/thirdpositionist/ - Third Positionist Politically Incorrect

>What exactly sets Stalinism apart from Marxism-Leninism?

Stalinism also known as "red fascism" is more about industrial nationalization. Marxists believe that after full communism is achieved the nation should be dissolved into small anarchistic communes.

Of course we know this would never work, for multiple reasons.

1. An anarchist society cannot adequately defend itself from outside threats.

2. This leads to the loss of a nationalistic identity which makes people ripe for degenerate corruption.

>Is Stalinism different, economically, from Strasserism?

Strasserist ideology also revolves around industrial nationalization. However in a Strasserist society, workers are given company shares.

Shop managers are given slightly more shares to ensure that the managers are properly motivated to keep the collective industry running efficiently.

>How is Strasserism different from the early NSDAP?

They aren't different, Strasserists we're the early NSDAP. However, what defines Strasserism from Hitlerism is that Strasserists take more of a socialistic approach to economic affairs.

Hitlerists are corporatists, Strasserists are nationalistic socialists.

>What are the differences between NazBols and Stalinists?

They share a lot of similarities, they're both nationalistic in nature, however NazBols are closer to Stalinists whereas Strasserists are, as the name suggests, economic Strasserists.

I'm pretty sure I got all of that right, however if I messed anything up I'm sure some of my comrades will correct me.

>>109

>Dude, full communism is when the workers have succeeded, when the workers revolution has crushed capitalism

I'm aware. Maybe I should have worded that differently and said "some Marxists."

With that said, how do you define the destruction of capitalism? Mass nationalization of industry? Workers Cooperatives? Or would either one be sufficiently fine? I'm mostly just asking for clarification.

>>110

>the destruction of capitalism

Meaning in a socialist state, or after the revolution

>>111

I understand that. I guess I was just looking for more of a specific answer.

>>112

No, I mean which, in a socialist state, or the endgame

>>113

>No, I mean which, in a socialist state, or the endgame

Hmm… Give me you're description of the overall endgame, as well as your vision of the ideal socialist state.

>>110

Not him but i would describe the destruction of capitalism as when no nation is capitalist, when the revolution is over

>>114

sorry I grabbed some breakfast real quick

anyway, in my ideal socialist state the workers would form workers councils and assume control of their various industries, these industries are lead by the communist party who plans the economy and maintains the socialist line, in my ideal endgame, the communist party victorious, begins to wither away in favor of direct workers management and we begin approaching communism

also, this >>115 capitalism has failed when international capitalism is conquered by the workers, it's the role of socialist states to encourage workers movements across the globe, both by propaganda and direct support

>>115

That's fair enough.

>>116

>direct workers management

So… cooperatives?

>also, this >>115 capitalism has failed when international capitalism is conquered by the workers,

>it's the role of socialist states to encourage workers movements across the globe, both by propaganda and direct support

Do you really think that goal is achievable though? At least from a realistic perspective?

>>118

Same anon again, quoting myself like a faggot.

>Do you really think that goal is achievable though? At least from a realistic perspective?

Come to think of it, that question is for the both of you.

>>116

>>115

>>120

If it ispossible somewhere it is possible anywhere. Could take decades, but with every country that becomes socialist it will get easier

>>121

Fair enough point. With that said, once international socialism is achieved. (which I'm in favor of by the way) What would prevent trotscum pushing the argument that national borders are "meaningless"?

>>123

Nothing can stop retards from being retards

>>124

kek. Fair enough point.

>>118

If it was possible for groups like the rainbow coalition/weatherman to exist at all at the height of the cold war and insurgent Marxist leninists in Italy, Ireland, etc then yes

>>126

>rainbow coalition

Even though SJW's claim to be marxists that doesn't make them our allies anon.

I probably misunderstood your post though because I doubt that was what you were getting at.

>>129

the rainbow coalition were hardly sjw's, they were marxist-leninist/maoist, it was a combination of various racial liberatory organizations in the united states behind a central marxist-revolutionary body

To be frank the united states multiculturalist ideal while a failure ultimately has brought us to the point where a singular racial state is impossible as is returning/deporting minorities, but by solely racial confederalism (communities for X race and so on) I believe we could land somewhere workable with the race issues and whatnot, this is the same practice the YPG is applying to the issue of assyrians and arabs falling under kurdish control, they have autonomous administrations and militia's drawn solely from their own ranks

>>321

That name though. I just wish they could have come up with something that sounds less faggy.

>To be frank the united states multiculturalist ideal while a failure ultimately has brought us to the point where a singular racial state is impossible as is returning/deporting minorities

I disagree. There's no reason we cannot at the very least deport every illegal living in the United States.

>but by solely racial confederalism (communities for X race and so on) I believe we could land somewhere workable with the race issues and whatnot

That idea sounds closer to National Anarchism. With that said, if you're suggesting segregation, then that would at least be a step in the right direction.

>>322

Yes, I'm suggesting segregation, given the complex history of racial relations in this country and the length and complexity of their stay, africans could not be returned to africa and mexicans not to mexico without a drawn out fight and many are alienated enough it would scarcely turn out well for them, add in native americans and it becomes even more of a clusterfucked issue, at the same time we do see the inevitable tension that arises from multiculturalism's/capitalism's atrophy, at this point racial segregation of communities if not on a broader scale is probably the most viable option

>>323

Honestly that didn't work LAST time. There does need to be a similar measure maybe, but without the Anglo-saxon borderline Talmudic bullshit.

>>323

>>482

Whatever you guys are planning, don't make it absolutist. Anglo-Absolutism is what brought the system down. Just compare Jim Crow to Spanish and other Continental racial systems.

>>736

Why are you responding to 2-month-old posts ?

>>737

Honestly this place can get slow sometimes. On occasion, I look back to see what threads are interesting and bump them if I actually have anything to say on the matter.

>>322

>That name though. I just wish they could have come up with something that sounds less faggy.

The name dates from before the associations of "rainbow = faggotry" which I believe was a 1980s construction. The "Americal" (UW WWII infantry unit I believe) I think has a rainbow patch, and thats from WWII

>>321

partition the US into ethnic republics.

>>482

it didn't work last time, because it wasn't equal segregation, it was 'whites get the best parts blacks get the shittiest parts'. Equally partitioning southern states into black and white states would work better, from that POV

>>736

I think thats because the Spanish were a minority when they olonized shit, so they made a different classification. Germanics also had a looser definition of 'indian' so part natives were classified as white, and the US wanted to assimilate the native population and make them white/have them intermingle with whites.