolarity or a Chinese dominant system arose, the transition would likely cause economic decline for Americans. The results would be the poorest segments of American society would fall further into poverty initially. Food, housing, and fuel would be a serious issue for the American working poor etc who don't benefit nearly as much as the elites from the current order, but do benefit nonetheless.
But at the same time, the cost of living would also go down significantly. Your wages would be pushed down because of multipolarity but this would be countered by the fairer distribution of resources.
The elite in America made the cost of medicine, hospital, cars, rent, healthy food artificially high.
For example the reason rent is high in San Francisco is because all these tech companies set up their headquarters there and all the high income people move in and drive up the property price because the landlord know they can rent out even if they charge more. Or hospital and medicine are actually based on its agreement with the insurance and not even based of the normal supply demand market.
The new system would be able to get rid of all that and make that avaliable in a fairer price.
@@NovajaPravda why would you assume American oligarchs would more fairly distribute resources if the current order was replaced by multipolarity or a Chinese dominant system? Prices wouldn't fall because without American dollar monopoly on oil exchanges the power of the dollar would drop and fuel among other vital American imports now being traded in other currencies would increase in price for Americans would they not?
Regarding San Francisco, you're spot on with the addition of government regulations not allowing new construction in the area. Housing would be more affordable if they built new houses, though at the cost of the environment sure.
@@BaltimoresBerzerker That's because the value of commodity in America is often not based on real price but the price people are willing to pay up to. In a way the government collaborate with the private companies to make sure their profit stays high. The reason the silicon valley and Hollywood have that much money is also because of the unipolar system.
The fact is that these goods are artificially kept expensive so that people on the top could make money.
Of course I wouldn't advocate for getting rid of all inequality and it should exist to an extent, but the true oligarch in America are the owner of these big companies and a bigger government would be able to directly fight against them and put these firm under some form of direct public accountability.
Why National Bolshevism over orthodox Marxism?
Good question. In the context of the interwar period there were people on the fringe of German and Russian politics who described themselves or were described by others as national bolsheviks. German national bolsheviks were in a disagreement with parties like the KPD because they wanted a strong socialist Germany with an alliance with the USSR while many communists wanted a single communist state, an expanded USSR, and were skeptical of nationalism. This division basically became obsolete after WW2 as many different socialist states were formed, all being to some extent nationalist and promoting patriotism. Of course, someone today might identify themselves as national bolshevik in order to emphasize this aspect and to distance from more well represented leftists, those that are socially liberal and described as woke. Then there were the Russian national bolsheviks. These were Russian emigres promoting positive views of the USSR because they saw it as a continuation of the Russian Empire and believing that the new regime is not really communist, but that this is a good thing. Someone who says they are a national bolshevik today might also be a right winger who simply sympathizes with communist regimes. Then there are modern Russian nazbols which are ideologically inconsistent edgelords disappointed by what came after the collapse of the Soviet Union and someone identifying as nazbol might also be like this, a desperate person looking for any escape from the modern world.
These are all reasons why someone might identify with national bolshevism more than orthodox Marxism. Is it better to do so? Probably not, I don't see massive support coming for something under that name any time soon, even if orthodox Marxism isn't exactly at the height of its popularity either.
To not be forced to run everything on the framework of Marxism. Analysing everything in one theory is very limited
Besides I don't want to associate myself with some of the Marxist either, since a lot of them are corrupted by woke idea or always tries to frame their idea as being progressive. Even the YCL, a Marxist Leninist organizations decides to celebrate pride month. I consider myself to be a reactionary because I am advocating for people of higher social status to rule the country. Which is going from the rule of the outcastes to the rule of the workers.
@@NovajaPravdamy reason that I consider myself National Bolshevik is because I’m politically heterodox hardcore socialist, I read a lot about Marxism Leninism and admire Marxist Leninist countries but I don’t consider myself to be thoroughly a Marxist per se
@@NovajaPravdaand it seems National Bolshevism itself is more of a “state of being” than an actual strictly formulated ideology, as National Bolshevism is a decentralized ideology composed around the basic ideas of typical centralized Marxist Leninist socialist structure (or at least centralized structures of socialism that are more or less inspired by Marxism) and a strongly defined organic nationalism instead of just mere patriotism, in this sense it’s is arguable that most socialist countries have achieved the “state of being” of National Bolshevism at various degrees
NazBol Gang Rise up!