back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to contents
back to top
The New Socialism
Beyond LEFT & RIGHT
The New Socialism and Conservative Revolutionism
various political standpoints identified with ‘Conservative
Revolutionism’ emerged from the political, economic and cultural turmoil
of inter-war Germany, and came to expression in the writings of a number
of thinkers, notably Oswald Spengler, Thomas Mann, Carl Schmidtt and
The spirit of conservative revolutionism had already been anticipated and summed up in a simple saying of Friedrich Nietzsche:
No American Future.
political ideology of the American imperialism and expansionism - the
Wilsonian pseudo-universalism is compared with the dogmas of the
Catholic Church. This ideology reconstructs and totalizes the world in a
mold for American domination and hegemony. Thus the ideology of
universalism is not only dogmatically-ecumenical to its essence, it is
above all totalitarian. American political ideology is compared with
political theology and as such it is not only totalitarian but also
totalizing in an Hegelian sense.
All that was advanced
as ‘modern’ in Anglo-Saxon or American terms – heralding the progressive
march forward of humanity, was seen by the Conservative Revolutionists
as a step back to a new form of soul-less social and cultural barbarism.
Hence the classic maxim favoured by the conservative revolutionary
Italian thinker Julius Evola: Substine et abstine. “Stand firm
and hold back.”
The New Socialism and ‘Democracy’
True democracy is
qualitative democracy - not a political system in which basic
decisions are made by a mere quantitative count of heads, hands
or electoral votes. In a qualitative democracy, decisions would not rest
on vote counts or the push-and-pull of competing economic interest
groups. Instead they would be arrived at through a consensus based on a
natural harmony of soul between individuals. Yet it must not be
forgotten that the dominant form of social organisation in global
capitalism – and the one that wields most real power over people’s lives
- is not the ‘democratic’ political state but the economic corporation.
Capitalism lavishes praise on political democracy but knows nothing of
economic democracy – the democracy of the workplace. The modern
industrial or hi-tech corporation is the least democratic, most
‘corporatist’ form of social organisation conceivable, dependent on
enforced compliance and wage-slavery, and ruled by rich executive
Caesars accountable to no one except the ruling accountants of
global finance capitalism. Corporate ‘cultures’, ‘philosophies’ and
‘values’ are the death of all true culture and all truly creative
thinking – miniature corporatist or fascist cults whose only true
values are share values, and whose only god is The Market. For all their
talk of the importance of ‘innovation’ they are capable of nothing more
innovative or creative than the massive wastage of natural resources for
the production, packaging and over-production of competing look-alike
commodities, whether cars or computers.
The New Socialism versus Corporate Fascism
Quality of life has nothing to do with
lifestyle. It is qualitative value fulfilment XE "value
fulfilment" – the freedom of an individual to cultivate and creatively
express the soul qualities they themselves value most deeply, and to
discover and actualise new qualities through their interaction with
others. Capitalist economies measure ‘employment’ in purely
quantitative terms – the number of people employed and not the
quality of their employment. Quality of employment XE "qualitative:employment"
has to do with the qualitative value fulfilment XE "value
fulfilment" provided by a job. Irrespective of quantitative employment
figures, capitalism actually creates massive levels of qualitative
unemployment – failing to value, cultivate and creatively employ the
qualities of individual employees, and to recognise and reward their
economic value. The total devaluation of individual soul qualities
generates a lack of qualitative value fulfilment through work.
This lack of value fulfilment – soul fulfilment - is the source of
individual and social sickness in all its forms. The sickness is not
medical. It arises from a social definition of ‘health’ which reduces it
to economic functionality – the individual’s capacity to go on working
irrespective of the lacking fulfilment they find in their work.
As Ivan Illich XE "Illich, Ivan" notes in his powerful and
revolutionary critique of modern institutionalised medicine: “People who
are angered, sickened and impaired by their industrial labour and
leisure can escape only into a life under medical supervision and are
thereby seduced or disqualified from political struggle for a healthier
world.” The health industry turns those temporarily dis-qualified
through illness from participation in the labour market into consumers
of profitable drug treatments in order to return them to that market –
not recognising that it is wage-slavery, lacking quality of life
and work that is the very source of individual and social dis-ease. All
signs of true health and ‘productivity’ on the other hand – genuine
originality and ethical integrity - the embodiment of deep individual
soul qualities in human relations and their expression in creative
labour - are seen as sicknesses in today’s corporations -
automatically disqualifying individuals from participation in a
quasi-fascist ‘team spirit’. This is a ‘spirit’ which demands only
drones indoctrinated in the language and ideology of corporate
newspeak – capable of mouthing the corporately-correct phraseologies
and mastering their impersonal technical terminologies.
The New Socialism and Total Pacifism
What did the Second World War really decide?
Martin Heidegger What is Called Thinking?
The war that ‘we’ won – who exactly was or is this ‘we’? England? America? ‘The Allies’? ‘The civilised world’? Or was the war that this ‘we’ won a war that won and defeated us all – being a defeat not only for Germany but for humanity. The war that ‘we’ won – the victory of an alliance with Stalin’s sociocidal tyranny against Hitler’s genocidal tyranny. A victory of 20 million or more deaths through freezing gulags, forced labour and firing squads over 6 million or more deaths through the concentration camps, gas chambers and their holocaust of smoking crematoria. Who would have the arrogance to compare either the quantity or the nature and ‘quality’ of these murders? The war ‘we’ won - a victory cemented and ‘crowned’ by a calculated decimation of civilian centres and populations – Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden – of the sort that Hitler could only have dreamt of.
D-day. The day that decided nothing except to ensure a halt to the advance of Stalin’s armies into the whole of Western Europe. The use of the atomic bomb. ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ that decided nothing except to put an end to Stalin’s advance into an already defeated Japan. The Second World War – a war that decided nothing except the transformation of a single ‘hot’ war into ‘cold’ war, and thereby into countless further national wars and civil wars. The war ‘we’ one – a victory that cost over 20 million lives in the Soviet Union alone. Who now would still have the arrogance to declare that pacifism would have only cost countless innocent lives. For wherever war has been justified as a means of saving lives, it has invariably cost lives – countless lives. 3,000 or so killed in 9.11. 30,000 through the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet on the single historic occasion when pacifism was tried out – in India through Gandhi’s doctrine of non-violence – it saved lives. Politicians and thinkers of both Left and Right still consistently fail to address the decisive question of so-called total pacifism – the understanding that under no circumstance whatsoever is violence and violation of human beings or nature justifiable. They hold instead to the fanatical belief – in essence the belief of the fanatic - that ‘in the right circumstances’ - however defined - the ‘means’ (war or violence of any sort) justifies the ‘end’ (whether imperial conquest, self-defence or social revolution). Total pacifism continues to be equated with appeasement, surrender or just plain cowardice. In fact no political conviction requires greater spiritual strength and fearlessness than that of the total pacifist. War on the other hand, is invariably a surrender to fear and fatalism – the defeatist belief that without total war certain feared consequences will inevitably result. That such consequences may indeed result is used to justify war – irrespective of its consequences – rather than to question the fears themselves. For ultimately fear itself is the basis of all violence and all wars. Fearlessness in war is therefore no substitute for a war against fear – the fatalistic fears that breed war and that both warmongers of all nations rely on to mount wars – both aggressive wars and defensive wars. It is inner capitulation to fear and capitulations to inner fears. It is mutual capitulation to fear on the part of both aggressor and defender states or peoples that binds them together. It is this mutual capitulation to fear that precedes all wars and is their prime cause. It is because all wars are preceded by this mutual defeat that war has indeed no ‘winners’.
This World War has
decided nothing …Only the things that have remain undecided stand out
somewhat more clearly.
The New Socialism – Against Military Totalitarianism and State Terrorism
Workers! The Capitalist system - production
for Profit instead of for use - is the cause of War! In the struggle for
markets, in which to realise their profits, the Capitalists of the world
clash, and then expect their 'hands' to become 'cannon fodder'!
The Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation (APCF) 1939, as cited by the Anarchist Federation
… modern war itself is pre-eminently a totalitarian regime . . . consequently, the democratic powers, when faced with the necessity to wage on their own behalf a war that is necessarily conducted in the manner that is natural to their totalitarian opponents, must become, in fact, totalitarian themselves in order to carry it on at all effectively.
F.A. Ridley 1942 Ibid.
The Emergency Powers Act introduced in the
Commons by Clement Attlee in May 1940 were totalitarian in nature “It is
necessary that the Government should be given complete control over
persons and property, not just some persons of some particular class of
the community, but of all persons, rich and poor, employer and workman,
man or woman, and all property.” They included an official ban on
strikes, enforced overtime, state direction of where workers were
employed, suspension of agreements regarding working conditions,
internal surveillance, internment of 'aliens', and censorship of the
media. Defence Regulation 18b empowered the Home Secretary to order, at
his own discretion, the detention of any person “of hostile origin”.
The parallels between the emergency laws and powers introduced in Britain and America during the Second World War and those currently enforced in the name of the “War Against Terrorism” are striking – not least the use of ‘internment’ without trial, and the stoking of suspicion towards Muslims - in a manner reminiscent of the Daily Mail’s campaign to brand all Germans as a dangerous ‘Fifth Column’ – ‘The Enemy Within’ – and to have them all rounded up and interned - including Jews and courageous members of the German anti-fascist resistance.
As explained by the Anarchist Federation:
“During the First World War Lenin had argued that workers should not refuse to enter the armed forces: 'You will be given a gun. Take it and learn the military art. The proletarians need this knowledge not to shoot your brothers, the workers of other countries . . . but to fight the bourgeoisie of your own country.” The anti-parliamentarians rejected this tactic: “militarisation is intended to accustom the masses to submissiveness and ready obedience. This, in turn, leads to a psychology which would be, to say the very least, unfavourable for a flowering of real workers' democracy. Rather it would encourage the growth of the stifling fungi of bureaucracy and despotism all over again. On this triple count, therefore, militarism should be resisted in every possible way.”
Socialism is therefore not only
anti-war but anti-militaristic in every sense, opposing the
counterproductive use of military state terror and totalitarianism
against military anti-state terror and totalitarianism - and vice
versa. Yet it needs to be remembered that whilst around 3,000
innocent lives were lost in the 9/11 terror attack, over 10,000
innocent Iraqis and Afghans have died as a result of U.S. military
counter-terror. And who in the Western media ever payed homage to the
1,000,000 murdered as a result of the U.S. backed coup in Indonesia -
not to mention the countless victims of other U.S. backed regimes of
terror, and the United States’ own massive military campaigns of
terroristic civilian bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Vietnam.
We need to remember also that it was the United States that provided
Saddam Hussein with materials and chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction
and stood back as he deployed them against the Kurds, and it was the
British who first contemplated their use against civilians in Iraq –
just as they also invented the ‘concentration camp’.
The New Socialism and ‘Third Positionism’
anti-Globalist and anti-capitalist sentiments spread among all people,
left and right, who are opposed to the internationalist’s New World
Order and their anti-working class imperialism, it is inevitable that
divergent tendencies, united by a common opposition, will find
themselves engaging in greater exchanges of political and cultural
ideas, and that this exchange will lead to a new synthesis of doctrines
which will redefine the paradigm in which social and economic struggle
is conducted in the 21st Century. Key to this is the role played by the
so-called ‘Third Positionist’ movement which, by rejecting Capitalism,
Communism, Social Democracy and Hiterlian National Socialism, seeks to
find a true working people’s socialism that accommodates unique cultural
and ethnic characters while not ending support to imperialism, ethnic
supremacy, or world-destroying wars.
Bill White Anti-Globalist Resistance beyond Left and Right
The New Socialism
is a new form of ‘Third Position’ socialism transcending the historic
opposition of ‘left’ and ‘right’ – rejecting global capitalism,
corporatism and imperialism, fascism, Stalinist ‘Communism’ and
Hitlerist ‘National Socialism’.
which Hitler responded:
As White correctly emphases:
difference betweens the two camps were not trivial. The right camp
favoured socialization, meaning confiscation into the control of the
state only of those industries that behaved against the interests of the
nation, or, rather, who were owned by corporations that competed with
the Nazi Party’s backers or that were owned by Jews. The left was in
favour of the socialization, the confiscation and redistribution to the
workers of all heavy industry and landed property, whether it was owned
by the Germans who were funding Hitler or any of their opponents.
All revolutionary National Socialists were ruthlessly purged in 1934, following the murder of S.A. leader Ernst Röhm. The result was a situation which Otto Strasser could write in 1940 that not only Jews but:
Two million Germans have been or still are
guests in the cells of the Gestapo, or are or have been familiar with
the delights of Dachau, Buchenwald, or Oranienburg. These two million
have parents, wives, children. In other words, about ten million human
beings have suffered personally from Hitler’s methods.
German people are said to be entirely devoted to their Fuehrer. No! The
German people want a German revolution - they want liberty at home -
they want liberty abroad - they want peace in Germany, peace in Europe,
and peace in the world.
The New Socialism and ‘Socialist Internationalism’
old-Left socialists and bourgeois liberals alike the political spectrum
was once a simple and single straight-line leading from socialist
internationalism on the Left, through national capitalism to
capitalist imperialism on the extreme Right. The very idea of socialist
nationalism or ‘national socialism’, whether in the form of Nazism or
Stalinism (‘Socialism in One Country’) appeared like a contradiction in
terms. In practice however, the old socialist Left, even in its most
ardently ‘internationalist’ forms (Trotskyism) was forced by the reality
of U.S. Imperialism to support ‘national liberation’ movements – not
only Left-wing movements which had a revolutionary socialist
character – movements which effectively represented forms of social
nationalism or ‘national socialism’ – but also right-wing movements
of national capitalism (even those with a neo-fascist character). On the
other hand, the internationalist Left did nothing to promote movements
of national liberation - whether of the Right or Left – in those
countries dominated by Stalinist industrial feudalism and
Soviet imperialism. The picture became even more complicated for the
old-socialist ‘internationalists’ with the fall of the Soviet Empire and
the ‘Globalisation’ of international capitalism - which released a
backlash in the form of Islamic and neo-Nazi anti-Globalism, and
gave rise also to new and extreme Right-wing movements of National
Capitalism – both anti-American, anti-European and anti-Globalist
- in both Eastern Europe and the erstwhile Republics of the Soviet
Union. Meanwhile post-Maoist China had already transformed itself into a
‘fascist’ state in the purest sense – a multi-ethnic national-capitalist
‘Republic’ held together only through single-party rule supported by a
powerful, property-owning military elite. It is of the utmost importance
that ‘Third Positionist’ sympathisers distinguish between corrupt,
fascistic and Mafia-style forms of national capitalism and
industrial feudalism on the one hand (Serbia, Uzbekistan), and
genuine social nationalism on the other – firmly rejecting both
racist neo-Hitleritist and neo-Stalinist forms of ‘National Socialism’
or ‘National Bolshevism’.
The New Socialism, Zionism and Nazism
...Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group…
Letter to the Nazis from the Zionist Federation, June 1933
In Jewish national circles people are very pleased with the radical German policies since they strengthen the Jewish population in Palestine which would be so far increased thereby that in the foreseeable future the Jews could be reckoned upon numerical superiority over the Palestinians.
In 1937 when I had been struggling with Hebrew for two and a half years I has a chance to take a trip to Palestine. We were most interested in the Palestine immigration and I wanted to find out at what point the Jewish State in Palestine might be set up. Unfortunately Palestine was then in turmoil and the British turned down my application. I did see enough to be very impressed with what the Jewish colonists were building in their land. I admired their desperate will to live, the more so since I myself was an idealist. In the years that followed I often said to Jews whom I had dealing with that had I been a Jew I would have been a fanatical Zionist - I could not imagine being anything else, in fact I would have been the most ardent Zionist imaginable.
Both Zionism and Hitlerite Nazism were forms of racist and ‘volkisch’ national capitalism. Lenni Brenner, a Marxist and an expert on the suppressed history of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis and other Jew-haters reports how in1940 Abraham Stern - who later founded the terrorist military arm of Zionism – the notorious Stern gang - sent a document to the Nazis:
The National Military Organization (NMO), which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:
1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a New Order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.
2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed volkish-national Hebrium would be possible and
3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.
Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition of the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognised on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.
As Brenner comments with appropriate cynicism:
In Europe they hung you for that, in Israel they elected Yitzhak Shamir who was one of the three who took over the Stern Gang - they elected him Prime Minister and he was Prime Minister for 7 years. You know if you think about Kurt Waldheim for example and all the ferocity that came out against him - Israel had a wanna-be Nazi prime minister...
Support Racists - a
movement that collaborated with the Nazis, that allied itself to
Apartheid, that told American Jews to vote for Richard Nixon [because he
was giving them guns during the 73 war], is it an accident that George
Bush is their ally today? No. they have to seek their allies among the
most reactionary elements in world politics - its only these bizarre
elements that are themselves racist that give Zionism the time of day.
The New Socialism, Judaism and Aryanism
The history of
Judaism began with the emergence of a new tribal cult among the Hebrews
and the creation of a new tribal god – Jahweh - endowed with
infantile, egotistical and genocidal characteristics. This was a god who
inadvertently admitted the existence of other gods besides him by
commanding that none be placed before him. Yet this purely local
or particularistic god was gradually transformed into a global
god lacking any specific identity or knowable qualities. The new
global god served as a universal symbol of abstract ego-identity
- an unchanging or self-same subject, ego or ‘I’ that looks down from on
high on both natural man and human nature and turns them both into
objects of its impersonal moral gaze. The metamorphosis of Judaism was
completed through Christianity, which gave the universal god a
human face – not now in the form of a particular people or race
but rather in the form of an individual – Christ. In doing so
Christianity transformed the original Father god with his ‘qualities’ of
envy, wrath and genocidal rage into the image of ‘the Son’ – an
embodiment of meekness and compassion - of ‘love and peace’. This left
only the Jews themselves to maintain the values and tradition of a
racially pure and highly particularistic tribal culture based on the
original Jahweh cult.
|back to Homepage|