Amerika

Many people associate the term “Socialism” with Left-Wing intellectuals, Communists or members of the Labour Party. The sad reality is that the internationalist Left has completely highjacked this word and used it to hide their more sinister motives. “Socialism”, for the average Marxist-Leninist, is the description given to the promotion of minorities above the larger community as a whole. Left-Wing organizations are fond to trying to appeal to the working class, or what they patronizingly refer to as “the Proletariat”. The ulterior objective behind such ideology is based upon a desire to divide and rule. In other words, whilst these organizations are offering support to so-called new “oppressed minorities”, such as homosexuals, Black Power groups and rebellious middle class students, they are in fact creating disunity amongst the ordinary members of society by ensuring that they possess the only banner behind which degeneracy and abnormality can find a safe haven from the seemingly encroaching rigors of normality. That society is becoming more degenerate, is merely testimony to the fact that Communists are regularly able to rally between two and three thousand protestors at the drop of a hat, as recently happened on a wet Monday evening at an Anti-Nazi League demonstration in London. By adding up all the minorities, social inadequates and anyone else with a chip on their shoulder, these activists can appear to comprise a majority. But this is minority rule in its most pure and distorted guise.

There is simply no disputing the fact that Socialism is an integral part of the Nationalist creed. To separate the very essence of the social sphere from the concept of the nation, is to ignore the basic fact that it is the People who actually comprise the nation itself.

Without people there can be no nation, and without a nation there can be no people. On the other hand, it is quite certain that we have absolutely nothing in common with the intellectually-bankrupt legions of the modern Left, but then, neither do we owe any allegiance to those on the Right. Many so-called Nationalists are content to describe themselves as being “right of centre”, or even on the “Far Right”, but it must be stated quite categorically that true Nationalism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Right-wing politics. To simplify, a Right-winger is no more ‘Nationalist’ than his counterpart on the Left. Both Communism and Capitalism are two heads of the same beast.

But rather than take a leaf out of the existing books and attempt to form some kind of a ridiculous halfway ideology, Revolutionary Nationalists remain unconcerned with philosophical materialism altogether and reject the middle and both ends of the system in its entirety. We Revolutionary Nationalists oppose the Reactionaries and the Reds alike, because we are genuine Social Nationalists.

The doctrine of Social Nationalism was chiefly propagated by Otto and Gregor Strasser, two brothers who joined the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) during the 1920’s. This organization eventually came to be led by Adolf Hitler, who, in his selfish lust for ultimate power came to betray the very ideals of Social Nationalism that had been promoted by the NSDAP from the very beginning. To many so-called Nationalists, criticism of Hitler is viewed as heresy. But nobody can ignore the plain and simple fact that Hitler totally refused to condemn German Capitalists and the Right-wing Establishment, even allowing the Party to receive funding from wealthy financiers in Wall Street. The evidence for this claim can be found in Anthony Sutton’s excellent Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.

The Strasser Brothers, however, who were both extremely active in the NSDAP before the party came to power in 1933, were regularly engaged in a war of ideology with Hitler himself, a man who refused to advocate the decentralization of State power or offer the normal working people of Germany a stake in both agriculture and industry. Hitler had actually rejected Otto Strasser’s The Structure of German Socialism in 1925, preferring instead to stick with Gottfried Feder’s 25 Points, considered by many Party members to be outdated. Even without Strasser’s radical ideas for a new direction beyond both the Left and Right of the political spectrum, the 25 Points were still incompatible with Hitler’s reactionary allegiance to his Capitalist financiers and many of these basic tenets of National Socialist policy were betrayed. Anyone taking the trouble to examine Point 11 of this manifesto, for example, will discover a forthright condemnation of unearned income. However, after Hitler’s ascension to power, usury continued to infect the German banking system and no effort was made to prevent wealthy bankers from charging the German people huge interest on their loans. Indeed, Hitler placed all financial power in the hands of Hjalmar Schact, a freemason with connections in Wall Street. Gregor Strasser, however, had this to say about Capitalism: “The Capitalist system with its exploitation of those who are economically weak, with its robbery of the workers’ labour power, with its unethical way of appraising human beings by the number of things and the amount of money he possesses, instead of by their internal value and their achievements, must be replaced by a new and just economic system, in a word by German Socialism.”

Moving on to Points 13 and 14, the statement of Party principles called for the destruction of the Capitalist system and its replacement by family businesses and workers’ co-operatives. Once again, Hitler had no time for such economic justice and these two articles of policy were soon forgotten. Otto Strasser, on the other hand, explained that: “The alternative to the bankrupt alien “solutions” of Communism and Capitalism, the idea which we present is the political representation of parties, trades and professions based on our ancient Guild system.”

Otto Strasser, who was once described as “a dauntless man of compelling sincerity and charm” by the English anti-Capitalist A.K. Chesterton, then went on to propose a three-point programme for industry and the workers:

1. There will come into being, in contradistinction to the extant “class” of Capitalist, an “estate” of managers, which, regardless of wealth or origin, will constitute a functional aristocracy that, thanks to the very methods of its selection, may be said to be made up of “captains of industry” or “commissioned officers of economic life.”
2. The dispossessed “class of proletarians” will vanish, its place being taken by an “estate” of fully privileged workers, directly and indirectly participating in and therefore interested in their “workshop”. They will no longer be objects of the economy, but its subjects.
3. The relations between State and economic life will be radically altered. The State will not be the “night-watchman and policeman” of Capitalism, nor will it be a dictator whose bureaucracy cracks the whip that drives the workers to the bench and spurs them to their tasks; but it will be a trustee of the consumers, and as such it will have much influence, but only within and beside the self-determination of the working producers, namely of the management and the staff of workers (consisting in appropriate proportions of clerical and other intellectual workers, on the one hand, and manual operatives, on the other).

But in spite of the commonsense ideas of Strasserism the list of contradictions continues, as a result of the fact that Hitler meekly refused to condemn the Right, gaining control of the NSDAP and eventually leading Germany into an imperialist onslaught against the rest of Europe, suppressing non-German culture and tradition in his fanatical drive towards a “Greater Germany”. Point 16 promised the destruction of chain stores and supermarkets, and claimed to support small businesses. The reality, on the other hand, was far different as Hitler once again defended the monopolists. Whilst Strasserite stormtroopers picketed the large stores and urged people to support the small traders, Hitler put an instant stop to all such anti-Capitalist activity. Indeed, one large chain store was funding the Southern Branch of the NSDAP itself and Hitler did not want to alienate his financial backers.

In Point 17, it was explained that there would be an end to the rule of the big landowners, and that there would be a resettlement of the expanded peasantry. During the 1920’s, over 20% of Germany was owned by fewer than 19,000 people and the peasants were looking to the NSDAP to provide a brighter future in the face of their ever-worsening predicament. Unfortunately, they were to receive little assistance from Hitler. Although Agricultural Minister Walter Darre appeared to do much to safeguard the role of the peasantry, there was no attempt to redistribute the land. Even when Darre passed the Hereditary Peasant Holdings Act, the draft itself was provided by his deputy, Ferdinand Fried – the secret leader of Otto Strasser’s Black Front. So what answer did Strasserism provide to combat the unholy alliance of Capitalists, landowners and Hitlerites? Otto Strasser provided a truly just argument to the complexities of agriculture in his Structure for German Socialism:

The object of agriculture is to make sure that the community will be fed. The land available for the use of the community is owned exclusively by the nation, for it was not by any individual but by the community at large that the land was acquired, by battle or by colonization on the part of the community, and by the community it has been defended against enemies. The community as owner puts the land at the disposal of the nation in the form of “entails” to those able and willing to use them for husbandry and stock-raising. This will be undertaken by self-governing corporations of local peasant-councils. The size of the farms will be limited in accordance with the local qualities of the land: the maximum being determined by the principle that no one may hold in “entail” more land than he is able to farm unaided; and the minimum being determined by the principle that the landowner must have enough land to provide, not only food for self and family, but a superfluity by the disposal of which he will be able to obtain clothing and shelter for his family.