/lit/ - Literature

Sounds good, now read about the people who actually did something about it:
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

After Lenin's failures, Marxism is nothing but a hobby for bourgeois academics living comfortably within capitalist societies, and rich kids who like crossdressing for some reason. It's fine to listen to their negative critiques of capitalism, but don't waste your life like they do, strengthening capitalism by rigidifying anti-capitalism as an antiquarian hobby and thus as something lifeless and inaccessible.

>>20709072
>>tldr you should support barbarism if you want to overthrow the bourgeoisie

>>20673166
You aren't wrong, but the solution is fascism.

>>20535585
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

>>20521969
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

Read these four articles
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

Read anything by Sternhell too, try Neither Right nor Left

>>20446457
Not really. Fascists created the only successful socialist states, which means national socialist states. Modern leftism, given infinite freedom to say and do whatever it wanted, embedded itself deeper and deeper in the bourgeois state and its elite institutions (universities) and abandoned socio-economic justice concerns for making sure the bourgeois welfare state gives upper middle class trannies free genital mutilation when they're 9. Modern leftism is a conclusively failed ideology, it is the most bourgeois thing that ever happened in history. There is no distinction between it and progressive bourgeois values, it is the vanguard of those values.

Highly recommend anybody reading this thread to check out these articles about fascist and national socialist economics and the rebellion against Anglo finance/capital/usury:
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

>>20446475
Leftism only goes against human nature when it insists on crypto-Rousseauist internationalist utopias that can never happen, and thus justifies perpetual war against everything that is good and normal (like peoples, cultures, languages, genders). Today's tranny leftists are the logical conclusion of the nihilistic internationalist fixation of what was formerly a minority of deracinated, nationless leftists who didn't give a fuck about real people or reality in general because they were "from nowhere" and didn't care about the consequences of their beliefs "for" any particular place. Today's tranny academic is the heir of the effete cosmopolitan journalist of the 19th century writing about how everybody should be just as effete and cosmopolitan as them. Believe in nothing, be nothing, live only to consume.

>>20446483
The Azov guys are alright sometimes, I like Olena Semenyaka, their international secretary. I do think practical, on the ground nationalism has to flourish in order for it to unite with the new social question and become national socialism. Azov and Semenyaka also do work with the Intermarium guys, who are at least dreaming of a revived continentalist alternative to Anglo finance and Russian "Eurasianist" imperialism.

>The proof is in the pudding
Russia proved it's as incompetent as America at swinging its dick around in countries actually willing to fight back. Neither NATO globohomo imperialism nor Russian "Eurasian" globohomo imperialism is a viable model anymore. The world is about to become a hard place, or rather a series of very hard places, because only hardened people will survive. Failed Nintendo militaries like the USA and USSR that can't even prosecute a successful small war are on the way out.

>>20422724
Likewise there is a lot of value Marx's critiques and all the critical tools he created to show how bourgeois false consciousness reifies itself, his negation of bourgeois civilization to speak in Hegelian terms, but his ultimate goal of a spontaneously internationalist global revolution in which the primary form of human identity becomes "worker" and national, cultural, and ethnic specificities wither away, was obviously utopian. So utopian that it was immediately abandoned by all leading Marxists, from Luxemburg to Lenin and Lukacs and Gramsci, all of whom had to emphasize the vanguardist/blanquist elements in Marxism. Which is a polite way of saying: Marx said that the revolution was so "rational" that it would just happen spontaneously (the workers THEMSELVES will realize and assert their identity as workers); this never actually happens, so it's necessary to lead them by force, even it means dragging them kicking and screaming with Bolshevik terror. Anarchists are equally utopian and in effect have assumptions identical to Marx's: if you just knock over the decrepit bourgeoisie, the downtrodden (or proletariat) will naturally and spontaneously manifest a peaceful communitarian society. That is why early anarchists found it perfectly acceptable to destabilize and wage terror campaigns against bourgeois institutions.

The third positionist just says that all of these positions are successors of the Jacobins' simpleminded Enlightenment cult of reason, which is ironically the same cult that underlies the bourgeois goal of a "globalist" society where peace is outlawed because everybody has a custom dildo and there's cheap ethnic food on every block.

The third positionist simply replies that there is no abstract "humanity" that will live in spontaneous harmony if you just terrorize people properly with enough Jacobinism or Stalinism. We should accept the testimony given by every human society that tried to rebel against capitalism: people naturally want to live in their own ethnic, cultural, and national communities. Furthermore, such communities are a source of strength, as pride in them and the shared means of communication they provide makes them powerful allies in the fight against the deracinated rationalism of capital and of the technocratic bourgeois class that wants to reduce all human beings to identical "happy" drones. It's not an accident that leftism and liberal democracy promote the same universalist, utopian nonsense, or rather that liberal democracy has killed leftism, stuffed it, and used it as a puppet to prevent any real rebellion against capital.

Read these
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

Also read Zeev Sternhell, Neither Left nor Right

>>20267901
I pray for a left-right synthesis in the future

https://www.thebellows.org/on-strasserism-and-the-decay-of-the-left/

https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

Read these
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/

>>19908253
You're making the mistake of conflating wealth and value. The problem is that "wealth" doesn't exist, wealth is parasitic on value. To hypostatise wealth, to think it is an ontological thing independent of value, is to presuppose (not prove) a usurious, capitalist way of looking at the world, which sees ALL things as meaningless fungible number-values to be exchanged. No one is saying to go back to the scratch plow. Walther Darre and Jorian Jenks didn't want to go back to the scratch plow, and Darre revitalised European farming so powerfully that even though he was a Nazi he became the model for the entire 20th century.

You can create a society where wealth is continuously related to value, and value is rooted in real production of real goods that people actually need. Land and healthy food are always needed, and people having basic autonomy is always necessary. Achille Loria for example talked about how a state's economic constitution should always be basically relating wealth-creation (by its producers) back into concrete rewards in the form of autonomy-promoting land tenure. Louis de Bonald said similar things about promoting families and family patrimonies. This is the opposite of BOTH capitalist and communist schemes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKCRHhmHvjg

>How then did Germany “break the bondage of interest”? Few now know. Rearmament is not a sufficient explanation. Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Answering predictions of ruin by orthodox economists throughout the world, Hitler explained that Germany had not withdrawn from world trade but had bypassed the international financial system by means of barter, stating:

>"If certain countries combat the German system this is done in the first instance because through the German method of trading their tricks of international currency and Bourse speculations have been abolished in favor of honest business transactions. . . . We are buyers of good foodstuff and raw materials and suppliers of equally good commodities!"

>>19869503
Even if you never really get into Hegel it's worth at least understanding how he was interpreted by the Left Hegelians since their view was so influential. This will gradually introduce you to Hegelian dialectical thinking which then makes understanding all subsequent Marxists way easier.

Have you read Sorel's Decomposition of Marxism? The standard view within Marxism is that the "revisionists" were philosophically illiterate but if you actually look at what happened, there was a lot of legitimate discontent with dogmatic "Marxism" in the 1890s, which was often more of a cultural movement fixating on metaphysical materialism, scientism, atheism, etc. A lot of genuine socialists with more metaphysical and theological inclinations were driven away from left socialism during this period because they just assumed that all ordinary socialists were ultra-materialist utopians who hated the family, hated everything natural and traditional, etc. It's one of the biggest shames in history, since ordinary working people are never that radical, they are usually patriotic religious family men.

Sombart actually wrote a book about the socialist movement around this time, during his transitional phase, and it's a good way to see how Marxism ACTUALLY looked and felt for workers on the ground. That should not be completely conflated with 1920s, re-Hegelianised "orthodox Marxism" (Leninism).

You can't be an "orthodox Marxist" and still be religious, since you have to be essentially a Hegelian pantheist (Lukacs said he was trying to "out-Hegel Hegel") or at least some kind of vulgar Engels style materialist. Marx's own perspective as a secular Jewish youth of the 1830s Berlin Enlightenment loaded Marxism with a backbone of Hegelian rationalisation (partly understood as secularisation) that makes it hard to make room for religion or nationality. But there's nothing saying you can't take what is true from Marx's critical theory and simply reject his Hegelianism. Or even turn it into a theistic/metaphysical right Hegelianism, if you want.

>>19869544
If you have a problem with Marx's theory you should have problems with any Weberian theory of modernisation too. I think again you're reading things into my post that aren't there.

>Social science is not scientific.
>We access computation models that can accurately predict economic phenomena.
>make logical sense.
You are doing what Marxists usefully critique, hypostatising "science," "logic," "models," and now non-human computing as the epitome of the above. Your "pure" models emanate from (are "alienated" from) very impure processes of very human cognition, which are complexly interwoven with class interests. "Interpellation" is a useful term here.

>How then did Germany “break the bondage of interest”? Few now know. Rearmament is not a sufficient explanation. Prof. A. J. P. Taylor, the eminent British historian, and hardly a Nazi sympathizer, writes:

>"Fascism, it was claimed, represented the last aggressive stage of capitalism in decline, and its momentum could be sustained only by war. There was an element of truth in this, but not much. The full employment which Nazi Germany was the first European country to possess, depended in large part on the production of armaments; but it could have been provided equally well (and was to some extent) by other forms of public works from roads to great buildings. The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics . . . the argument for war did not work even if the Nazi system had relied on armaments production alone. Nazi Germany was not choking in a flood of arms. On the contrary, the German Generals insists unanimously in 1939 that they were not equipped for war and that many years must pass before “rearmament in depth” had been completed."

>Answering predictions of ruin by orthodox economists throughout the world, Hitler explained that Germany had not withdrawn from world trade but had bypassed the international financial system by means of barter, stating:

>"If certain countries combat the German system this is done in the first instance because through the German method of trading their tricks of international currency and Bourse speculations have been abolished in favor of honest business transactions. . . . We are buyers of good foodstuff and raw materials and suppliers of equally good commodities!"

>>19821211
good choice

>>19808171
>Hitler next explained precisely the foundations of the new economic and financial system:

>"If ever need makes humans see clearly it has made the German people do so. Under the compulsion of this need we have learned in the first place to take full account of the most essential capital of a nation, namely, its capacity to work. All thoughts of a gold reserves and foreign exchange fade before the industry and efficiency of well-planned national productive resources. We can smile today at an age when economists were seriously of the opinion that the value of currency was determined by the reserves of gold and foreign exchange lying in the vaults of the national banks and, above all, was guaranteed by them. Instead of that we have learned to realize that the value of a currency lies in a nation’s power of production, that an increasing volume of production sustains a currency, and could possibly raise its value, whereas a decreasing production must, sooner or later, lead to a compulsory devaluation."

>More recently a professional economist, Henry C K Liu[18], who can hardly be suspected of Hitlerism, analyzed the methods by which Germany emerged from the Depression:

>"The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began. In fact, German economic recovery preceded and later enabled German rearmament, in contrast to the US economy, where constitutional roadblocks placed by the US Supreme Court on the New Deal delayed economic recovery until US entry to World War II put the US market economy on a war footing. While this observation is not an endorsement for Nazi philosophy, the effectiveness of German economic policy in this period, some of which had been started during the last phase of the Weimar Republic, is undeniable."

>>19702948
>actual leftists ... are closer to Fascism than they are the establishment.
All genuine leftists end up as fascists, national syndicalists, national socialists, or some other variant of third positionism at the end of the day. Anti-national internationalism is a dogma of the utopian left, and one that doesn't even make sense since intelligent leftists obviously think that integral "communities" will organically arise within any international socialist order anyway, on the basis of concrete human differences (ethnicities, cultures, religions, languages, whatever).

Such communities already exist and most of their inhabitants are perfectly happy with them. Frenchmen like being French, so let them stay French. Love of one's countrymen, culture, religion, or traditions doesn't negate love of one's fellow workers, anymore than it negates love of one's coreligionists, or co-regionals for that matter. Nor does "irrational" love of one's own family negate commitment to working class solidarity or broader humanitarianism. In fact, each successive, concentric circle of "irrational" attachments (one's family, neighbourhood, community, church, nation, region, linguistic or ethnic group, religion, etc.) is a powerful means of organising and disseminating working class solidarity. Unions were most powerful when they were a family and community affair.

The idea that the family unit, the nation, the religion, and nowadays even gender have to be destroyed to make way for a workers' movement is an autistic fixation of a bourgeois, utopian strain of the left that has unfortunately usurped its leadership for a long time. All real, robust leftist movements were free of this cancer, and they immediately became ineffectual and bourgeois, the purview of LARPing neoliberals and ivory tower intellectuals, once the cancer set in.

>>19653079
Fascists are better leftists than leftists are. The third position sublates the false opposition of left and right.

You don't have to be a fascist to value those things, although you don't have to not be a fascist either. Some reactionaries and conservatives also value aristocracy, although a fascist could argue that these supposed aristocrats are actually hold-overs from a bygone age who have been collaborating with the bourgeoisie for centuries now. The Prussian junkers, the Austrian aristocracy, the British peerage and the French nobility all sold out and become glorified capitalists. The junkers became capitalist farmers in Prussia, bringing in Polish scab labor and showing their "aristocratic paternalism" and "organic connection with their peasants" by buying their peasants out of their ancestral land for cheap, and then sending them off to be landless laborers in Berlin.

Fascism would argue that aristocracy is not tied to a feudal landlord class from bygone history but to nobility of character:
>Contrary to what is usually thought, it is the man of excellence, not the common man who lives in essential servitude. Life has no savour for him unless he makes it consist in service to something transcendent. Hence he does not look upon the necessity of serving as an oppression. When, by chance, such necessity is lacking, he grows restless and invents some new standard, more difficult, more exigent, with which to coerce himself. This is life lived as a discipline — the noble life.
>Nobility is defined by the demands it makes on us — by obligations, not by rights. Noblesse oblige. "To live as one likes is plebeian; the noble man aspires to order and law" (Goethe). The privileges of nobility are not in their origin concessions or favours; on the contrary, they are conquests. And their maintenance supposes, in principle, that the privileged individual is capable of reconquering them, at any moment, if it were necessary, and if anyone were to dispute them. ... It is annoying to see the degeneration suffered in today's speech by a word so inspiring as "nobility." For, by coming to mean for many people hereditary "noble blood," it is changed into something similar to common rights, into a static, passive quality which is received and transmitted, something inert. But the strict sense, the etymon of the word nobility, is essentially dynamic. Noble means the "well known," that is, known by everyone, famous, he who has made himself known by excelling the anonymous mass.

Fascism can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. But a good starting point is in knowing you value certain transcendent and moral principles so highly that you take their destruction through financial parasitism, bourgeois values, or demographic dilution to be an act of war, which justifies fighting back against these things and their perpetrators. Everything else is downstream of that basic feeling of love for and faith in a people and its "health," like love for one's family. You can even be an international fascist and try to help all nations discover their own unique health.

>>19281346