Re: [Marxism] Radek and National-Bolshevism

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zivko Vukolaj" <zivko_vukolaj@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> National-Bolshevism only became a defined term through the "modern
> self-described "National-Bolsheviks"". Previously, the term carried with
> it only an extremely vague meaning, from Lenin mocking the term, to some
> third internationalists adopting it. Yes, the term existed long before
> Limonov and Dugin, but it carried with it very little definitive meaning.
> It was like communism before the Manifesto.

This is factually wrong. Bela Kun developed a revolutionary program in
1918-1919 that was explicitly "National Bolshevik". Bela Kun wrote the
equivalent of the Manifesto for National Bolshevism.

You seem to accept as true the post-fascist's historical view, instead of
the factual historical view.

> It can hardly be classified as a world view. For example, no ideological
> constitution had ever been drawn up. Well, not before Dugin, I believe.

You believe wrong.

> ZIVKO VUKOLAJ:
>
> Although I wasn't aware of Bela Kun ever using the term [It's quite
> possible. After all, the guy wasn't what you could call a genious.],

If you weren't aware of this important *fact* of the development of National
Bolshevism, then I don't understand how could you claim any knowledge of
Radek being or not being a National Bolshevik. No study, no right to speak.

> with your permission, I still would like to take everything what you just
> wrote here and adopt it in support of what I just replied with above.

In what manner?

> What we have here is a deformation of a previously existsing definement of
> ideology into its almost opposite. This is not that case as I described
> above with National Bolshevism.

How it isn't so? Again, you are taking modern National Bolshevism, as
identified by the NBP and the likes, and then defining ALL National
Bolshevism in those eyes. You are being ahistorical, and doing things the
other way around.

A correct critique of National Bolshevism as it exists today, from a marxist
perspective, requires a correct knowledge of what their history is, not what
we want their history to be, or what THEY tell us their history is.

> By the way, Marx and Engels always disputed the social-democratic
> designation.

Well, even Lenin used it until after they won!

> This is something that I personally take as pedestrian knowledge. The
> history of National-Bolshevism seems to me as somewhat essoteric.

That might be so. But your opinion of it's history is of no concern in this
discussion. It is the *facts* of this history, of which you obviously have
no knowledge that we are talking about.

> Wikipedia articles on 'National Bolshevism' -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

This has the NBP's dogma on the question. I will certainly be modifying this
article in the next few weeks.


sks


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism