/thirdpositionist/ - Third Positionist Politically Incorrect

>sounds good on paper

The CPUSA actually called for a Soviet Negro Republic back in the 1920's-50's, but the slogan was unpopular both among blacks (who didn't consider themselves a separate nation from white Americans) and among American communists in general. Also it was based on the view that blacks basically all lived in the Deep South, which was untenable after the mass migrations to the cities.

>>764

Race isn't concoted though. It is a reality. Is it exploited? Sure as fuck but that doesn't mean you ignore it. I agree that minority nation states are untenable but you don't need to go full /leftypol on us.

On your second point, the problem with the historical American left is that we have been cucked full /leftypol style even back then. Sure there were guys like Tom Watson and Francis Bellamy who were the exception to the rule but the American left have not had a glorious run of things as a whole.

>>770

The 19th century was full of interesting characters. Like Alvan Bovay was a follower of Fourier and is generally credited as the founder of the Republican Party. He got the name "Republican" from George Henry Evans, a labor leader who in the 1820's and 30's was a prominent supporter of the movement to establish workingmen's parties in various states. Another person instrumental in the GOP's founding was Horace Greeley, who also admired Fourier and who employed Marx as a correspondent for his newspaper.

>>771

I don't doubt it was interesting per se but what justification do we have as American 3Pers/Natsocs/Nazbols/Strasserists/Socialists ect. to hang our hats on their legacy. The problem is that patchwork movements such as those in the 19th century (I didn't know the facts you stated as I'm more familiar with Gilded era movements) don't garner the gravitas that Continental European movements have.

>>772

Because, in some cases, the American socialists actually have even better theories on how capitalism works (Honestly, I find that folks in the early 19th century figured out the problems in capitalism in a much better and fundamental way than any time since.) and how a free society should work?

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/02/wage-slavery-and-republican-liberty/

Also, I was referring to the American Revolution, and the kinds of characters and parties referred to here. >>771

The problem with the American left was that it was fragmented and confused, THEN it was overwhelmed by cosmopolitan immigrants and became the forefront of the slow decline of the Left.

And, the justification is that they were left-wing nationalists who actually based their ideas on things that were appropriate to and forged from within the United States, instead of Germany or Russia. Also, Nazbols/Natsocs tend to be retarded authoritarians, and Otto Strasser, whilst a cool badass who deserves some recognition as a leftist, was too reformist whose ideas were more suited for Germany than in America.

>>774

>retarded authoritarians

not necessarily. The Nazbols aren't pure stalinists when it comes to economics and the Nazis only imposed gun control on Jews and foreign nationals. Personally I always admired the latter century socialists a la Belamy compared to the early 19th century philosophers. They're OK but their ideals are NOT suited for post-industrial US whereas the German and Russian revolutions are more on issues more relevant to what we go through today.

>>775

Actually, America didn't have that much industry in the early 19th century. In fact, the German and Russian Revolutions were the archetypal Industrial-era revolutions.

As for America's "post-industrialness", that is simply out-sourcing. All that means is that we need more programs for actually redeveloping manufacturing industries here. The situation would actually be very similar to early 19th century America, except we would be switching more from a service economy reliant on imports to an industrial economy. Early 19th century America was an agrarian economy reliant on imports.

>Gun culture is what I meant by authoritarianism

I would prefer a direct democratic confederation over a centralized state ruled by a single party, bureaucracy, or some pseudo-parliamentary body any day.

>Nazbols aren't pure Stalinists economically

Then, what is the National Bolshevik platform on economics and the structure of government?

>>776

>America didn't have that much industry

That's my point. Early archetypes are ill suited to industrial reality. When I was speaking about post-industrialness I was speaking in terms of culture and politik, not economics though I fully agree we need to bring industry home.

>Direct democratic confederation

Not gonna help us maintain order OR prevent us from being subverted. Look at history. Every attempt at a democratic confederacy was either subverted or conquered. You have to look at who the winners were and take away the positive aspects.

>Nazbol economics

It depends from faction to faction but Dugin seems closer to Stalinist while Limonov's faction is more geared towards the NEP. Not that they've addressed the Scissors problem.